the truth about CMSF and this board ;o)

[WineCape]

Originally posted by Dillweed:

I'm offended that I wasn't listed in the blind unwavering support part.

I'm offended that I was not even mentioned as having no clue, as usual.

[c3k]

Winecape,

As the ONLY singled out member to be named in Hofbauer's post, you really don't want to trade places. It's been really tough lately. Hell, I've even begun to drown my sorrows and seek solace in alcohol. Do you know anyone who could spare a bottle or two?

Regards,

Ken

[kipanderson]

Hi,

As one of the loyalist of loyal sycophants I have to say I think the above is a great post, great cartoon .

If truth be told a lot of people will cheer up when matters move onto WWII. My attitude is that CMSF is a “bonus” game, part of the learning curve for the games of mass slaughter in NWE and on the Eastern Front to come .

Just relax and enjoy it while waiting for your first love which is WWII.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[WineCape]

Originally posted by c3k:

Winecape,

...Do you know anyone who could spare a bottle or two?

I've no clue what you're suggesting. Join RoW VI?

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />**** that.

A point we can all agree on. </font>

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by kipanderson:

Hi,

As one of the loyalist of loyal sycophants I have to say I think the above is a great post, great cartoon .

If truth be told a lot of people will cheer up when matters move onto WWII. My attitude is that CMSF is a “bonus” game, part of the learning curve for the games of mass slaughter in NWE and on the Eastern Front to come .

Just relax and enjoy it while waiting for your first love which is WWII.

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

Me too!

I agree with every word of that post! The future of CM gaming looks bright from my perspective.

I still think CM:SF is just the working prototype or the proving ground for the game engine of our dreams in ETO WWII.

-tom w

[Tarkus]

Tom, make that double.

Beside, the idea of playing battle hardened Syrians insurgents in urban areas, with roarings RPKs and AKs, thundering RPGs and some mortar fire here and there, even if it's to be handed my a** on a plate by Abrams & co, is appealing on its own right.

Yeah, you heard me, battle hardened syrian troops. I'm pretty sure fifty years of tensions and conflict did not only taught Israelis how to go about small unit tactics.

Cheers.

[Paul AU]

It's interesting that BFC has let this thread run.

"Reasonable, mature and rational posts, even when they take opposing views from what we believe are always welcome. Hof seems to believe that a discenting opinion will be quashed without question. That is not true."

In general: while BFC may welcome dissenting opinion, a vocal proportion of forum-users do not. I've certainly seen reasonable, mature and rational contributors - that take opposing views - comprehensively mocked and ridiculed at length.

Which does create a certain atmosphere.

"This is our island. It’s a good island. Until the grown-ups come to fetch us - we’ll have fun."

(appropriately from... Lord of the Flies)

[Battlefront.com]

In general: while BFC may welcome dissenting opinion, a vocal proportion of forum-users do not. I've certainly seen reasonable, mature and rational contributors - that take opposing views - comprehensively mocked and ridiculed at length.

Yeah, and I don't like it when that happens. If I see it I usually try to straighten it out, even if I don't agree with the point. I even sometimes lock threads like this, not because of the original opposing view but because people can't play nice. Banning is also an option I've used, but man I really hate to use it. Someone has to really try, hard, to get banned around here. Heck, even though Hoff spent considerable time blasting this forum, the game, and me personally (especially if you knew my, uhm, opinion of GW) he wasn't banned.

Dillweed... no, you haven't pissed me off. Annoying in that you still "don't get it", but otherwise fine. BTW, perhaps you should reread the agreement. Not only did you miss the part that Mace quoted, but you missed the thing about overtly offensive language. Kindly remember that you are an invited guest here and that you need to respect the ground rules. They are simple and for the benefit of all, so I don't think anybody has grounds to grant themselves unilateral expcetions.

Steve

[Renaud]

Isn't the purpose of these forums discussion among people who play or intend to play the related game? I mean, if you've decided you aren't interested in the game in question, or hate it with a passion, or whatever, you are in the position of interested observer at best. If you are on the fence, why embark on a jihad to get things done your way? Pointless. We're not the game company. Suggestions and wish-lists and pleading are enjoyed by all and good fun, but attacks on design and setting decisions which are obviously 'done deals' are pointless unless your goal is simply to create bad feeling. In that case the owners would be advised to censure the member. This topic is a good example. It's a private forum. 1st Amendment doesn't apply.

OK, whew, just wanted to get that off my chest.

For the record, I think the MGS is a dumb idea, a political makeshift, and will get our people killed unless we're lucky. Also the general scenario of CMSF makes me a bit queasy for various reasons I won't go into. But that's all water under the bridge, since these decisions were done deals by the time this forum opened. I'm still very excited about the game engine. What red-blooded wargame fanatic wouldn't be? It's already shaping up to be another historic advance in wargaming.

[dalem]

Holy crap, M Hofbauer, you truly are an ass.

-dale

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

I am new and I think that was kind of funny. Is the intent to make mockery of new designs not seen? Its funny cause no one, even the designers (or dubya, haha) knows.

Its good fun. I like it. Its funny too when people have to act like their feelings are not hurt, and try to act disaffecred, yet go to lengths to deny that they are insulted.

I think its funny.

[David Chapuis]

Originally posted by shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com:

Does anybody have a longer forum name?

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

Old nickname! Ha! Jewish.

[shlitzzlipzz@hotmail.com]

reywe5yw

[Battlefront.com]

Renaud,

Isn't the purpose of these forums discussion among people who play or intend to play the related game? I mean, if you've decided you aren't interested in the game in question, or hate it with a passion, or whatever, you are in the position of interested observer at best. If you are on the fence, why embark on a jihad to get things done your way?

Correct. What some people fail to see is the similarity between those locked threads and ones that are completely off topic, total flamefests, or general idiocy (thankfully, not much of the latter). For example, from time to time we have guys spamming the Forum about whatever bug is up their butts. Doesn't have anything to do with the games being discussed, just something they do for kicks. Are we wrong to lock up that crap and (if pressed) ban the person responsible?

How about the occasional neo-Nazi we have who posts the sorts of things things that such people with limited intelligence can muster? Or the one guy we had that kept posting graphic images of death just to get a rise out of people? I think there is little debate on those issues. So why not lock up a thread started by someone who shows he is a) demanding something which will never happen, being agressive for no reason, c) being completely disrespectful of anybody that disagrees with them, and d) going out of their way to insult us, all the work we've done, all the work we are doing, and all the work we will do in the future? I see little difference since they are all contrary to the Forum rules and what is good for the Forum's intellectual health.

BTW, unlike other game companies we never edit posts*, never delete posts*, never delete threads, and never ban people unless they make an extremely concentrated attempt to be banned.

We have a great record here. Those that disagree need to get out more so that they have a better benchmark for their expectations.

Steve

* we did edit out the graphic gore images and delete parts of some posts that had links to pirated copies of our games. That's all I can think of in 8 years. Not bad

[Yeknodathon]

And besides, there is always a comfy, warm and cosy Peng thread place where bugs can be extracted with complete discretion and privacy.

[Michael Emrys]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

BTW, unlike other game companies we never edit posts...

I did have one of my posts edited earlier in the year. How it came about is that as part of what I meant as an amusing jest, I happened to mention a member's last name in a post one morning. Then I went out for several hours. When I returned home later and turned on the box, I found a rather heated e-mail from the member in question who did not appreciate being named in public. So I shot right over to the forum to remove the offending information to find that Moon had already done so in my absence. Needless to say, I completely approved of his action and regret my initial miscalculation.

Michael

[ng cavscout]

So, I was digging around in the archives. My, my, my, how things change. Does this mean there might be a NATO vs WP module/mod somewhere down the road? I was amazed to read a different post from the 1999 archives stating the exact order of games, west front - east front - north africa - modern.

Big Time Software

unregistered

- posted November 20, 1999 12:18 Edit/Delete Post Personally, I think a late 1970s Warsaw Pact/NATO game would be quite a bit of fun. The fact that a land war wasn't really in the cards by then could be overlooked But as the the 1980s progressed things swung way too much in NATO's favor. Not just on the ground, but in the air as well. If the two forces went head to head it is almost certain that the US would gain air superiority, at least at any given desired tactical setting. As we have seen in the last decade, this is more important now than it ever has been in the past. Wars can now be won from the air alone...

And now, putting NATO forces up against anything else of any quantity is kind of silly. Yes, they can still suffer losses, but it is hard to think of a tactical situation that would be something worthy of play. Gulf War? In a 40 minute battalion sized battle in CM you are likely to take more casualties than the US lost during the entire ground war in the Gulf War. And if you are playing the Iraqis... oh boy.

Steve

I know, asked and answered already.

[ November 20, 2005, 11:00 PM: Message edited by: NG cavscout ]

[Vanir Ausf B]

Heeheh. I thought of that post when CMSF was announced (and there are one or two others that are similar). BFC have done a complete 180° on modern warfare since then. Personally, I thought they had the right idea the first time, but we'll see...

[Battlefront.com]

Michael, didn't know about that one Well, I think that falls into the same category as the two exceptions I specifically mentioned. And I'm sure Moon chopped it out knowing you wouldn't disagree with it.

That old quote... funny, isn't it? Well, I still partially agree with what I wrote 6 years ago. I think a 1970s Warsaw Pact matchup could be a lot of fun, though that isn't the direction we wish to go in terms of our development effort. I also think simulating GW1 would be fairly boring. The differences between the ground offensive phase of GW1 and OIF are very different. This is no accident since the things that happened in OIF were deliberately avoided in GW1 (i.e. urban ops).

Good find though

Steve

[hellfish]

I would give my right nut for a NATO/WP game. Maybe with modules for '62, '79, '85 and '89. Woot.

[mazex]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I would give my right nut for a NATO/WP game. Maybe with modules for '62, '79, '85 and '89. Woot.

And I'd give my left so then they have the "full package"

/Mazex

[Peter Cairns]

I'd give my right arm to be ambidexterous.

Peter.

[Dillweed]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I would give my right nut for a NATO/WP game. Maybe with modules for '62, '79, '85 and '89. Woot.

Think those would require "vastly differnt units" and thus different titles. If we are going hypothetical tho, I'd like to add one to the list '45. T-34s v shermans *shudder*

I also seem to recall a link to a compeditor's web site being removed. Fascists I tellz ya.

I apologize if I offended anyone's delicate sensibilities with my bad bad language.

For the record I think some saltly language sound (in the vain of soldiers taking a smoke break) would add some nice flavor. From my expirience in the US Army if an ATGM barely misses a styker (say scrapes some paint off as it flies by) the troops inside arn't gonna be saying "darn" Swearing in the USMC module could be more creative.