My 2 cents for CMX2

[[82]11Bravo1P]

Howdy all!! I might be a relatively moderate CM player but I love the game so I thought I might drop my measly opinion at the paws of the rabid dogs of the forums. (I am sure you have all heard it before but ah well.) I am ex-paratrooper infantry and rarely play human opponents so this is what I would like to see in an all ready great sounding next generation Combat Mission game.

1. The ability for individual units (or larger) to carry over with experience or rank to the next campaign or mission. At the end of some battles I hate to lose that infantry squad that held the line at all costs. Throw in the ability to name units and for them to keep medals and decorations would endear me even moreso to my brothers in arms. Keep the heroes alive.

2. The ability for Russian units to shoot deserters, a.k.a. broken units. Or, SS squads for Germans on the Eastern front and Berlin. Hey, Russians have the equally inhumane "humane wall" so why not? One shot to the head and that solves panic for the rest of the squad.

3. I read this and I just wanted to confirm. Be the first game that has justifiable civilians/partisans/innocents in the field of battle. Too-cool.

4. Co-op, with mixed national forces. Such as german led Italians, or British led Canadians. The Huge maps with full Battallians are too large for me to play but if I could have a friend take the armor and I was in charge of the infantry it would make it alot more manageable.

5. Perhaps too much to ask for but Navy, off shore bombardments, hood vs. bizmark, etc. Ah, just an idea.

6. Gore. C'mon somebody had to say it.

7. Medic units. You are either alive or dead, which seems horribly inacurate, but where is the injured? Medics could scour the battlefield reviving the wounded that are so desperately needed back in the fight. Ever send that squad through the woods on the flank that just barley didn't make it. With a medic along they might have. Set up a field hospital for those long engagements with squads being able to retreat for a while then re-engage.

8. Keep the WWII theme for the next generation!!!!!!!!

Well, that's my initial thought process. Hopefully it wasnt reduntant from previous posts.

See you on the battlefield. Not that one, combat mission.

[Ivan Drago]

Dig in, soldier! Here come to Forumtruppen to tear you a new @$$hole.

LOL at "humane wall"

[Dogface]

All the answers you could ever want are contained within

Just have a gander at that link and your questions will be answered.

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

Hey, Russians have the equally inhumane "humane wall" so why not? One shot to the head and that solves panic for the rest of the squad.

'Humane Wall'? By all the gods, now that's good gibberish!

I can't help but feel that panic isn't necessarily solved by being subject to the psychoses of everyone in a landscape of violence.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

3. I read this and I just wanted to confirm. Be the first game that has justifiable civilians/partisans/innocents in the field of battle. Too-cool.

Umm..justifiable civilians/innocents? Maybe you should have a beer, listen to some soothing music, go out and shoot 'justifiable children' in the neighbourhood, you know?

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

The Huge maps with full Battallians are too large for me to play but if I could have a friend take the armor and I was in charge of the infantry it would make it alot more manageable.

Yeah, that's the ticket. And, you know, you could, like, I dunno, tell the War Crimes Tribunal that it was your buddy that shot the prisoners!

Am I the only one that wonders why you want the ability to shoot prisoners and non-combatants, but don't have the freaking patience to issue orders to an entire battalion?

What is this, 'Short Attention Span Violence'?

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

5. Perhaps too much to ask for but Navy, off shore bombardments, hood vs. bizmark, etc. Ah, just an idea.

And a particularly weird one. Are you asking for the ability for 'Dueling Bombardments', where navy ships compete to kill things miles away inland? I fail to see how this would make the game interesting.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

6. Gore. C'mon somebody had to say it.

Well, no, no one had to, but I'm not surprised that you did. You know, I think you're missing the real point here. I think you're not listening hard enough to the fact that your neighbour's dog wants you to ghost around the neighbourhood late at night and kill people sitting in their cars. Especially couples who're indulging in carnal interaction. Or who refuse to charge that machine-gun bunker.

I think, if you listen a bit harder to the whispered instructions and concentrate on the fact that girls think you're creepy, you won't even need to play Wargames.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

7. Medic units. You are either alive or dead, which seems horribly inacurate, but where is the injured? Medics could scour the battlefield reviving the wounded that are so desperately needed back in the fight. Ever send that squad through the woods on the flank that just barley didn't make it. With a medic along they might have. Set up a field hospital for those long engagements with squads being able to retreat for a while then re-engage.

Yeah, and if those buggers with sucking chest wounds don't wanna get up and 'win one for the Gipper', you could always shoot the sons o' bitches!

I don't think you have any concept of the 'scale' of the game. Or any concept of what it means to be shot.

But I'm on your side. Really!

I tell you what, you let me shoot you in the leg with my buddy's 9mm, and then, if you can post again about getting the wounded to 'pull their weight', I'll simply club you into unconsciousness, rather than shooting you a couple of more times in the groin.

You gotta admit, that's fair, not to mention the quintessence of Historical Realism.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

8. Keep the WWII theme for the next generation!!!!!!!!

Uh, yeah! Go, Bears!

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

Well, that's my initial thought process. Hopefully it wasnt reduntant from previous posts.

No, no. Idiocy on this level is always new and refreshing!

Now, don't you think it's time to put on dark clothing and see if anyone is sitting in a car necking?

[[82]11Bravo1P]

I like your reply but obviously you have never been in a combat arms unit or even recognize the brutality of the subject in which this game engages. I saw combat in Somalia and Iraq and if you think fighting injured, no gore, and innocents are not part of war then I think your either extremely niave or a democrat. The idea of making war a game is to challenge the thought process of killing your enemy without engaging in a dangerous activity. It is what is left out of most games that creates a false image that war is an honorable, heroic campaign ever time. It is not. It is the dirtiest, do whatever you need to do to save yourself and your buddy activity on the planet. The tone of your reply would suggest I am a warmonger but I recognize, through experience, the difference between war and a game unlike these kids you see shooting people and blaming it on video games. Shoot me in the leg with your buddy's 9mm and I would still walk to the end of the earth until my leg fell off to save my buddies (that is what the infantry is all about), but I have a feeling my squad, platoon, hell anybody in uniform would take care of you shooting me before I even hit the ground.

Not Bears, go Steelers!

[V]

Hi mom!

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

I like your reply but obviously you have never been in a combat arms unit or even recognize the brutality of the subject in which this game engages. I saw combat in Somalia and Iraq and if you think fighting injured, no gore, and innocents are not part of war then I think your either extremely niave or a democrat.

I'd like to think 'naive'. And as for fighting 'injured', well, it's your interpretation that every casualty represents 'killed or capable'. As for gore, there's always been two schools of thought here, and they are 'show the horrors of war', and 'organs and blood splashed over the landscape would be so cool!'

Frankly, your posts so far come down more on the latter than the former.

I may have misinterpreted you, but your concentration on concepts of 'heroism', 'honour' and 'coolness' don't speak to someone who regards war as a bitterness, but a game, and I see no reason why a wargame should play into the same dysfunction.

Also, your immediate assumption that because I don't view 'war' the same way you do, I must be 'a democrat'. That is, apparently, in your world, a pussy. Do I need to tell you about my friends and family members who, despite your characterization, also went to war and served honourably? And they're not necessarily 'Republicans'.

That remark cheapens anything else you might have to say.

But, to be fair, I was the one who taunted you. So I'll give you the point, even while I regard your remark as 'fecking stupid'.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

The idea of making war a game is to challenge the thought process of killing your enemy without engaging in a dangerous activity. It is what is left out of most games that creates a false image that war is an honorable, heroic campaign ever time. It is not. It is the dirtiest, do whatever you need to do to save yourself and your buddy activity on the planet.

Acknowledged. But you're the one who's been tossing around terms like 'honour' and 'heroic' in your posts. Read them again, if you don't believe me. And you've applied them in an ideological way. And, so far, only as regards 'The Germans' in terms of scenarios. So forgive me if I didn't recognize your Universal Sympathy With Soldiers, as opposed to a guy who's been talking about how German troops should be given more credit for 'Heroic, honourable combat struggles'.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

The tone of your reply would suggest I am a warmonger...

My bad, then. I didn't think of you as a 'warmonger'. I was reading your posts as another 'I think the Germans should be regarded as cool warriors!' poster. I'm not sure I see anything to regard them differently.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

but I recognize, through experience, the difference between war and a game unlike these kids you see shooting people and blaming it on video games.

Can't remember the last time I saw some kid blow away a bunch of people and blaming it on video games. That's done by Society, Defense Attorneys, and Right Wing fecksticks who claim that's what Democrats do...

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

Shoot me in the leg with your buddy's 9mm and I would still walk to the end of the earth until my leg fell off to save my buddies (that is what the infantry is all about), but I have a feeling my squad, platoon, hell anybody in uniform would take care of you shooting me before I even hit the ground.

I wasn't threatening you, actually, although you didn't return the favour, but I know that my points are often obscure and bizarre, so I don't take offense. I was talking about the reality of whether wounded soldiers were immediately returned to combat (in anything other than desperate situations, and not even then as much as the movies would lead one to believe), especially in tactical situations meant to represent a relatively short period of time, combat-wise. And whether you understood that 'walking wounded' were probably still modeled in the game, in terms of the short run.

Your desire to support your buddies does you credit, but I'm sure that, given your combat experience in Somalia and Iraq, you're quite aware of the fact that a wounded soldier wasn't simply patched up and immediately sent back into combat, given the 'tactical' level of the CM games.

Originally posted by [82]11Bravo1P:

Not Bears, go Steelers!

Eww...Pittsburgh?! That's even more horrifically awful than Chicago! Look at my profile. I'm a Vikings supporter. The poor, useless bastards.

Apply the same attitude towards the Allies that I've seen you only going on about as regards the Nazis, and I'll be more than happy to acknowledge that I've been a smarmy, arrogant bastard as regards your posts.

I will continue to be a smarmy, arrogant bastard as regards your posts, but that's simply my nature. I'm not after changing it for you, especially after you dismissed me as a 'Democrat', you bugger.

[HVAP]

You know, I would'nt mind the ability to shoot civilians if they all had Ollie North's face on it. I practically salivate at the ability to try to beat the Einsatzgruppen kill ratio.

Admit it, it would be cool and by cool I mean totally sweet to have the Bismark fight the Hood just off the coast of Berlin......

[DTrill]

Wow, how does a person even respond to that pile of manure? With some of your statements, I wonder what your role was in the forces... were you in charge of digging the rocks out of the treads of the supply vehicles?

There are a few statements that I feel have to be addressed. First, you state that War is about killing people, I always thought that it was about rendering the other side unable or unwilling to continue the fight. Mass murder is about killing people, and I don't think that CM in any form is about the mass murdering of people; whether in uniform or not. You claim to be a participant in Iraq and Somalia, but somehow I find it hard to grasp, I listened to my friend's grandfather talk of his time in WWI and he would not make it very far into his stories before the tears came. I have no combat experience at all but I work as a fireman and I have shoveled a 16 year old boy into a plastic bag so it wouldn't leak all over when they carried what was left of him away; I have looked at a father after he literally pulverized his 2year old doing CPR and told him he did a good job. The point is that, I think that anyone who has seen true horror of any sort does not want to look at it during their leisure. More gore, and killing and violence for it's own sake is not moving a game like this forward, in fact it wuld be a large step back. The whole point of the game is to simulate (within reason) the stratagy and tactics of WWII battles at various levels. A huge number of people were killed on all sides so we all could see the supression value of a vickers mg and all the rest that goes into CM. I can't help but think that you got to be joking around when you wrote yur post. If not, maybe there are some plastic army men for you to light on fire and dance around somewhere.

[Seanachai]

Nah, nah, now. We're all friends here, then, eh?

You seem a good lad. Leave being a right annoying bastard to people like me. It's what I do.

And I've been after pushing Bravo around a bit, which is going to make him talk louder than he means to, you know?

[Hortlund]

heh

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

heh

Shouldn't you get busy explaining why you wish you were my son?

[Hortlund]

I should? Im thinking "no".

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

I should? Im thinking "no".

That's never after being what your mother told me, son.

[Hortlund]

What did my mom tell you?

"go away you dirty old man and stop stalking us"?

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

What did my mom tell you?

"go away you dirty old man and stop stalking us"?

Ah, yes. Those were the 'Golden' days of stalking!

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by DTrill:

I always thought that [war] was about rendering the other side unable or unwilling to continue the fight.

hmm...

I always thought combat was about rendering the other side unable or unwilling to continue the fight and war was a state of open conflict between two parties?

For example, take the war in Iraq (which some say has been over for over a year). There is still combat and conflict in Iraq and the desire to stop insurgents, but it isn't between Nations and is no longer classified as a war by the US Government. Of course, it is still a limited guerilla war of sorts going on, much like the old prolonged Russian war in Afghanistan was... but that is a debate for another time, right?

[Battlefront.com]

I saw combat in Somalia and Iraq and if you think fighting injured, no gore, and innocents are not part of war then I think your either extremely niave or a democrat.

Actually, the Dems are the ones that recognize this fact far more than the Repubs, if you want to put it that artificially B&W. It's why the Dems are usually against war. Something about it being dirty and gory and affecting the innocent. It is the Repubs that tend to gloss over this fact (check out the spin and smoke screen around civilian casualties from the Panama invasion for example).

But anyhoo... enough about politics. Time to move on to padlocks.

Steve