Kieme(ITA) Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: 2. Inclusion of Syrian Airborne equipment and TO&E. For sure this means BMP-3 and Milan ATGMs. We will include at least one new Syrian tank, which we had intended to be a T-80 but we are now leaning towards a T-90. The reason is Assad went on a shopping trip recently and it would seem that they're changing their wish list from T-80 (they actually had evaluation units some years ago) to T-90 Steve HOORAY for the BMP-3, at least IF there will be some option to choose which gun to use (30mm or 100mm)... NO GOOD the option to go with the T-90 since it would be just another T-72 variant. Instead the T-80 would really be completely different vehicle and would be much more upgradeable (T-80B/T-80BV/T-80U/T-80UD).. Please, consider T-80 much more than T-90...! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stew Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 I'm looking forward to the Marines module and I can certainly see why BFC is going to the model given the time and effort they devoted into putting the CMx2 engine together. I do worry, however, that in selling separate modules that add game play features as well as new units they might undermine the unified CM community that they have worked so hard to maintain over the years. I've always thought that the decision not allow modding of the core game was a sound one. I love the fact that I can create or download a scenario and know that it will play just as the designer intended without having to worry about whether I have the Space Lobsters mod installed or enabled the uber-Finnish SMG rules. The module approach would seem to complicate this a bit. The units issue can be dealt with so long as scenarios are clearly labeled indicating which modules you need to run them. I worry more about each module introducing game features that change the core game experience, even in subtle ways. I know BFC needs to make their money, but I hope that they decide to make any game feature changes available via free patch while selling the new units/scenarios as modules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Originally posted by Xraider: To change tack completly judging by what Steve said RE new content i'd probably be willing to pay max £15 ($30?) for the Marine module, and dont ask how much i'd pay for the Brit's:) That price seems fair. It certainly shouldn't be as much as a new stand alone game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzer76 Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Only thing that would make me buy it would be TCP WEGO added. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Another reason to buy the USMC module: So you can recreate historical USMC battles from the Iraq War. Nasiriyah: During the initial invasion of 2003, USMC troops battle for control of two strategic bridges. Fallujah: In post-invasion Iraq, 2004, USMC troops are ordered to clear the insurgent stronghold, block by bloody block, in some of the fiercest urban fighting since the Vietnam era. [ August 23, 2007, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: Cpl Steiner ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 NO GOOD the option to go with the T-90 since it would be just another T-72 variant. Instead the T-80 would really be completely different vehicle and would be much more upgradeable (T-80B/T-80BV/T-80U/T-80UD).. Please, consider T-80 much more than T-90...! sorry if iam totaly off thre but wasnt there a whole thread wich stated that the T80 is scrap metall, like T72, and the T90 is the modern way to go!? iam acually verry happy that they are leaning towards the T90 now...! would make the new module interessting for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 There's not that much between a T72 and a T80. The T80 has a gas turbine and better armour, the gun's the same, FCS can be relatively easily upgraded and autoloaders can be changed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 There is a danger of fracturing the CM community, but probably less than what was experienced with CMx1. What I mean by that is some people moved to CMBB from CMBO and never looked at CMBO again, while others stuck with CMBO and refused to play CMBB. The Module concept offers the advantage that everybody must have the base game no matter which Modules are installed. Two people own the base game and only one has the Marines Module. The two can play against each other as long as the Marines Module is not used by either the selected battle or QBs. The user interface to do this is very easy but you haven't seen it yet since there aren't any Modules yet However, you can see a part of it at the main screen where the Stryker icon is located. The icons along the bottom represent which Modules are installed. Pricing is yet to be determined. It will be significantly less than the cost of a full game and download will be the best option. For those who don't have the bandwidth for a big download, a CD option is planned. However, it will be just that... a CD. Printed materials add significant costs to the product as well as shipping and handling. Exact feature set is also not something I can comment on yet. However, the Marines have a fairly modest set of requirements that are not already covered by CM:SF's base equipment, so we should be able to fully flesh them out. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted August 22, 2007 Share Posted August 22, 2007 Excalibur, GMLRS ,and UAVs would certainly perk my credit card right up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Originally posted by Cpl Steiner: Nasiriyah: During the initial invasion of 2003, USMC troops battle for control of two strategic bridges. Bridges would be a good addition. New terrain of the non-desert variety. SHILKAS!!!! Water would be nice. Operations or campaign missions that use the same map more than once with terrain damage that carries over. Things catching fire. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Will the AAV replacement be available in the CMSF time frame? Am referring to that high speed planing, HydroJet propelled in water, 30mm armed transforming AFV which, once afloat, picks up and folds in its tracks, which are then covered by sliding plates until the objective is reached on the far side, whereupon the process reverses, and the thing trundles out of the water and commences land ops. Doubt we'll get it, but that and water would be great incentives to buy a Marine module. Mind, even the earlier stuff would make all manner of exciting things possible. Bet some of the clever types here could figure out a fairly good way to simulate the Marine landing from LVTP7s at Da Nang, RSVN. ISTR the Marines also have a great housebusting version of the SMAW. Saw that demonstrated with devastating effect on typical Iraqi house on Future Weapons. Bet its inclusion would get some people excited! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntarr Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 John your referring to the EFV (Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle) EFV [ August 22, 2007, 10:02 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Funny thing about amphibious vehicles. Once AT technology outpaces their armor, they cease to be amphibious. The military slaps more armor on them and then they sink or flip upside down and then sink. (see the Bradley Fighting Vehicle) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RT North Dakota Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Originally posted by Stew: ...designer intended without having to worry about whether I have the Space Lobsters mod installed... There'll be a Space Lobsters module!!! I don't care about anything else, I just want this! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Battlefront wrote: "Two people own the base game and only one has the Marines Module. The two can play against each other as long as the Marines Module is not used by either the selected battle or QBs." Do CMx2 scenarios include some info about game version that is needed to play? So that if a person who does not have some module X tries to play some scenario that has units from this module X, will he get some sensible note from the game about what's wrong? Like "this scenario requires Module X". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted August 23, 2007 Author Share Posted August 23, 2007 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Two people own the base game and only one has the Marines Module. The two can play against each other as long as the Marines Module is not used by either the selected battle or QBs. The user interface to do this is very easy but you haven't seen it yet since there aren't any Modules yet However, you can see a part of it at the main screen where the Stryker icon is located. The icons along the bottom represent which Modules are installed.This is good news, because it means that *all* changes to the core engine (patches) will have to be incorporated into the base game! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 I would really love to see some red airpower, hinds, su-25's and such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feltan Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Originally posted by Speedy: I would really love to see some red airpower, hinds, su-25's and such. Be careful how you ask for it. In a fit of spite at all the negative comments, I could see BF create some crashed aircraft on map and tell you -- "There, there is your Red air power" while you look at a smoking hulk of a SU-25 in the middle of the desert. Regards, Feltan 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Most talk of modules focuses on the addition of Blue Force units, but I would love to see the gradual accumulation of Red equipment beyond the Syrian TO&E. This campaign is nice, but the game system cries out for more symmetrical conventional warfare as well. Playing US Army vs. Syrians, then USMC vs. Syrians, then Brits vs. Syrians, then Germans/Danish vs. Syrians would start to taste pretty stale. This is my dream list of modules: 1) CM:SF with US Army vs. Syria; 2) USMC vs. more Syrians (since it seems that's planned already), with improvements to terrain (incl. water and bridges); 3) Brits and a bit more ex-Warsaw Pact equipment to present a newly-FUBAR Balkans (with a new campaign to match), perhaps with additional modeling of refugee factors and Blue SpecOps; 4) Germans and the cream of the post-Soviet military (including, at last, serious Red air support). This way we get three very different campaigns (Syria, Balkans, WW3 in Europe) that offer very different gameplay environments, each module adding more features to the last. By the time we reach the last, we can model almost *any* conflict involving western conventional and post-Soviet or Third World conventional and unconventional forces. The option of Middle Eastern and Temperate terrain would give a huge range of theater options for scenario (and campaign) designers. I, for one, would feel no need to clamber for Israel and China. A man can dream, can't he? [ August 23, 2007, 08:52 AM: Message edited by: Martyr ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Holman Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Double post. Got kind of excited there... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bradley Dick Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Red air is funny. I remember reading that modern air conflicts cannot be sustained over long periods of time. You either gain air superiority very quickly, or your planes are blown up where they're parked. WWII style battles for the sky, from what I've heard, just can't happen anymore. It's too fast paced and deadly. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Originally posted by Bradley Dick: Red air is funny. I remember reading that modern air conflicts cannot be sustained over long periods of time. You either gain air superiority very quickly, or your planes are blown up where they're parked. WWII style battles for the sky, from what I've heard, just can't happen anymore. It's too fast paced and deadly. The "problem" is also rooted in how long it takes to build replacement aircraft and train aircrew. You can't crank out a fighter plane in a week from start to finish the way you could in 1944, and you wouldn't have a talent pool of thousands of prospective pilots flocking to the colours, as also occurred in the big one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Originally posted by Feltan: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Speedy: I would really love to see some red airpower, hinds, su-25's and such. Be careful how you ask for it. In a fit of spite at all the negative comments, I could see BF create some crashed aircraft on map and tell you -- "There, there is your Red air power" while you look at a smoking hulk of a SU-25 in the middle of the desert. Regards, Feltan </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Seems I have some time to wait still I can play a setting like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7rwYTnd8c4w&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AEl6VJr6t48&mode=related&search= http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y68nfAbuLGI&mode=related&search= 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 How would one model specops in a tactical wargame? People keep on calling for it but I don't see how it can realistically be accomplished. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.