What will make us buy the Marines module?

[Huntarr]

[the Fighting Seabee]

NICE. We need those.

What we also need is COLORED TRACERS! I'm a veteran and most of our tracers were red/orange. Maybe they exist but I have never seen white tracers.

It seems like it would be easily implemented in about 5 minutes.

[ChrisND]

Someone needs to hire this guy :

ETA: NOT a crack on anyone, I just thought it was funny. I'm glad that we generally don't have to put up with this type.

[Huntarr]

LOL, That was "wicked-sick AWESOME"!

And yes we have alot of supporters pushing for "More Helicopers".

[MarkEzra]

Originally posted by the Fighting Seabee:

NICE. We need those.

What we also need is COLORED TRACERS! I'm a veteran and most of our tracers were red/orange. Maybe they exist but I have never seen white tracers.

It seems like it would be easily implemented in about 5 minutes.

About the first mod I dl will be tracer color for each side...Hope there will be blue for BlUE and red for RED...That way I'll know "whose doin' the shootin'?

[SgtMuhammed]

Traditionally U.S. tracers are red. We were always told that WP tracers were green but there seems to be a mix.

Where is the bayonet lug for that new toy? The Marines won't keep it if you can't fix a blade to it.

[tooz]

My answer is the same as always: when they release the Marines FOR WWII module. Otherwise I'll remain satisfied that choosing NOT to buy CMSF was the right choice.

I am enjoying ToW while awaiting their patch.

I'll easily buy another ToW module also. BFC killed CM in my opinion.

[Huntarr]

Sgt, look closely at the rail system. On the bottom where the barrel begins to be exposed.

[SgtMuhammed]

I had a platoon sergeant who was an ex-Marine. He use to use 100mph tape to put his bayonet on his Mk19. The CO would walk by and just shake his head.

[Huntarr]

:Text censored due to NDA:

[ChrisND]

K-Bar is what I carried, a damn good knife.

[CaptainBly]

Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:

What will it take to get me to buy the Marine module? A QB feature that hasn't been gutted to near-uselessness.

Amen brotherman. I didn't buy the crappy CM:SF because of that either. I see lazy programming out of them now compared to CMBO,CMBB and CMAK. Just lazy and greedy now. Make a half assed game and churn em out like hotcakes.

[MarkEzra]

Hmmm now what does this mean?

Picture of scary knife

Recent comments about lack of close combat graphics or sounds.

Wait for patch continues

[thewood]

My favorite deoderent is BAN

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by thewood:

My favorite deoderent is BAN

[M1A1TC]

[SgtMuhammed]

Ahh, good times!

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The Marines Module is next and it will build on the existing game system. There will be three things to look forward to:

1. Full array of Marines equipment and organization. Should be a very different experience from a tactics point of view.

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.

3. Some new game features. This is TBD but there won't be a radical change in the core game system over what we've patched between now and then. Large feature changes won't happen until the WWII game is out.

As for opening up the game engine to modding I've been extremely frank and honest about our reasons. I can't help it if some people don't like the answer. It's not something we think is in the customer's best interests or in our own. If someone wants to piss and moan about it (again), please find one of the 2 dozen threads that exist and bump it instead of creating yet another one.

Steve

Originally posted by Berlichtingen:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sequoia:

I'm guessing players will find quite a few differences between the USMC TO&E and Stryker or Bradley infantry. For example aren't Marine squads bigger? How do support troops differ, e.g what's the difference in sniper teams? I don't know and would appreciate someone knowledgeable to elaborate.

Yes, Marine squads are bigger. 3 4-man fire teams each with its own SAW and 203, so expect Marine infantry to kick out more firepower. Marine sniper teams are 2-man teams, sniper and spotter. These guys are the stuff legends are made from. Marines have less artillery support than comparable Army formations (unless they are making an amphibious landing and then the Navy lends its support), but they have a boat load more direct air support. </font>

[MikeyD]

About 'under the hood' differences. I'm reminded how BFC was brow-beaten by the old CMBB board who wanted to turn the SS into übersoldiers to match the propaganda about them. But they steadfastly refused to do it. No 'national modifiers'. In relation to the Marine module, they'll probably leave the Marines' legendary ability to eat broken glass instead of MREs and 'walk off' the effects of IED explosions out of the game.

[Sequoia]

I've heard that regarding CMBB.

I recall in WWII USMC tactics allowed for a higher rate of casualties in battles in order to not keep the invasion fleet exposed off the shore for an extended time period. I don't know if that still holds true today. Certainly the Marines are still considered elite infantry and should usually have high morale levels set by the scenario designers. But, you're right, in the past BFC has made it scenario dependent rather than making any one force automatically superior.

Tactics, though, are controlled by the player. I'm wondering if it's just the makeup of the USMC TO&E that should lead to them being used differently by the player for most effectiveness or will their be something more to it than that?

[John Kettler]

Given the firepower differences already outlined, that nasty grenade launcher and the SMAW firing that new housebusting round (SMAW NE), as seen on "Future Weapons," I think the Marines will shake things up considerably. There's also a world of difference between the Ma Deuce on the Stryker's RWS and a 25mm Bushmaster cannon on the LAV (same gun as M2/3 Bradley). The high explosive capability is nothing to sneeze at (ISTR 5 m casualty radius), and the ability to penetrate cover is simply phenomenal vs. the Ma Deuce, not to mention that since the Bushmaster has dual feed, AFVs up through T-55 at least can be in a world of hurt if hit by an LAV in the flank.

Another significant difference will be that Marine

air and helo support should be quite rapid and with high ratings. The Marines fight a tightly integrated battle using organic fire support units with which they train constantly. The Marines wrote the book on CAS, routinely bring down fire support much closer than the Army does, and this should be reflected in the way the forthcoming module depicts them.

Regards,

John Kettler

[Combatintman]

There's been a lot of talk about additional Syrian forces as part of the USMC module and in addition to those mentioned I'd like to see a lot of the less 'sexy' stuff included such as:

MTLB APC.

BTR-50 APC.

BRM-1K Recce vehicle.

GAZ-66 Truck.

MT-12/T-12 100mm Anti-tank gun.

I echo various comments about additional map features/flavour objects as the current building choice is a bit limited my choice would be:

Bridges.

Oil facilities such as storage tanks and pipelines.

Industrial buildings.

Railway objects.

Weapon pits (I bodge this with craters currently).

Airfield objects such as Hangars and HASs.

[Sequoia]

Good choices. We won't be seeing any anti tank guns, however, at least until they do animations for the crews for the WWII game. As I posted earlier, I'd like to get an estimate as to when we'll see a vehicle list.

Oh, and welcome to the forums.

[Huntarr]

Marine Roomba

[Huntarr]