Zemke Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I am a wargamer/historian. I play wargames to experience historical events. I enjoy good games, but not just any game. I will continue to enjoy the ground breaking (at the time) Combat Mission engine. I don't need great graphics, I need realistic play, but manageable. CM strikes a good balance. I hoped that CMX2 would be the same game, but with better graphics, better orders, multi-play, convoy orders, better fire-support model. I am going to wait for the WWII mod to come out, as I am just not interested in fictional war in the future, particularly in the Mid-East. Anyway, lets see if this post gets pulled by big brother, like my last one did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott B Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 We know. Shut up and go away, already. Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Hey Zemke, Ive already challenged you to this and you conveniently missed it. Tell us what thread was deleted by us and Ill look it up in the logs and find out what happened. We DO NOT delete posts on our forums and never have, and this is a well know policy by our regular visitors. I locked your last thread because it was yet another whine about CMSF not being WW2 which had turned into a 'hi mum' fest and as such was just adding noise to the forum. On top of that you had posted your views elsewhere as well. I responded to you there in an attempt to help educate you with regards to the realities of modern warfare, but it appears that this is something that didnt interest you as you didnt even take the time to repond to my suggestions. If your aren’t interested, we truly do understand, but if so you probably wont find too much of interest too you in these forums in the near future. Dan [ October 12, 2005, 02:52 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 As a historian, if you are any good that is, you'll be aware that history started the second you pressed post and your comments went live.... What SF will be simulating isn't history, but given it's time and geographical setting, very much the making of history. Try remembering or indeed relearning the adage, " People who do not study history make histories mistakes, people who do study history. make new mistakes all of their own". Both recording I would argue simulating as accurately as what is happening ( or possible) now lays the foundation for teaching those in the future what it was really like. Without that history is speculation and self publicity. Peter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 Modern warfare, please educate me then, as if 23 years conducting it is not enough. I stand corrected on the deletion, my apoligies. All I am saying is the entire concept is flawed. It appears to be a marketing ploy to lure the 14-17 year olds into buying, another flawed idea IMO. Male youth buy FPS, not tactical wargames, I should know my 16 year old son has CS, SOCOM, Delta, Day of Defeat, Medal of Honor, Battlefield Vietnam, and so on, all FPS. I have tried to interest him in Combat Mission, but he says they are boring. There is not now, nor will be a military challenge from Syria. Just as every single operation in Iraq has been won by the US, due to training, discipline, and firepower, the same would be true in Syria. So why make a SciFi game. I would even say that if the US had the same equipment as our enemies, we would win hands down every time, because of discipline, training and firepower. So if the simulation is about Counter-insugency, it would not interest me, having done them IRL, and are pretty boring. If the game tried to model real combat in Syria it will be pretty boring. A War in Syria would be even faster than Iraq I or II, with lots of dead Syrians. BF could not do that, so they will have to give the Syrians the same discipline and training as US Army/Marine Corps, and weapons that either don't have the same capibilities IRL, or are over modeled, thus making CMSF a unrealistic simulation bordering on fantasy or SciFi. A NATO/Korea modern tactical sim would have held more appeal to me and others, but WWII is still my gaming time frame of choice. All I am saying then I think modern was a poor choice, and the Syrian threater of operations even worse. If it works.....great for BF, I for one will wait for a WWII mod, if the engine is good. Oh a good engine means better than Combat Mission, more realistic, better interface, better artillery model, better orders options, better and more realistic terrain, abiltiy to play by e-mail, and the ability to have multi-play TCIP to reflect all the C3 (Command/Control/Communications) problems in war and having to work with your peers to accomplish the mission. Better graphics is does not make a better tactical simulation, and I know BF has tried to go beyond CM, and make it better, and I hope they have, we shall see. I know I speak for a LOT of people, maybe not on every single issue, but a lot, and we will vote with our dollars. So till a WWII Mod is out, I will keep playing Combat Mission. I will stop posting also, as I am getting kicked like a dog.....lol. Good Luck BF, I hope you don't need it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wicky Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Please can you do paragraphs - my eyes hurt from what you've posted Ta Muchly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kwazydog Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by Zemke: It appears to be a marketing ploy to lure the 14-17 year olds into buying, another flawed idea IMO. Well thats a good way to insult every person on this forum interested in a modern tactical wargame. I can tell you you couldnt be further off the mark though. Originally posted by Zemke: A War in Syria would be even faster than Iraq I or II, with lots of dead Syrians. Zemke, with no disrespect intended that comment alone leaves me wondering if you have any real idea of what you are talking about with regards to modern combat, or even the current situation in Iraq. If you are truely interested in learning more I have suggest elsewhere some interesting books on the matter and the above AAR would be a good place to start. That being said, I suspect you arent, and for that reason and the fact you have left the forums I wont go into it further. [ October 12, 2005, 04:19 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GSX Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Well posted Zemke. I know you are a real life Warrior and not an Armchair one. I know where you are coming from. You have voiced your opinion and it may be negative to some, but by God its true. The premise for this game is way off. However, the game itself as an Iraq simulator may just appeal to the teen market, or the Government. Although Im not really certain that the teens would be bothered to spend 30 minutes clearing a house. I look forwards to the demo in about 6 months, no use worrying about it untill then. As a serving Air Force person, I am dying to see how a real modern war 3d simulator handles 100% accuracy in airpower. Im especially looking forwards to dropping a few Cluster Bombs on my Syrian enemy, then geting my Spectere to kill anything remaining, before the Inf haul up and fill the body bags. CM:Shock and Awe force - Hoo Ya. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dogface Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 shows how much you really know. or dont know. or never learned. 23 yrs in the biz and you say that Syria would be a walk in the park huh? I would even say that if the US had the same equipment as our enemies, we would win hands down every time, because of discipline, training and firepower.but if the USArmy had the same equitment then they would not have a firepower advantage right? Counter-Insergancy is boring? Hell in the limited combat situations I've been subjected to, bordom was NEVER a factor untill well after the action took place. Certainly not in the timeframe of CM:SF. Thats it I am sick to death of all this "I know what will be in the game and it wont work ****"(dammit now you made me swear, something ive never done in this forum.) No more for me. I need a drink. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I'd really like to hear why CMSF is supposedly meant to appeal to the "teen market". Makes no sense at all. Personally I'm getting tired of the WW2 whiners. I would have prefered a Cold War setting myself, and have grave reservations about whether the Syrians can ever be competative in QBs, but I'm willing to give it a chance. At the very least the addition of other NATO countries in the follow-on modules combined with the blue on blue option should eventually give us some games with parity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abbott Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I am personally looking forward to some high-intensity infantry shootouts in close terrain myself. Block Busting the old fashioned British way with a couple HMG's in support. Six-floor buildings. Rat holes kicked into the walls. Narrow city streets. Alley ways. 8 X 8 meter tiles. Hummers with and without armor. Tanks without a HEP round WTF do you do with that? I am sure I will learn. Strykers oh yeah, those will be fun to take out into the hills. SFOP's Red and Blue. Sniper OPs. New maps. New game engine (that’s enough right there to sell me the game). UHHRA! I would I would love to see M60A3's in action if there is a Turkey or US Marine module (I heard there will be)(Do the US Mariens have all M1's with the 120?) Red on Red scenarios. User MODs, oh yeah, there will be some interesting MODS coming along. ..and a few dozen other options I have not listed but I know will be part of the package. Not to mention the biggest selling point.. BFC is making it! And...Dinner Turkey meatloaf with red onions, green onions, mashed potatoes and gravy and spinach salad!!!! I'm dying over here. I’m so hungry I could eat the crotch out of skunk! [ October 12, 2005, 04:36 PM: Message edited by: Abbott ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rai kitsune Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 whow whow whow zemke i'm 17 and i have 1 FPS half life 2 which i bought to see if the computer crashed on higher res games apart from that i only really have rome total war cm:bb and tacops on this system. just so you know not all 13-17 year olds are only into "fps" games. (plus a turn based war game is quite frankly never aimed at the 13-17 year old market many of those my age just do not seem to understand this type of game. quite upsetting really i'm lucky enough to have around 5 freinds that play tacops with me during a lil meeting we occasionally have) [ October 12, 2005, 04:38 PM: Message edited by: rai kitsune ] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stoat Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by rai kitsune: whow whow whow zemke i'm 17 and i have 1 FPS half life 2 which i bought to see if the computer crashed on higher res games apart from that i only really have rome total war cm:bb and tacops on this system. just so you know not all 13-17 year olds are only into "fps" games. (plus a turn based war game is quite frankly never aimed at the 13-17 year old market many of those my age just do not seem to understand this type of game. quite upsetting really i'm lucky enough to have around 5 freinds that play tacops with me during a lil meeting we occasionally have) You have heard of sentence structure, no? I fit in the 14-17 age range, and I'll tell you that I don't know one other person in my school that has any CM game. Regardless, I'm pretty sure BFC doesn'y gear a release towards a 4 year age window, but produces games for whomever wants to play them. Doesn't matter if you're 15 or 83, if you find the subject matter interesting, and you like the game play, then they designed the game for you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raz_atoth Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Well,rai kitsune,maybe not all 13-17's are only into ftp,but you can bet that the vast majority of them are.I'm (only) 23 years old myself and from the group of close friends i'm the only one playing CM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 I love how people know our intentions without being privy to our discussions. It is also interesting to note how WWII is somehow magically not subjected to this same scrutiny. If two FPS games come out, one modern and one WWII, the WWII one is aimed at 40-50 year olds? Then the next gake we make, because it is WWII, will suddenly be for the 40-50 crowd simply because we have Panthers driving around instead of Abrams? Or are you saying that CMx1 and the next WWII game we make are also aimed at 14-17 year olds just like CM:SF supposedly is? Juding games based on subject matter alone is beyond asinine. There are dozens of WWII RTS and FPS games out there, as well as lots of traditional 2D games. Are all these games exactly the same and targeted to exactly the same crowd? Hardly. And as for the superiority of US forces, yup... in the strategic and operational sense that is very true. But I wasn't aware that US forces in Iraq are bored stiff and don't find themselves challenged. One AAR I read where Marines had difficulty retreiving 3 dead squadmates from a house sure didn't sound bored or uninterested in improving their tacitcs... Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
junk2drive Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Dang, I'm too old for any of these... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 What would happen if there were lots of people defending the big cities in Syria? Do you really think it would be over before it started? If you have troops with modern infantry AT-weapons _and_ the will to fight to the end there will be lots of hard fighting. Or atleast enough for a game + addons... I might not be correct, but I think the thing was different in Iraq. In the war the defenders didn't want to fight to the end. That is most of the army was just pleased to see US troops so that they can go home. Ofcourse there were some who did fight. There have been some people mentioning some interesting battles in the Iraq war. For example the situation where US artillery positions was attacked by T-72s (this was in GWI, but still). Now, that was not supposed to happen, was it? There were also interesting tactical situations in OIF. In the now ongoing stage the insurgents are laking in modern AT-weapons. Still attacking Fallujah was really hard. I don't know the amount of enemy fighters there was defending the city, but I would think that well organized army defending Damascus would be even harder. If the defenders have a company of infantry, supported by a mortar platoon and some ATGM or modern versions of RPGs I think you are going to have some problems attacking. For example if we take the organization for the defending Coy to be something like this: 3 platoons of infantry, every one of them has 10-20 RPGs. The platoons have snipers in them, every one of them have FO in them and they have some heavy AT weapons with them, modern versions of RPG, for example. Now, this all is supported by 81mm or 120mm mortars and possibly by even more AT weapons from higher levels. That means ATGMs. Add to this a grenade machinegun platoon, for example. Your Stryker company given a mission to "capture the flag" in 60 minutes would have interesting times ahead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JonS Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: One AAR I read where Marines had difficulty retreiving 3 dead squadmates from a house sure didn't sound bored or uninterested in improving their tacitcs... Steve Sounds like a fascinating CM:SF scenario. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by Drusus: I might not be correct, but I think the thing was different in Iraq. In the war the defenders didn't want to fight to the end.You are absolutely correct. The evidence that TIME's team collected indicates that relatively few members of the Republican Guard were actually killed in the fighting. According to the accounts, the Iraqi forces for the most part survived aerial bombardments by keeping their distance from their armor, which U.S. pilots targeted with great precision. Then as U.S. ground troops approached, the Republican Guard generally fled. Many of them appear to have acted on their own, motivated by fear and self-preservation. In Baghdad, according to a high-ranking Republican Guard officer interviewed by TIME, troops were actually instructed to desert. This may help explain why the members of the Special Republican Guard, deployed within Baghdad as the Iraqi regime's ultimate defenders, put up virtually no resistance to the American takeover of the city, as they felt the entire elite-forces structure collapsing around them. Link When it came to war, most of Saddam's armies either chose flight over fight or were neutered by commanders who had agreed to accommodate the coalition. Colonel Ali Jaffar Hussan al-Duri was not one of them, but his ultimate superior was. Once the fighting had begun, Hussan's division of the al-Quds army, an official Iraqi militia, received what he called "an incredible" order to send half the men home on leave. He challenged the edict with his brigadier, who was equally bemused. They attempted to verify it, but communications had been cut. So they dismissed half the unit and watched the other half vanish soon after. Link Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Sheesh. Don't waste your time on the guy. He's got his head so far up his @ss he can lick his tonsils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 KwazyDog said.... Zemke, with no disrespect intended that comment alone leaves me wondering if you have any real idea of what you are talking about with regards to modern combat, or even the current situation in Iraq. If you are truely interested in learning more I have suggest elsewhere some interesting books on the matter and the above AAR would be a good place to start. That being said, I suspect you arent, and for that reason and the fact you have left the forums I wont go into it further. Well for one I have been there and as an Officer planning the missions. I have read countless AARs on this. I suggest you go to the CALL site, you can read all you want. Besides reading about it I have seen it, studied it, wrote about it in CGSC, and planned it. So show me where I an wrong about modern warfare. I think it is you who has no concept of what it is or isn't. You need to earn the right to tell me I don't know what I am talking about. At least I am not afraid to state the truth, or at least what I believe is the truth, albit a bit rough for some to digest. Dogface I was 99% bored, 1% adrinline rush. Its not the Normandy Beach Invasion. Its dull, boring and HOT work most of the time, particulalry after doing it for a long time. Troops cannot stay keyed up every second, its impossible. Like my paragraphs, I see there are a lot of English teachers here. So I have tried to nake this easier to read. Yeah I am a WWII guy, always was, always will be. I think some have missed the point, or more likey I have not articulated it very well. So I will list them in a clear and concise manner. (1) I would have prefered a WWII game, oh well, I didn't get it my way. I can wait for a WWII mod. (2) If modern, then a combined arms fight using a 1975-91 Warsaw Pact or Korea as the Theater of Operations would have been prefered by ME, not everyone, just by me. (3) If the Theater of Operations is Syria, it will be unrealistic for the reasons I have stated, or it will be pretty darn boring. I can just see it, players begging to play Syria "Oh can I play Syria again, I only lost 80% of my combat power to Specter last game, and killed two Americans with my IED." (4) I will buy a WWII mod, if the engine is what it is cracked up to be and I really hope it is. (5) Young guys don't USUALLY play this type of game, but tend towards real time first person games, either dismounted infantry, police/SWAT raids, or armored combat sims with them in control of the vehicle. There are some exceptions of course. (6) Leaving the forums...means I will no longer post on this topic. Other than try and answer more critics. I seldom post on BF anyway, and from what I have read, most just attack or belittle when someone tries to make a serious point concerning the hobby or whatever subject. I realize I have also set myself up tring to "stir the pot". Yes I understand I am going against the grain here with my dislike of CMSF without seeing a DEMO, but it is my opinion on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by Zemke: I am a wargamer/historian. And you are a poo-head. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by JonS: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com: One AAR I read where Marines had difficulty retreiving 3 dead squadmates from a house sure didn't sound bored or uninterested in improving their tacitcs... Steve Sounds like a fascinating CM:SF scenario. </font> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zemke Posted October 12, 2005 Author Share Posted October 12, 2005 Defense Rests........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dalem Posted October 12, 2005 Share Posted October 12, 2005 Originally posted by Zemke: (6) Leaving the forums...means I will no longer post on this topic.So GO already. Sheesh. -dale Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts