Battlefront.com Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 LoneSyrian, Ask yourself... do you REALLY want to be here to have meaningful discussions, or do you want to just express that big chip on your shoulder EVERY post? You're not only being highly offensive, but you are making yourself look foolish. I suspect you actually aren't a fool, which makes it even worse. I'm warning you the last time... knock it off or you are out of here. If you disagree with something, do it in a civil way that is in line with the Forum's rules. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erics Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 LoneSyrian, I like reading your posts. Try to measure your perspective and make it work here. I wouldn't fault your for leaving these forums, but I'd rather have you engaging in debate. I find the perspectives here "conservative" in the sense that they express a strong old-conservative Realpolitik, Bush Sr. style, which I think is clearly the most intelligent brand of conservative politics. Any insightful debate is appreciated, and you could help, no? EricS 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LoneSyrian Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Yes erics, you're right, I'll measure my perspective from now on. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lightning War Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Darn, this game looks amazing! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
YankeeDog Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Thanks for taking the high road, LS. I've found your many of your posts interesting and thought-provoking. It would be a shame to lose your perspective here. Regards, YD 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Shouldn't the Strykers have a 240 mounted on the back? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 Okay I'm not trying to stir up trouble here, but this is the quote from Steve I was thinking about that may mean we could have T-90s anyway, perhaps not at first, but in a module: "However, we create a new type of OPFOR force, called a Branch in CMx2 speak, to represent units that are not realistic for Syria. Let's say we call it the "Ahistoric Branch". It would sit right next to other Branches such as Syrian Army, Syrian Special Forces, Irregulars, etc. (we aren't quite sure how we're dividing stuff up yet). This is pretty similar to how we did things in CMx1 and it means that the player knows for sure that he is using unrealistic stuff." 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 10, 2006 Share Posted December 10, 2006 No Strykers have M240s mounted on the back. I wouldn't be surprised if someone stuck one on there, but it certainly isn't standard kit. Doesn't even seem to be standard with the new armor package either. Yup, the T-90 is a strong contender for any "Ahistoric" equipment offering in some future Module. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tuomas Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Great stuff gyus! If only one day I could see AMV or a Pasi running around in this game engine... Now where did I put those M05 desert trousers... -Tuomas 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Originally posted by Mord: So, Steve you said we weren't gonna get as many vehicles like we had in CMX1 but how many are we talking? Five for the US and three for Syria? Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Originally posted by Mord: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Mord: So, Steve you said we weren't gonna get as many vehicles like we had in CMX1 but how many are we talking? Five for the US and three for Syria? Mord. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Mord, There are currently 50 vehicles on our ToDo list. It is a carefully planned list so I would expect we'll be putting in pretty much the whole list. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Mord, There are currently 50 vehicles on our ToDo list. It is a carefully planned list so I would expect we'll be putting in pretty much the whole list. Steve Holy crap! AWSOME! I was actually pretty happy with what I was figuring to be about 10 vehicles at the most. BTW does that count include civilian vehicles? Actually are there gonna be civilian vehicles? Mord. [ December 10, 2006, 07:48 PM: Message edited by: Mord ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mord Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Originally posted by Sequoia: [qb] Well, I think if you take into account the number of Stryker variants and HumVee variants and T-72 variants the numbers multiply. Actually, I was under the impression this new engine wasn't gonna be variant happy like CMX1...unless they meant the WWII games won't be. Mord. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Variants aren't as much of a problem this time around since the outside of the vehicles tends not to change much in many cases. Plus, there are just a heck of a lot fewer base vehicles to have variants of! Think about CMBB for a sec... The PzIV and PzIII series, combined, is about 1/2 of the total vehicles we're putting into CM:SF. Toss in variants for T-34, Panther, and SuGs and you're at about 100% of what we have in CM:SF. And that just scratches the surface of what was in CMBB!! If you want to boil things down, the forces look like this: US Army Stryker Bradley Abrams Humvee Syrian Army BMP BTR BDRM T-54/55 T-62 T-72 Add to each a bunch of trucks and civilian vehicles (Syrians) to round things out. Now, try to come up with a list like that for any of the CMx1 settings Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LGMB Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 the T-90 is a strong contender for any "Ahistoric" equipment offering in some future ModuleMan, it would be awesome to actually see- and handle- a T-90 in game. Those screenshots look fantastic, of course. :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 LoneSyrian, Speaking as someone who has himself repeatedly functioned as a combination lightning rod and human target drone for not one but several posters, indeed can scarcely post on many topics without being attacked or lampooned, I can definitely relate to your frustration, even anger, at the barbs you're taking, but I urge you not to reply in kind, however much you may be tempted to do so. The perspectives you have to offer are both valuable intrinsically and in terms of taking many of us out of our often limited world view, but we lose both and much else if you react and post in a prohibited manner. You've been very fortunate in that Steve has warned you several times now, rather than warning you once and banning you the next time you broke the Forum Rules. Please don't push your luck! I think some here are either not paying sufficient attention or are deliberately distorting what you're saying in order to score points against you and/or avoid having to deal with the consequences of what you're telling them. Nor do I think some of them understand the risks you're already running in posting, there presumably being some utility that converts English text to Arabic, never mind providing photos and such. I know the authorities there are way more uptight than ours are here, together with being far more likely to invoke drastic measures when provoked. Message sent, message received! I understood just fine what you meant when you talked about T-90s being unloaded at Tartous, where the Russians are building a naval base. Tartous/Tartus is a port, and the doing of the latter has, most likely, nothing to do with the T-90s other than that the general geographic location coincides. To assert otherwise would seem, IMO, to be either ignorant or deliberately obtuse. Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 BF.C, VERY nice! Thanks, Ken 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted December 11, 2006 Author Share Posted December 11, 2006 LoneSyrian KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. For one, this Canadian is always a happy to be labeled a Pacifist Canadian or have Canada refered to as "Pacifist Canada". Your english spelling and grammar are excellent and your perspective and opinon from the "other side" is unique on this board. (Very unique and valued by the curious and open minded I am sure.) I hope you will choose not to use the forum as a surrogate battle ground. Most folks here (the vast majority) are just interested in sharing information and learning new things about geopolitical conflict and military hardware and politics and other non-western policitical opinions and values. The fact that you can communicate the views and values of the "other side" so well in english and seem to have some kind of understanding of the "American values" side, make your contributions here invaluable in my mind. Much of what you have posted this "Pacifist Canadian" does not really dissagree with all the much. (Maybe a little hyperbole here and there, sure) But mostly your posts, (when they are not flaming rants written in the heat of anger and passion) are very informative and sometimes entertaining. Just let Steve (he is very fair) be your guide and keep posting. Good Luck And thanks for all your insight and comments so far. -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Out of curiosity, what kinds of humvees are going to be portrayed? Just gun trucks with some combination of M240/M2/Mk19? Maybe armored and unarmored? What about TOW carriers, cargo carriers, SF variants, etc? Also, will non-Stryker/Bradley infantry squads make it in (i.e. light infantry)? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Ooops... I posted this in the wrong thread. Peter, I've taken the liberty of relocating your response too. Otherwise we'd both be guilty of hijacking this thread Steve [ December 11, 2006, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flammenwerfer Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: If you think you've got issues with CM:SF's first release, wait until you see how much stuff we aren't going to include in the first release of CM:WW2 That's fine, as long as you include five kinds of grass. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Cairns Posted December 11, 2006 Share Posted December 11, 2006 Moved Peter's response over to the Artillery thread since I moved my comments over there too. Steve [ December 11, 2006, 03:14 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Variants aren't as much of a problem this time around since the outside of the vehicles tends not to change much in many cases. Plus, there are just a heck of a lot fewer base vehicles to have variants of! Think about CMBB for a sec... The PzIV and PzIII series, combined, is about 1/2 of the total vehicles we're putting into CM:SF. Toss in variants for T-34, Panther, and SuGs and you're at about 100% of what we have in CM:SF. And that just scratches the surface of what was in CMBB!! If you want to boil things down, the forces look like this: US Army Stryker Bradley Abrams Humvee Syrian Army BMP BTR BDRM T-54/55 T-62 T-72 Add to each a bunch of trucks and civilian vehicles (Syrians) to round things out. Now, try to come up with a list like that for any of the CMx1 settings Steve No M113A3s, M1117s,or engineer vehicles? You would see all of those regularly in any mech or armor company team or TF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted December 12, 2006 Share Posted December 12, 2006 The Mech Infantry in CM:SF are in there as support elements for Stryker formations. As such we are not even trying to fully simulate Mech Inf. Having said that, keep in mind that the CM:SF setting is not the same as Iraq today. For example, the M1117 (a 4x4 armored car, primarily for MPs, right?) doesn't have a place in such a setting. M113A3s are mostly being used in rolls that are not directly "front line" combat within CM:SF's focus, if I am not mistaken. Engineer vehicles... as with CMx1, CM:SF is not set up to simulate the sorts of combat engineer scenarios that would warrant putting so much time and effort into all the various tools they have at their disposal. We are, however, including the Stryker ESV (Engineer Support Vehicle). Simulating engineers, in all their glory, would be a game in and of itself. An interesting one for many, I am sure, but not what we are focused on. Steve 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.