Jump to content

Very Disappointed


Zemke

Recommended Posts

What a disappointment this has been for me, and MANY others. There is no challenge militarily in CMSF. If so then it will be SciFi. Where is the challenge of a 30-1 kill ratio? What tactical challenge is there? Also I have had enough of that region of the world in real life to last a lifetime. The last thing I want do is play a game on it. Also it has NO historical relavance to me. I play wargames, not police games, I like history, I have lived and fought current events! If the tactical engine is good, then I may buy the WWII mod, but I would never buy this. Looks like BF is got them a contract from the US Army, not the people who supported them with Combat Mission in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Zemke:

What a disappointment this has been for me, and MANY others. There is no challenge militarily in CMSF. If so then it will be SciFi. Where is the challenge of a 30-1 kill ratio? What tactical challenge is there? Also I have had enough of that region of the world in real life to last a lifetime. The last thing I want do is play a game on it. Also it has NO historical relavance to me. I play wargames, not police games, I like history, I have lived and fought current events! If the tactical engine is good, then I may buy the WWII mod, but I would never buy this. Looks like BF is got them a contract from the US Army, not the people who supported them with Combat Mission in the first place.

No challenge? How does it play? Are the graphics good? Is the sound kick-a**? Will it run on my machine? Is the manual readable?

What else do you know about it?!?!?

-excited le dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

good lord man can you not do a search? All of your complaints have been answered by BF.C. no 30 -1 kill ratio, its not a police action.

Bunch of whiners that have NO idea what will be in the finshed product but still you know all about it. Christ what a bunch of crap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally I hope BFC gets a lucrative Military contract or contracts of some type. The more profit these guys make the faster we will see new games and modules. We already know they are a good bunch or we would not have spent years here interacting with them, purchasing and using their products. I wish them nothing but blue sky and good luck!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Boo freakin' hoo. Go tell it to your mom.

Not saying that modern was my first choice, but at least I'll keep an open mind, and look at it as an opportunity to learn something new.

You obviously also read less than 1% of what's been posted here over the past three days, since many of your wild speculations have already been posted by other, and shown to be absolutely without foundation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with a lot of Zemkes posts after having to spend a lot of my life there too. I will however reserve judgement on this game when I actually see the Demo. But if its advertised as a modern SIMULATION, how can it not have the current 30-1 kill ratio in favour of the US?

Maybe it will be the best thing ever, maybe not, I will wait and see, no point getting worked up over a product that is maybe 9 months away.

However, the guy IS entitled to his opinion, isnt that what a Forum is for?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Abbott:

Personally I hope BFC gets a lucrative Military contract or contracts of some type. The more profit these guys make the faster we will see new games and modules.

With only one coder on their team, it actually means we will have to wait longer for commercial releases while they do that magic they do for the Army....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

. . . Unless a military contract was lucrative enough that BFC hired Charles an assistant or two.

And yeah, sure, people are "entitled" to their opinion, and I have no more right than anybody else here to dictate how things are done.

But I would hope people would least have the courtesy to read the extensive posts that Steve has already put up here about the new game, rather than spouting off after reading only the first 2-3 paragraphs of the announcement.

Then if you're disagreeing, at least you can say why *specifically* in response to the arguments that Steve has put forth, and ADD something new and interesting to discuss, rather than rehashing old ground, with little or nothing to actually support your opinion.

Feh. At the rate things are going, we're going to be having exactly the same discussion daily until the game comes out. I think I'm gonna go take Wincape's advice and get myself a strong one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by GSX:

I agree with a lot of Zemkes posts after having to spend a lot of my life there too. I will however reserve judgement on this game when I actually see the Demo. But if its advertised as a modern SIMULATION, how can it not have the current 30-1 kill ratio in favour of the US?

You're thinking in terms of CMx1 victory conditions. Check out Steve's long post on the first page of the Syrian p.o.v sticky thread where he explains how things will be different.

Originally posted by GSX:

However, the guy IS entitled to his opinion, isnt that what a Forum is for?

He had already posted pretty much the exact same thing in the General Discussion thread. Or is everyone supposed to get their own personal soap box thread?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by GSX:

I agree with a lot of Zemkes posts after having to spend a lot of my life there too. I will however reserve judgement on this game when I actually see the Demo. But if its advertised as a modern SIMULATION, how can it not have the current 30-1 kill ratio in favour of the US?

Maybe it will be the best thing ever, maybe not, I will wait and see, no point getting worked up over a product that is maybe 9 months away.

However, the guy IS entitled to his opinion, isnt that what a Forum is for?

What frightens me is that there are people who genuinely seem to believe that any situation in which the US finds itself can only result in 30:1 kill ratios and automatic victory. This would be comical if it were not actually sad, and slightly worrying. Some of these guys are US voters I suspect, and one day will vote for someone who gets the US into a situation in which they discover a different inevitabilty.

People: the bad guys commanders are

a) not stupid - even in 'conventional warfare' you don't have to confront the US head on

B) not always irregulars or fanatics

c) students of history and studiers of US capability just as much if not more than you are.

One day (and I am not saying it will be Syria in 2007) there will be a conflict in which this is demonstrated. I am sure that CMSF can be play balanced in such a manner that this can be made clear without resorting to a simulation of Iraq, or science fiction to achieve it.

May I suggest half a dozen rules? Repeat after me:

1) CMSF is the game that they are doing. I cannot change that, and at present I do not really know what the game is yet

2) If I do not like the demo I do not have to buy the game

3) If I have ideas for improvements when the game comes out, I can always suggest them in this forum and BTS will consider them on their merits

4) I will display patience until the game is released, for I am not a two year old and I can control my tantrums

5) see rule 1

6) There is no rule 6!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't see how it is possible for anyone to read the "Official Announcement" from BFC and still feel the way on some thigns that our original poster does. It explains just in that post how things won't be like the scenario Zemke decribes. I honestly can't understand the total lack of comprehension these people have of the game and its subject matter. It's like they just saw the word "Syria" and assumed they then knew everything there was to know about the game.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Bamse:

The US military is probably a less demanding customer too!

HA! As much as I'd like to agree with this (as civvies can be picky), I have to disagree.

Civillians think they can influence what kind of game they get, but the military can (and does!) control nearly the entirety of what they get. And on a very specific timeline too, I might add. There are no missed deadlines, no half-assed releases and many end user reviews with military contracts unless you're prepared to lose some of the money you were supposed to get paid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

US military customer?

Why just the US? Syrian, Iranian, Pakistani, Yemeni, Afghanistani,Palestinian, Turkish, Djibouti, and Bahrani militaries might want to buy a few copies too! ;)

(If Dick Cheney had no problems doing business with these folks why should Moon?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Zemke:

What a disappointment this has been for me, and MANY others. There is no challenge militarily in CMSF. If so then it will be SciFi. Where is the challenge of a 30-1 kill ratio? What tactical challenge is there? Also I have had enough of that region of the world in real life to last a lifetime. The last thing I want do is play a game on it. Also it has NO historical relavance to me. I play wargames, not police games, I like history, I have lived and fought current events! If the tactical engine is good, then I may buy the WWII mod, but I would never buy this. Looks like BF is got them a contract from the US Army, not the people who supported them with Combat Mission in the first place.

Oh, go and boil your head.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...