"We're tired of WWII..."

[MikeyD]

Geepers, so many people so sorry that they didn't rerelease CMBO!

I recall saying 6-7 months ago that a Stryker Brigade simulator would be just dandy by me (though I didn't think my wish would come true!). The concept of a 'revolutionary' light highly-mobile force in a high-threat enviromnment is definitely a worthy subject to study. By wargaming it we may find its a brilliant idea, or we may find the concept is foolhearty in the extreme. Only way to tell is to test the theory, the same way we were able to test out the controversial concept of the lightly armored M18 Hellcat TD in two of the three CMs.

[Dogface]

Originally posted by WineCape:

I'd rather have BFC take these SA museum pieces away for their own research than the witch-hunting SA MP.

That is just sad. What boggles the mind is that the vehicles in question have been ther for 10 or so years, and the military regularly sent tours there.

Stupid. Man that sounds like something that would happen here in Washington.

[Canada Guy]

I have to say that I was disappointed with the subject matter in CMSF but nothing like PP. I was not thrilled with the idea, am still not, but the vitriol I have seen is amazing.

The good thing is, I have heard that Canada is going with an all MMEV force.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?F=1120721&C=america

They are apparently going to replace all the Leopard I tanks in the arsenal with these vehicles. I guess the good news is that is should be easier to model the upcoming Canadian Army into CM:SF and Canada should have a viable stike force. The bad news is that Canada will no longer have a tank force.

BTW Bought CMAK today and it looks great. Cannot wait to try some Operation Torch or Ortona scenarios at least until CMSF comes into play and I can create scenarios for that.

Also: if BFC can release the subject matter of the CMx2 II game (ETO) will they release info on the upcoming modules of CMSF which In suppose will be available sooner to us??

[Battlefront.com]

As stated before, we can understand the disapointment. There is, however, a clear RIGHT way to voice it and a clear WRONG way. CanadaGuy scores points for doing it the right way

For those that look at the FPS games out there and say "CM:SF" looks just like it, we thank you for the compliment. The fact that we can produce graphics that have even a hope of comparing with multi-million dollar development projects is rather nice to know about But subject matter and graphics don't a game make. CMx1 games were no more like Medle of Honor than CM:SF is like Brother In Arms. The games share no gameplay things in common, and I'm sure you'll thank us for it

Steve

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

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

EDIT: One of BFC's future releases might well be the bush war, Angola vs South West Africa/Namibia.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

That's one of my hopes for a future release too - something like a "Bush Wars" game that might include modules for the Sinai campaign, South Africa in Angola, maybe Rhodesia, an Indo-Paki war, etc.

Too small of a potential audience though, I worry. </font>

[Reichenberg]

Have not read the forum for 6 days and all hell broke loose.

After reading the announcement of CM:SF I am very disappointed with BFs choice. But it is still THEIR choice and they have to decide what's best for the company. And even if I do not like the decision they made to go for the modern warfare, I can see their point that it would be the best for the engine to challenge it at the beginning....assuming that only BF knows their engine this well to figure out how to challenge it in the best way.

I just came to CM:BO in 2000 because it had the WWII setting. I would not call computer games my hobby - the interest in German history (as a German) and WWII-axis side in particular brought me to pc games. Computer games for me are nothing else than to bring my hobby/interest to a different level. Therefore, unfortunately, CM:SF will probably be nothing for me and I have to wait for the second CMX2 game ..... hoping that there will be a German campaign included, not only the American campaign

Nevertheless, thanks so far for CM:BO, BB and AK and I hope that CM:SF will be a comercial success. So that you can make the second one even better....and even more for me

Uwe

[GSX]

I too am dissapointed with the choice of setting, but what the hey, Im dissapointed with a lot of things that I can buy commercially. I have however continued to be intruiged by several things that have been mentioned for the game. I am also curious as to how modern ultra effective airpower that is almost always 90% available will work in it for one.

I will definately try the demo, where is the harm in that. Im not an exclusive CM player anyway and can always get my Oranges fix somewhere else before returning for an Apple at a later date.

I also find the discussions here mildly amusing, on the one hand we have the 'I dont like it, youve sold us out' brigade. Then the other extreme is the 'I love Battlefront, how dare you say anything about them' faction. Then stuck in the middle is Steve trying hard to argue his point in this thread, but in 1 post saying were not in it for the money and the next saying, if we got loads of money from a Govt we would bugger off.

I usually read but dont post here, but since the announcement it has been a much better forum.

Thanks for the entertainment over the last few days it has been a change from reading the 'you just havent moddled the Jeep MGs near offside fender just right' bone posts.

I trully wish the game well and if it turns out not to be my cup of tea, what harm has BFC done me? None, as someone else will no doubt turn up offering me a juciy pear one day.

[Tarquelne]

Hmm... I was hoping for WWII. Speculating about CMx2, modern didn't appeal. I was hoping for Burma. (Futilely, I know, but that's hope for you.)

And yet...

When I thought about modern or near-future settings what always came to mind was some massive Fulda Gap style tank battle, or a GWI "turkey shoot" sort of situation. Nice toys, but not something generally I find appealing to game.

And what I liked about the WWII in the East was the thought of playing CM games in nasty conditions against a foe using guerllia-style tactics.

But a Stryker formation? Hey!

And Irregulars? Guerilla warfare? MOUT? More sophisticated victory conditions? Excellent! That's the sort of thing I was hoping for in a CBI/pacific CM - but better.

So for me it looks like CM:SF is exactly what I was hoping for, so far as the style of warfare/gameplay goes. But with wholly new toys to play with, too.

Maybe what I really wanted was a change of pace... CM:SF should be just that.

Yippie!

And yet more WWII a little latter. What's not to like?

[Darren J Pierson]

I will probably be accused of being a sycophant, but I don't understand the furor. BFC as a company, IMHO, is supposed to turn out a good product. So far they have been great. If I as a consumer don't like the idea behind the product I don't buy it. If I like it, I buy it. End of story. The product should do what it is promised to do. [Edit for clarification]

As long as the product satisfies that requirement, the deal is done.

Some people are acting like they have already paid BFC for the game and have been lied to about what it was. That would infuriate me as well, but no money has changed hands. No product has been sold. No contract has been breached.

I really get annoyed at the foolish "poor non-Americans" garbage. Hell, I'm not American but it doesn't bother me if Americans make games that involves the U.S. Or, for that matter, if it doesn't involve the U.S. That's the artist's decision. I remember the complaints about Saving Private Ryan not including the rest of the DDay nations. It wasn't about all of DDay, it was about one group. If the Longest Day had been all American, that would have been quite different. But why is it that the United States is supposed (actually, people in the U.S.) to make games/products for every body on the planet? Why can't Finns make wargames? Brits? Germans, etc? I know that they do, but why the whining about it. As far as I'm concerned, as long as Texas and Alberta are center stage, everything is great!

I respect anyone who has a moral objection to the game and decides not to purchase it. Doesn't throw a temper tantrum, but just says his/her piece and moves on. More power to them. That being said, I'm sorry that I can't remember who coined it, but what is the difference between Getting More Oven Victims and If this is Poland it Must be Another Glorious Day in the Worker's Paradise, etc.

I don't know if I will buy the game or not, although I probably will. I would love it if the engine can be used to allow us to recreate small battles using different countries. Like Canada, Britain, NZ, Mexico, etc. But for some strange reason, I don't see BFC as owing *me* exactly what I want every single time. I guess I need help.

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I will probably be accused of being a sycophant

He's a sycophant! Burn him!!!

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

As far as I'm concerned, as long as Texas and Alberta are center stage, everything is great!

Texas & Alberta? That explains a lot. Good luck with that economy when the Oil runs out bubba.

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

But for some strange reason, I don't see BFC as owing *me* exactly what I want every single time.

BFC got me hooked on their crack-like CM series, they'd better damn well keep on producing or they're going to have one pissed off CM junkie on their hands..!

Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

I guess I need help.

Of course you need help! The Texas/Alberta comment proves it. Maybe you should move to Whistler for a while and mellow out man.

[Darren J Pierson]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Darren J Pierson:

[qb] I will probably be accused of being a sycophant

He's a sycophant! Burn him!!!

</font>

[Zemke]

My point is several post is the very idea is poor. There is zero military challenge from Syria, none. The US Military and its western allies would handel them as quick as they did the conventional forces of Iraq, or as fast as the Israelis have did in 67 or 73. Why? Unit discipline, unit training, and over whelming use of combat power applied where needed. So there would not be an real challenge fighting Syria, not militarily. Now if the game is about counter-insugency warfare, and IEDs, then its not a war-game that I would play. I will wait till WWII comes out, IF the engine is good.

[Pandur]

That's one of my hopes for a future release too - something like a "Bush Wars" game that might include modules for the Sinai campaign, South Africa in Angola, maybe Rhodesia, an Indo-Paki war, etc.

if i could engage zanla´s or zipra´s(or what ever they where called exactly), with rodesian light infanty(RLI), and vise versa, i would be more than pleased!

i would trash every WW2 them within seconds

go for bush war, panga all the way!

[Darren J Pierson]

I liked the book First Clash: Combat Close-Up in World War III, by Kenneth Macksey. It was a kind of primer/choose your path adventure book using Canadian Forces in Germany. I think the engine would be great for things like the ideas in the book. Tactical exercises. Play around and have some fun.

[Tarquelne]

There is zero military challenge from Syria, none. The US Military and its western allies would handel them as quick as they did the conventional forces of Iraq, or as fast as the Israelis have did in 67 or 73.

For those who've wondered, this is why there are no Six Day War or Yom Kippur War wargames or scenarios.

( )

[Jhereg]

I for one, am happy to have another modern title other than my old SP 2. It is interesting to contrast the effectiveness of a light mobile strike force vice the cold war MBT juggernaut. I for one cannot understand the reasoning behind the whole MBTs "bad"! Light vehicles that can get wonked on by a 14.5mm "good" LOL. Guess I will have to enjoy learning new tactics. Give to me the DEMOOOOOOO!

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Pandur:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> That's one of my hopes for a future release too - something like a "Bush Wars" game that might include modules for the Sinai campaign, South Africa in Angola, maybe Rhodesia, an Indo-Paki war, etc.

if i could engage zanla´s or zipra´s(or what ever they where called exactly), with rodesian light infanty(RLI), and vise versa, i would be more than pleased!

i would trash every WW2 them within seconds

go for bush war, panga all the way! </font>

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Zemke:

My point is several post is the very idea is poor. There is zero military challenge from Syria, none. The US Military and its western allies would handel them as quick as they did the conventional forces of Iraq, or as fast as the Israelis have did in 67 or 73. Why? Unit discipline, unit training, and over whelming use of combat power applied where needed. So there would not be an real challenge fighting Syria, not militarily. Now if the game is about counter-insugency warfare, and IEDs, then its not a war-game that I would play. I will wait till WWII comes out, IF the engine is good.

We get that you won't buy the game. Fine. We'll survive knowing that you don't want something the rest of us do. Can you go away now?

[GSX]

The rest of us, have you formed your own collective then?

[Vanir Ausf B]

Yeah, and you're not invited.

[MikeyD]

"There is zero military challenge from Syria, none."

If we're into playing speculation games now instead of wargames:

By 2007 the U.S. would've been squatting in Iraq for another two years, Its available equipment worn out or blown up, some troops working on their fourth or fifth deloyment, reserves depleted, a pricetag well past a half trillion dollars and public support down in the negative numbers. Now we're invading Syria? Sure we'd be able to take Damascus... just like Naopleon took Moscow. But the U.S. Army by then would be as fragile as an egg shell. Even a small setback would be seen as a grave setback. Now THAT would make any Syrian invasion a coin-toss.

My point is THIS IS JUST A TACTICAL WARGAME! Regardless of HOW you imagine the political cultural backstory its just a study in tactical warfare. I didn't see anyone complaining about Russian partisans in CMBB attacking German truck columns! Its just a study in tactics. Its not real life. Nobody dies. Its just a freakin' game.

[Darren J Pierson]

In theory a country like Vietnam should not have been much more than a speedbump to the United States. France one would have expected to last longer than it did in WWII, and so on and so forth. Just because in a strategic situation one side shouldn't do well doesn't mean that on any given day at any given crossroads, the strategically weaker opponent will be inferior or fail. All of the combat vets I know point out how when the shooting starts up close and personal, it is you and your buddies trying to stay alive. I just don't buy the Syria presents no challenge arguments as a reason why the game shouldn't be made.

[von Murrin]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

As stated before, we can understand the disapointment. There is, however, a clear RIGHT way to voice it and a clear WRONG way. CanadaGuy scores points for doing it the right way

You're probably only hearing from the vocal third as it is. For the rest of us boring middle people it problably went more like: "Umm... okay... Well, let's see what they do with it. Wait, this could be good." Except for me. Then you can add: "Oh, brill! I'll get to play myself!"

For those that look at the FPS games out there and say "CM:SF" looks just like it, we thank you for the compliment. The fact that we can produce graphics that have even a hope of comparing with multi-million dollar development projects is rather nice to know about But subject matter and graphics don't a game make. CMx1 games were no more like Medle of Honor than CM:SF is like Brother In Arms. The games share no gameplay things in common, and I'm sure you'll thank us for it

Steve

Care to guess how the response would've gone had you not released screenshots? People are acting as though you are making an FPS. I think many here simply don't connect good graphics and wargames/sims, or at least not outside flight sims, and thought BFC was going all horribly mainstream.

It's rather hard to be a snob when your esoteric combat simulator/wargame looks every bit as good as an FPS.

[Darren J Pierson]

This whole WWII/Modern/Future debate simply reminds me of the old wargame board game community. It seemed like there would be a flood of WWII west front, or east front, or Fulda Gap or something. Everyone would jump on the bandwagon and then someone would do an ACW game and that would become the rage. Personally, I like a good variety. I wish the engine would be adapted for many many different periods. I wish I could program and make games but I can't so keep 'em coming BFC.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Pheasant Plucker:

Anyway, it's my last post on this awful twist in the history of BFC. What a waste. Good luck with the corporate and redneck dollar.

I'm impressed - you really meant it! :eek: