non grog scared away by jargon

[ScouseJedi]

EDIT - the edit button is not the one marked with quotes. DOH !

[ September 11, 2006, 12:44 PM: Message edited by: ScouseJedi ]

[ScouseJedi]

EDIT uber messed up the thread but here goes

I think the straw that broke the camels back was the uber abrams thread discussing TUSK and stuff

Heres what Steve said:

There are several lettered M1A1 variants in the field today. M1A1 (stock), M1A1 HC, and M1A1 D. The D is an upgrade of some earlier model, probably the HC with additional armor on it (aka HC+). But it doesn't have to be any particular model! All the D requires is the B Kit and C Kit improvements. This means an older stock M1A1 with these two kits would be considered a D variant, even though it doesn't have the same armor as the HC or HC+ variants with the D designation. Also, a vehicle with A Kit and B Kit is significantly different than a vehicle without them, yet there is no designation change for having these kits installed. Adding to the confusion is the fact that the A and B Kits used to be reffered to as the "Situational Awareness", or SA, upgrade. Now these changes have been rolled into downgraded SEP upgrade (for the M1A2, just to confuse things more!) and is apparently means the designation of the vehicle will be "M1A1 SA". It would appear this is a M1A1D with enhanced features. On top of that there is the TUSK kit which offers some of the SA enhancements on its own, though by and large is a totally unique upgrade which, I think, can be applied to *any* previous M1A1 model. Fortunately this doesn't change the base designation, meaning it will be M1A1D TUSK.

Heres another one from page 1 photos of the day, also from Steve..

posted August 08, 2006 10:47 PM

Definitely a PAQ-2 on the top of the LT's M4. As for the device in question, on the side of the M4, I'd guess it is a IR pointer/illuminator. You can see the thumb trigger just behind it.

The one on the M249 is not the same as the one on the LT's M4. It probably is an IR pointer too, but if you look closely they aren't identical. The M249 has his trigger on the forgrip handle.

Huuuuunh?????

Now, I have never served and my military interests lie more towards WW2. I understand what a PzIV is. I know what a MG42 is.

Moving tanks and infantry around - no problem.

..........

When it comes to CM2:SF frankly my eyes glaze over in these forums. From the recent Israeli/Hizballah conflict I understand how the objectives can be challenging but how the hell am I supposed to know what is going on.

Will the 'grog' factor be under the hood. Will I have to comprehend that there is more than 1 type of RPG round?

Basically, I've rambled and Im sure that more experienced posters would have conveyed the same meaning in fewer words but how much will a player get from the game if he knows about as much about hardware / tactics as a news reporter.

I await Space Lobster hardware as we (grog and !grog) should be on a level playing field.

[ September 11, 2006, 12:46 PM: Message edited by: ScouseJedi ]

[ScouseJedi]

EDIT - edited this post and it got doubled - ooops

see above.

EDIT2 Im going for a lie down

Does the inability to post a thread exclude me from understanding the game. If this doesn't work I may even qualify for a Darwin award.

[ September 11, 2006, 12:47 PM: Message edited by: ScouseJedi ]

[Michael Dorosh]

Definitely a PAQ-2 on the top of the LT's M4. As for the device in question, on the side of the M4, I'd guess it is a IR pointer/illuminator. You can see the thumb trigger just behind it.

The one on the M249 is not the same as the one on the LT's M4. It probably is an IR pointer too, but if you look closely they aren't identical. The M249 has his trigger on the forgrip handle.

LT = Lieutenant

M4 = carbine

M249 = Squad Automatic Weapon (light machine gun)

IR = Infra-red

[hellfish]

I still can't tell you what the difference between a PzIVG, a PzIVH and a PzIVJ are (and what happened to the PzIVI, anyways?) yet I still play CM. Don't be a one delta ten tango - suck it up and give 'em cash monies!

[flamingknives]

Hmm. Assuming no knowledge

M1 = US main battle tank - the Abrams.

M1A1, M1A1HC, M1A1D, M1A2... = varients of the above, like the PzIV A through G.

M1 = 105mm gun.

M1A1 = 120mm gun.

M1A1 HC = 120mm gun and extra armour.

M1A2 = 120mm gun, extra armour and better fire control

M1A2 SEP = Systems Enhancement Package - more shiny bits.

TUSK = Tank Urban Survival kit. Gun shields, better thermals, better all-round armour.

M4 = Standard US carbine - a shortened version of the M16.

PAQ-2 = Some kind of widget like a laser pointer.

M249 = Squad automatic weapon - Squad MG

[PseudoSimonds]

Nevermind the M1A1M4LTM249IRPAQ-2. It's all about chucking molten TNT, maggots!! :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:

[ScouseJedi]

But does your innate knowledge give you an advantage - its like a foreign language to me and I cannot see sitting in front of a flickering monitorwith '2007 Military Jargon for dummies' on my knees and a blank expression on my face being fun.

Paradox's Victoria was a commercial flop due to its steep learning curve. Atm, having seen about 3 limited screenshots I worry about CM:SF

I know the net is a great resource and all the info I need is out there a few clicks away but you have no idea how intimidating this forum is.

Shock Force looks like a military trainer rather than a game.

The game might be fine but I never fork out money on software without a good look around forums and this place will terrify the casual gamer. Can I suggest splitting the CM:SF into 2 sub forums Fluffy and Grog so I can stay in my comfort zone.

And don't worry about revenue, Ill be buying it as a WW2 version would be cool so I dont mind paying for its development.

[hellfish]

I getcha with that Victoria comment - I've had the game for years and I still don't know what I'm doing.

I don't think you'll have much of a problem with CMSF. BFC did a good job of helping you figure out why the T-34/43 early and the T-34/43 late were different, I don't imagine they'll have trouble helping you out with the difference between a T-55 and a T-55AM. If all else fails, just look at the point value.

[flamingknives]

I'm not sure that the innate knowledge is necessarily an advantage - I knew little about the various tanks, small-arms and support weapons of WW2 when I started playing CMBO, but everything I needed to know was in the information screen.

Still, I know less about WW2 than some people have forgotton, but I still give a good enough account of myself.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by ScouseJedi:

But does your innate knowledge give you an advantage

No. Never has. Reality and a game are two different realities; knowledge of one does not translate to knowledge of another.

[Battlefront.com]

Any military setting has its fair share of intimate details that only a minority of the potential buying audience will have even a partial clue about. In many ways I think WWII is far, far worse than modern day stuff. Here's why...

I've spent most of my life with WWII stuff, especially German, American, and Soviet equipment, tactics, and the battlefields where these things clashed. It was only recently, with CMBB I would say, that I finally felt I had a firm grasp of all that stuff. Not that I know everything (it is impossible), but that I'm at a point where 5/10 times I can answer a question without any double checking, 3/10 times with a quick look at a book I already have in mind, 1/10 times through several books to figure it out, and 1/10 times that I feel I only have the tip of the answer and someone else is going to have to pitch in to figure out the rest. This has taken me more than 20 years to arrive at.

Now, when I started researching CM:SF I was pretty much a noobie at modern warfare. No dummy, but I probably had less knowledge about the subject than most CMers came to CM with. So I've had to crash course on this and 3 years later I feel pretty good about where I am at. Probably equal to 15 years of studying WWII. There are three major reasons for this:

1. The subject matter is inherently easier. What I mean by that is look at WWII, all the nations, all the variants of this or that, how long the war lasted, how intense it was, etc. With modern stuff I just have to focus on what is around now and a wee bit into the future. It doesn't matter what came before it unless it is still being used. Also, the number of variants of the Abrams is about as many as the US had for completely unique tanks in WWII! The Sherman variants alone dwarf the Abrams variants. Bottom line... less stuff one has to get familiar with.

2. The Internet as a research tool. This has only started the maturing process within the last few years. When we developed CM back in 1997-2000 the amount of good info on the 'net was rather limited. Now... Holy Crow... no shortage of information! Plus, there are people that are using the stuff right now who can answer questions while with WWII that just wasn't possible. Meaning, if someone hadn't asked the question in the 1940s or 1950s, and put it down in print (preferably English), it might as well not exist. Man that was frustrating for us!

3. Cumulative knowledge helps out a lot. In many ways modern warfare is no different than WWII. This means that a lot of stuff already in my noodle from the last 20 years of research is usable for modern warfare. I don't have to relearn the importance of combined arms, for example, just understand how it is different. I don't need to understand the importance of terrain in tactical combat, why cover and concealment aren't necessarily the same, the impact of physical endurance and time on operational tempo (to use modern jargon ), etc. All I have to do is get a few bits of new data and bingo... I've got a solid grasp of most of what is going on today. That leaves me time and energy to focus on the things that are quite different, since there is quite a bit of that too.

All in all... I don't see CM:SF as being any more out of reach for the modern warfare newbie than CMx1 games were for the WWII newbie. Someone well versed in WWII, however, should have an easier time with CM:SF than someone who is not versed in any form of modern warfare.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

flamingknives,

I'm not sure that the innate knowledge is necessarily an advantage - I knew little about the various tanks, small-arms and support weapons of WW2 when I started playing CMBO, but everything I needed to know was in the information screen.

I agree with you, and Dorosh, that a player with good intuition is likely going to kick some serious butt over someone who's big claim to tactical fame is the ability to rattle off vehicle stats. That's as true for CM:SF as it was for CMx1.

CMx1 did do an excellent job of giving the player the information he needed in a way that he could understand. Most of it didn't even need a manual to be understood. The same for CM:SF, at least as far as we know Having said that, we do expect there to be a fair amount of the details explained in the manual more thoroughly.

Bottomline... in a head to head game I'd put my money on the guy who did better in CMx1 game play rather than the guy who knows more about contemporary warfare. So if you are the guy that did well in CMx1 and yet know your M1A1 from your M107B, no problemo... you're likely to do well anyway.

Oh, and the best part about it (IMHO) is coming to the Forums to broaden your knowledge. I know I've learned a ton from this Forum over the years, especially about what kind of toothpicks are best used against Soviet troops. So a special thank you to all the Finns here

Steve

[Michael Dorosh]

The bottom line, Steve, is that it comes down to the level of interest on the part of the individual. I couldn't give a toss about infantry small arms in the Spanish Civil War and if a game came out that used them, I might buy it, might play it, but probably wouldn't invest the time to learn about it. My choice. Doesn't make it any harder to understand than Canadian small arms of the First World War, just far less interesting to me.

That interest is often - not always - fuelled by individual nationality bias as well, naturally. and of course the coolness factor, stimulated by the "bad guys are neato" factor in turn, but only if they have sharp uniforms like the Waffen SS or are totally nuts like the Japanese. The Syrians seem to miss the mark on both counts, incidentally. But I don't care about them enough to know for sure one way or the other. em...not yet, anyway. OTOH, a good game might inspire that interest, right?

[MikeyD]

Have you downloaded the previous generation game engine CMAK or CMBB demo to take for a spin? Feel the difference between a combat 'game' and a tactical sim. You'll find you won't really need to know how much torque to apply to a Tiger I's engine deck bolts to play the game. Just remember a heavy machine gun kills more efficiently than a rifle. Thick armor protects better than thin armor. Healthy veteran soldiers are of more utility than exhausted green soldiers. With experience 'grog' knowledge starts to sneak in. You start to recognize which assault gun does and does not mount a mg, which tank has a slow manual turret drive and which has a fast hydraulic drive. For me, the differences between German infantry unit type remains a mystery - though not enough of a mystery to keep me from using them in the game!

I suspect the same may hold true for much CMSF 'grog' info. There's going to be lots of stuff you don't 'need' to know to start playing, but acquired knowledge will soon start to make a difference between winning and losing.

[ September 11, 2006, 02:02 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[flammenwerfer]

I was a complete newbie to modern warfare, but just by keeping an eye on this forum over the past year! I' ve started to feel much less intimidated.

Also if the 'game' is good, the learning curve will not scare you off.

[Battlefront.com]

Dorosh,

The bottom line, Steve, is that it comes down to the level of interest on the part of the individual.

This is an excellent point. The % of CM fans that don't know the development history of the Panther, yet enjoy taking them for a spin, probably dwarfs those who can rattle off the entire history of the vehicle. And as I said above, the one that knows how to use terrain and timing to his advantage will crush the guy who is looking at his Panther Ds and saying "cool, they got the driver and radioman's hatches right"

The Syrians seem to miss the mark on both counts, incidentally.

Hey, some of them have pretty sharp uniforms too

Steve

[stikkypixie]

The only occassion where "intimate knowledge" of equipment that is needed in my experience, is when you play quick battles in CM1. Because the selection screen doesn't give as much detail as in the main game (Hint for the people at BFC ) on occasion I would end up purchasing in the dark.

I remember having to choose between T34M41 or T34M43 (early, regular and late) and not knowing the difference between them. Obviously the later the model the better, but since I know the late T34M43 comes with a cupola and a radio, the others are just not an option anymore. Things like that.

Hopefully the differences in modern equipment won't be that big.

[rudel.dietrich]

Just takes alot of practice.

Wikipedia believe it or not is actualy a pretty good resource. Just input something and start reading.

When something looks interting just click the blue hyperlink and read about it too.

As for Victoria, that is one of my favourite games!

The only Paradox game I ever liked.

Maybe with Steves permission some of us can undertake a platform information section for the manual.

We can list every weapon and piece of hardware in the game and give it its own entry into the manual.

Since the manual is probably going to be .pdf all those extra pages will hardly matter.

[John Kettler]

ScouseJedi,

While I grant that it can seem more than a little confusing and intimidating initially, as evidenced by my reaction to the M1 tank model list, it need not be so opaque when help's available.

Section 3.2 of this, for example, will help you decipher the alphabet soup of military electronics and optoelectronics.

http://www.designation-systems.net/usmilav/electronics.html

Regards,

John Kettler

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />The Syrians seem to miss the mark on both counts, incidentally.

Hey, some of them have pretty sharp uniforms too

Steve [/QB]</font>

[J Ruddy]

Ya, the modern stuff drives me nuts.

XM249(x) = SAW ~ C9 ~ Minimi ~ F89 ~ Ksp 90

:mad:

[luderbamsen]

Interesting thread...

First of all, if there's anything scaring the living daylights out of the newbies on this forum, it's the Peng Challenges. I still have no clue whatsoever what they're there for, but they're kinda, cute, I suppose, so I wouldn't want them gone.

Grog jargon definately can be scary, but that's really an inevitable effect of the awsome accumulated knowledge found here.

I recall a story about a US Air Force A-10 pilot asked to give a lecture to a group of plastic modellers (who are just as insane as Grognards). Of course, the poor sod had no idea what he was getting himself into. Inevitably, he found himself facing questions about intimate details of his aircraft (which he had been flying for years, including, I believe, in combat) that he had absolutely no clue about. Apparently, no pilot from that unit ever volunteered for such a lecture again.

A "CM:SF for Dummies" is a great idea. As is a series of veery simple tutorial mission (clue: don't try to teach everything in a single mission).

However, the single most important effort is this: Be nice. When a newbie posts some naive gibberish, tell him he/she is wrong, but be nice about it, and be constructive. Offer an explanation and perhaps an alternative. I know from personal experience on other forums that this approach works, and can turn the usual "gunz r kewl" male teenager into a respected forum member.

[aka_tom_w]

A "CM:SF for Dummies" is a great idea. As is a series of veery simple tutorial mission (clue: don't try to teach everything in a single mission).

However, the single most important effort is this: Be nice. When a newbie posts some naive gibberish, tell him he/she is wrong, but be nice about it, and be constructive.

yes please...

these threads and this forum "should" try to foster a positive learning environment (and yes I am in the education business) for folks who may not be all that aware of the technical jargon or the latest specifications or stats on a vast range of modern equipment BUT who still want to have fun playing the game.

So we should try to make learning about the game fun (here in the forum) as well so it might have a chance to be considered fun to play.

-tom w

[ September 12, 2006, 10:18 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[C'Rogers]

Knowing what a unit in game can do and knowing how to use it are very different things. I play CM regularly and still have never really bothered to learn the different variations of certain tanks.

if there's anything scaring the living daylights out of the newbies on this forum, it's the Peng Challenges

Heh, I opened the peng thread my first time here and have never touched it since.