Dillweed Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Don't think this has been asked, if I'm wrong someone please fill me in. Steve, why do a game based around reltivly new fairly unproven weapons system? As opposed to say something more traditional like a Bradley/Abrams combo. I was explaining the game to a friend (a mild fan of CMBO), and this was the question he asked. I didn't have a good response. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Maybe its because Strykers are a rapid deployable force, unlike the later 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Maybe unproven systems are more interesting? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mike Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Maybe they expect the Stryker to be the vehicle of choice in rapid deployment forces by 2007? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 It already is(Its not really a choice,its the only one avaiable) I was a tanker in rapid deployment unit (3rd ID) for 2 years, and our "boots-on-ground" time was 72 hours(with-out the tanks) With Strykers units can deploy with the vehicles 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 They will be, but your basic unit as US will be the Stryker company. As an aside - why isn't the Stryker named after a general of the past? This is the first major combat vehicle I can think of off the top of my head to break with a tradition that I thought was kind of cool. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akd Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Originally posted by juan_gigante: They will be, but your basic unit as US will be the Stryker company. As an aside - why isn't the Stryker named after a general of the past? This is the first major combat vehicle I can think of off the top of my head to break with a tradition that I thought was kind of cool. Probably a nod to the reality that we don't really have a "general's Army" anymore. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Probably a nod to the reality that we don't really have a "general's Army" anymore.Yeah, but we still have an army of Generals The simple answer to the question is "because it is interesting". When we made the decision to center on Stryker it was in no games and had yet to see combat. We figured it would be very intellectually challenging to try and simulate a fairly knowable force in a situation where it was unknown how it would perform. Although Stryker Brigades have been in combat for 2 years now, they still haven't been used in a large scale "conventional" war. As part of that is how they best interact with "legacy" systems, such as the Bradley and Abrams. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 I can well imagine if BFC had announced "CM:Shock Force, Abrams and Badleys invade Syria" they would've got the immmediate response "Why those old Cold War weapons systems? Where's my Stryker Brigade!" Damned if they do. Damned if they don't. But inclusion of Bradley and Abrams in the game implies we'll still be able to construct Stryker-free scenarios. I rather expect to see more than a couple "Fulda Gap" style full-up tanks battles with the U.S. defending, though they'd be somewhat inappropriate for this theater. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Herr Oberst Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Originally posted by juan_gigante: They will be, but your basic unit as US will be the Stryker company. As an aside - why isn't the Stryker named after a general of the past? This is the first major combat vehicle I can think of off the top of my head to break with a tradition that I thought was kind of cool. I can see it now... the Schwarzkopf.. or the "Schwarz" for short... Luke, the GI: "OMFG, 1st platoon is taking heavy fire, what should we do?" mysterious voice: use the Schwarz Luke..." (nod to Mel Brooks) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
juan_gigante Posted November 11, 2005 Share Posted November 11, 2005 Would he say "Oh my f*cking god" or "oh em ef gee"? I'm just kind of wondering about your example here. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dillweed Posted November 11, 2005 Author Share Posted November 11, 2005 Prolly the first, unless the kids are swearing in a different way now. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SgtMuhammed Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 The Stryker isn't a tank. Tanks are named for generals, APC's usually aren't named, just a number. Bradley got a name because it has a main gun and is a fighting vehicle not just an infantry taxi. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hagleboz Posted November 12, 2005 Share Posted November 12, 2005 Plus there is the fact that a Stryker brigade is not as overwhelmingly dominant as a force composed of Abrams/Bradleys. Seems like that would be more interesting and challenging game wise, while still giving the player the ability to use armored vehicles. Also the fact that there are so many variations of the Stryker that players can experiment with in different types of scenarios both offensive and defensively. I think it sounds really interesting and the decision to use Strykers seems sound to me. 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.