So, who's disappointed?

[Efraim]

I wont buy this game.

I could have understood (and probably enjoyed) a israeli/arab setting (two o'clock war, yom kippur, golan), but hypothetical settings make me vomit. Besides I have played US-forces in CMAK and CMBO occasionally, and I have nothing against it, occasionally, but to be COMPELLED to play US forces (against rag-tag syrians?) is something I cannot really enjoy. Especially in the current geopolitical climate.

I fear that instead of giving players more options, Battlefront is -apparently- now LIMITING options.

I'll wait for the WWII version, but I still wont buy it if I'm compelled to play only U.S. military.

[Martin Krejcirik]

Originally posted by phil102:

I would find it objectionable to play a game based on events which simulate very very closely the events currently going on in Iraq.

Why ? No offense, I'd really like to know. What would be the problem playing scenarios from OIF 2003, there are plenty of books about it...

[dalem]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

i.e.: everyone i know is happy, that the US are bleeding that much in Iraq. Most people i know, have big respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters. All people i know were happy that hurricane Katrina hit the USA and not another country (me included).

Hey, go give 'em a poke in the snoot for me then.

-dale

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Efraim:

I fear that instead of giving players more options, Battlefront is -apparently- now LIMITING options.

Well, duh? I might be mistaken... No actually I'm not. BFC have been saying that they are going to do it this way for months.

I'll wait for the WWII version, but I still wont buy it if I'm compelled to play only U.S. military.

You are aware of how the whole module concept works, aren't you?

In the case that you decided not to read all the info that's been posted before mouthing off, perhaps you'd like to investigate this thread. If you don't care for that, I'll cover it briefly.

Combat Mission: Shock Force and the WW2 title are titles these are the core game engines for each period and approximate location. Once these titles have been released, a number of modules for each will follow. Each module will add new forces to the theatre covered in the title.

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Andreas:

Steiner is just talking about his neo-nazi friends, not about reasonable people who have two braincells to rub together. I would recommend ignoring him.

All the best

Andreas

Usually very good advice vis-a-vis the neo-nazi scum. However were one to ignore a turd in their coffe cup the resulting taste would never-the-less be just as unwelcome and unpleasant.

[McAuliffe]

Very good, excellent choice! I was already afraid that I would not have been able to finish the renovation of my mountain cabin, while it was coinciding with the release of the most fantastic WWII simulation game ever developped. Now I can look forward to some nice winter-evenings, relaxing in front of the fireplace after a day of skiing, instead of waisting my time plotting pixeled GI's through the snowy fields of Bastogne.

[Efraim]

quote (flamingknives)

<hr>

You are aware of how the whole module concept works, aren't you?

In the case that you decided not to read all the info that's been posted before mouthing off, perhaps you'd like to investigate this thread. If you don't care for that, I'll cover it briefly.

Combat Mission: Shock Force and the WW2 title are titles these are the core game engines for each period and approximate location. Once these titles have been released, a number of modules for each will follow. Each module will add new forces to the theatre covered in the title.

<hr>

Wrong. I did read before posting.

I had -and still have- your post notwithstanding, the clear impression that BFC went -and will further go- for a US-centric game.

This is something many europeans here -I'm not alone- probably dislike most: maybe there's not much interest anymore in "pretending to be US" in computer games?

Add to this the fictional choice (gosh: why did'nt they choose at least the israeli/arab wars? I could have swallowed that without problems) and I think you'll also come to the conclusion (or maybe matter of fact) that this Syria project is just a -poor- excuse to present an US/iraq war in a 'politically correct' light. Therefore you'll understand why so many ADMIRERS of battlefront games (and I am one) won't probably buy this game.

I still wish BFC all the best, they did produce CMBB after all. They deserve a LOT of credit, even if they now throw themselves down the cliff.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Dirtweasle:

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

Steiner is just talking about his neo-nazi friends, not about reasonable people who have two braincells to rub together. I would recommend ignoring him.

All the best

Andreas

Usually very good advice vis-a-vis the neo-nazi scum. However were one to ignore a turd in their coffe cup the resulting taste would never-the-less be just as unwelcome and unpleasant. </font>

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Efraim:

This is something many europeans here -I'm not alone- probably dislike most: maybe there's not much interest anymore in "pretending to be US" in computer games?

I don't have a problem with playing as a US commander (but of course it adds to variety if I don't have to play every game with or even against them). But to me, all these military hitech gadgets from Tom Clancy novels just aren't very interesting. I don't feel connected to that kind of warfare in any sort of way. I like WW2 flight simulations because they don't have complex radar modes, long range missiles, ECM's and all that stuff, just easily understandable mechanisms. The same with ground equipment. It is easier to feel connection to technology similar to what I used in the infantry or have seen in films.

So, I wouldn't mind playing as the US in 1943, 1967 or 1985. But in 2007 I'd rather have Kirgizhstan vs. Kazahstan. Ultimately, however, I am interested in the dynamique of WW2 battles.

[Copper]

I was hoping for World War 2 as a start. Working throught all the fronts then...modern warfare.

[dangerousdave]

Originally posted by Copper:

I was hoping for World War 2 as a start. Working throught all the fronts then...modern warfare.

I was of the same mind before the announcement. But I have to say, this looks really cool. Check out the stuff in This Thread, including the links on the Stryker. This is going to kick ass. Has BF ever let you down in terms of game delivery?

Also, this way, when they get to WWII, it'll be that much better. Compare CMAK to CMBO.

It's all good.

[GJK]

Originally posted by dangerousdave:

Can you say "T-72 Balkans on Fire"?

[Dirtweasle]

Originally posted by Andreas:

...My point was aimed at roq - people with Steiner's mindset are not worth talking with, but commenting about their idiotic statements is a necessary evil, in my view, as a self-defense mechanism of a board such as this.

All the best

Andreas

Yep.

[Other Means]

Disappointed? Put me down somewhere between gutted and really bloody pig sick.

[dangerousdave]

Originally posted by GJK:

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

Can you say "T-72 Balkans on Fire"? </font>

I haven't played that, but BF is just publishing it, right? They didn't build it, as far as I know.

My initial reaction when I saw this was, "CRAP!" to put it diplomatically. But the more I've read about it, and thought about the idea, the more I like it. I bet you'll play the demo and like it.

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Efraim:

Wrong. I did read before posting.

Very good. But did you understand?

I had -and still have- your post notwithstanding, the clear impression that BFC went -and will further go- for a US-centric game.

Where do you get this impression from? I'm sure each module will be *insert relevant nation here*-centric

This is something many europeans here -I'm not alone- probably dislike most: maybe there's not much interest anymore in "pretending to be US" in computer games?

Add to this the fictional choice (gosh: why did'nt they choose at least the israeli/arab wars? I could have swallowed that without problems) and I think you'll also come to the conclusion (or maybe matter of fact) that this Syria project is just a -poor- excuse to present an US/iraq war in a 'politically correct' light.

I might, but then again I might not care. I'll play it for the tactical challenge since refighting Iraq doesn't seem any worse than refighting World War 2, which was orders of magnitude more bloody on all sides.

Therefore you'll understand why so many ADMIRERS of battlefront games (and I am one) won't probably buy this game.

I still wish BFC all the best, they did produce CMBB after all. They deserve a LOT of credit, even if they now throw themselves down the cliff.

No I don't understand it that way. What I do understand is that BFC has done something that doesn't co-incide exactly with what you want, so you've thrown your dummy from the pram. If you don't like it, don't buy it. I'm sure that the fresh blood BFC get in will more than compensate for you - they're certainly not 'throwing themselves off a cliff'

You'll be back for the other nations' modules in the WW2 title, if nothing else.

Nyah.

[SturmSebber]

In short:

*I don't like the "us-only" option. What i liked about CM was the ability to play all nations.

*Fictional is less interesting than real history.Why not use any of the Israeli wars as a subject? Why a fictional scenario?

*I'm already fed up by seeing death Iraqi's and attacking arab terrorists every day on the news.

*I don't have a keen interest in the Arab states, and the last CM already covered a desert war. (yaaawn)

* I'm NOT going to buy it, or upgrade my video card for this game.

[Sirocco]

You know, whatever subject matter BFC had chosen for the first game, opinion would have been divided. That has to be expected. But the decision has been made and those of us who aren't overwhelmed with it will have to grow to like it, or look elsewhere until the second game. I just hope that won't be quite as narrowly focussed as this one.

[V]

Originally posted by SturmSebber:

[QB]

*Fictional is less interesting than real history.Why not use any of the Israeli wars as a subject? Why a fictional scenario?

Steve said they chose a near future fictional war for the first game becase the warfare is much more complex now than it ever has been and they want to make sure they cover all of their bases.

[Tero]

Originally posted by SturmSebber:

*I don't like the "us-only" option. What i liked about CM was the ability to play all nations.

What is more, there are simply too many FPS games around which echo the same or similar subject matter.

*Fictional is less interesting than real history.Why not use any of the Israeli wars as a subject? Why a fictional scenario?

Indeed. If you choose a fictional setting why not simply have generic blue and red as OPFOR in a specific terrain setting ?

Why set the date and sides so that "best before" date makes sure the sale of the product will be limited.......

[roqf77]

i dont have a problem with syria, or near future.

It's not even the fact we have to "pretend" to be americans.

It's just previous cm games, allowed 3+ sides with different equipment balances.

This allowed for alot of replayability, different tactic styles, doubley so in cmbb and cmak if you consider the long time frames.

This is my problem wity cmfs, but to blame battlefront for not doing something exactly as i liked?

No.........

I couldnt care less if it were 2009 falklands war 2 The junta strikes back.

Its a modern warfare sim, and 90% of my games were tcp/ip or quick battles.

I mean there's only a certain number of times you can play through the single player campaign anyway.

i can understand people like me who are worried about the lack of units.

But there will be modules, there's the ability to do red on red and blue on blue.

Im sure this will be expanded, so if mr neo nazi man wants to do germany v the us he may just well be able to.

It's just a matter of time, a module wont be much good if im bored of the game by the time it comes out.

P.S

Andreas your right to say what you have about neo nazi boy, i only responded like that because its the politist thing i could bring myself to say.

(i have familiy in lousiana who dont live to far from new orleans, so it was a bit personly)

Put it this way, if i could find outwhere he lived he would have already had a personal visit, to tell him face to face how upset with him i was.

Of course thats if i could get passed his fuhrer force field.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

Originally posted by Steiner14:

Big disappointment.

1. US-centric view. Maybe i could live with the modern-warfare setting, if it is fun and really works.

But what i can't stand, is the US-propaganda-view. Everytime i switch on the TV, i could go mad, about all the lies, US, the West and the NATO.

Don't want to go into detail. I will definately not buy such a setting.

2. The story: sorry, but Syria is one of the most hatred countries by Israel. The jews will do everything, to throw it down. And that means, USrael will fight and bleed for it...

So to me this setting, that the ZOGs (US, NATO) would fight for one of the last really free and independent countries, is simply ridiculous.

An invasion in Syria to install a ZOG, that could be a realistic setting.

3. For the second game, it is only mentioned, that the campaign could be played from US-side. :eek:

I guess BFC underestimates the attractivity of the german side and overestimates the attractivity of the US-side by far.

BTW: BFC should NOT calculate, a module with British and German troops, in a near-east-setting will sell well. The oposition in Europe against the US is big and in Germany it is HUGE.

i.e.: everyone i know is happy, that the US are bleeding that much in Iraq. Most people i know, have big respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters. All people i know were happy that hurricane Katrina hit the USA and not another country (me included).

Only to give BFC a feeling about the potential attractivity of such a setting...

:mad:

You realy dare to call yourself a German??? You a..f...k. You better never cross my way, Freundchen. Racism and antisemitism has no place in Germany, and it never seriously had before this dick from Austria turned Germany in a dictatorship.

Hitler was no German, and Third Reich is not Germany. Ever tried to build something up for Deutschland, for your country? Do something senseful except shaving your head!

[Von Lewis]

Its only a GAME!!!!!If you have no interest in the content of the first game, dont buy it. Some of you people really need to get out more.

[Soddball]

Originally posted by Sirocco:

You know, whatever subject matter BFC had chosen for the first game, opinion would have been divided. That has to be expected. But the decision has been made and those of us who aren't overwhelmed with it will have to grow to like it, or look elsewhere until the second game. I just hope that won't be quite as narrowly focussed as this one.

It certainly would have been divided. If they'd announced CM: Normandy (with other NWE modules to follow) the ETO lot would have grumbled a bit but probably still bought it.

I think this division is slightly different though. The US gung-ho crowd (Abbott, DaleM et al) think it's great. The modern military fanboyz (Flamingpicky) and the ex-servicepeople are excited. But if you don't fit into that category, or if you find the prospect of playing an aggressive USA invading yet another Muslim country to 'spread liberative freedom because God told me to, oh and to get some WMDs', then your immediate reaction is 'yuk'.

Maybe it'll be great. Maybe the demo will wow the nonbelievers. Maybe they'll just wait for the WW2 release, though.

[Other Means]

Originally posted by Soddball:

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

You know, whatever subject matter BFC had chosen for the first game, opinion would have been divided. That has to be expected. But the decision has been made and those of us who aren't overwhelmed with it will have to grow to like it, or look elsewhere until the second game. I just hope that won't be quite as narrowly focussed as this one.

It certainly would have been divided. If they'd announced CM: Normandy (with other NWE modules to follow) the ETO lot would have grumbled a bit but probably still bought it.

I think this division is slightly different though. The US gung-ho crowd (Abbott, DaleM et al) think it's great. The modern military fanboyz (Flamingpicky) and the ex-servicepeople are excited. But if you don't fit into that category, or if you find the prospect of playing an aggressive USA invading yet another Muslim country to 'spread liberative freedom because God told me to, oh and to get some WMDs', then your immediate reaction is 'yuk'.

Maybe it'll be great. Maybe the demo will wow the nonbelievers. Maybe they'll just wait for the WW2 release, though. </font>