Jump to content

So, who's disappointed?


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 326
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I first saw the forum name change/announcement around 30 minutes ago. My initial reaction was disappointment. My more measured reaction after reading many posts is disappointment.

I'm not a big fan of hypothetical settings, I'm not as interested in modern day combat, and the similarities to Iraq make me feel oogy.

That being said, I hope the game is a success (and I believe it will be) so that Battlefront moves on to different settings. I guess I can still think about what an American Civil War, Vietnam, or back to WWII CM game would look and play like.

One thing that IS very gratifiying about CM:SF is that it's NOT Finland 1939 in spite of (because of?) Dorosh's gazillion posts to that effect.

Bring on the demo so that we can finally play this sucker!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dillweed:

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

Feck. Missiles? Abram tanks? Smart bombs? Wha's tha skill? "Lock, Shoot, Go Broncos!!" Didnae tha' tank commander ain Desert Storm sae, "The first clue they had that we were there was when their tanks started exploding!".

Ah'll gi' BFC tha benefit o' tha doubt an' try tha demo, boot at's noo WWII ETO. Ah didnae gi' a toss aboot defeatin' tha Arabs, or drivin' a APC past a roadside bomb.

Will there bae bulldozers sae Ah kin bury tha bastarrds ain their trainches?

I think I agree with you.

FYI:

Generally we speak (type?) English here. </font>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

What disapoints me is all the whiney MFer who bitched and bitched for info/screens and now bitch and bitch about the timeframe and nations involved. Get over it.

Maybe, just maybe, you could just take the chill pill and shut up. If people are whining, well, get over it. It's not like your bickering and abuse is needed by anyone, the least by BFC. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Dillweed:

Somebody missed my point, try reading the whole post next time.

Somebody did. It's just that you can't call people as mother****ers and then claim that let's all be happy-happy without making yourself look like an arrogant arse.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Migo441:

One thing that IS very gratifiying about CM:SF is that it's NOT Finland 1939 in spite of (because of?) Dorosh's gazillion posts to that effect.

Surely to God you're not really that thick...are you? :eek:

That was a deft bit of satire; everytime some joker posted "it HAS TO BE Battle of the Bulge" or "it HAS to be Korea" or Normandy et al ad infinitum, I posted about how it HAS TO BE Finland 1939 to show the bankruptcy of their logic.

History has vindicated me. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the subject of this thread, I for one am definately disappointed with CMx2 cum Styker Force. :(

My fears that CMx2 was really only going to be an improved version of the Close Combat series has come true! :eek:

Even the North West ETO 44-45 WWII second CMx2 release is another bloody US Forces focused game! :rolleyes:

I am boycotting both of them, not buying either, nope... bloody f'ing oath. On principle, I refuse to allow myself to be railroaded from such a multi-national military simulation as CMx1 is to the myopia of U-arSed-Sodomy. :mad:

I'm not displeased with the efforts of the designers in any way, since the screen shoots look terrific, however I understand and appreciate what they have and will be doing for the CMx2 engine and research etc, but I wonder how their OS marketing research went? :confused:

I can't believe that some BFCs expect all us foreigners and the Germanophiles including those in North Anallier to be comfortable having to reduce ourselves to US Forces (and minor Arab Allies AIUI and WTF does anyone want to play them for - including most Arabs to be sure) especially cosidering all the veriety of CMx1. :(

I am discusted on this issue, this is not a case of me primarily US bashing, but a lower gut reaction to this kind of another example of commercial US arrogance and imperialism, I had thought better of them to have disgraced themselves with this myopia. :eek:

I suggest that CMx2 ought to be tagged McCMs until they become more broad in scope and less so full of saturated US greesy fat. :mad:

[ October 08, 2005, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Zalgiris 1410 ]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think i'm not surprised that the game is on the Me. What's really a schock. it's that it is a fictional period. I think something historical would of make a bigger impact. Bfc had done so well implementing reality and fun together that I expected not less but,

I will buy it, since I really like the quality of Bfc games so far.

I look forward to learning on modern tactics and equipment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Sergei:

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

Somebody missed my point, try reading the whole post next time.

Somebody did. It's just that you can't call people as mother****ers and then claim that let's all be happy-happy without making yourself look like an arrogant arse. </font>
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

On the subject of this thread, I for one am definately disappointed with CMx2 cum Styker Force. :(

My fears that CMx2 was really only going to be an improved version of the Close Combat series has come true! :eek:

Even the North West ETO 44-45 WWII second CMx2 release is another bloody US Forces focused game!

I am boycotting both of them, not buying either, nope... bloody f'ing oath. On principle, I refuse to allow myself to be railroaded from such a multi-national military simulation as CMx1 is to the myopia of U-arSed-Sodomy. :mad:

I'm not displeased with the efforts of the designers in any way, since the screen shoots look terrific, however I understand and appreciate what they have and will be doing for the CMx2 engine and research etc, but I wonder how their OS marketing research went? :confused:

I can't believe that some BFCs expect all us foreigners and the Germanophiles including those in North Anallier to be comfortable having to reduce ourselves to US Forces (and minor Arab Allies AIUI and WTF does anyone want to play them for - including most Arabs to be sure) especially cosidering all the veriety of CMx1. :(

I am discusted on this issue, this is not a case of me primarily US bashing, but a lower gut reaction to this kind of another example of commercial US arrogance and imperialism, I had thought better of them to have disgraced themselves with this myopia. :eek:

I suggest that CMx2 ought to be tagged McCMs until they become more broad in scope and less so full of saturated US greesy fat. :mad:

Modules my man, modules.

Plus everyone knows that the US is the best country and everything we do is always right. Its true, you know, because I heard the president say so. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

another example of commercial US arrogance and imperialism, I had thought better of them to have disgraced themselves with this myopia. :eek:

Yes! POWER TO THE PEOPLE! DOWN WITH FACIST GAME DESIGN! RRRRRRRRR! MAKE LOVE NOT BAD PC WAR GAMES! NO BLOOD FOR SILICON CHIPS!!! RRRRRRRRR!

It's only a game man not another invasion....Friggin Americans!

ANYHOOOO.....I am glad they didn't do WWII first. My positive ever optimistic mind says that doing something else first will guarantee the kinks and the like are worked out by the time ETO goodness is back on my Hard Drive. And as Steve stated they can work their way back much easier making a game that is in a modern setting than they could trying to take a game engine in a past setting and trying to modify it to fit a modern war enviorment.

I wasn't even interested in WWII that much till I discovered CM. I wasn't interested in the Ostfront until Barbarossa, nor Italy and Africa till CMAK...so all I can say is I am sure this game will end up getting me into modern warfare like those got me into WWII.

Almost any setting warfare wise, I've come to understand, interests me. Something about warfare. The technologies, equipment, troop make ups...it's just addicting...I rush out, buy books, watch documentaries and surf websites learning all while enteracting using the game as a tool....a learning tool.

So I won't sit here and say it sucks because I realize even if I did I'll probably end up going nuts over it just like I did the previous games.

I would however like to see Nam and Korea and Cold War too....but PULEEEEEASE no ELVES! God, wait till I die first atleast!

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by Zalgiris 1410:

I can't believe that some BFCs expect all us foreigners and the Germanophiles including those in North Anallier to be comfortable having to reduce ourselves to US Forces (and minor Arab Allies AIUI and WTF does anyone want to play them for - including most Arabs to be sure) especially cosidering all the veriety of CMx1. :(

So BFC is forcing you to buy their next game exactly how? And if they are not actually forcing you, then why react so venomously? It is, in the end, just a game, and your CM:BO, :BB, and :AK CDs will still work just fine even after CM:SF comes out.

I am discusted on this issue, this is not a case of me primarily US bashing,

No, of course it's not.

but a lower gut reaction to this kind of another example of commercial US arrogance and imperialism, I had thought better of them to have disgraced themselves with this myopia. :eek:

Righto, commercial U.S. arrogance and imperialism, but no U.S. bashing.

I suggest that CMx2 ought to be tagged McCMs until they become more broad in scope and less so full of saturated US greesy fat. :mad:

I suggest you go write your own WWII game and leave the rest of us to rational discourse.

-dale

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quite disappointed I'am afraid and not only because it's not going to be WWII. Most reasons have already been mentioned (asymmetric force strength, very limited OOB) but I want to add one more:

If you play a future conflict you can't compare the game results with RL. I recall that this was one of the reasons why CM improved so much, especially from CMBO to CMBB. Just remember the heated discussions about MG and bazooka effectiveness.

It doesn't help neither that the CM:SF will be built around what looks like a quite controversial and new weapon system, the Stryker (thanks for the links). It seems that even the US army doesn't know exactly if and when improvements of the amour protection will be apllied but that is of vital importance to the game (can a RPG destroy it or not and under which circumstances? I think the army won't tell BFC).

Reading the links it became quite obvious that more issues are not yet resolved, e.g. the off-road ability. Since the Stryker is not standing on a road it just might be that the soldiers on the screenshot are waiting for a recovery vehicle smile.gif .

Since it is not really clear what a Stryker brigade is capable of, the results of CM:SF will be quite hypothetical. I think that other settings would have avoided that kind of problem (Israel/Egypt, Korea, etc.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by moneymaxx:

It seems that even the US army doesn't know exactly if and when improvements of the amour protection will be apllied but that is of vital importance to the game (can a RPG destroy it or not and under which circumstances? I think the army won't tell BFC).

Actually youd probably be surpsied what info is available on such topics if you look....in some ways its actually easier to find accurate info on modern gear than on certain WW2 weapons and vehicles. For instance we already have documents on exactly the above topic from real world combat situations (from publically available sources too).

Most problems with the Stryker were actually proposed before it went into combat. Its been in combat for about a year now I believe, and crews have been very happy all round with the vehicles capabilities and survivability.

Dan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find rather amusing is that people who, prior to today, thought of us as being so great and so "in tune" with what wargamers really want are all of a sudden doing a 180 on us. So either you've been wrong about us for the last 7 years or you're simply lashing out because you didn't get your way this ONE TIME. I think the record shows more likely the latter is the answer :D

Some of you guys act like we didn't give any of the significant, and real, issues brought up in this thread any consideration before making our decision. What's more, that over the last 2.5 years we never once thought to double check our initial thinking and instead just went blindly forward with some half assed concept that we came up with after a night of binge drinking. Really... how likely is all of that, especially when it is our jobs on the line? Either we are complete and utter morons who accidentally made three of the best wargames ever, or we probably know what we are doing and will (once again) prove that the doubters haven't a clue. My bet is that we know what we're doing.

As stated ad nauseam, there is no single CM customer out there to pitch to, despite what some continue to think. The large number of diehard WWII CMers that are enthusiastically embracing this preliminary news proves that not everybody is a one dimensional gamer. Not that having a singular passion is bad, it is just bad to presume that nobody else's interests are worth a damned. Very selfish, egocentric and disrespectful thinking that is. Perhaps a few of you will take that into account before proving how low a person can sink.

The choice of US centric for the main titles is simply because that is what the vast majority of gamers want. Since sales keep us in business, we can not ignore this fact. And it isn't just because the US market is our major market. If time and money were no concern to us we'd pack everybody and their brother into each game we make. But that is something we can not afford to do, so we must pick and choose. And picking and choosing the most popular choice is the only rational decision to make. You don't have to like it, but not liking it doesn't translate into a viable counter argument.

Having said that, we are VERY interested in including non-US forces in our games. That is one reason we came up with the Module concept. Instead of excluding them altogether and moving onto the next major title, we have built into our development strategy the ability to deliver "niche within niche" products for those who really want to them. We expect the sales to be far less than the major title, but that doesn't bother us any because we've planned it to be that way. One would think players who desire commercially suicidal material would rejoice that someone has built an entire development concept around delivering such products, but of course complainers always overlook minor details like this. It's in their nature and usually even expensive therapy won't help them look at the positive instead of dwelling on the negative. Certainly a Forum like this doesn't have a chance smile.gif

So... expect non-US forces in CM:SF Modules. Expect them for future WWII games as well. Just don't expect us to ignore the majority in favor of the minority. That's the best way to ensure nobody wins since we'll be flipping burgers instead of making games.

Lastly, going with a plausible fictional scenario for modern warfare is really the only thing we could do from a practical standpoint. There is also a tried and true tradition of this in wargaming, such as simulating WWIII that never happened (Warsaw Pact vs. NATO), tactical battles that never occurred (all Quick Battles and most Scenarios), and weapons that were never used (how many of you guys demanded we put in JSIIIs and E-100s? More than a few!). So be careful when you criticize because you are most likely tearing into stuff you already know and love. Plus, we deliberately did NOT go the full fantasy route of FSW (they invented a country even!) or the unbelievable scenario of BF2. What we chose is quite plausible. Hopefully won't happen, but it is the most realistic near future setting I've seen in years. I'd be curious to know of any better.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems that even the US army doesn't know exactly if and when improvements of the amour protection will be apllied but that is of vital importance to the game
Many of those links are very outdated. There is one infamous website out there that is about objective about the Stryker program as KKK member is about the issue of interracial relations. I feel icky everytime I stumble upon that link. You'll know it when you see it if every other paragraph talks about the Gavin being better.

Anyhoo, Stryker Brigades have been in Iraq almost since the beginning of the conflict. Their +/- issues are well known. In fact, there is a great AAR written by one SBCT that pulls no punches about the good and bad points of the vehicle. We'll be modeling the realities, not the theoretical Army info or the Hell bent detractors.

Also keep in mind that the Stryker Brigade is not just a bunch of vehicles driving around. It is the most advanced organic combined arms unit in the entire US military structure. It could be said it is the most advanced in the world, at the very least from a gizmo standpoint. Yet it is not the be-all-end-all battlefield solution. It has its downsides and limitations. You, as the player, will need to figure them out and play up the strengths or you'll get whipped. Same as if you took a platoon of Stuarts and some infantry to clean out a small German held village.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Originally posted by dieseltaylor:

"So take a chill pill and realize you aren't the only foce in the universe and accept the fact that other people should get a shot at something they want to see, not just you." Steve

!!!

Hohum! Its fine by me that BFC get a break from WWII. I am disappointed, and have never had any urge to play modern hypothetical so will be very happy to fill in on Les Grognards for a couple of years.

This is where I fall in on this one.

BF

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My hobby is military history. Not CM per se. I am a big fan of CM1 because it teaches me about military history. But I can take or leave playing a computer game, just because it's a game on my computer.

A pretend invasion of Syria modeling an "asymetrical tactical scenario" (translation: steamroller vs. speed bump) is not compelling to me, at all. Clearly there are plenty of people that think that sort of thing is exciting.

I will definately check out the demo because BFI has such an outstanding record. I will be interested in seeing what kind of engine they come

up with.

But from where I stand military history and wargaming has taken a back seat to mass appeal, especially to the U.S. market. In effect, BFI has effectively decided it can sell more games to friends and fans of the modern U.S. military, than it can to an international audience of military history grogs and wargamers.

Still, I can understand BFI's WW2 burnout and need to generate income. I wish them the best, and I will probably be around when they get around to WW2 again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...