Demo delayed because of beta-tester hack? is this true?

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Now, this approach...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This means that there could be a soldier running around in the game with YOUR name on it, e.g. Sgt. Ima Winner, as part of the US forces

...gives rise to some concern.

First, it is unclear if real person names are used, or their nicks.</font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Sammy_Davis_Jnr:

Hof are you still looking to get cheaps shots in that this is an RTS game

Sammy Davies Junior,

au contraire.

You are, as usual, totally clueless.

So totally clueless it brings tears to my eyes.

The problem is not the real-time nature of the game, but the kind of dimbulb folks that such a game tends to attract.

You still havent realized that I have never been part of the turn-based vs. real-time fight. In fact, I am, have always been, in favor of real time, having come from the CC genre and enjoying the hell out of both CC and CM.

I am content with ToW being turn-based or real time.

I do however resent the type of rob1/CPT Stransky(to avoid anybody calling out any member still active or even present in this thread) - type people which a real-time startegy game unfortunately tends to attract, the extent of their knowledge and intellect, and their behavior, for which the term "RTS crowd" is a very euphematic and polite expression IMO.

I will not get into details about the characteristics of said group beause an honest description of their intellectual capabilities would definitely break board rules.

Originally posted by Sammy_Davis_Jnr:

Hof i have a challenge for you. I want you to write a post that is positive about the game which includes the same enthusiam and care that you show in tearing it down.

If you are able to read and use the SEARCH function I would kindly invite you to do so.

You will, however, realize that my contributuions are - in contrast to the spittle-licking syccophant raa-raa support other people tend to give - rather light on the back-patting and more substantial in the constructive criticism / content-contributing part. Take my very first post to this sub-board, for example.

I invite you to do similar. Just repeating a common chant of "This game will r0xx0r5 !11!!" has so far not really contributed to, much less improved any game so far.

Originally posted by Sammy_Davis_Jnr:

"I criticize by creation - not by finding fault." - Cicero (106-43 B.C.)

(psst- Cicero didnt speak 21st century English - your lack of Latinum is showing.)

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Prince of Eckmühl:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Jev.Dk:

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

We have a forum naughty word policy? Oh crap!

Madmatt

Burn Him!! Burn Him! </font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Kartboy6:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

the shown vehicle does not exist, did never exist.

yours sincerely,

M.H.

That vehicle existed (Renault F-17) and it was used in several battles. If you need books or links to show that you are mistaken please ask me. Cheers. </font>

[PseudoSimonds]

Do you really have to be such an ass about it? Shouldn't it be enough that you can dazzle everyone with your intimate knowledge of WWII track link counts, without being so damned condescending?

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Now, this approach...

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />This means that there could be a soldier running around in the game with YOUR name on it, e.g. Sgt. Ima Winner, as part of the US forces

...gives rise to some concern.

First, it is unclear if real person names are used, or their nicks.</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Both in CC and CM, historical names were chosen. For CMBO, IIRC, Fionn took upon himself the task or at least helped to find authentic names.

And yet, not only is your name included, but so are those of the developers and testers (ie Faller, Biermann, etc.) so you are clearly completely wrong about this and simply tilting at windmills.

[Michael Dorosh]

Incidentally, track length is variable on vehicles depending on the desired tension; there is no "magic number" of links and they can be added or subtracted as necessary. A variance of 4 would be unusual, but would not change the designation of the vehicle. In fact, track types have never affected the designation of vehicles - Canadian Dry Pin track does not transform an M4A1 Sherman in to a Grizzly, for example.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

Do you really have to be such an ass about it? Shouldn't it be enough that you can dazzle everyone with your intimate knowledge of WWII track link counts, without being so damned condescending?

On behalf of 'Hoff', <font size="6">YES.</font> He has to be such an ass.

[VicKevlar]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

Do you really have to be such an ass about it? Shouldn't it be enough that you can dazzle everyone with your intimate knowledge of WWII track link counts, without being so damned condescending?

Definitely.....he's a lawyer.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Incidentally, track length is variable on vehicles depending on the desired tension; there is no "magic number" of links and they can be added or subtracted as necessary. A variance of 4 would be unusual, but would not change the designation of the vehicle. In fact, track types have never affected the designation of vehicles - Canadian Dry Pin track does not transform an M4A1 Sherman in to a Grizzly, for example.

Dorosh, just stop. Stop digging.

All youre gonna get yourself regarding this issue will be yet another bloody nose just like with the kill rings.

you wont find that vehicle with 36 links, and your theory about tracklinks and suspension just doesnt apply there.

I want to see you add another four links to said vehicle and drive it. good luck.

So just drop it to keep a minimum of self-respect.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Both in CC and CM, historical names were chosen. For CMBO, IIRC, Fionn took upon himself the task or at least helped to find authentic names.

And yet, not only is your name included, but so are those of the developers and testers (ie Faller, Biermann, etc.) so you are clearly completely wrong about this and simply tilting at windmills. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by PseudoSimonds:

Do you really have to be such an ass about it? Shouldn't it be enough that you can dazzle everyone with your intimate knowledge of WWII track link counts, without being so damned condescending?

principiis obsta.

(or Giuliano's "zero tolerance" for the latin-challenged)

I do not have "intimate klnowledge of WW II track links", like I said, I am by default not interested in armor and not an armor expert.

And I wouldnt have noticed if it were, say, 124 instead of 118 on any given vehicle.

but since the tracks are so very characteristic for *this* very tank in question, it is a glaring error that anybody who knows the real thing will immediately notice, because it gives the tracks and hence the vehicle a very different look.

It was that difference in look that immediately jumped at me, the tracks just didnt seem right, they were not the large clumsy plates so typical for that tank. They seemd rather, uh, small-flexible, they looked completely different. At prima facie I thought they might be too thin or somefink, they just didnt seem right.

either way, I was not being an ass about it, I merely had to explain again because there are people who just didnt get it and in turn accused me of not knowing what vehicle the pic is about. otherwise I would have let the issue rest.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

Both in CC and CM, historical names were chosen. For CMBO, IIRC, Fionn took upon himself the task or at least helped to find authentic names.

And yet, not only is your name included, but so are those of the developers and testers (ie Faller, Biermann, etc.) so you are clearly completely wrong about this and simply tilting at windmills. </font>

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Incidentally, track length is variable on vehicles depending on the desired tension; there is no "magic number" of links and they can be added or subtracted as necessary. A variance of 4 would be unusual, but would not change the designation of the vehicle. In fact, track types have never affected the designation of vehicles - Canadian Dry Pin track does not transform an M4A1 Sherman in to a Grizzly, for example.

Dorosh, just stop. Stop digging.

All youre gonna get yourself regarding this issue will be yet another bloody nose just like with the kill rings.

you wont find that vehicle with 36 links, and your theory about tracklinks and suspension just doesnt apply there.

I want to see you add another four links to said vehicle and drive it. good luck.

So just drop it to keep a minimum of self-respect. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

They're not historical,

these names are historical / authentic because back in WW II those were typical german names. Such a name would be representative for a run-of-the-mill german soldier.

[Sergei]

Untypical names are historical.

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Incidentally, track length is variable on vehicles depending on the desired tension; there is no "magic number" of links and they can be added or subtracted as necessary. A variance of 4 would be unusual, but would not change the designation of the vehicle. In fact, track types have never affected the designation of vehicles - Canadian Dry Pin track does not transform an M4A1 Sherman in to a Grizzly, for example.

Dorosh, just stop. Stop digging.

All youre gonna get yourself regarding this issue will be yet another bloody nose just like with the kill rings.

you wont find that vehicle with 36 links, and your theory about tracklinks and suspension just doesnt apply there.

I want to see you add another four links to said vehicle and drive it. good luck.

So just drop it to keep a minimum of self-respect. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

Originally posted by Sergei:

Untypical names are historical.

I invite you to switch the name files for russian and american soldiers.

If you dont - ask yourself why you do not.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

in your opinion, if someone took a BMW 320i, modified it and put 6 weheels onto it, you would still call it a BMW 320i?

if the tank in question suddenly had two turrets, you would still call it (that tank) ?

You are comparing the amount of wheels or turrets to the amount of track links? You're ridiculous. Congratulations.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by Sergei:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

in your opinion, if someone took a BMW 320i, modified it and put 6 weheels onto it, you would still call it a BMW 320i?

if the tank in question suddenly had two turrets, you would still call it (that tank) ?

You are comparing the amount of wheels or turrets to the amount of track links? You're ridiculous. Congratulations. </font>

[M Hofbauer]

If the looks of the tracks are part of the characteristic look of a vehicle just like turrets or wheels for other vehicles, then yes, that is comparable.

[Michael Dorosh]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

finally, being inane about canadian shoulder patches is ok but not about other country's equipment?

How many books have you published - rather, how many people have paid you money to read what you've written on the subject of track links?

[Sergei]

Originally posted by M Hofbauer:

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

Untypical names are historical.

I invite you to switch the name files for russian and american soldiers.</font>

[Michael Dorosh]

There actually was a Dorosh killed in action with the Canadian Army in Italy. It could just as easily be a surname in the US Army, or for that matter, the German (plenty of Germans living in the Ukraine) or Soviet.

*shrug*