Brothers in Arms gone gold

[sleepy]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Sleepy wrote:
> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>
>

Any word on a possible release date for a demo?


--
best regards, mat
np: xtc - making plans for nigel

www.pdxshows.net

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2

Any reviews yet?
--
Grumps

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:48:48 -0000, "Grumpycrab"
<Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote:

>> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>
>Any reviews yet?

I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:44:57 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:

>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:48:48 -0000, "Grumpycrab"
><Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>>
>>Any reviews yet?
>
>I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
>am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.

Possibly will but the shots I have seen seem promising. I'm especially
interested in seeing if the iron sights view has been well implemented.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Memnoch schrieb:
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:44:57 +0000, Andrew <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote:
>
>
>>On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:48:48 -0000, "Grumpycrab"
>><Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>>>
>>>Any reviews yet?
>>
>>I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
>>am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.
>
>
> Possibly will but the shots I have seen seem promising. I'm especially
> interested in seeing if the iron sights view has been well implemented.

Im worry about the online part. I will wait for reviews.
Maybe I will buy CoD Deluxe for online gaming. I had the orig. CoD
and it was fun on full real servers.


Michael

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

>
> >> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
> >
> >Any reviews yet?
>
> I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
> am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.

I noticed in the 'suppression' movie the two Germans were bobbing behind
their cover in sync......was mildly amusing and disturbing at the same
time.......I will wait fr a demo and see if they have any more
choreographed moves....

Stephen

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:43:31 GMT, "Stephen Robinson"
<sterob@bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote:

>
>>
>> >> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>> >
>> >Any reviews yet?
>>
>> I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
>> am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.
>
>I noticed in the 'suppression' movie the two Germans were bobbing behind
>their cover in sync......was mildly amusing and disturbing at the same
>time.......I will wait fr a demo and see if they have any more
>choreographed moves....

I imagine it will be chock full of set pieces like that.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:smq021h351467cnf9275nce4s8dllo6dcj@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:43:31 GMT, "Stephen Robinson"
> <sterob@bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> >> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>>> >
>>> >Any reviews yet?
>>>
>>> I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
>>> am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.
>>
>>I noticed in the 'suppression' movie the two Germans were bobbing behind
>>their cover in sync......was mildly amusing and disturbing at the same
>>time.......I will wait fr a demo and see if they have any more
>>choreographed moves....
>
> I imagine it will be chock full of set pieces like that.

It never happens in any other PC games. (rolling eyes)

Jonah Falcon

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> >>
> >>>
> >>> >> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
> >>> >
> >>> >Any reviews yet?
> >>>
> >>> I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
> >>> am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.
> >>
> >>I noticed in the 'suppression' movie the two Germans were bobbing
behind
> >>their cover in sync......was mildly amusing and disturbing at the same
> >>time.......I will wait fr a demo and see if they have any more
> >>choreographed moves....
> >
> > I imagine it will be chock full of set pieces like that.
>
> It never happens in any other PC games. (rolling eyes)
>
> Jonah Falcon
>
>It's gotta stop sooner or later..............................Doesn't
it?........

Stephen

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Andrew" <spamtrap@localhost.> wrote in message
newsesu11l32st2j0fhi27n9l5peguhoen4lv@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 25 Feb 2005 18:48:48 -0000, "Grumpycrab"
> <Grumpycrab@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>>
>>Any reviews yet?
>
> I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
> am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.

I just watched the 15 minute demo movie that gamespot has. Looks like an
incredible game. Sort of "Call of Duty" but with more tactics and more
'sim' elements to it.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 22:19:13 GMT, "Jonah Falcon" <jonahnynla@mindspring.com>
wrote:

>
>"Memnoch" <memnoch@nospampleaseimbritish.ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>news:smq021h351467cnf9275nce4s8dllo6dcj@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 26 Feb 2005 05:43:31 GMT, "Stephen Robinson"
>> <sterob@bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> >> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>>>> >
>>>> >Any reviews yet?
>>>>
>>>> I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
>>>> am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.
>>>
>>>I noticed in the 'suppression' movie the two Germans were bobbing behind
>>>their cover in sync......was mildly amusing and disturbing at the same
>>>time.......I will wait fr a demo and see if they have any more
>>>choreographed moves....
>>
>> I imagine it will be chock full of set pieces like that.
>
>It never happens in any other PC games. (rolling eyes)

Ain't that the truth. Fun as they can be the first time you play, and may fool
you into thinking the enemy AI is really clever, second time through you see
it for what it is.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 07:48:04 GMT, "Stephen Robinson"
<sterob@bigpond.net.au.nospam> wrote:

>
>
>> >>
>> >>>
>> >>> >> due in March on Xbox then PC and PS2
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Any reviews yet?
>> >>>
>> >>> I am waiting for the demo myself, after watching some of the movies, I
>> >>> am a bit worried it will suffer from consolitis.
>> >>
>> >>I noticed in the 'suppression' movie the two Germans were bobbing
>behind
>> >>their cover in sync......was mildly amusing and disturbing at the same
>> >>time.......I will wait fr a demo and see if they have any more
>> >>choreographed moves....
>> >
>> > I imagine it will be chock full of set pieces like that.
>>
>> It never happens in any other PC games. (rolling eyes)
>>
>> Jonah Falcon
>>
>>It's gotta stop sooner or later..............................Doesn't
>it?........

I doubt it. Lets the developers get away with not having to use real AI
routines. Problem is the clever gamer can sometimes get around these and
effectively break the scripting, if the programmers allow them to do it of
course.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Where's the Panzer? At the official site, it shows a Sherman but no
Panzer. That seems odd. The German tanks were far superior to
America's, so maybe that's it?

Also, I'd like to see the real 'Sgt. Baker', since this is based
(probably loosely) on a true story. Reason being, 'Sgt. Baker' is
almost portrayed as being a Mexican -- which he wasn't. He was actually
of German ancestry. (from Missouri) Of course, that doesn't surprise me
in a country where 'Missy Elliot' has her own show, but Star Trek is
cancelled for lack of an audience. I'm going to generalize here because
it makes sense. By and large, America has become a land of imbeciles.

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1109840975.740348.120110@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> Where's the Panzer? At the official site, it shows a Sherman but no
> Panzer. That seems odd. The German tanks were far superior to
> America's, so maybe that's it?

The panzer is shown in the demo movie at gamespot.com. It totally takes out
the American squad in the movie and ends the game.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> Nonymous wrote:
>
> The panzer is shown in the demo movie at gamespot.com. It totally
takes out
> the American squad in the movie and ends the game.

I've seen no evidence that you can command a Panzer tank in
multiplayer. It even states you can't drive a Sherman tank during
single-player -- only command one.

Seems to me they made a big mistake there. They would've been hugely
popular in multiplayer. It's part of what made Battlefield 1942 stand
out.

Frankly, I'm tired of the excessive glorification of American soldiers.
Most of whom just wanted to go home. They weren't politicians, and they
weren't any more intelligent than the German soldiers. (the opposite,
in fact, on average) In addition, German soldiers are portrayed as
being diabolical, whereas Soviet soldiers are innocent little chaps.
This, when Soviet soldiers made Germans look like kids, in terms of
brutality. They were known for their lack of discipline, barbarism, and
routine raping of women -- throughout Eastern Europe and Germany. They
were the worst soldiers on the war.

British and American soldiers had a 99.1% survival rate in German
captivity. Cut that in half, and you have the rate of death of German
POWs in Allied captivity.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

> Andrew wrote:
> On 5 Mar 2005 16:52:07 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >I've seen no evidence that you can command a Panzer tank in
> >multiplayer. It even states you can't drive a Sherman tank during
> >single-player -- only command one.
>
> I could be totally wrong here as I am not an expert on military
> history, but isn't this game about an infantry unit, and I don't
think
> that infantry units spend a lot of time in tanks.


I've no problem with little use of tanks in the single-player campaign.
(although they were part and parcel of warfare during that time, in
every theatre) I speak of multiplayer. In the listing of vehicles, it
lists a Sherman but not a Panzer. However, it lists other Axis weapons,
and a couple vehicles. I find it curious they would have no Panzer in
multiplayer, but feature a Sherman tank, which was considered among the
worst tanks of the entire war.
(http://www.brothersinarmsgame.com/us/weapons.php)

Like I said, perhaps they don't want to show people just how miserable
the Sherman tanks really were. By excluding any competetion, and
against only infantry, the Sherman tank will look rather intimidating.
A rather pathetic move by Gearbox.

 

[Andrew]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

On 5 Mar 2005 16:52:07 -0800, "aether" <vercingetorix@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I've seen no evidence that you can command a Panzer tank in
>multiplayer. It even states you can't drive a Sherman tank during
>single-player -- only command one.

I could be totally wrong here as I am not an expert on military
history, but isn't this game about an infantry unit, and I don't think
that infantry units spend a lot of time in tanks.
--
Andrew, contact via interpleb.blogspot.com
Help make Usenet a better place: English is read downwards,
please don't top post. Trim replies to quote only relevant text.
Check groups.google.com before asking an obvious question.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

aether wrote:
>
> I've no problem with little use of tanks in the single-player campaign.
> (although they were part and parcel of warfare during that time, in
> every theatre) I speak of multiplayer. In the listing of vehicles, it
> lists a Sherman but not a Panzer. However, it lists other Axis weapons,
> and a couple vehicles. I find it curious they would have no Panzer in
> multiplayer, but feature a Sherman tank, which was considered among the
> worst tanks of the entire war.

Nonsense! When Shermans first took the field in North Africa in 1942,
with British armored formations, they were superior to anything the
Germans then had in Africa. During that period, the German Mk.IV
mounted the short-barreled 75mm L/24 gun which was markedly inferior
to the 75mm L/40 Sherman gun, and Shermans also had thicker armor than
the German tanks they met during that period. It was only later, in
1943 and 44, when the Germans thickened the armor and up-gunned the
Mk.IVs that they became better than the early Shermans. Clearly, the
Panther and Tiger series were far superior in armor and firepower to
the Sherman, however the Germans had far more Mk.IVs than they had
Panthers and Tigers. By no stretch could the Sherman be designated
"one of the worst tanks of the entire war." That's just ridiculous.

> (http://www.brothersinarmsgame.com/us/weapons.php)
>
> Like I said, perhaps they don't want to show people just how miserable
> the Sherman tanks really were. By excluding any competetion, and
> against only infantry, the Sherman tank will look rather intimidating.
> A rather pathetic move by Gearbox.

US Army pre-war doctrine stipulated that tanks were to be *infantry*
fighting vehicles. The function of the Armored Force (tanks) was to
support infantry attacks, not to engage enemy armor; that was the job
of the Tank Destroyer Force, who were issued their own specialized
vehicles. Thus the first marks of the Sherman had a gun with a much
better HE round than AP, and the tank destroyers were fitted with the
higher muzzle-velocity cannon more suited for the anti-tank role.
There were fierce advocates for both tanks and tank destroyers in the
US Army at the time, and their arguments were not resolved until
experience in France in 1944 amply demonstrated that tanks too, needed
to be able to successfully engage enemy armor. However, US mass
production methods had already delivered thousands of under-gunned,
under-armored Shermans to the Army. A crash program was thus begun to
add applique armor to the Sherman's most vulnerable areas, and to
improve gun performance. By 1945, up-gunned Shermans were just as
good as the German Mk.IVs of the period, though they were never a
match for the Panthers or Tigers; though to be fair, those were much
heavier tanks than the Sherman. The US Army's answer to them was the
M-26 Pershing which unfortunately didn't arrive in Europe until very
late in the war. All in all, while certainly not the greatest tank of
the war, the Sherman should be classed as 'very good' at doing what it
was designed to do.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

The Sherman wasn''t nicknamed 'Ronsons' and 'Tommie Cooker' for
nothing. This game is set in June of '44, at Normandy. At this time,
the Allies most definitely would've encountered Tiger tanks. I haven't
played the game, but I see no evidence that you can command a Panzer
tank. I simply find that rather curious.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

aether wrote:
> The Sherman wasn''t nicknamed 'Ronsons' and 'Tommie Cooker' for
> nothing. This game is set in June of '44, at Normandy. At this time,
> the Allies most definitely would've encountered Tiger tanks. I haven't
> played the game, but I see no evidence that you can command a Panzer
> tank. I simply find that rather curious.


The Tigers were heavy tanks, superior to *every* nation's medium tanks
in both firepower and armor protection. Just because Shermans were no
match for a heavy tank is no reason to characterize them as "among the
worst tanks of the entire war."

As for the game developer's decision, isn't Brothers in Arms based on
an American unit?

 

[Nonymous]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

"Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:112n79rcmv1kh0a@corp.supernews.com...
> aether wrote:
>> The Sherman wasn''t nicknamed 'Ronsons' and 'Tommie Cooker' for
>> nothing. This game is set in June of '44, at Normandy. At this time,
>> the Allies most definitely would've encountered Tiger tanks. I haven't
>> played the game, but I see no evidence that you can command a Panzer
>> tank. I simply find that rather curious.
>
>
> The Tigers were heavy tanks, superior to *every* nation's medium tanks
> in both firepower and armor protection. Just because Shermans were no
> match for a heavy tank is no reason to characterize them as "among the
> worst tanks of the entire war."

Also, what the Shermans lacked in firepower and armor, they made up for in
maneuverability. A sherman could almost literally run circles around the
Tiger while the Tiger slowly tried to 'get a bead' on the Sherman.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.action (More info?)

Also the Sherman was a much more effective weopon when they installed the
76mm.

"Briarroot" <woodsyl@iwon.com> wrote in message
news:112m5h6jmf9k073@corp.supernews.com...
> aether wrote:
>>
>> I've no problem with little use of tanks in the single-player campaign.
>> (although they were part and parcel of warfare during that time, in
>> every theatre) I speak of multiplayer. In the listing of vehicles, it
>> lists a Sherman but not a Panzer. However, it lists other Axis weapons,
>> and a couple vehicles. I find it curious they would have no Panzer in
>> multiplayer, but feature a Sherman tank, which was considered among the
>> worst tanks of the entire war.
>
> Nonsense! When Shermans first took the field in North Africa in 1942,
> with British armored formations, they were superior to anything the
> Germans then had in Africa. During that period, the German Mk.IV
> mounted the short-barreled 75mm L/24 gun which was markedly inferior
> to the 75mm L/40 Sherman gun, and Shermans also had thicker armor than
> the German tanks they met during that period. It was only later, in
> 1943 and 44, when the Germans thickened the armor and up-gunned the
> Mk.IVs that they became better than the early Shermans. Clearly, the
> Panther and Tiger series were far superior in armor and firepower to
> the Sherman, however the Germans had far more Mk.IVs than they had
> Panthers and Tigers. By no stretch could the Sherman be designated
> "one of the worst tanks of the entire war." That's just ridiculous.
>
>> (http://www.brothersinarmsgame.com/us/weapons.php)
>>
>> Like I said, perhaps they don't want to show people just how miserable
>> the Sherman tanks really were. By excluding any competetion, and
>> against only infantry, the Sherman tank will look rather intimidating.
>> A rather pathetic move by Gearbox.
>
> US Army pre-war doctrine stipulated that tanks were to be *infantry*
> fighting vehicles. The function of the Armored Force (tanks) was to
> support infantry attacks, not to engage enemy armor; that was the job
> of the Tank Destroyer Force, who were issued their own specialized
> vehicles. Thus the first marks of the Sherman had a gun with a much
> better HE round than AP, and the tank destroyers were fitted with the
> higher muzzle-velocity cannon more suited for the anti-tank role.
> There were fierce advocates for both tanks and tank destroyers in the
> US Army at the time, and their arguments were not resolved until
> experience in France in 1944 amply demonstrated that tanks too, needed
> to be able to successfully engage enemy armor. However, US mass
> production methods had already delivered thousands of under-gunned,
> under-armored Shermans to the Army. A crash program was thus begun to
> add applique armor to the Sherman's most vulnerable areas, and to
> improve gun performance. By 1945, up-gunned Shermans were just as
> good as the German Mk.IVs of the period, though they were never a
> match for the Panthers or Tigers; though to be fair, those were much
> heavier tanks than the Sherman. The US Army's answer to them was the
> M-26 Pershing which unfortunately didn't arrive in Europe until very
> late in the war. All in all, while certainly not the greatest tank of
> the war, the Sherman should be classed as 'very good' at doing what it
> was designed to do.