Me entristece que se hayan vendido como perras al vil metal. Pero poderoso caballero es Don Dinero.
Seguire con mi CMBB y mis quickmissions. Y de vez en cuando alguna que otra PBEM.
Fue bonito mientras duró. Aunque yo sigo jugando al Fighting Steel porque no hay nada mejor de la WW2 a nivel naval. Supongo que hare lo mismo con el CMBB/AK, etc.
Me volveré a apuntar al WW2Online, porque a mi no me gusta la guerra actual, a mi me gusta la WW2.
Y atención a lo que dice este contertulio en los foros oficiales...
I am disappointed in the setting although I will reserve the final view on the game until I try the demo.
My "problem" is I have 15 years (ending in late 2003) of service in the US Marine Corps. I have conducted joint training with with both Arab (Egyptian mainly) and former Soviet military personnel. There is just no real comparison between the two and the modern US military.
With a modern hypothetical settings one has the real problem with how does "model" what are known truths today about balance and realism. In the latest couple of "modern" wars where the US was involved they completely overwelmed and destroyed their opponents MILITARILY. There were battles in the first and second Gulf Wars were entire Iraqi regiments and divisions were annilated in HOURS!
Regardless of one's political view the US modern military today can only be effectively countered in training and equipment by its Western allies or perhaps the Russians states or the Chinese. I would be VERY disappointed if the thesis of the game will be that the modern US military with all of its state of the art military assets (M1A2's, arty, CAS, helos) is fighting on "equal" footing with Syrian forces. It just would not happen at anything larger than small units. If it did happen with large units the battles would be in minutes with the outcome predetermined. The Gulf wars and in the war in Afghanistan showed that small forces (as little at 4 man Spec Ops teams) were able to call in ENORMOUS amounts of firepower (arty, CAS, etc) and wipe out whatever they faced however big it was. Are the Syrians suppose to have an effective airforce? What would be the engagement criteria? The US forces stumble unprepared into a Syrian regiment dug-in? Would it be Syrian regiment versus a US infantry company to make it an "balanced" fight considering US ability to call for massive fire within minutes?
The basis for any theoretical engagement would be key. My view is that unless it stays small unit/small map where there is more "balance" because it is infantry-on-infantry and there would be less time to the US to "shape the battlefield" then the "realism" police will start sniffing around and poking holes in the game mechanics.
Anyway, that is my two cents. Fire away.
Marty