True. Or semi true. There is no Tea Party as there is a Democratic or Republican Party. But it has gone past just Tea Parties. There are now "Tea Party candidates" but the Tea Party idea is so nebulous that even that definition of a candidate can mean many things.
I have not yet seen it "in action" personally, since I am still setting up my new computer, but it looks pretty good on development screenshots.
There was also a screen shot of 10 AFVs a few posts before the water comments. The posts seem to just be very light bones. Nothing meant to be Earth shattering or too revealing.
The first thing I am installing is the LaTeX environment so that I can continue working on my CM:N Beta Guide. Obvious, really!
I wouldn't have expected more than that. Things like name announcement and more game details are something I would expect in a full blown announcement. Or possibly another sticky bone thread. Something mentioned on the 15th page of a thread will rarely be a huge reveal.Looking through that "safe to say" thread there's a whole lot of nothing going on with a teeny bit of something sprinkled in. Still no date, not title, one shot of a bunch of Shermans, and a claim that it would have been ready when they said except there was more stuff they wanted to add.
But Steve has shown evidence of learning behavior in one area: he has not mentioned any new dates. Amazing.
-dale
I wouldn't be surprised. Steve says a lot of things. And it might've even been true at the time. The only thing I remember is a post within the last year or so where he assured us that it WASN'T going to be called CM:Normandy, or something.
Elmar has demonstrated no expertise that I am aware of other than looking stuff up on Wikipedia.
Ammunition stowage was responsible for increased fires; it wasn't just the number of fires, it was the rapidity with which they started to burn - within seconds of being hit. This is the reason the extra armour plate were added externally to the hulls over the stowage bins. It's discussed in detail by George Forty in his numerous books on the Sherman. See M4 Sherman (ISBN 0-71237-1678-9), p.53 for a start.
opc1:http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93241&page=15
Ah, hence "such" expertise. Yes, it's sad. If him and Emrys are the best that the board has to offer, it's truly unfortunate, but I suppose all that is left from the "old days." Might pick up a bit on release. Until then, newcomers have to put up with their semi-informed babble.
Seems like there must be another game on the loose....
The official name is different. It seems Steve is using the generic name that we have all been using in this post. I wouldn't bother reading more intoo it than that.
The new thread doesn't reference this quote, so I'll respond about it here:
I believe the gist of what you are saying is what Elmar meant with his post.
Are you kidding? He said he thought the tendancy of early Shermans to burn more than their contemporaries is bunk.
