A few questions.

[OrangeFr3ak]

I'm just curious, I read somewhere that CM Afghanistan is no longer being supported/updated. Is this true? I'm interested in getting the CMx2 series but whether CM Afghanistan is updated or not I'd probably buy it anyway. Also, is air support featured? Since in reality the Soviets used Su-25s, MiG-23/27s, Su-17s, Su-24s, Mi-8s and Mi-24s in the conflict, and there's the fact that their opposition employed Stingers. Are these modelled in-game?

[Mord]

I'm just curious, I read somewhere that CM Afghanistan is no longer being supported/updated. Is this true? I'm interested in getting the CMx2 series but whether CM Afghanistan is updated or not I'd probably buy it anyway.

 

CM:A will unfortunately not be updated/upgraded as it's on a much older version of the CMX2 engine. The actual engine upgrade system didn't come into effect until well after CMSF and CM:A were finished being developed. It's old enough that BFC (Snowball actually made it) would have to rebuild it from the ground up, which is what they plan on doing eventually with Shock Force.

 

Actually, it would be a good place to start your CMX2 gaming as you won't have to suffer feature envy like you would if you started with say CMBN and then went backwards and tried an older version of the engine. CM:A is a great game, lots of fun, with a rare setting and has a dark feel to it. As far as I remember the last patch took care of any glaring issue and it's very stable.

 

 

Also, is air support featured? Since in reality the Soviets used Su-25s, MiG-23/27s, Su-17s, Su-24s, Mi-8s and Mi-24s in the conflict, and there's the fact that their opposition employed Stingers. Are these modelled in-game?

 

 

There is air support. The game covers the entire length of the conflict so they'll probably have all the major air assets. A quick look at the editor (for April 1978) I found the 24P Hind, Su-25, SU-17M and SU-22M.

 

Stingers unfortunately are not modeled. We didn't get any ground-to-air attack weapons until the 2.0 or 3.0 upgrades for the WWII titles. And nothing as advanced as a stinger until just recently in Black Sea, which has a bunch of shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapons as well as ground-to-air missile firing vehicles. However some tanks do employ the Drodz system for shooting down RPGs.

 

There's a demo here that you can try. Just keep in mind it's version 1.01;

 

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=262&Itemid=437

 

More info here, though it is sparse compared to other CMX2 product pages.

 

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=242&Itemid=376

 

Couple YouTube vids to give you an idea of how it plays/what it looks like;

 

 

 

 

 

My advice would be to check out the demo and if you like it get the game. As I stated above it would be better to start with CMX2's older titles (CM:A or CMSF) because once you get to CMBN on up it's hard to turn back with all the added features—you'd really miss them going backwards.

 

Combat Mission games are very engrossing and in-depth representations of the conflict they cover. You might miss out on some flash here and there (like physically seeing a helicopter) but it will quickly get forgotten as you are pulled into the deep tactical battlefield experience that will play out on your screen. CM games are serious wargames for serious wargamers—no mass unit rushes here...unless you want to get all your dudes dead. You'll need real world tactics to achieve victory.

 

As an added note every game created from CMBN forward is subject to an upgrade system which effectively keeps all those titles at the same engine level. Which means, that when a new title comes out and it adds new features, any titles that those features would pertain to will get an upgrade for a modest price. Wargaming heaven, no feature envy!

 

 

Welcome to Battlefront and the crack that is Combat Mission! If you have any more questions feel free to ask, we'll help you with whatever you need.

 

 

Mord.

Edited May 27, 2015 by Mord

[burroughs]

Actually as a relative newcomer I can say that despite my playing all of the titles currently both CMA and CMSF still have an appeal for me and am playing them with similar amusement than any other CMX2 and CMX2 Modern titles. Cumbersome QB generator and an apparent lag that seem to appear once in a while, in a custom scenario as it seems, being the only problems I have encountered so far and it doesn't look like it's going to fade away any time soon - penchant ( mine) for the games I mean.

[Mord]

Oh, they are great games (CM:A, CMSF) no doubt,  just I have been playing that engine version since 2007 and after waiting and struggling through the growing pains of CMX2 it's hard to play what is basically .5 of the engine. As great as CMSF is/was (and I have a huge soft spot for it in my heart) CMBN is where I think (arguably) the engine finally got to a true 1.0 version.

 

I can easily see where newer guys could fall in love with either title, though. CM:A is modern but not too modern, covering something rarely ever covered and is a bridge between the 80's and CMSF, which is a nice snap shot of the technology of the mid 01s and topical (A-Stan, Iraq). There's still years of game play left in them if you are just starting out. But some people may not be able to jump backwards from what we have now to what we had then. They could end up pining away for missing features. Personal choice of course but at this point, for me, the advances are too great. So, I figured I'd pass that along.

 

Glad to hear you are having fun with them, burroughs. In the end THAT'S the name of the game!

 

 

Mord.

[OrangeFr3ak]

Well my first impression of the Combat Missions series is very positive and I will get into the games soon. I know that air and artillery support are not depicted physically in the games but what is the reason behind this?

[Mord]

A lot of coding for very little value I'd imagine. The game handles everything an aircraft would do, it just doesn't show the actual craft itself. BFC, up until about 4 years ago, only had one coder. Their choices boil down to what features will give the biggest bang for the limited time they have to spend on them.

 

Here's my other reply to you in the CMBS thread in case you missed it. It shows you there is a lot more depth to aircraft than you first think.

 

http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119679-helicopter-transports/?p=1609739

 

 

Mord.

[folkie]

I would concur with what mord says and also say in my opinion cma gives you the best chance at winning if you play as the mujahedeen.in cmsf the american/nato firepower can be overwhelming.

[Erwin]

Ditto to the above.  I still enjoy CMSF and CMA a great deal.  There are many terrific campaigns and scenarios as well as mods for both games that you can d/l from the Repository (CMMODS no longer supports CMSF unfortunately). 

 

Both are a wonderful change of pace to the WW2 titles, and even though they are not as sophisticated as CMBS, I rather like the "environment" of CMSF and CMA.

[sburke]

The main thing I really miss in these two titles is the target brief command.  Most everything else I can find a way around, but the fire and maneuver in urban terrain that the target brief facilitates is harder to do.  And I do still play them.  It just gets harder and harder with all the titles to focus on any one title.  Yes that was a back hand complaint that BF has given us too much. 

[Erwin]

Used to do "TARGET BRIEF" by making several move waypoints.  So, would do a regular TARGET order and have the unit move after desired number of seconds either behind cover so it no longer has LOS to shoot, or to another waypoint that gives a FACE order which replaces the TARGET order.

 

The primary usefulness of the TARGET BRIEF order is that it has helped speed up play since it's so much easier and faster to implement.