Barbed Wire

[Sgt.Squarehead]

No worries fella.....It will be what it will be, I guess. 

[ncc1701e]

18 hours ago, sburke said:

insurgent warfare was never something BF wanted CMSF to be about.

I assume but they did introduce uncons. And, this was a brilliant innovating idea from Battlefront imo. CMSF1 is a great game. I think engine 4.0 will completely renew the game experience.

[sburke]

4 hours ago, ncc1701e said:

I assume but they did introduce uncons. And, this was a brilliant innovating idea from Battlefront imo. CMSF1 is a great game. I think engine 4.0 will completely renew the game experience.

true but their view of what uncons meant is not what we interpret based on the Iraq/Syria experience.  (and I absolutely agree that 4.0 will renew the game experience)

Should probably start a separate thread as I find this actually a very interesting subject.  In reading Angels in Sadr City I learned a lot about the nature of the Shiite insurgency and the limitations Sadr faced, conflicting priorities of insurgent elements, fragmented nature of it's organization etc.  It is worth a read and I would think an interesting discussion.

For the purpose of this thread though CMSF is about the invasion of Syria, not the occupation of Syria.  If you look at the initial period up to the tearing down of Saddam's statue , the uncons in Iraq were Saddam's Fedayeen and some military out of uniform.  An Nasiryah is a good example.  It was HQ of Iraq's 3rd Corp and home of the 11th ID a unit the US fully expected to just surrender or dissolve.  It didn't.  It actually stood and fought along with Fedayeen units.  Many of it's soldiers fought in whatever they wore.  They were not an organized insurgency yet.  The US would face similar groupings here and there on the march to Baghdad, but the insurgent units we envision would not really show their face in the same way until later in 2003 and 2004 in Iraq- during the occupation.  Even on the issue of IEDs, from what I can find they didn't really start showing up until July (there were earlier examples, just not in significant numbers yet) - several months after Baghdad fell.  The Shiites generally welcomed the US, though their experience from the last Iraq war left them wary of US commitment and Saddam's ability to stay in power.  They suffered from Sunni depredations as they retreated north and then mostly sat on the sidelines until 2004 after several mis steps by the coalition authority and the rise of Sadr.

I think this is the disconnect between what BF created and what we are doing based on actual events.  CMSF is a fictional narrative similar to CMBS except it is no longer a fictional narrative.  Instead it is a sort of past alternate history (which is what CMBS is likely to become as well).  Gamers like Sgt Squarehead and myself and many others utilize CMSF to try and recreate more historical events rather than the event as portrayed in the CMSF background story.  Heck I am even thinking of a Mogadishu type scenario or Operation Anaconda.

So going back to Sgt Squareheads comments and hopes to see uncons with AA assets etc , well that isn't the CMSF back story and it doesn't reflect what the uncons represented in 2003 Iraq either.  What happened with the insurgency in Iraq and the collapse of Syrian central authority is different and is not represented by the uncons in CMSF.  BF has not only not expressed interest in that, they have been explicitly opposed.  Personally I wish they had a different view too.  The US combat experience for the past 15 years is what it is.  It is now historical fact.  CMSF comes far closer than CMBS to portraying modern combat experience. However CMSF is 10 years old.  That BF is bringing it up to 4.0 standards is amazing (and only Steve gets to define here what that means as it isn't like just upgrading software.  There are decisions they have to make about adapting to capabilities they have now they didn't have then).  They are not looking to make this project bigger than it already is by trying to add even more items because frankly there is no guarantee that this will pay for itself as it is.  They are doing this as an act of faith and of recognition of a very loyal fan base.

Yes it will be what it will be - and it will be really good.  It will not be everything that you want.  Nothing ever is.  It is called growing up, getting used to disappointment, finding comfort in what you have and dying.    such a positive note to end on.

[MOS:96B2P]

3 hours ago, sburke said:

 I am even thinking of a Mogadishu type scenario or Operation Anaconda. 

Yes!!! +1 

CMSF made lots of very cool interesting tactical scenarios possible.  CMSF 2 scenarios will be even more dynamic and interesting.  Can't wait for moders to take a fresh look at Shock Force.  2018 should be a great year for Combat Missions.  Exciting time to be alive.       

[Sgt.Squarehead]

19 hours ago, sburke said:

Yes it will be what it will be - and it will be really good.  It will not be everything that you want.  Nothing ever is.  It is called growing up, getting used to disappointment, finding comfort in what you have and dying.    such a positive note to end on.

And on that cheery note! 

I clearly had a few too many pre-conceived notions about how the new TOE might work.....Projecting my hopes I guess. 

Still enthusiastic to see the new game, just a bit deflated.....Please god let them have access to Breach Teams, to suggest they don't know how to blow stuff up would be a bit much! 

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead

[sburke]

4 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

And on that cheery note! 

I clearly had a few too many pre-conceived notions about how the new TOE might work.....Projecting my hopes I guess. 

Still enthusiastic to see the new game, just a bit deflated.....Please god let them have access to Breach Teams, to suggest they don't know how to blow stuff up would be a bit much! 

 

well even in CMSF you could purchase a Syrian Eng pltn.  No it isn't quite the same, but it is close.  I prefer to wish for BF to do things I can't even come close to. 

I have to say CMSF2 is having an unexpected affect on me.  For the first time I am actually considering learning to mod.  My wife works in QA for Adobe.  She has the software and the skills to teach me.  It says something of the strength of our marriage that I can ask her to teach me to mod my game   It says something else about the game that I am thinking of trying to learn a whole new skillset.  I'll never be a Kieme, but I might manage to make something I like.

One of the aspects of your Mosul scenario that so appeals to me is the creativity you put into it, just so many fresh ideas that add so much potential to game play.  I'd stop worrying about the ideas you have or limitations you ran into in CMSF.  I suspect CMSF2 is going to give you whole new things to either satisfy your creative bent or make you face new problems. 

[MikeyD]

Lets recall CMSF1 was released at the height of 'the troubles' (to use a euphemism) and BFC was very uncomfortable about turning their Syria invasion game into an Iraq occupation sim. Now things have flipped 180 degrees. CMSF2 is coming out in the middle of a hot Syria conflict. So they're taking pains to distance themselves from that and stick to the original 2007 narrative. Something similar happened with Ukraine. They really did not want to release CMBS into the middle of a hot war. I think the government of Taiwan should pay BFC money to keep them from making a Taiwan/China conflict game. Because  BFC's track record is not very assuring on that score.

Edited February 10, 2018 by MikeyD

[Sequoia]

I don't suppose we'll ever know who the opposing force in the New Zealand Army contract was.

[sburke]

37 minutes ago, Sequoia said:

I don't suppose we'll ever know who the opposing force in the New Zealand Army contract was.

Space Lobsters

[Combatintman]

2 hours ago, Sequoia said:

I don't suppose we'll ever know who the opposing force in the New Zealand Army contract was.

Easiest question to answer ever .... Australians.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

[Erwin]

15 hours ago, MikeyD said:

CMSF2 is coming out in the middle of a hot Syria conflict. So they're taking pains to distance themselves from that and stick to the original 2007 narrative.

Odd.  Seems like a marketing coup to be so timely.  Assumed that BF was thrilled at the timeliness.  Surely that's what will drive the sales to new customers(?).   Of course modders will probably be able to create a reasonable facsimile of more contemporary situations.  (Or hopefully BF wins/has won a govt contract to do a special current version.)   Either way we should hope CMSF2 gets plenty of $ into BF's hands so they can do new stuff for the foreseeable future.

[Erwin]

8 hours ago, Combatintman said:

Easiest question to answer ever .... Australians.

My money is on Pape'ete...  Smaller land mass and population, easier to conquer and use as a stepping stone vs Hawaii and then global domination.

[ncc1701e]

@sburke thanks for your above detailled answer. +1

[Ithikial_AU]

On 09/02/2018 at 7:39 AM, sburke said:

Gamers like Sgt Squarehead and myself and many others utilize CMSF to try and recreate more historical events rather than the event as portrayed in the CMSF background story.  Heck I am even thinking of a Mogadishu type scenario or Operation Anaconda.

I think thats whats driving this. There's a lot more natural scope for the modern titles to be used more as sandboxes compared to the WW2 titles, which naturally lend themselves to creating more historically plausible scenarios. Having the variety of units available in the editor/QB's gives the player a great sense of freedom in this regard.

Oh Australia is certainly eyeing off an invaision on New Zealand. I mean if we lose to them in the Rugby again... well what other course of action is left open for us?

[Sgt.Squarehead]

6 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

I think thats whats driving this. There's a lot more natural scope for the modern titles to be used more as sandboxes compared to the WW2 titles, which naturally lend themselves to creating more historically plausible scenarios. Having the variety of units available in the editor/QB's gives the player a great sense of freedom in this regard.

That's exactly where I'm coming from, I'd assumed we'd be seeing force compositions similar to CM:BS (in format, not content), with Specialist Teams and Individual Vehicles.....Following this logic I assumed that since these units would need to be made anyway (MANPADS or Breach Teams being a good example here) that it would be a simple and relatively sensible move on BF's part to slap a Fighter or Combatant skin on some of them. 

This would both broaden their capabilities for designers in the default storyline and enable those of us who want to use the CM:SF II framework to depict other conflicts. 

[Erwin]

10 hours ago, Ithikial_AU said:

There's a lot more natural scope for the modern titles to be used more as sandboxe

Wonder if the issue is that BF wants to avoid the nightmare of ISIS or similar using such an enhanced modern game for their own propaganda purposes.  Actually am surprised we haven't seen it already as it's easily possible by using mods to create ISIS-promoting scenarios. 

[Sgt.Squarehead]

1 hour ago, Erwin said:

Actually am surprised we haven't seen it already as it's easily possible by using mods to create ISIS-promoting scenarios.

Downloading mods isn't compulsory you know.....Well it isn't for the rest of us at any rate! 

**** ISIS! 

[Erwin]

Congrats.  You completely missed my point...  

 

[sburke]

12 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

That's exactly where I'm coming from, I'd assumed we'd be seeing force compositions similar to CM:BS (in format, not content), with Specialist Teams and Individual Vehicles.....Following this logic I assumed that since these units would need to be made anyway (MANPADS or Breach Teams being a good example here) that it would be a simple and relatively sensible move on BF's part to slap a Fighter or Combatant skin on some of them. 

This would both broaden their capabilities for designers in the default storyline and enable those of us who want to use the CM:SF II framework to depict other conflicts. 

There is a saying about assumptions......  and unfortunately you are making yourself it's poster child    Just ribbing you there buddy.  You know I'd love all that stuff to.

I think the hardest lesson I have learned as a beta tester is, that title means squat when BF says no.  No is no and they have no compulsions about sticking to a position that insures they deliver a product and don't just run up costs to an unsustainable point.  It is a line they have to draw in every single title and pack as there is always just one more little thing that would be so cool to add.  Every beta tester has their thing and the title they love most and the amount of attention they would love to shower on it.  That all means exactly zip.

That CMSF is going to 4.0 is unbelievably cool, but don't assume for a moment that the new capabilities will change their view of what the game is.... and it isn't "Syria the occupation".

Edited February 14, 2018 by sburke

[Sgt.Squarehead]

7 hours ago, Erwin said:

Congrats.  You completely missed my point...  

Wilfully too TBH. 

1 hour ago, sburke said:

and it isn't "Syria the occupation".

Well not yet anyway.....I shall make it so. 

[LukeFF]

13 hours ago, Erwin said:

Wonder if the issue is that BF wants to avoid the nightmare of ISIS or similar using such an enhanced modern game for their own propaganda purposes.  Actually am surprised we haven't seen it already as it's easily possible by using mods to create ISIS-promoting scenarios. 

Once again, you aren't paying attention to what's already been said numerous times: Battlefront is sticking to the timeline of the story, and that's that. Adding "just this one thing" (continually) adds to the development time, and BF doesn't want that at all. 

And, if it's so easy to mod in, why haven't we seen any ISIS scenarios from you? 

Edited February 15, 2018 by LukeFF

[Erwin]

I am crap at scenario design (and haven't the first clue about graphics).  I tried design in CM1 which was hard.  CM2 is much more complex.  Based on the tutorial that is available, one has to be a fanatic with months of time on one's hands to design for CM2.  One gets the impression that modders and designers don't actually get to play the game that much.  You see, some of us really enjoy playing the game as opposed to learning to become programmers etc.  It is noticeable that there is virtually no discussion on how to play the game well.  But, vast threads on weapons systems and scenario design etc.  We all have different interests.  You clearly haven't been reading my posts on this subject with SS. 

As some of us frequently say, we're happy to pay $ for professional designs - esp campaigns which seem to require many man-months of effort. 

I find your attitude odd.  I imagine you as a doctor telling patients "why don't you go read up these medical books and go to medical school so you can diagnose yourself - now get out of here and stop bothering me".   Such arrogance...

Edited February 15, 2018 by Erwin