Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
kinophile

Interested... But...

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

SF2 looks intriguing yet... It also looks like a purely visual modification of core CMBS aspects. 

Dont get me wrong, I'm really very interested. But it's a bit of a price point, and much as I am a HUGE fan of BFC, my dollars are limited at the moment. 

I'm curious what is pulling other CMBS  fans in here? 

 

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is NOT just a visual modification.  Unit capabilities are significantly different.  You might just as well say why buy CMBN, it is just a visual modification.  If you are not familiar with unit capabilities from CMSF, then you simply do not have enough data.  And CMSF is the only game with IEDs, spies and uncons. nuff said

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The games are from two different worlds if you ask me. Settings are near future WW3 scenario vs. (almost) Iraq war. Some examples of core differences: active defense systems on AFVs, the whole uncon and asymmetricity business, terrain and everything the 10+ years between the timelines brings to the table.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, many of the scenarios have been reworked with new AI plans, adjustments in forces, better (and yes, much more visually appealing) maps. They don't even feel like the same scenarios from SF1 in some cases. The Quick Battle system will work like all the other titles. And if you have all the modules of SF1/SF2, the QB possibilities become almost endless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am personally looking forward to playing some BLUE vs BLUE pbem  "exercises". Symmetrical modern warfare where my interests lie. CMBS is awesome but some of the futuristic equipment makes it future warfare, not modern warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly like the uncon, ied, spies aspects. 

Re futuristic - I dunno, CMBS is reasonabley accurate to current tech level s, just not to current deployment levels. LWS do exist, but not to the extant depicted in BS. 

Tactical UAVs are a vital part of modern warfare and I hope will be way more prevalent in SF2. UnCons should have 'em, for eg. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kinophile said:

I certainly like the uncon, ied, spies aspects. 

Re futuristic - I dunno, CMBS is reasonabley accurate to current tech level s, just not to current deployment levels. LWS do exist, but not to the extant depicted in BS. 

Tactical UAVs are a vital part of modern warfare and I hope will be way more prevalent in SF2. UnCons should have 'em, for eg. 

 

 

Once again folks are projecting 2018 on 2008. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BFC was faced with two choices. Either allow CMSF to expire from old age like CMBO or entirely rework the title to bring it up in line with currently active products. BFC put a LOT of work and expense into CMSF2 and they're practically giving it away to 'legacy' CMSF1 owners. The point is CMSF2 will remain an active viable title on their store shelves into the foreseeable future. Wondering why CMSF got upgraded is like wondering why Toyota bothered to upgrade the 2006 Camry for sale in 2018.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

SF2 is a revamp of SF1, within its original timeline, I get it. I'm not complaining, just comparing. 

Which is kinda my point - CMBS is fascinating from the perspective of operating under pervasive observation. It totally changes the fight, for me, when the enemy is able to keep an eye on you.

SF has some neat aspects, as mentioned, but the nature of the fight seems to still be a WW2 approach with better guns. For me, CMBS is literally modern in nature, simply and firstly from the availability of aeriel observation platforns and deadly accurate GM on both sides. 

If SF2 is "just" SF1 made more visually  advanced and equipment updated, but with no advancement/development in the fundamental nature of the fight then, for me, it "feels" like a mod. 

This is a critique, analysis, not criticism. SF1 is a good game, and SF2 seems like a very good refinement.

But I'm looking for step forward, not simply new shoes. 

I'm not locked into a decision, but I need moar info. 

@sburke by what do you mean enhanced capabilities? Optics? 

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kinophile said:

SF2 is a revamp of SF1, within its original timeline, I get it. I'm not complaining, just comparing. 

Which is kinda my point - CMBS is fascinating from the perspective of operating under pervasive observation. It totally changes the fight, for me, when the enemy is able to keep an eye on you.

SF has some neat aspects, as mentioned, but the nature of the fight seems to still be a WW2 approach with better guns. For me, CMBS is literally modern in nature, simply and firstly from the availability of aeriel observation platforns and deadly accurate GM on both sides. 

If SF2 is "just" SF1 made more visually  advanced and equipment updated, but with no advancement/development in the fundamental nature of the fight then, for me, it "feels" like a mod. 

This is a critique, analysis, not criticism. SF1 is a good game, and SF2 seems like a very good refinement.

But I'm looking for step forward, not simply new shoes. 

I'm not locked into a decision, but I need moar info. 

@sburke by what do you mean enhanced capabilities? Optics? 

I am not sure how to make it any clearer.  CMSF units are 2008 oriented.  If you don't get how that changes things relative to WW2 titles I am not sure any amount of explaining on my part is gonna help.  Watch the AAR and maybe that will help. I am also confused as to why you feel it needs to add some new capabilities if you never owned it in the first place.  I think you'll just have to decide for yourself as to whether it has value based on your own priorities.  Not every version of CM is for every player. I love CMSF and getting 4.0 features in the game is a dream come true.  Even little things like target briefly make the game totally new.  But that is me, if the premise and combat/timeline for CMSF didn't appeal to you, CMSF2 is not gonna change that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Re new capabilities, I meant in relation to BS, much as BS was a large step forward from SF. 

My priorities would be modern-oriented, UI/UX improvements, modability. 

I had the small, quiet dream that SF2 would exceed BS in those aspects but I know it's basically parallel in capability and behind in timeline. 

One key part of BS for me was how relevant and prescient it was. SF was also, don't get me wrong. But SF2 feels, well, like threading water. It's lovely cool clean  water, oh look pretty fish and BFCs swimming form is perfect but still... We're not moving forward in terms of engine, unit representation (eg AI, group command/control) or modability. 

I'm still open, but I haven't heard a killer argument, or set of points that suggest WHY SF is worth buying versus staying put with BS. 

To be honest, it feels like every time I raise a point I'm getting hosed down for asking such a dumb question in the first place. I'm getting shut down yet not presented with comparative points, SF2 to BS. But I'm reading up more, and keeping track of those excellent AAR threads 

I'm not former/current military, haven't fully played SF past the demo and don't share an unbridled enthusiasm for WW2-level combat. But I'm no fool either.

SF2 simply isn't selling itself to me yet, on its own merits, vis a vis BS.

Edited by kinophile

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the frustration leaking through is because the main question you asked has been answered, even in the initial stages of CMSF2's public announcement...

Its CMSF in the CMBS engine.  Not sure how much more you meed to be told.  Take what you like about the CMBS game and its engine, put the CMSF setting on it, play.  If the setting doesn't float your boat, you can move on.  Asking for all kinds of new features is just going to have numerous people telling you to read the announcements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The models look great. You're at least getting updated models and uniforms etc.. I guess where we can agree Kinophile is this would definitely be a step forward for Battlefront if they're able to port the models to and fro. That would add quite a lot of content to CMBS. It would be nice if that was a benefit of purchasing CMSF2. Major speculation on my part though. :)

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest pull is more content.  The NATO module by itself brings in numerous countries.  Again, just do a little work and go find the OOBs for NATO, British, and and Marines.  Forget about features not in CMBS.  Save that for the new features thread.  The question was what is the attraction to CMSF2 for CMBS fans.  If you already play CMBS, go read up on CMSF and that will answer all questions.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=180&Itemid=234

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=217&Itemid=332

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=257&Itemid=430

I really didn't think this was hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

btw, if you take the time to read what is in CMBS and CMSF2, its obvious its not just updated models.  There is only a very limited crossover of models between the games.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

all i know is I'd be happy as a pig in $hit if Paper Tigers AWESOME Road to Dinas red on red Syrian civil war campaigns redone..

@The_MonkeyKing cmsf 1 had a blue on blue nato scenario. iirc it was germans and dutch vs us/canadians.

i could be totally wrong about that. heh. (who vs who) 

Edited by Sublime

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yea the nice thing about CMSF2 will be that you get something like 2-5 years of development in a single release. So as far as content goes it beats literally every other release that BF has made and will likely ever make unless they do a similar rebuild of CM:BN or something.

Tech wise you are essentially playing with low tier CM:BS units and different OOB for Red and Blue.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The biggest selling point for me is the sheer amount of content this title contains, so many factions and a ton of scenarios.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, kinophile said:

To be honest, it feels like every time I raise a point I'm getting hosed down for asking such a dumb question in the first place. I'm getting shut down yet not presented with comparative points, SF2 to BS. But I'm reading up more, and keeping track of those excellent AAR threads 

I'm not former/current military, haven't fully played SF past the demo and don't share an unbridled enthusiasm for WW2-level combat. But I'm no fool either.

SF2 simply isn't selling itself to me yet, on its own merits, vis a vis BS.

Sorry about that, not intended.  Just trying to be clear on how you set your expectations, and not just you.  There have been several different threads in this vein.  Basically CMSF2 is not going to update the CM 4 engine (and no this is not related to the patch discussion) - any expectation that you will see engine updates is not in line with any announcement from BF.  The setting is still the fictional Syria 2008 and there will not be any modern additions that do not fit that timeline.  Within that it plays totally different than WW2.  Fighting is much more lethal.  AT capabilities are much better.  The difference between CMSF and CMBS has more to do with the intervening 10 years of technology (mostly electronics) updates.  The advantage over CMBS is that low grade forces still have a good chance and the uber spotting capabilities in CMBS are not there yet. ATGMs and even just RPGs are much more survivable.  M1s are not the super tank of CMBS.  Until BF has fully finalized the game though it is hard to say for sure what will or won't be in it and those statements will have to come from them.

All that said- if it isn't speaking to you, don't buy it. True of any product.  When and if it does at some point it will still be here.  No need to rush in.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Thewood1 said:

btw, if you take the time to read what is in CMBS and CMSF2, its obvious its not just updated models.  There is only a very limited crossover of models between the games.

New models as in from CMSF1 to CMSF2. Unsure if this is a shot at me or what. 

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
57 minutes ago, Sublime said:

all i know is I'd be happy as a pig in $hit if Paper Tigers AWESOME Road to Dinas red on red Syrian civil war campaigns redone..

@The_MonkeyKing cmsf 1 had a blue on blue nato scenario. iirc it was germans and dutch vs us/canadians.

i could be totally wrong about that. heh. (who vs who) 

This is correct - NATO Atlantic Games. It's a good one.

Netherlands v Canada

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Artkin said:

This is correct - NATO Atlantic Games. It's a good one.

Netherlands v Canada

Very nice. I hope we get more of these kinds of mission in form of mods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×