Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Every scenario has had work done to it. The better scenarios may have been little-altered (because they started out good). The worse (I call them 'first generation') scenarios have been really REALLY changed, to the point where a few of my least favorite older scenarios are now my most favorite! One scenario in particular, the AI orders went from a single group 'assault' command into the map center to now playing with ALL the AI gizmos. Orchestrating unit movements, AI area fire commands, retreat commands, triggers, reworked victory conditions, expanded and updated terrain maps, adding AA assets and fortification items, proper AI orders for both sides, etc. Just because you recognize the name of a CMSF2 scenario doesn't mean you've played it before. <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Every scenario has had work done to it. The better scenarios may have been little-altered (because they started out good). The worse (I call them 'first generation') scenarios have been really REALLY changed, to the point where a few of my least favorite older scenarios are now my most favorite! One scenario in particular, the AI orders went from a single group 'assault' command into the map center to now playing with ALL the AI gizmos. Orchestrating unit movements, AI area fire commands, retreat commands, triggers, reworked victory conditions, expanded and updated terrain maps, adding AA assets and fortification items, proper AI orders for both sides, etc. Just because you recognize the name of a CMSF2 scenario doesn't mean you've played it before. <_<

Sounds awesome! And worth the wait.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The scenario that MikeyD is almost certainly talking about is Al Huqf Engagement. That's currently a "symmetric" Syrian vs US platoon, with a single Bradley and a BMP 2. The AI is a single Assault order onto the objective, so they just run in without much thought.

 

A lot of the very earliest CMSF scenarios were similarly crude. They didn't have much simulationist weight, and certainly didn't play to the strengths of the AI, instead exposing the very real weaknesses.

 

So... re-doing the AI in this scenario, even if the forces and map remained unchanged, would absolutely make it a new scenario. There will be a ton of similarly "new" content when CMSF 2 hits.

 

Clearest example in the demo is the Marine scenario. This is mission two od the marine campaign, and involves an opposed amphibious landing.

There are two major differences with this scenario that completely change the mission - since CMSF 1 has no water, the new scenario extends the map's depth and puts the "amphibious" into the mission. This changes the nature of the tactics involved, since the AAV's don't just apparate onto the beach now. The other major differece are the hidden trenches - since trenches used to be visible, their location would dictate your approach to a map, and you could easily plot pre-battle bombardments to take out the scariest potential atgm positions. Removing this is a major buff to the Red side, and a significant deepening of the game's tactical depth - even if you tried to "play fair" and ignore trench works, it was really hard to not have them affect your schemes.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, chrisharvey said:

Thank you for the replies but to be honest this is a bit of a downer.

Hmm...

Not sure if you quite understand the amount of work that represents or how the scenarios will play out differently but you may want to withhold judgement until you actually see it.  Also I think the interest level is high enough that you likely won’t have to wait long before new user created content starts coming out. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CMSF2 comes with a full up-to-date Quick Battle generator and the number of new high quality maps continue to grow daily. That should take care of any 'new scenario' needs for quite awhile. If you want to play a night battle between Canadian infantry and Syrian airborne or a mountain battle between Syrian mech infantry and uncon rebels the battle is just a couple mouse clicks away. Heck, if you want you can go into the editor and make a huge water map then have your amphib vehicles attack each other like dreadnoughts! :lol:

...That last comment inspired me. 5 minutes work and I whipped up a quick 'dreadnaught' island-hopping scenario just for fun.

 

Island hopping 1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Haw haw! I did my 'Dreadnaught' scenario as a joke but I'm having much too much fun playing it. I think I'll expand the map, increase the force size and turn it into a proper 3rd party scenario for upload. The clincher was when I killed a BTR 'battleship' and it slowly sank beneath the waves and disappeared. That was hilarious. The premise is the forces start out of weapons range so must maneuver to close the gap and hold an advantage, just like in old-timey naval warfare.

Edited by MikeyD

Share this post


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

Haw haw! I did my 'Dreadnaught' scenario as a joke but I'm having much too much fun playing it. I think I'll expand the map, increase the force size and turn it into a proper 3rd party scenario for upload. The clincher was when I killed a BTR 'battleship' and it slowly sank beneath the waves and disappeared. That was hilarious. The premise is the forces start out of weapons range so must maneuver to close the gap and hold an advantage, just like in old-timey naval warfare.

lol nice one.

Share this post


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

Haw haw! I did my 'Dreadnaught' scenario as a joke but I'm having much too much fun playing it. I think I'll expand the map, increase the force size and turn it into a proper 3rd party scenario for upload. The clincher was when I killed a BTR 'battleship' and it slowly sank beneath the waves and disappeared. That was hilarious. The premise is the forces start out of weapons range so must maneuver to close the gap and hold an advantage, just like in old-timey naval warfare.

Make your "battleships" BMP-1's, have "transport ships" carrying SPG-9 "naval guns" to scattered islands, sprinkle some HMG-armed "escort ships", make the crews "green", and you've got yourself a fully-realized game-mode!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with BMPs and LAV-25 is their guns are just too powerful. Your opponent gets sunk from the far side of the map (I know 'cause I tried). You need a gun with a limited range and marginal penetration abilities to make it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No? Quite the reverse. Existing CMSF scenarios should work fine, they just won't have been built with Engine 4 in mind. That means they won't have things like water or bridges, and the balance might be skewed in some cases (in the same way that the balance of some CMBN scenarios were altered when the MG rate of fire was changed).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, sburke said:

Not sure if you quite understand the amount of work that represents or how the scenarios will play out differently but you may want to withhold judgement until you actually see it.  Also I think the interest level is high enough that you likely won’t have to wait long before new user created content starts coming out. 

I don't doubt it is a lot of work and I'm very impressed by the results of all the work on CMSF. I'm simply saying that playing old scenarios again is a bit of a downer for me.

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

×