Jump to content

Improvements over Shock Force?


Recommended Posts

I've spent a little time with Afghanistan now and I'm really liking it - it has a totally different feel to it, although many things remain familiar which is good from the customers point of view.

The best part of this however is the fact we may, dare I say 'potentially', see these improvements in NATO and then Normandy. What things have you guys noticed? Some things are really subtle. Little things I've seen so far:-

Artillery - the delivery/delay function now works so finally you can see how long it will be until your requested bombardment flies out of the sky :D

Artillery/Air support have General/Personnel options for ordnance to stop them wasting it on the wrong targets.

Ability to split teams further down than in SF.

The graphics are a mixed bag in my opinion - what's your take on them? The terrain looks washed out, and doesn't look as colourful as you'd expect. I wish this could be addressed in some shape or form even by modders. Sound effects were quite bad too (again my opinion) and nothing that a few good mods wont sort.

But overall lots of positive improvements which is what I like to see!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I really liked the terrain texture Snowball used in their original video...I'd love to get my grubby hands on it to see what it looks like on my comp.

The infantry textures I felt were pretty low quality, but that doesn't bother me, as CMBO showed things can and will be modded, usually in a spectacular fashion.

The building textures and flavor objects are top notch.

A couple things I mentioned before, that I am happy with, are that we can edit the actual soldier's names as well as teams...and we can set casualties now.

The Drodz system is great...and of course the breaching of low walls with tanks.

I haven't played much this week 'cause I am embroiled in a PBEM of CMSF...but I had a PBEM going with Elvis (that was interrupted because of a bug) and was enjoying it. I think it does have a different feel than CMSF...much different. I am looking forward to delving deeper into it. It's gonna be on my comp a long time...especially as I learn more about that war.

For me, gaming wise, it's one of those rare surprises that came outta nowhere and grabbed me.

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from these very subtle changes I find it hard to tell much difference in "feel." But, then I played a lot of Red side CMSF. So, it seems all very familiar. I wonder if most players never played the Red side before CM:Afghanistan.

Interesting point. I rarely play red in SF because I like the blue toys too much. But what I have found is that Afghanistan 'feels' so much more intense to me - it's close infantry combat rather than a multitude of one-hit kills at distance. It doesn't feel quite as one-sided either. Even though the Soviets have plenty of AFVs it seems to be much more an infantry battle with support elements rather than free-ranging tank warfare.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Aside from these very subtle changes I find it hard to tell much difference in "feel." But, then I played a lot of Red side CMSF. So, it seems all very familiar. I wonder if most players never played the Red side before CM:Afghanistan.

I agree with this point. But I find it much more forgiving when it comes to fire and movement.

Alhtough it has been argued that you may be able to Mod this game when NATO arrives, if it has the same features, Im not convinced anyone would have done it.

What I like:

Tanks going through low walls, very nice addition and if back ported in NATO, or side ported or whatever will actually make going back and playing CMSF scenarios again more interesting (although shooting the walls down works OK most of the time).

Less lethality enables your forces to move about a bit more and you dont have to worry about that ATGM etc killing you the minute it sees you.

As stated above, I like the dirtied up building models although I would liked to have seen building more representative of Afghan compounds etc.

The new air and arty options.

What I dont like:

Same old infantry model, though I appreciate that will be there for a while.

Hating the bridges though, bridges they are not and the water is just a grey thing that you cant ford as it appears to be impassible.

Feels like a Mod though, but as I said who would have if Snowball hadnt?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I played as Red but never played Red on Red...but respectfully, even if I did I don't think it'd give me the same "feeling" I am talking about (my definition is not in terms of play but more one of atmosphere)...It's the Soviet's Nam and there's a darkness inherent to it...a shadow that lingers over the scenarios, a specter of defeat and loss and hopelessness. I guess because for all intents and purposes it was a brutal war, like Nam...where with WWII say (barring the Ostfront and the Pacific of course) that's always kinda been considered a war of righteousness and good, right bringing light to the dark. This feels more like the dark bringing more dark to a primeval culture. And as Phil states it makes it more intense to me.

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Less lethality enables your forces to move about a bit more and you dont have to worry about that ATGM etc killing you the minute it sees you."

Yes, this is a LOT more fun than the repetitive "locate the super deadly ATGM's and destroy, and only then bring up vehicles to massacre the enemy" tactics that one used in CMSF.

"...feels more like the dark bringing more dark to a primeval culture." I know what u mean. However... If you read the rationale for the Soviet invasion it was a lot to do with crushing the backward Taliban and reducing the oppression to women and the more forward-looking political forces that were threatened. The Soviets were already alarmed at the rise of fundementalists. Kinda the same reasons that the US is in Afghanistan.

Of course both sides saw/see the strategic importance of this country vis a vis its location.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know what u mean. However... If you read the rationale for the Soviet invasion it was a lot to do with crushing the backward Taliban and reducing the oppression to women and the more forward-looking political forces that were threatened.

I agree with what your points here. However, just for the sake of historical accuracy - Taliban were not even in existence at the time of the invasion; nor were they the main enemy of the Soviets after their creation.

Peace,

DreDay

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I have noticed is that CF:A loads up a lot faster then CM:SF and seems to run a little smoother with graphics at higher specs.

On further investigation I found that CM:A always uses the last CPU in my multi-core and not the primary core as CM:SF does.

Now obviously CM:A is not using multi-core threading, but the fact that it is running off a different core than the primary core in the stack means it doesn't seem to be competing for processor time with every other process on the PC.

I wonder if this is possible for CM:SF too, or too big a change in the core program to implement by patch?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing I have noticed is that CF:A loads up a lot faster then CM:SF and seems to run a little smoother with graphics at higher specs.

On further investigation I found that CM:A always uses the last CPU in my multi-core and not the primary core as CM:SF does.

Now obviously CM:A is not using multi-core threading, but the fact that it is running off a different core than the primary core in the stack means it doesn't seem to be competing for processor time with every other process on the PC.

I wonder if this is possible for CM:SF too, or too big a change in the core program to implement by patch?

That's very ineteresting. Would be good to get an official take.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the game?

Seriously...the...ääähhh...shooting-ports (????) will open and the guys inside will fire...not through the wholes, but they will fire...

That's cool and I don't know why this only happens with the bmp-1d...

greetings, alex

I've just tried to reproduce this but I couldn't...The solders are not firing.

Are you sure it was solders firing and not the BMP?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nope..he's right. I just reproduced it. You have to select passengers in the BMP 1D, have them target and the little port will open...you'll see gun fire flashing...not exactly where it should be, and then the port will close. Pretty cool.

Mord.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...