Cmsf 2

[Magpie_Oz]

Well yees if the Israelis augment their Mekava with M1.

I'm sure someone could come up with a Star of David graphic mod for the vehicles.

EXCELLENT !

"Hey fellas !! Gibbo says the CMSF2 will have Arab Isreali forces in it !! "

[Hairy Pie]

Oh that’s easy I just ignore the thread for 2 months or so.

See you later.

Ahhh, so its out in two month's then?

[vincere]

Steve posted in a Normandy thread that they are likely to start work on SFx2 in about 3 months.

SFx2 is not official name. Will be temperate region, but up until a week ago he said they are undecided where.

[Vinnart]

Cool, I definitly want to present some GUI concepts especailly where the relative system is concerned.

[Sakai007]

I am stoked about CMSF2, as I play the crap out of CMSF now waiting till I can get Normandy. The temperate region will be a nice change of pace, but people wanting larger maps will realize a ton of that size will be nerfed by all the terrain (trees, hedges, etc.) in a temperate region. Sure, there will be large expanses of land, but a good many battles will be fought at infantry AT range, or closer, like in CMBN.

[Frankster65]

I am stoked about CMSF2, as I play the crap out of CMSF now waiting till I can get Normandy. The temperate region will be a nice change of pace, but people wanting larger maps will realize a ton of that size will be nerfed by all the terrain (trees, hedges, etc.) in a temperate region. Sure, there will be large expanses of land, but a good many battles will be fought at infantry AT range, or closer, like in CMBN.

In some ways I understand the argument by some for larger maps but to be frank about it, I think the size of maps in CMSF are perfect. There are some big maps out there with some great scenarios, look at for example George MC's scenarios, quite big maps with room to maneuver yet contours give excellent hiding and reverse slope situations. I've always viewed the start of a scenario in CMSF as the beginning phase following operational maneuver. Operational maneuver took place before scenario starts, now tactical is played out on the scenario.

[Erwin]

What I liked about the HUGE maps in CM1 is that one had operational-level choices and much more opportunity for maneuver combat.

I most enjoyed playing with regimental or even larger formations in CM1 Operations where one could maintain reserves etc.

I hope that CM2 maps will get to be larger for that reason.

[Sakai007]

I hadn't considered that kind of play style with CM. I always did enjoy the Operations in CMx1 for that fact, having to make higher level decisions then the usual tactical battle presents. It is fun to have a "mobile fire brigade" that you keep in reserve to exploit a break through, or prevent one.

[DMS]

I think modern conflict with Russia or China is bad choice. It would be interesting, but how BFC will define vehicle characteristics? Can T-80BV defeat Abrams? Can it's armor defeat TOW missile?

[Boche]

I think modern conflict with Russia or China is bad choice. It would be interesting, but how BFC will define vehicle characteristics? Can T-80BV defeat Abrams? Can it's armor defeat TOW missile?

Depends on tons of things, depends on what information BF can dig out

[Frankster65]

What I liked about the HUGE maps in CM1 is that one had operational-level choices and much more opportunity for maneuver combat.

I most enjoyed playing with regimental or even larger formations in CM1 Operations where one could maintain reserves etc.

I hope that CM2 maps will get to be larger for that reason.

Wow! You played with regimental size units in CMx1? I did not think that was possible. I have always played (at most) battalion vs. battalion engagements. Anything bigger I considered too much to handle. I play CMSF battalion vs battalion engagements and love it. Anything more than that and frame rates (depending on map type) begin to show trouble.

[Frankster65]

Depends on tons of things, depends on what information BF can dig out

Yeah I agree. One of the things BF gets criticized about with resepct to CMSF is the guesswork they had to do on classified weapon systems and how to simulate that in the game. I like what they have done, I think they've done a superb job in making that guess and making the game work as well as keep it fun.

With respect to the WW2 series, CMBN and beyond, they don't have to guess, the data is there.

It is going to be the same problem with CMSFx2 they had with CMSFx1.

[Magpie_Oz]

Yeah I agree. One of the things BF gets criticized about with resepct to CMSF is the guesswork they had to do on classified weapon systems and how to simulate that in the game.

Thing is, although "classified" I think you can make some pretty accurate estimations as to a weapons capabilities and BFC are pretty good at that.

[Erwin]

Frankster65: It's only an issue of processing power. But, yes, I have had up to 3 battalions of inf (at least on one side) attacking plus a several companies of armor (and arty support).

It's one reason that while I love CMSF and CMBN, I find the relatively small scenarios and "trickiness" of everything to become literally a headache after a while.

So, I always enjoy getting back to CM1 where errors are generally not so catastrophic as one can play with plenty of units.

[DMS]

Thing is, although "classified" I think you can make some pretty accurate estimations as to a weapons capabilities and BFC are pretty good at that.

It think red tanks were undermodeled in CMSF. (or blue tanks overmodeled? ) I mean spotting. Unbuttoned red tank's commander sometimes didn't see Abrams at 300-500 m. It was typical, when red tank in ambush position was spotted by Abrams first. (I know about C2, it was not that case)

It was OK in game about Syria, T-55/62s with green crews had no chances against M1s at any case. But if vehicles of both sides are comparable...

[Magpie_Oz]

Ah but you see with Red tanks that are opened up there is only one person, the commander with his head out. Abrams have 2 commander and loader. Four eyes better than 2 ?

[DMS]

But who reloads gun? Then reload speed must be tweaked!

[Magpie_Oz]

He goes back inside I reckon, that is what seems to happen in the animation

[gibsonm]

For what its worth (and I know it hasn’t been 2 months) the loader normally stays “down” when moving tactically.

The “turret creature” normally only sees the light of day (at least here) if its an admin move and contact is unlikely (or perhaps if there’s an air threat and the commander thinks the pintle MG will make a difference).

[LarsS]

Good news about BFC starting development on the new modern, temperate game in a few month's time. Can't wait! Well, with BN out, I guess I can. It will certainly be very interesting to see BFC's take on a hypothetical NATO vs Russia conflict.

[Magpie_Oz]

For what its worth (and I know it hasn’t been 2 months) the loader normally stays “down” when moving tactically.

The “turret creature” normally only sees the light of day (at least here) if its an admin move and contact is unlikely (or perhaps if there’s an air threat and the commander thinks the pintle MG will make a difference).

Yeh, you'd reckon that makes more sense. I am just going off the graphic in the game with seemingly 2 heads poking out.

So if your back that must mean the patch will be out soon !

[Alan8325]

It think red tanks were undermodeled in CMSF. (or blue tanks overmodeled? ) I mean spotting. Unbuttoned red tank's commander sometimes didn't see Abrams at 300-500 m. It was typical, when red tank in ambush position was spotted by Abrams first. (I know about C2, it was not that case)

It was OK in game about Syria, T-55/62s with green crews had no chances against M1s at any case. But if vehicles of both sides are comparable...

Agree with this. Also, accuracy and effectiveness of the AK rifles at very close (~50m) range seemed undermodeled when compared to the U.S. M4s as well. Seems like any automatic weapon putting out enough suppressive fire from a skilled shooter should be roughly equal at that kind of range, yet BLUE forces in CMSF seemed to always win suppression and get the upper hand, even against veteran+ RED guys.

RED artillery support, too, seemed inept in CMSF where in CMBN we are going back in time almost 70 years and BOTH sides have similar arty response times and accuracy that seem closer to BLUE capabilites in CMSF.

[DMS]

Agree with this. Also, accuracy and effectiveness of the AK rifles at very close (~50m) range seemed undermodeled when compared to the U.S. M4s as well. Seems like any automatic weapon putting out enough suppressive fire from a skilled shooter should be roughly equal at that kind of range, yet BLUE forces in CMSF seemed to always win suppression and get the upper hand, even against veteran+ RED guys.

RED artillery support, too, seemed inept in CMSF where in CMBN we are going back in time almost 70 years and BOTH sides have similar arty response times and accuracy that seem closer to BLUE capabilites in CMSF.

Exactly. Someone said that arty response time is so huge because of electronic warfare, but what about red vs red missions, and can blue forces jam every radio in the battlefield?

I think AK performance was reduced because blue player had to clear towns and villages from a lot of enemy infantry in campaign. ( May be they had Chinese AK's? Or they didn't clean it ) Missions would be too hard otherwise.

[stikkypixie]

Agree with this. Also, accuracy and effectiveness of the AK rifles at very close (~50m) range seemed undermodeled when compared to the U.S. M4s as well. Seems like any automatic weapon putting out enough suppressive fire from a skilled shooter should be roughly equal at that kind of range, yet BLUE forces in CMSF seemed to always win suppression and get the upper hand, even against veteran+ RED guys.

RED artillery support, too, seemed inept in CMSF where in CMBN we are going back in time almost 70 years and BOTH sides have similar arty response times and accuracy that seem closer to BLUE capabilites in CMSF.

Part of this problem is that often the motivation level of Blue forces are set really high, while the motivation of Red forces are low. Even when you select the Syrian Spec Ops. It evens out once you a) change the bonuses of the leaders to be equal keep your forces in command c) set every attribute (experience, fitness, morale AND motivation) to equal.

[Frankster65]

Part of this problem is that often the motivation level of Blue forces are set really high, while the motivation of Red forces are low. Even when you select the Syrian Spec Ops. It evens out once you a) change the bonuses of the leaders to be equal keep your forces in command c) set every attribute (experience, fitness, morale AND motivation) to equal.

Yeah, I have to agree with this. It has been my experience that many of the earlier missions made by the mission designers had the Red forces so handicapped in terms of experience and morale you really couldn't do anything with them...you just tried to make it as hard as you could for your blue opponant who had that big advantage in weapons, experienced troops and morale. Of course this was probably very realistic as we've seen in the recent wars.

With the later modules, there were more scenarios which had come out where Red forces became more on par with the Blue forces. The maps or terrain the scenario was based on was better, more defensivable, the Red forces better quality weapons and equipment, better experience and morale. I've fought some excellent battles to a standstill, if not eek out a victory in PBEM playing some of these as Red forces commander.