Runyan99
-
Posts
1,304 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Runyan99
-
-
I wonder what ever happened to that guy.
-
I have a question. To what extend are some players finding CMSF a little 'too close to home' to be fun, what with the situation in Iraq and all? Playing a WW2 wargame or a Napoleonic game can be a form of escape to another time, and thus is perhaps more 'fun'.
Is playing CMSF and watching modern GIs getting blown to hell a little too much like watching the news these days to be 'fun'?
I'm not really sure how I feel about it personally, but I suspect it is a factor for some.
-
Just got my copy today. Pretty tough review.
-
Want to play a QB?
Sure, we'll each take an armored battalion, and play it on a 1km square map!
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kp-rCZuIbyk&mode=related&search=
[ August 27, 2007, 12:52 AM: Message edited by: Runyan99 ]
-
And how many CM scenarios have you seen that model that kind of force density? Not too many.Originally posted by JasonC:It varied with portion of the front and expected enemy opposition, but a normal force for that length of frontage, for the German side, would be a single infantry regiment.
-
The first two scenarios I played 'felt' just like CMAK scenarios (Abu Susah and Al Amarah). Wide open desert maps and light armored vehicles. The only real difference I saw from 1944 to 2008 was more fully automatic weapons and more accurate artillery.
Another way to approach this is to make an Abu Susah and Al Amarah scenarios in CMAK.
-
Sign, sign, everwhere a sign. Blocking out the scenery, breaking my mind.
-
Nevermind.
The Chinese obviously don't 'get it'.
-
Yes, and we'll finally get to see how the Finns could fend off an entire Soviet armored division with some rope and logs with 1:1 accuracy.
-
Word.
1:1 is flawed in CMSF, but it still is the right way to go looking forward. Abstraction at the squad level is for old boardgames.
They key is to make 1:1 work better and more realistically as we progress into the future. Personally, I think 1:1 is a little bit crappy in CMSF 1.01, but I can imagine how it could work so much better with a series of adjustments.
-
Berli, I understand if you think the TacAI sucks.
For long time players like Berli and Ezra and myself, I hope it is clear that CMSF simply needs bug fixes, improved TacAI/self preservation behavior, and quality LOS routines for it to deliver what the design promises.
Is that what we got with 1.01? No, I don't think so.
Is it what we will get with 1.04, and the WW2 game?
I think so. Some patience is needed with BFC.
-
I managed a 'tactical victory' while suffering something like 36 casualties, but I notice the defenders hardly had that to start with.
Suprising how diffuicult a few infantry on the defensive can be to overcome.
Used the full hour, and spent a lot of minutes more or less stationary waiting for mortar rounds to fall.
-
With your impatience with patches, my recommendation to you is to buy CMSF in six months.
-
I want BFC to include the M4 Sherman tank as a hidden easter egg in the game. With the editor open to the units screen, hold down shift, then type s-h-e-r-m-a-n and one tank will instantly appear in the OOB for the American side. Then we can ogle it and dream about WW2 scenarios.
Actually, I thought about claiming this was already the case as a prank, and decided it would be silly, and probably wouldn't go very far before somebody asked for a screenshot or something.
Still, would be cool to have just one WW2 vehicle in CMSF as a hidden feature. Don't you think?
-
Hmm, well then I guess 4x4 is fine for Operation Flashpoint, but I'm not sure it's quite enough for CMSF in the open desert. Not if we care about creating realistic engagements with modern armor.
Personally, I get a little pissy when my Setup Zone is under fire from the enemy on turn 1.
-
4km seems a little restrictive given the range and accuracy of modern guns and the open terrain in the Middle East.
-
How big can maps be?
-
Can the map be made big enough? I quickly opened the editor to see what the max map size is, and I only got up to about 2km X 2km.Originally posted by Renaud:The action lasted exactly 23 minutes from first engagement to last and covered about 6 kilometers of desert between 67 Easting and 73 Easting.
-
Leaving out models for oil service equipment is part of the vast conspiracy to make you forget the U.S. invaded Syria for the oil in the first place.
-
Well guess what, most of the engagements in CMSF are going to appear one sided. Nothing new here.Originally posted by Tzen:It seems a little too one-sided to be that interesting for CMSF. Am I wrong?
However, almost anything can be balanced into a 'fair' scenario. It just takes a little skill and imagination. Players need to break out of this 'equal forces capture the flag in the center of the map' mentality that the CM QB crowd has of what a wargame is.
First, you can heavily penalize the American side for every vehicle lost. If the American side loses more than say, three vehicles, give the Red side enough points so that they 'win'.
Also, just because historically the Iraqis got caught a little off guard and did poorly, and the Americans performed perfectly - that doesn't mean that any player is going to step in and so the same. I think there is an inclination to think that events always play out the same when re-created. That past events are inevitable and hardwired. That isn't true. Making slightly different decisions can have big consequences.
And, I bet the scenario can be 'opened up' to different possible outcomes simply by allowing both sides some latitude as to where to set up units at the beginning.
-
I don't come here, but I just noticed that MrPeng never posts outside the Peng thread.
I didn't even know there was a MrPeng. Huh.
-
I think we have the OOB to re-create one of the most famous battles of the Iraq war, if some intrepid scenario designer would tackle it. The Iraqis had T-72s, which are in the game, as are the Abrams and Bradleys.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_73_Easting
In fact, I bet there are a number of scenarios from the 'Mother of All Battles' which can easily be re-created in CMSF.
-
I've been playing email games for a lot of years. If you use the same filename, and don't number, you'll eventually run into a situation where I send you a file, you don't get it, then you resend me your old file a few days later, thinking I didn't get the last one, which I then download and overwrite my current file.Originally posted by Elvis:Runyan99, if you don't number there is never confusion. If the file is named ElvisvsRunyan99 then the only possible file that is in play is that one. Less confusion.
Believe me, I've been doing this a lot of years. Numbering makes it easy to see who has the current turn, and you can easily request a needed file if it is numbered.
OMG It's coming true!!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I thought we were going to go to war with Iran...