panzermartin

What was the Napolean said? "Lts discuss tactics... </font>

That was a good laugh However, I dont understand what the fuss is all about. CM:SF modern setting is by far the ideal environment for CMx2's kick off. I think WW2 trend is gradually fading, vastly overdone with all these FPS and RTS that float around. Right now BF2 is hugely popular with its mid east and china settings and I think more is coming this way. If I was a developer, I wouldnt spend 3 years of money and programming for another ww2 grog game. I would shoot for modern warfare. As for the stryker debate...I dont know. I dont think we will see anything "uber". It has been mentioned that stryker's advantages are mainly on the logistics side, so I see no point in debating something so insignificant. CMSF is about fast paced, lightly armed forces and the stryker sounds like an ideal basis for simulating this. The only thing I am concerned about is play balance. I trust BFC to get things right in this area and not make the game one-sided and unchallenging for the syrian side. That would be a game killer imho, since decent online play should be the main focus of gameplay. If CMSF proves to be a "jarhead's moral booster" targeted for the trigger happy part of the american market (which I seriously doubt), I'll propably wont buy it..that's all. I believe we can show some well deserved faith and wait till the demo is out. At this time, little can be done to influence how this game shapes out anyway.

my first double..

What I would love to see included in CMSF, are some civilian vehicles, cars, trucks, vans etc. If multiple skins are in, the modding community wont have any problem to give them some texture variety and add realism in the urban areas (where most of CMSF battles will take place) Poles, traffic lights, and signs in arabic would be great too...although they might be considered as luxury.

I suppose the command interface will be simplified to catch up the RTS mode pace right? I dont mean that it will be simplistic but for instance, would you be able to move your units with a single right click without issuing any order or waypoint? Some basic commands like "move" or "fire" can be handled that way without even keyboard shortcuts for those emergency RTS situations I guess.

As long as the game retains its depth, thats fine with me. I just hope that this doesnt mean the death of turn-based on-line play (via TCP)

It will be a nice feature but I'm a bit skeptical about it. Being able to watch right from the start your opponent's tactical thinking and habits might not be good for gameplay. Every player has his signature, type of setup, preffered ways of attacking/defending. Revealing all these so precisely and easily, will take away some mystery of your "enemy"'s tactical profile. So, although I'm tempted to see this kind of feature included, I won't be disappointed either if it doesnt make it eventually.

Good points...I'd like to see more detail put in the creation of random maps. Preventing unrealistic edge attacks by limiting setup zone is a good start, although not a gamey tactics stopper by itself.

Yeah I know..but then again, who really wants to blow up in pieces on his first day at the recruitment center?

Can we at least have it before May? By May I'll be in the army and for nearly a year there wont be any CMSF for me I need some basic training tool as well

Capable of speeds over 62mph? This thing is gamey. It will cross the whole battlefield in a single turn.

corrected...I missed that one thx Yes, I'm well aware of the purchase system in CMx1. My point is that the difference wont be only about unit cost. CMSF is going to handle command, situational awareness, victory conditions entirely different than CMx1 did and if this vast US strategic and tactical superiority is present in QBs then the syrian side will be incapable of anything but defensive guerilla warfare which (might) lead to repeative head to head gameplay.

From the posts I've read so far, it looks like CMx2 series is going to lean more towards single player gameplay than any other CMx1. At least CMSF gives that impression to me. You have single player story driven campaign (one sided), focus on asymmetrical warfare, one side (US) with far superior force quality etc. Don't get me wrong, I really like the new setting of CM and I was too hoping for a change but I have my concerns over 2 player games which is where I spend 95% of my CM time (and I'm confident that many others here fall in the same category). I'm certain that as a US commander you will be able to conduct all kinds of offensive operations, recon, assault,etc. Will the same apply for the syrian player? Let's say we eliminate CAS and give Syrians advantage in Inf and armor ratios, whatever. Will this be enough to make a balanced non-assymetrical warfare scenario or the gap in terms of response times, troop quality, C&C, intel etc will still be that huge that such a situation will be impossible to portray? Or perhaps, this kind of battle will be anyway out of the scope and the new guerilla philosophy of CMSF? For instance, is this type of (simplistic) hypothetical scenario out of the question? :" Hassan, the enemy is in control of the school complex in the town centre. Force them out with your T-62s and your inf company. We will provide 122mm arty, heavy mortars fire as well as hind cover blah blah..." So far, I almost get the impression that the attack, assault options for the Syrian side will be greyed out, even for QBs no matter what force selections are made. I'm confident that BFC will make the most detailed and realistic combat simulation ever made, no doubt about it. I just hope for some editing flexibility beyond the new asymmetrical model and victory conditions that will allow recreating some challenging "what if" situations. [ October 22, 2005, 05:04 AM: Message edited by: panzermartin ]

Will "traditional" combined arms QBs be possible in 2player mode? In CMx1 we had the classic QB settings, with rarity, and well balanced points restriction for each side, e.g 3 t34s vs 1 tiger ratios etc. Will the same apply for CM:SF? Apart from the realistic campaign and scenarios, will we get the chance as syrians to assault, attack with unrealistic yet balanced force selections? Will, the syrian player be able to offer a challenge to the US player beyond assymetrical warfare? Or hiding in the attics with a couple rpg's till you are dead or untill the US side has reached the casualty limit will be the only way for a fair head to head match? In CMBB, you could attack with crack, fully equipped panzergrenadiers along with support form shiny uber armor, even in May 1945 qbs. Was it realistic? of course not. But it kept the game from being a Volkssturm shoot up in JS-2 and SU-152 and offered some great playability for human vs human battles. I know this is going to be a lot different from CMx1 with new challenges offered for the player but I hope you can keep some very succesful features, even if they dont always fit in this modern era type of warfare.

Well perhaps, in the single player campaign which will be crafted to be tough for the US player. What about 2-player though? I'd like to play as Syrian in battles that are not only defensive/ambush/IED focused. Will this be possible if the majority of the syrian force is slow in coordination,command delays and most of its equipment is 30yrs old? Anyway, I think players will come up with force balancing rules so I hope this wont be an issue.

Really cant wait for CMSF, a mid east setting is a wise choice and will certainly prove to be a very immersive wargame environment. I would just like to add my thoughts along with those of the previous posters regarding the equal represenation of the syrian side in the game. Single player campaign as US might be challenging BUT emphasis should be put on head to head play. This is where CM series really shine and hope that BFC wont make the game leaning towards one side. Please make the scenario and Quickbattle parameters unlimited beyond strickly realistic borders for both sides. Dont dump the old style meeting engagment type of scenarios. Although unrealistic, many of us find this type of QBs the most fun of all, allowing both players for manuevering, attacking and defending at the same time. I would like to be on the offensive as Syrians as well, using MBT's BMP's etc having a force as mobile as an allied one and being able to use all the air, art assets the syrian inventory can field. (why not some T-80s and BMP-3s? this is going to be fictional after all, wasn't the kornet supposed not to have been shipped to Iraq?) In other words I would expect the game to be fully moddable in terms of missions at least. Wish we could have an operation tool for the syrian side too but I'm not very optimistic about it. Of course, I understand that assymetrical type of battles will be the core of the gameplay I suppose (and really really looking forward to play these ones) but making the force balance and philosophy fully customizable wont hurt anyone I think.

I think the ideal is balancing bright and subdued colors. Some artistic touches here and there aint bad because ,imo, a totally subdued pallete will make the game look dull and heavy. The color ranges used by Maddox 1c in Il-2 and the cancelled(?) Wartime command are close to what I would prefer to see in CMx2, perhaps a bit more subdued. Magua's color ranges in that classic Normandy mod are among my favourites too.

If I remember correctly, it was mentioned that multiplayer files size will be much bigger and therefore this will seriously impact transfer times and even put in doubt the implementation of PBEM or even TCP/ip game modes in CMx2. For many of us TCP/ip was the way to enjoy the CM series all these years and I really hope that we will not see any degradation of the current system. [ August 26, 2005, 05:47 AM: Message edited by: panzermartin ]

Especially the tungsten rounds I think, have no warhead at all, thus they dont cause explosion with impact. So the round can penetrate the thin armour of the car, fly through it and exit from the opposite side without causing any damage. I have seen this with thin armored SP guns as well.

I see. Thanks for the quick reply.

This isnt of major importance but I was wondering if it is possible to add a slight hazing-distant effect in the 3d-terrain of CMAK. In other words, something like the already existing fog effect but in smaller density and in non-foggy conditions as well. This is to improve the feel of distance and depth, something that I think is missing in the current CM engine, with distant graphics appearing too crisp even at 2-3 km. This will also create the illusion of a borderless battlefield adding to the game's atmosphere. Take a look at a landscape and you'll notice that colors and details become gradualy paler and fade away even from 1km distance. Combined with the new dust effects a haze feature would really enhance aesthiticaly the game imo. Just a thought...hope its not too late [ August 23, 2003, 12:03 PM: Message edited by: panzermartin ]

Wow! Desert enviroment looks absolutely beautiful with the tall palm trees and bushes. The med mountainous terrain needs some extra treatment of the olive trees and green colors though, imho. Overall it looks really promising :eek:

I'd like to see more variety in 3d models of buildings in CM series. Not just boxes with roofs. Telephone poles would be a cool decorative addition too.

Very very nice. The color is much closer to the original russian green than the khaki of the default textures. Can we have a late 1943 model too please?? Thank you!

Well, dont tell anybody, but I wasnt satisfied either with the rear engine deck of my mod, so it might not be your mistake