Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

RSColonel_131st

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    660

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by RSColonel_131st

    IEDs, mines, booby traps, etc

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Hhmm, the more I read this board, the more I get confused.

    Steve says, if I understood that right:

    A) IEDs won't be very usefull against a fast-moving force and

    B) No suicide fanatics

    So what WILL be there that makes the Syrians dangerous? If this turns out to be straight and pure military simulation of american vs. syrian regular army, then there's no point in playing it because it will be unbalanced. Or you nerf the US Forces and make it unrealistic, but balanced.

    From my understanding, the only thing that makes this kind of fights hard for the US Army is the guerilla/terrorist tactics used against them by their enemys, and their enemys hiding behind civilians.

    Now, if you reduce the possible guerilla tactics, there are no civilians, and the OPFOR doesn't consist of more than half of a city like Mogadishu, then really, what will keep this game from being a Speedbumb vs. Steamroller scenario?

    0

    IEDs, mines, booby traps, etc

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Simple put, I see it this way:

    1) They can't really make a game just about the military phase of such an invasion. Because in a full on military assault, force against force, Syrian Troops will always be toast.

    2) Much of it, in order to remain realistic and challenging for the US Side, will likley have to be designed so as to play out similar to Faljuah or other US Ops in citys full of civilians, defended by a mix of regular troops, Guerillias and also "Martyrs".

    In CMBB, you have command over russian partisans as well. There's no reason to think that non-regular syrian fighters will be excluded from the OoB in this game.

    And with all that comes the need for all the nasty little devices these people use, including walking and driving "suicide" attacks with little to no hope for survival.

    But then, as someone asked above, you can't really simulate half of this proberly without civilians present.

    0

    Oh poo, now I'm going to boycott BFC & join Taskforce Zarqavi (cont'd)

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    For years and years I've thought there was no point in simulating Modern warfare because it wouldn't be a challenge for either side. The US/NATO side sits back and wipes out the defender, the defender just has to sit and take it. Then Somalia happened. Big reality check for many. The best of the best were badly beaten up by a bunch of thugs with little to no traing and/or experience. And nothing heavier than a common RPG.

    One should not forget that for the actual "Blackhawk Down" operation, we're talking a few hundred thugs against less than 50 or so "best of the best". What was the final kill ratio? 20:1000?

    So yes, Somalia showed that the US could catch a bloody nose once in a while, but only when faced against the better part of an entire city population - and you can't model that in CM:SF.

    As for the problems in Iraq - much of that comes down to ROE and civilian presence. You will obviously need a very detailed setup for victory conditions if you want to recreate those problems in CM:SF, stuff like "You lose if you blow a house apart" or "you lose if you have more than x amount of casualitys" and similar things. Civs aren't even modelled as far as we know.

    In short, I remain sceptical. Modeling actual warfare "Army versus Army" will result in the Syrians getting badly beaten up, and to realistically model "victory conditions" for a counter-insurgency operation, that will be some work.

    0

    BFC Please sketch the game from the Syrian point of view!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I think for playing as the Syrian Commander, you would do well to think in terms of Guerilla Warfare.

    Hit and Run Tactics, causing as much casualitys on the US side as you can without trying to hold ground.

    As far as I recall reading we will see new sets of victory conditions, like for example "US must escort convoy from A to B and casualitys can not be bigger than X for political reasons". So as a Syrian Commander, that defines fairly well how you will play.

    I think some good literature on the topic may be the Mudjaheedin's way of fighting the Sovjets in Afghanistan.

    I'd also like to know if we will be able to make our own Syrian Campaign if Battlefront doesn't include it. At least with the old Operations, plenty of users could create them.

    0

    Oh poo, now I'm going to boycott BFC & join Taskforce Zarqavi (cont'd)

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Some more comments from me:

    1) Remember that Battlefront had, once upon a time, actually applied for the trademark "Operation Iraqi Freedom". It's anyone's guess if this game started out as a possible recreation to the Iraq Conflict or not, it's at any rate too close to it for many, or so it seems from the forum comments.

    2) Togehter with the second post in this thread, I too would like more information about timing and cost of modules.

    Hypothetically...BFC releases "Situation Farfetched" for PC, then anounces the next module to be US Marines and the one to follow Eurocorps Units (German, Swedish, British or whatever).

    Now, if a single module takes two or three months to develop, then those members here who would rather play something else than an US Centric campaign could have "their game" within half a year later. That would be sound. If the first module happened to be something else then US Marines, even better.

    But if a single module takes like 6 months to develop and test, and the "Euro" modules are not #1 on the list, then those who want something else than US are looking at 1 year+ for their actual "modules".

    Now, of course, anyone is free to say "Don't like it, don't buy it". But it should be understood that you have many people here who waited 2+ years for the final announcement on CMx2, and those people sure have a right to be a little displeased.

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Andreas:

    It is not a US/Euro issue, so let's not make it one.

    Andreas, with all respect, for me it is. After years of getting fed with US Hardware in all sims, RTS and other war-related games there comes a time when I want to see our own stuff feature prominently.

    Of course, if your primary interest is a very good game about modern warfare, then CM:SF will do for you. But if your primary interest is to see the european hardware modelled for once, and modern warfare is only your second interest, then CM:SF doesn't do it - until the module comes out.

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Steiner14:

    The oposition in Europe against the US is big and in Germany it is HUGE.

    i.e.: everyone i know is happy, that the US are bleeding that much in Iraq. Most people i know, have big respect for the Iraqi freedom fighters. All people i know were happy that hurricane Katrina hit the USA and not another country (me included).

    Stick your head in the toilet and flush, will ya. I'm a proud Euro myself who disagreed with the current war in Iraq, but the ramble you wrote above sends my bull**** detector off the charts. No one here is happy if US Soldiers die or New Orleans (a beautiful city I very much wanted to visit next year) gets flooded over.

    BFC, from a fellow Euro - sorry for those idiots.

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Having said that, we are VERY interested in including non-US forces in our games. That is one reason we came up with the Module concept. Instead of excluding them altogether and moving onto the next major title, we have built into our development strategy the ability to deliver "niche within niche" products for those who really want to them.

    The "module" concept is a sound one, but then, your first words about that in the announcement were if I recall them correctly "we're likely to include the US Marines too". So that doesn't give the non-US interested players much to hope as it sounds as if our "non-US modules" may at best be the second or third item on a long development list.

    Granted, no one knows yet how long it will take to develop and release a module but for me that sounded like "somewhere down the line, 8 to 12 months later in the far-away future, you may see non-US Material in the CM:SF game". Not like "Hey, we made this modular so the non-US players can still have their own forces".

    And on top of that, if the "niche" modules really sell far less than the original game as you state in your post, there won't be a lot of other people around to PBEM/play online with as most of the market will just happily stick with the US Modules.

    Like you said, you made the rational decision to design for the biggest market. But we don't have to like it, and I for one hope that 1C may just come trough with their Wartime Command in time which would give most international players a piece of their hardware from WW2. If it needs a russian developer to cover those areas, then so be it.

    Right now (with the gaming market in general, not just BFC) it seems to me that Euro Customers end up getting the left-overs from the US Market, with the market basically treating us as second-grade customers. Yes, I'm a tad bit bitter about this.

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    For the record: I've played some quick-battles from the russian side against a friend of mine in CMBB, and that was kind of difficult after two years of constantly shooting at them (IL-2, Forgotten Battles and CMBB).

    But I did it. Yet I wouldn't have bought CMBB if my only choice would have been the russkys.

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by juan_gigante:

    RSColonel_131st - There will be modules for other nations, we've been told. So I guess you could wait for those. And I think the point is that the environment you are in and the tools you are given (in the campaign, that is) keep it from being a one-sided battle. As other people have said, in the other CM games people do Stuarts vs. Panthers, and despite the technological difference, that can still be a fun battle, if the scenario designer makes it so.

    If they do other modules, I may buy. Just not the start package, not likely.

    Asymetric warfare requires asymetric victory conditions IMHO. For the Syrians, if they could cause a certain minimum of casualitys, it becomes a poltical victory. But they can't play "defend the flag" and fight for territory.

    Originally posted by juan_gigante:

    One thing I don't get is Europeans not wanting to play as Americans. In the CMx1 games, many people played nationalities other than their own. I'm American, and I play German almost exclusively. In CMBB, all of us Western Europeaners and Americans didn't even have the option of playing our "home side". So, now that it is a new engine we MUST HAVE OUR NATIVE LAND!!!

    Belive it or not, this is something fairly new to me too. I spent years flying F-15's or playing/commanding US Land Forces without a problem.

    But I guess this is a sad side-effect of the current political climate between the US and EU. I'm not immune to that. To take it from the other side, if you gave americans the only option to play as french forces in a new computer game, how bad would the game sell? And I'm not after blaming anyone here, pointing fingers or heaping guilt onto anyone nation - that's just the way things went the last few years.

    As both "continents" become a bit more "disconnected", and as europe's military power grows, many Euros just aren't interesting in "pretending to be US" in computer games. We now have our own cool toys to play with. A good Euro-Brigade Module would do wonders here.

    0

    So, who's disappointed?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I didn't read all 5 pages of this thread, just to voice my opinion as a single customer:

    I'll most likely NOT buy it.

    Personally I have no problem with the time-frame. Let it be modern warfare, that's fine with me. But having only the US Side in a campaign, and Syria as the only other option in a quick battle, that is just not the kind of units/nations I'm interested in.

    <slightly off topic rant>

    My problem with the game market today in general is that everyone and their mom sell stuff for the american market. European units, european weapons and vehicles hardly ever get done. I realize the US is simple the biggest market, but I'd love to see a detailed Eurofighter-Sim one day (not just the next F-22/F-16 one) Or a detailed tank sim (thankfully at least Steel Beasts does the Leopard2A4 used by my own country).

    A game that gives me european hardware to control allows me to identify with the forces involved. US only does not do this. At least with WW2, one of these german soldiers portraied in game could have been grandpa or my grand-uncle. There's a certain historical connection to it. With the US Stuff dominating the market, there is not.

    </rant off>

    Aside of that, the asymetrical aspect (big country with super tanks and airpower against second-grade hardware and airforce) doesn't sound too exciting.

    I may buy if there's a module with german or british forces involved. Other than that, I'll buy Histwar to support Battlefront.

    Oh, and even the second game, WW2 setting, is not too hot on my list if it can't offer a german campaign side as well. Again, I don't like being forced to play as American Soldiers in these games.

    0

    How do I take a screenshot?

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I agree with the Chief Grog here. Even though there's free software out there, I never bothered to download and install it. It's just way more convenient if the feature is already in the game, and should be a fairly "standard" code exercise for an experienced coder.

    Also, more important, such a feature might allow you to disable interface or other stuff that gets in the way of a good screenshot, contrary to external programs.

    0

    First Person?

    in DropTeam

    Posted

    Even then, if there's no vehicles left, you can still command, right?

    I don't know if you're familiar with the Battlezone Games. They took the first-person-commander idea really to the logical end.

    In them, to get an overview (top-down view) of your units so that you could effectivly command them, you had to find yourself a satellite uplink station, leave your vehicle, walk and log into it.

    Then you got a map of the area. But while you were doing that, you could get killed by battle around.

    If you'd rather wanted to lead from the front, you could get killed even easier, and then the mission was over as well.

    Basically, in those games, you were the commander, but also a very real "unit" on the field of battle. If your life ended, you obviously lost the mission.

    0

    First Person?

    in DropTeam

    Posted

    Any chance for a "dead is dead" option that will end the game if your person is killed?`

    That always made sense in the Battlezone Games - you had to be carefull if you led from the front, and had to make sure that your command post in the back couldn't be overrun.

    0
×
×
  • Create New...