Zemke

Well in Afghanistan SF worked with us all the time, but we were not really a regular unit, but we were not part of SOCOM.... But I would like to see SF also, particularly with some scenarios "raiding" building to "capture" high value products.

Battlefront All that sounds great, tell me more....sell me, tell me the good things, all the improvements.

Oh one more thing BF, you guys have KNOW this CMSF "I wish", "where is", thing is going to rage for months right.....because when guys like me do decide to buy the game after patch 1.03, or 1.04, or 1.05 and on and on, we will be posting all our grips....... A man loves his wife, his dog and his hobby, just not in that order. Good Luck

My impressions were the same after playing the Demo. Frankly I never played CM1 much against the computer anyway, and it's AI's at that level is not much different. What really concerns me is the poor tactical AI, you have to have good tactical AI or you have to become a damn tank driver. Which is not what I want to do. I want to fight the battle, not baby sit units. The interface needs work, I missed the ability to see the orders of all my units. Against a human opponent it is where this can really hurt, but give them some time. BF also keeps bring up coding issues with this new engine, "we cannot because of"....thought this new engine was going to allow more possibilities, except I keep hearing we cannot because of code. I have not read everything on these forums, far from it, so I may be off base with some of my comments. With that said, if I had been BF, I would have put out game just like CM1, but with the graphics of CMSF, and with even more improvements. For example, the artillery model in CMSF is excellent, I understand the editor is excellent too. Perhaps with the Campaign Game they talked about. I am certainly no programer, but why not improve what is working, like the QB format. One post on the Blitz (where I get my opponents), said "face it, CM as we know it dead". I hope not, even if it took someone else to buy the rights to the game and take it to the next level. Perhaps in a few years Matrix will, they seem to be re-publishing re-runs of older wargames. Or maybe CMSF will (after all you guys who have it finish beta-test it for them), be the simulation it could be.

Steve, I have not given up on you guys, all I am saying is you released CMSF too soon as you have admitted, ok we are paying to Beta-Test, got that. The other point is RT vs WEGO. You guys made a decision to include RT to appeal to a larger market and other reasons, understand that. I don't have the game, yet so I really cannot judge, just played the Demo. I will buy the game, trust me, but I am not going to rush out and buy it till I see a few more patches. Like I said I am not going to pay to beta-test your product......but I have great respect for your previous products CMBO, CMBB, CMAK and trust you guys will do your best to make CMSF a better game. So I will give you guys some time to fix things proper then you can have my $50 bucks. Then I prey that the WWII one is good to go. Modern is ok, but personally I have lived it, and it doesn't hold the same "charm" as WWII. But that is old ground, and water under the bridge. I have stated before I have nothing but good wishes for what you are trying to do......I only hope the technical issues with this engine can be overcome to give the thinking tactician the abilty to give orders, without having to mico-manage / baby-sit units, perhaps impossible, but that is my hope. Best wishes to Battlefront.....as Zemke waits.

Sandy I have been reading everything I can on this game sense getting back from Afghanistan in the last week, played the Demo...and you are right, Steve and Battlefront seem to be in a State of Denial, and if you think about it makes sense. They have put it a lot of time, heart, money and effort and frankly come up short it seems. Steve you guys at Battlefront need to do some real soul searching and decide if Battlefront is going to build Wargames or Computer Games......I understand you have to make a living, just don't try and blow smoke up an old Wargamers ass and tell me this is a Combat Simulation, when it feels like Command and Conquer, except with more realistic armor penatration modeling...ok not really a fair statement, but CMSF is broke and you guys need to fix it. Wargamers want to win by out thinking their opponent, using better tactics, and fighting their force better than the other guy. I don't want to win by "out clicking" the other guy....I am too old to even try. I love the artillery model, excellent job there! I like the graphics, looked nice...good enough for me...frankly I think the CM1 graphics ar fine. I never played the game due to graphics anyway. I want realism, I want to Command not micromanage my forces....come guys you can do better than this. [ August 11, 2007, 11:17 AM: Message edited by: Zemke ]

I have waited so long for this game, and not because I wanted to fight Syria, but because of what it should be, an improvement to a simulation at Battalion and below combat. I have played the Demo over and over, trying to "get it". I mean the game does have the name "Combat Mission", but it just does not feel right. I think it is the RT vs WEGO, with real time I feel I am playing Command and Conquer instead of a Wargame, and the interface seems poor, but then I am not used to it either, and it took me awhile to get used to the CM1 interface. I don't want a click fest game, I want a thinking game that simulates modern combat. So far I think Brett Todd hit the nail on the head, except for the "shoehorned contemporary warfare into a WWII paradigm" comment, which I felt was not fair. After all the talk from Battlefront about not releasing the game "till it is ready" turned out to be BS, I question what they are up to. I think they are running out of money and needed a cash infusion to keep things going, just my theory. I promised I would buy this game just to support BF's efforts to build the WWII version, as I have hated the idea of modern combat from the start, but I will not pay to be a "Beta Tester", and will wait till BF sorts out a lot of these problems. Maybe the 1.02 patch will do it, maybe not........but for now I will wait before I part with my money.

I can speak from first hand experience, I am deployed in Afghanistan right now. We had a SFC shot in the back of the helmet, front plate twice with 7.62x39 and never even knew he had been hit for sure till after the fight. He was on the .50cal in a UAH. I personnel saw the front plate and helmet. He felt the impact of the round to the back of the head, but thought nothing of it and keep firing his .50 cal. The front plates are a newer version issued, and tend to not shatter on impact. We have had soldiers shot with AP rounds, but they are very rare. One gun shield on an UAH had several holes from AK AP fire, but the gunner was not hit. We find the accuracy of the enemy very poor, most of the time, the enemy tends to spray a lot of rounds in your direction, leaving the results to God. Anyway, my job is not to forgive, but set up the meeting with the one who can.

It looks nice, but there are lots of great looking games out there now, I am more interested in realism. How well does it simulate the real world and what scale is this? It looks like a FPS, but I am sure it is not (I hope).

I appreciate all the forgiveness, I am interested to see how realistic it is. I think it is important to support the gaming business, and in particular this new Combat Mission game as I have trully loved playing the others so much.

I apologize to everyone. I was pissed, mad, and wanted to fight, I wanted to kick and scream, and break things like a little a kid who didn't get his way......I can admit all that, (hard to hide when you post five or six different times and places on the BF forums). I had only learned about CMSF that very day from an online CM gaming buddy, I was a bit.....emotional after looking forward to this game for a long time. However, after a bit of reflection and thought, I think a WAIT AND SEE attitude is best, (Althought I still think Syria is a poor theater choice). Of course in order to determine if CMSF is what I hope it is, I will purchase it. If nothing else to support BF sales, so I can get what I really want, a WWII game, (and hopefully an Eastern Front game someday). We all need to continue to push the PBEM issue. PBEM will allow a much broader following, which will mean a richer enviroment for all WWII tatical war-gamers out there. I am not a programer, but I do know that without PBEM there will be a massive number of people who will not be able to enjoy the game the way they want to. The planned muli-play ability is really exciting to me. It will allow muli-play TCIP battle. Now players will have to coordinate TOGETHER, plan TOGETHER, work TOGETHER, and cross talk as the operation unfolds. The Principle of War, Unity of Command comes to mind. Players should allow one guy to plan the operation, while they coordinate and cross-talk during the operation to execute the plan. It they don't, they risk failure in the face of more united and coordinated opponents. WOW just like real life!!! I would also like to see the inclusion of "on board" Battalion HQ units. I am positive that many of us will take the game to Battalion and Brigade Level operations, (if we can). To support this idea....Battalion HQ units are normally located within 1-2K from the area of contact with main force units (not recon and security unit however). Having more than two companies under one command (You), is a Battalion level fight. Battalions are tactical HQ units, and as defined by US Army Doctrine. Operations at Brigade and below are considered tactical operations. So I hope that BF includes Battalion HQ units, or at least some game modeling that reflects their influence, (good and bad). (Yes I have read BF's ideas on Battalion HQ units and their inclusion or not on the game map) My appologies to all who were offended in any way. (Even the ones who attacked me personally.) My primary hope is there continues to be a dynamic and exciting war-gaming community out there. One interested in contemporary and historical events. Also Companies like BF continue to profit from, and produce great games. Anyway Gents, I am offically CHANGING my stance on CMSF from opposition, to one of wait and see. I plan to buy CMSF, if nothing else to support BFs efforts, for future releases. Who knows I may find the Syrian "Front" fun and exciting.

Excellent AAR

Be careful Panzer Mike, you are not allowed to state what you think or how you feel. If you do your thread will be locked. I agree with every thing you said, although getting my support on this topic is political death here!

Be careful Panzer Mike, you are not allowed to state what you think or how you feel. If you do your thread will be locked. I agree with every thing you said, although getting my support on this topic is political death here!

Be careful Panzer Mike, you are not allowed to state what you think or how you feel. If you do your thread will be locked. I agree with every thing you said, although getting my support on this topic is political death here!

Steve, Responding to my post in the manner you have seems to be rather....emotional. If by attacking people who have spend their hard earned money buying your products, then yes I do question BF's judgement. I question BF's judement in the direction you went with CMX2. I question where you get your military advice. I question what you guys are thinking. I really hope I am wrong and CMSF does well. True I am gripping about not getting what I (and others) wanted. Do I care YOU don't like it, NO. Its your job to protect your product and it is only natural that your ego may have been hurt a bit by questioning BF's judgement or marketing "savy". Again, I do hope CMSF does well, for the sake of wargaming. From a military perspective, CMSF is a non-starter. Granted I am talking about the "setting".....Syrian. Perhaps people can pretend it is not the Syrians, and suspend their dis-belief so to speak, and get into it, I can not. AND Steve......(you will like this) As for your Fallujah comment, that really tells me how much you DON'T know about the subject you are doing a game on. The combat there was tough, and our men performed great. American forces cleared a major built-up area in six weeks with six Battalions in the face of determined resistance with realatively little collateral damage. Every major weapon system was used, PGMs from aircraft, Spector Gun Ships, M1A2 tanks and Brads. Every building was cleared and we killed a LOT of BAD GUYS! When we fight today, we are NOT going to give them ANY chances, every weapon is used and planned for. All of which supports my point that the Syrian Army, would get the crap killed out it before you can say Boo! So either you will NOT have a realistic portrayal of a war with Syrian, because if you do, it will be little challenge to play the Americans and not very much fun to play the Syrians. Or you guys will create an unrealistic game by giving the Syrians an Army they don't have and could not field to give them a "gaming" chance. So yes I question what you guys are thinking. Sounds to me like you guys need to hire someone who knows something about doctrine and warfighting. COL Hunt (of FOX News fame)would be good, he is a real soldier's soldier, and would tell you the same thing.....no matter how you slice it, Syrian would get the bloody crap kicked out of them in a hurry. KwazyDog, You guys act like I killed your mother or something. IF I have been " rude and condescending ", what are you guys? BDW said " We are losing ". Yes mistakes have been made, but we are NOT losing. I find it a real slap in the face to so many who have served there, to even say that. Sure, if you believe the media, we are losing, everything is bad and nothing is working. We are doing a lot of good over there. Building schools, drilling water wells, feeding the people and so on. None of that is in the news, only the how many soldiers were killed doing their duty. It is slow work and it takes time, but we can and must succeed. The people there are free, can vote, are creating a new governement. Will it work, only time will tell, but I think it can. Keep in mind we are getting three groups of people to work together who in the past have killed each other on a regular basis. Most of the people support our presence till their own Army can pick up the fight. Most of the enemy killed are not from Iraq. If this war is lost, it will be lost at home, in the hearts and minds of Americans, not in Iraq. Don't believe everything you see on TV or read in the papers, they are selling bad news because bad news sells.

Defense Rests........

I hate to tell you this, but if necessary wounded are left behind to accomplish the mission. The mission always has priority over everything else, seldom is that extreme necessary however. The goal is not to get shot, or wounded, the goal is to accomplish the stated mission period.

KwazyDog said.... Zemke, with no disrespect intended that comment alone leaves me wondering if you have any real idea of what you are talking about with regards to modern combat, or even the current situation in Iraq. If you are truely interested in learning more I have suggest elsewhere some interesting books on the matter and the above AAR would be a good place to start. That being said, I suspect you arent, and for that reason and the fact you have left the forums I wont go into it further. Well for one I have been there and as an Officer planning the missions. I have read countless AARs on this. I suggest you go to the CALL site, you can read all you want. Besides reading about it I have seen it, studied it, wrote about it in CGSC, and planned it. So show me where I an wrong about modern warfare. I think it is you who has no concept of what it is or isn't. You need to earn the right to tell me I don't know what I am talking about. At least I am not afraid to state the truth, or at least what I believe is the truth, albit a bit rough for some to digest. Dogface I was 99% bored, 1% adrinline rush. Its not the Normandy Beach Invasion. Its dull, boring and HOT work most of the time, particulalry after doing it for a long time. Troops cannot stay keyed up every second, its impossible. Like my paragraphs, I see there are a lot of English teachers here. So I have tried to nake this easier to read. Yeah I am a WWII guy, always was, always will be. I think some have missed the point, or more likey I have not articulated it very well. So I will list them in a clear and concise manner. (1) I would have prefered a WWII game, oh well, I didn't get it my way. I can wait for a WWII mod. (2) If modern, then a combined arms fight using a 1975-91 Warsaw Pact or Korea as the Theater of Operations would have been prefered by ME, not everyone, just by me. (3) If the Theater of Operations is Syria, it will be unrealistic for the reasons I have stated, or it will be pretty darn boring. I can just see it, players begging to play Syria "Oh can I play Syria again, I only lost 80% of my combat power to Specter last game, and killed two Americans with my IED." (4) I will buy a WWII mod, if the engine is what it is cracked up to be and I really hope it is. (5) Young guys don't USUALLY play this type of game, but tend towards real time first person games, either dismounted infantry, police/SWAT raids, or armored combat sims with them in control of the vehicle. There are some exceptions of course. (6) Leaving the forums...means I will no longer post on this topic. Other than try and answer more critics. I seldom post on BF anyway, and from what I have read, most just attack or belittle when someone tries to make a serious point concerning the hobby or whatever subject. I realize I have also set myself up tring to "stir the pot". Yes I understand I am going against the grain here with my dislike of CMSF without seeing a DEMO, but it is my opinion on the matter.

Modern warfare, please educate me then, as if 23 years conducting it is not enough. I stand corrected on the deletion, my apoligies. All I am saying is the entire concept is flawed. It appears to be a marketing ploy to lure the 14-17 year olds into buying, another flawed idea IMO. Male youth buy FPS, not tactical wargames, I should know my 16 year old son has CS, SOCOM, Delta, Day of Defeat, Medal of Honor, Battlefield Vietnam, and so on, all FPS. I have tried to interest him in Combat Mission, but he says they are boring. There is not now, nor will be a military challenge from Syria. Just as every single operation in Iraq has been won by the US, due to training, discipline, and firepower, the same would be true in Syria. So why make a SciFi game. I would even say that if the US had the same equipment as our enemies, we would win hands down every time, because of discipline, training and firepower. So if the simulation is about Counter-insugency, it would not interest me, having done them IRL, and are pretty boring. If the game tried to model real combat in Syria it will be pretty boring. A War in Syria would be even faster than Iraq I or II, with lots of dead Syrians. BF could not do that, so they will have to give the Syrians the same discipline and training as US Army/Marine Corps, and weapons that either don't have the same capibilities IRL, or are over modeled, thus making CMSF a unrealistic simulation bordering on fantasy or SciFi. A NATO/Korea modern tactical sim would have held more appeal to me and others, but WWII is still my gaming time frame of choice. All I am saying then I think modern was a poor choice, and the Syrian threater of operations even worse. If it works.....great for BF, I for one will wait for a WWII mod, if the engine is good. Oh a good engine means better than Combat Mission, more realistic, better interface, better artillery model, better orders options, better and more realistic terrain, abiltiy to play by e-mail, and the ability to have multi-play TCIP to reflect all the C3 (Command/Control/Communications) problems in war and having to work with your peers to accomplish the mission. Better graphics is does not make a better tactical simulation, and I know BF has tried to go beyond CM, and make it better, and I hope they have, we shall see. I know I speak for a LOT of people, maybe not on every single issue, but a lot, and we will vote with our dollars. So till a WWII Mod is out, I will keep playing Combat Mission. I will stop posting also, as I am getting kicked like a dog.....lol. Good Luck BF, I hope you don't need it.

My point is several post is the very idea is poor. There is zero military challenge from Syria, none. The US Military and its western allies would handel them as quick as they did the conventional forces of Iraq, or as fast as the Israelis have did in 67 or 73. Why? Unit discipline, unit training, and over whelming use of combat power applied where needed. So there would not be an real challenge fighting Syria, not militarily. Now if the game is about counter-insugency warfare, and IEDs, then its not a war-game that I would play. I will wait till WWII comes out, IF the engine is good.

I am a wargamer/historian. I play wargames to experience historical events. I enjoy good games, but not just any game. I will continue to enjoy the ground breaking (at the time) Combat Mission engine. I don't need great graphics, I need realistic play, but manageable. CM strikes a good balance. I hoped that CMX2 would be the same game, but with better graphics, better orders, multi-play, convoy orders, better fire-support model. I am going to wait for the WWII mod to come out, as I am just not interested in fictional war in the future, particularly in the Mid-East. Anyway, lets see if this post gets pulled by big brother, like my last one did.

What a disappointment this has been for me, and MANY others. There is no challenge militarily in CMSF. If so then it will be SciFi. Where is the challenge of a 30-1 kill ratio? What tactical challenge is there? Also I have had enough of that region of the world in real life to last a lifetime. The last thing I want do is play a game on it. Also it has NO historical relavance to me. I play wargames, not police games, I like history, I have lived and fought current events! If the tactical engine is good, then I may buy the WWII mod, but I would never buy this. Looks like BF is got them a contract from the US Army, not the people who supported them with Combat Mission in the first place.

I think this game will fail, BF has left the people who really care about tactical wargames out in the cold. I mean how exciting and realistic will SF be. Think about it, western troops, desciplined, well trained, supurbly equiped, and air power that is un-matched, fighting the Syrians. Give me a break, a one sided blood bath. If it is not then the game will be un-realistic, because there is no way now or in 07 the Syrians will be able to fight the west. IEDs are not militarily effective, and are political. So CMSF will be either realistic and boring, or it will be a police action game, (and boring), or it will be completely un-realistice, (more like SciFi), and the Syrians will be able to fight toe to toe with the West (USA). Also I have had enough of this from the news and in real life. I want a war-game not a police action. I wanted to fight on the Stepps of Russian, so when the WWII mod comes, and if the engine is good (realistic), I will buy then.

I wrote the above post with my 15 year old son in mind, and the future of our hobby in general. Remember in the 1980s when you could walk into a computer game store and all the games were "Wargames", now there are none, or very few. If I want a wargame I have to order from online. Why, because the market has gotten so small, thats why, supply and demand. And to agrue that "twitch gamers would never play anyway", seems the type of attitude that will certainly doom our hobby in the long run. You can have realism and good graphics, you can have PBEM and multi-multi-play all in the same game! It has been done and is being done right now. Oh, and for for those who wouldn't want the hassel of dealing with other players on their side, then don't, play alone. But in the real Army and in real life, subordinate commanders have to work together, cross-talk, coordinate, to ensure the mission is executed. Multi-Multi play would open that OPTION up. I just see the possibilities of greatness. Organized groups (Clans) pitting tactical decision making against each other. Campaign games that don't take longer than the real war took to complete, while still making the "old guard" happy, as they can still be the squad leader, platoon leader, company commander, and study every fold in the ground, and check every LOS from every where before they send their PBEM file to their buddy. Everyone is happy!! As for the development time, I would gladly pay the extra money, and wait the extra time for CMX2 with multi-multi play capability. If it cost me $100 for the game, and it was what I wanted, I would buy it, period. Wargaming is what I love to do, so money is not the issue, (IF THE GAME IS GOOD). I have spent far more on other things, and had less fun than I do playing Combat Mission!!