noob
-
Posts
1,934 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by noob
-
-
In retrospect i think my initial problem with the tech imbalance was more down to the map size than the tech as all the games ive played have been as Red on small maps, after reading the responses to this topic and playing bigger maps i can see the potential for much more variety to Red tactics than i earlier thought.
Partly inspired by others responses and by new and old experiences on the battlefield i really think that bigger is better for Red as far as mapsize goes for the following reasons :
While large maps might favour Blues optical and targeting superiority it also allows for Red to spread out and avoid the worst of Blues massive direct and indirect HE firepower that can dished out instantly or within two or three turns of Reds position being identified, my experience of playing Red on small maps was that the limited space and the speed of Blue indirect fire strikes meant that it was difficult to avoid the effects of HE which tended to do more harm psychologically than physically so Red troops became static and pinned and therefore inneffective or fixed for many turns.
Also large maps allow the sort of shoot and scoot tactics with the BMPs and T72s that have been discussed by others in previous posts.
Then added to that is the facility for Red ATGMs to operate at max ranges which gives the teams the best chance of relocating intact to fire again.
So in conclusion i think a big map, say 2k x 2k with Red deploying over two thirds of it allows Red to stage a fighting withdrawal using its long range weapons initially and also hopefully triggering Blue arty / air strikes before Red has to concentrate on or near terrain objectives plus increased space also gives possible options for flanking counter attacks.( as experienced in CMBB and CMAK a seemingly open map can offer a lot of cover when you get down to ground level )
Also with that in mind i would be tempted as Red in future to use my indirect fire for smoke if only to assist in any fallback or flanking manouvers as the kills it gets and the time it takes to fire using it offensively might not be as effective as using it as a screen for a manouver.
p.s. i would like to thank all the responders for their input as it has helped me to not quit this theatre through frustration and also my GFX card for allowing me to load up mega maps with ease
-
It's a very large scenario (think it's tad bigger than the others). Best bet is to load it then walk away - go make a brew, come back, Should load OK. I just tried it and works fine on mine, Just takes a while.
Two of the three scenarios load into the editor without a problem, the German forces version and the UK forces version, it's only when i load the US forces version that the game freezes and when i check task manager it says CMSF is not responding, so no amount of tea is going to make it start responding
, there is a conflict with my version of CMSF and that particular scenario, but only when i load it into the editor, i can play it ok as i am doing so at the moment by e mail.It's not a problem though as all i was worried about was whether my system could handle the mapsizes combined with the force sizes but it can with ease so its a non issue as i dont want to edit Armour Attacks v 10 just play it and others of that size.
-
Try defragging your drive. It helped me on occasion. Basically it's a good idea to always defrag after installation of CMSF and modules. Even when windows feels it's unnecessary.
Ok thanks, but i suspect there's something wrong with the .btt file as i can load a variation of the same scenario with different Blue forces into the editor without a problem, so it's not a memory issue.
-
@Noob - YHM
Battlegroup Attacks is on the British module. CD.
I got your files and loaded the scenario - NATO Panzer Angriffe_v1, which uses the same map as Armour Attacks v 10 and it loaded into the scenario editor without a problem, however Armour Attacks locked up CMSF again and the task manager regarded it as "not responding", any thoughts ?
-
One can have a passive defense with lots of maneuvering, in fact it's key to avoid being smashed by allied airpower.
Have your armor spread out and moving in wadis or forested areas. Don't stay in one spot for more than a minute or two and when you move make it full tilt to the next location.
Good advice but the games i have been playing have been quite constricted for armour movement so i try to hide them but i need to know if its possible for a vehicle to hide from Airpower by sitting in woods on hide or being tight to buildings in narrow streets ?, also i had two platoons destroyed in one game because one platoon moved about 20 mtrs inside a factory block and got hit by a Tornado paveway, did it spot the movement ?
Let your RED armor make popups against known targets but make sure they reverse or roll forward into new cover after a few seconds. BMPs should shoot 'n scoot as the ATGMs requires a few seconds to hit home (but don't keep them immobile on the firing-line for long).
That is the mistake i made in Trident Valley with my BMPs, once i had won the duel for the high ground i kept them there on overwatch (old CM style) and a Javelin trashed them next turn, so your advice would of saved them, thx
Another less used (but effective) option is to park your tanks behind a crest or cover and then dismount the crews and crawl forward for a peek. The crews will pretty easily spot enemy armor without being detected. Then go back to the tanks, mount up and attack.
I like that idea
-
To NOOB,
You should try "A Counter Attack at El Derjine". Its is a huge map and you are playing the Blue side. The Reds, with ample tracks, tanks and infantry, have at the beginning a more than 3 to 1 ratio for their attack. However, they can be slowed toward their objectives. That, if a rather wise deployment in defence of the Blue is done and permits to limit the casualties until the coming Combat Team reinforcement with its M1 Abrams.
BTW, Blackmoria gave me invaluable helps and advices, while doing multiple testing and finally finalized into the V2 that should be released soon. It is for him the ultimate Version that could be done of that battle. You can almost fight the battle till the end of the 4 hours, that if you have survived the Red counter attack, re taking the lost ground and pushing all the way down to the Red departure line.
You will find out that the BMP-3's, to speak only of them, are not to take on lightly and that the Reds can really be very agressive in their attack as well as in defence.
That is made possible by the tweaking of the forces in the editor and by testing the results and testing them again, until it seems good. The goal is to provide the player with a realistic battle and not a shoot them up, which will please an Hollywood scenario maker, but surely not a military simulation enthusiast.
Just a small spoiler. You might think that doing the scenario, I might have the Blue side on the winner side at the end ? Sure, it happens, but on the 4 hours (against 3 before) new scenario, more than one time I was just able to hold the ground by clenching my teeth in it. There are only,two A.I plans, more were not interesting, since they were not giving any valuable and more important realistic, tactical advantage. Since , I know the A.I plans, I should have fare better. That was not the case. Blackmoria, having played quite a few times the V1 was also surprised by V2, but as usual managed to fare pretty well.
Cheers
Thanks for the information, however i only play other players not the AI so do you think it will make a good H2H game ?
-
Sounds like a good scenario, where is is stored George ?, and could you re e mail the Armour Attacks scenario with the two variations to me again plz, i cant find them in my folders
Cheers
-
You don't just have to game tank battles. They are available and can be a lot of fun. Not all NATO armoured forces are as good as the US and US. The NATO module Leopards are only slightly better than most T72s. You also have the option of Blue versus Blue battles which, while not realistic can be a lot more challenging. You can even do a combined Blue/Red force
The option of Syrian armour versus NATO infantry action. Even more interesting are counter insurgency ops matching NATO leg or mechanized infantry units maybe backed by a few tanks against insurgents in an environment similar to that in Iraq after 2003 or Afghanistan today.
You can even set up a scenario rather like that in Libya today with a Red versus Red force (backed by NATO airpower as has been discussed on the Battle for Libya thread. A similar situation could well develop in Syria at some point considering real world events.
There are additional TOEs that I would ideally like to have such as the IDF, Iranians, Jordanians etc. Maybe some of these will become available in a Mod at some point or maybe not. As it is there is plenty of options open with this game and there is always the Soviet Afghanistan version to consider.
Well i am starting to find some better constructed scenarios now so maybe this theatre will grow on me, especially now i am getting over the shock of some of the effectivness of Blue weaponry
However i like aggresive defence and up to now i'm paying heavily as Red so i must learn to be more passive....grrrrrr !!!
-
In the scenario NATO All Flights are Delayed i think it would be a good idea if Red gets at least two demolition squads, this is because the escape routes available to Red to the rear areas are severely restricted by high concrete walls which shepherd Red into the potentially vulnerable and exposed central areas of the map.
Given this is a defence / attack scenario with Red defending it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Red would have had time to create escape routes by making holes in certain walls beforehand so to achieve this demolition squads could be used, the only other alternative being to use heavy weapons to blow holes in the walls but that telegraphs the players intentions whereas a demo charge could go unnoticed if done under the cover of an artillery barrage.
-
In the scenario NATO All Flights are Delayed i think it would be a good idea if Red gets at least two demolition squads, this is because the escape routes available to Red to the rear areas are severely restricted by high concrete walls which shepherd Red into the potentially vulnerable and exposed central areas of the map.
Given this is a defence / attack scenario with Red defending it doesn't seem unreasonable to assume that Red would have had time to create escape routes by making holes in certain walls beforehand so to achieve this demo squads could used, the only other alternative being to use heavy weapons to blow holes in the walls but that telegraphs the players intentions whereas a demo charge could go unnoticed if done under the cover of an artillery barrage.
-
I don't on the other hand agree with the sentiment that RED needs larger maps to compete. ATGMs are important but there are other options viable.
I dont think Red "needs" larger maps to compete i just think it helps them in certain ways, like with the ATGM as i have mentioned before, one problem i had with that weapon was that i had never played it on a map larger than 1000 mtrs so consequently once it fired in the WEGO mode it sat there waiting to fire again (40 secs) and therefore became vulnerable to long range return fire and always got destroyed in the first volley, however i'm currently playing a scenario at the moment where i can fire from 1000mtrs and 1 ATGM killed 2 Marders in one turn without a single shot returned, allowing me to move it the next turn and relocate....perfect result, if the map was 1500 mtrs that would be even better as thats the max range of the Saxhorn im using, even more chance of a safe getaway
The T-72 is an excellent tank if used correctly against Western armor. It's like back in the days with CMBB where the early German tanks had no chance against a T-34 or KV frontal. Maneuvering for a flank or rear shot was your only option.
That arguement actually supports my arguement for bigger maps as that would allow more opportunity for manouvering to flanking or rear positions behind cover map willing, however you are forgetting that the German tank crews that went up against the T34 and KVs were of a much better quality than the Russian tankers and had radio comms as well so it doesnt quite work that analogy but i get your point and agree with you about how weaker tanks can beat stronger ones, thats why i think Red needs the numbers as well, to be able to afford to send off flankers without leaving holes in the line.
Blue side in CMSF are often hampered by strict VP allocation to force preservation which means the options for fast maneuvering are a tad more limited (as a more careful approach is required).
RED side on the other hand rarely have such constraints and in the defend missions the RED side has the advantage of possessing most of the initial battlefield. This allows for much more and faster maneuvering which can help with creating superior force concentrations at local spots.
This side of it initially fascinated me because it seemed to be the way to balance the game but apart from the woefull uses of it in the CMSF scenarios ive come across (see Abu Susah)
it sort of puts me off playing Blue because it goes against my nature to pussyfoot around with my units but i am playing a large map as Blue at the moment with orders to lose no more than 15% of my men so i will find out if i like this sort of a puzzle.
There's almost always ways to move them BMPs around without getting into LOS of allied armor. Feints and smoke can help you get up really close where the guns rather than ATGMs on the BMPs can kill an Abrams by the flank or rear.
I understand about the BMPs, i used them to perfection in Trident Valley, i anticipated my opponents moves and met his individual Brads with 3 or 4 to 1 numerical superiority, the 4 BMPs hit 1 Brad with 2 ATGMS and 2 73mm AP rounds, this only immobilised it and it preceded to kill 2 BMPs with 1 TOW round because the BMPs had to be close to get in the LOS spaces with the numbers required, another 3 BMPs actually destroyed a Brad then the same fate befell them as the others a 2 with 1 rocket kill but from a Javelin this time, so even though i had out thought my opponent, hit him numerous times i still lost half my armor in one turn and he lost 1 Brad to my 5 BMPs, that is why i started this thread so dont talk to me about bloody BMPs
Howeevr i can see their potential in the right circumstances but i would still rather have them on a big map rather than a small map.(had to get that in I agree with you about smoke, something i havent really experimented with as a screening device.
My worst enemy when playing RED is the Javelin, not the tanks, as they are everywhere, hard to detect and kills you as surely as any sabot round.
Amen to that
What about the Tornado, i had that thing trash some of my men that had moved 20 meters in a factory, could it detect them or was it a miss ?
-
I suspect a lot of "game is unbalanced" players are playing basegame scenarios. Basegame scenario are operating under a small handicap - First they were designed so novices (everybody back in 2007) could make it through without getting PTSD in the process. Second, the game evolved immensely after those first scenarios were designed. After nine patches AI-controlled forces were nt longer acting quite like the designer had planned.
When you hit the British module the forces are much better balanced (weaker Brit forces) and scenario makers are designing to a near-final game engine incarnation.
By the time you hit the NATO module the scenario makers are assuming everyone buying the title is a CMSF veteran so they design MUCH more difficult contests.
---
Shifting the topic slightly, one way to rebalance scenaros you're playing is to play by stricter rules. No hovering over the battlefield Godlike, no rewinding repeatedly to spot exactly where that mystery ATGM launch came from, no flying the camera ahead of your own troops' forward line. The game become a bit tougher if you don't 'cheat'.
Yes, i am coming to the party quite late and from a WW2 saturated gaming experience so im finding the learning curve steep and my ego suddenly vulnerable as i am back to being a noob again which is quite wierd after all the time i played CM but given the huge difference between the two theatres is not suprising.
As for camera lock and such ive written about that before and would love an option to force binocular view as that would make high ground as essential to occupy as it is in RL and create an amazing immersive experience similar to ARMA2 which i play.
-
Noob, you really should try your hand at creating some scenarios..I actually think the MAIN problem with most scenarios, is the creators play from Blue side,and many of them are made to be challenging with RED being the "AI" side,but probably a bit too challenging with a player playing RED against BLUE. It is quite possible to create scenarios and still enjoy playing even your own creation,and still be surprised by AI moves, in a game you actually created.
Most of my playing right now involves teaching ROTC students, and we have had many scenarios where RED did well, with many of the scenarios available for download here. This is how I know that tactics can make even a "hard" scenario,winnable. At the Army's CGSC, we played wargames also,where we had sometimes infuriatingly difficult situations at setup,but we fought them,and learned how to win them..that, for me at least, is alot of the fun of gaming,taking a "small margin for error" and turning it into a win,because in the real world,this is also many times our job.
I agree with you that i should design or at least modify some of the scenarios i have come across and i have plans in that respect for the future but for now i need to become more acclimatised to such a mismatch in forces, never in all my years playing wargames have i come across such a thing in a game and it's quite traumatic to realise that the defensive set up you spent 2 nights doing gets undone by a Paveway that demolishes a whole company because they moved slightly inside a factory complex or your HQ units get wiped out from 700 mtrs because a Marder can spot them through a keyhole LOS as they run across a space of 10 mtrs
Then add to that the UAV spying from the skies and one starts to feel similar to how the Iraqi army commanders and troops must have felt.
However i am a quick learner and in one of the games i am playing i have tricked my opponent into using artillery on a small 5 man squad by running around in the buildings looking conspicuous and trying to make it look like more men occupy the area.
I feel that Red need to do this against Blue Arty as the delay times are much shorter with Blue arty therefore making it a more efficient weapon, Red arty delay is at least 7 mins so one has to do prep fire on the suspected set up zones or really wait and try and predict a good place to set it up where you think Blue will be, so for now i'm happy just to see Blue arty wasted
Have you played NATO Alamo as Red against a human (i only ever play human opponents by the way) it's the best scenario for Red as aggressor i have come across, i had a eureka moment when i came to work out how to play it as Red which worked perfectly and i got a major victory double blind against a human opponent.
I would like your thoughts on it if you have played it or try it and and tell me what plan you used to attack the castle.
-
All I am saying is that the scenarios,etc are all designed to do different things..try LLF's Ramadi Battle at this very website as a hell of a good example..play Blue, you MAY win, but it will be quite exciting, and it is incredibly realistic.
I dont mind scenarios that require you to do different things, its whether its possible to do the things they tell you to and up to now the vast majority of the scenarios are badly designed and unbalanced or just boring and make it ridiculously difficult for Red to do anything required of them in the briefings.
-
It is the same as real world...you level the field with tactics, for every tactic, there is a counter-tactic..it is like chess, a game "of the mind" where what is a good move on one day against one enemy, is not so good a move next day against a different one, you take it to them,and roll the dice, or you can sit back,and watch for your opening. The latter is the normal way to win a battle, in the real world, or in a wargame, the former,may be a bit exciting, but is not the way to (consistently)win...but if you just want the excitement, go for it, it really CAN be quite fun.
All I am saying is that the scenarios,etc are all designed to do different things..try LLF's Ramadi Battle at this very website as a hell of a good example..play Blue, you MAY win, but it will be quite exciting, and it is incredibly realistic.
Firstly using chess as an analogy was a bad move (forgive the unintentional pun) because in chess both sides have equal forces and are positioned equi distant to each other.
Secondly i have been interested in warfare and wargaming for 30 years so i don't need to have explained to me the considerations of different theatres and different forces and how they interact on the battlefield
I am talking about margins for error and percentages, so for example every battle i have played as Red against a human opponent has shown to me that the margin for error for the Red commander is infuriatingly small, and the ability to counter attack or redeploy extremely difficult, this is due to the optical and firepower / accuracy advantages of Blue that is in "every" scenario.
Now those situations are interesting initially but eventually playing Red becomes very formulaic and one dimensional because you can rarely allow exposure so you end up hiding most of the time, in fact you often see in CMSF tactics discussion posts that the games usually revolve around finding Reds ATGMs and killing them, the implication being that its game over for Red if that happens, that to me is a formula that i never heard in CM WW2, but as Reds only real assets are ATGMS and the RPG 29 it makes sense but cant be fun doing it over and over again.
This problem "could" be overcome to a certain degree by scenario designers but up top now i have found only one Red attack that had a force balance that seemed reasonable (i.e. Red actually had a fighting chance to win, by that i mean over 35 %) - NATO Alamo (the name says it all), otherwise the bulk of the scenarios are Red ambushes which get boring after a while.
One solution i am trying are mega maps, im testing one called Armor Attacks, the reason why i have higher hopes for this is that the map is 2.5.km square, this allows Red a certain amount of warning of the main attack path and therefore a chance to relocate in safety and also allows ATGMs to operate at max ranges thus giving them a decent chance of re locating once fired.
I have also been informed by the designer that the Reds have T90's which will be interesting to see how they perform against the Abrams.
The only downside to this is apparently some people have trouble playing maps this size which might explain the dearth of big maps in the scenario lists, my opponent says it takes him 5 minutes just to load it !
If the big map experiment works then i see hope for more viable Red attack scenarios that dont involve Blue having 10 men only
But my experience so far is very realistic i imagine, if Syria did get invaded her forces would be hammered the way they are in CMSF, and to not allow that in every scenario takes the most skillfull of scenario designers and i have not come across many of them up to now.
In fact you often see in the CMSF tactics discussion that the games usually revolve around finding Reds ATGMs and killing them, the implication being that its game over for Red if that happens, that tro me is a formula that i never heard in CM WW2, but as Reds only real assets are ATGMS and the RPG 29
Don't get me wrong, i am glad BF made this in as it's an adds to the diversity of the series and shows that BF are willing to cater for all tastes, in fact one could argue they had to given the topicallity of asymetric warfare in the real world today, it gives enthusiasts of modern warfare the perfect game to play this type of combat and brings more people into the BF community (although i imagine a lot left after CMSF was released but now CMBN is coming out they will be back so alls well that ends well)
I also have to mention that i only play the WEGO way which i am realising has big disadvantages with this theatre given things get spotted quicker, in real time units once for fired and exposed can be relocated instantly as opposed to waiting until the next order phase so i would say the WEGO style suffers more from this than RT which compounds my frustration so maybe it's not for me for that reason only.
So to reiterate whilst i personally think its a bad theatre for the type of Combat i prefer and doesnt really capture my imagination the way WW2 does it has it's place in the games world but like i said before its harder to make good balanced and diverse scenarios out of it than the other CM titles so i guess i must wait for BN or keep on looking for the needles in the haystack
-
So do blue vs blue or red vs red.
I said i wanted balance not symmetry.
-
Also, I can see your point about "double blind" but that can be pretty well done in editor,also(that is the entire idea behind the AI section of the editor)
All im saying is there is less flexibility and manouverability in this theatre compared to WW2 when you apply the asymetric victory conditions.
I know that to counter the Blue tech superiority the designer can build in point punishments for sustaining casulaties and destroying mosques etc which is fine if you like playing those sort of conservation games but they encourage passivity IMO which runs contrary to the logic of why i and i suspect the majority of people play wargames, thats why CMSF will never be as popular as a game as CM WW2 because CM WW2 encourages action and manouver whereas CMSF encourages ambush and shoot and scoot which is less exciting in the long term.
I fully understand the feelings of the people that like this sort of warfare and as i have said before it was brave of BF to dedicate the new CM engine to it as i see it as a niche interest because to be honest can you really imagine the wargames community getting that excited about invading Syria ?
-
I have won as Red with less than a 2:1 advantage in the attack.
Which might reflect the quality of your opponent more than the tech imbalance
However when two players of the same skill level play each other the tech imbalance will be noticable and the only remedy will be numbers.
-
Is it Trident Valley or CMSF in general you're not happy with?
Both
Every scenario has its merits. Some portray balanced battles with MP in focus.Most try to simulate the hypothetical invasion of Syria where "Victory" for the blue side means minimizing friendly losses to appeal to the general public at home.
Which IMO is the least exciting and interesting theatre given all the other theatres other than WW2 that haver occured since then for reasons i have made clear unless as you pointed out you are a fan of "David v Goliath" type warfare.
I feel that immersion is more important than balance most of the time.I dont when it comes to CM, if you want immersion in the modern theatre play ARMA2, CM to me is more of a game than a milsim, im looking for a level playing field so i can match my wits against another human with both parties having an equal chance of winning but using military units not cards or a ball etc, the fact that the CM series started in WW2 was just a bonus to me as WW2 fan and a force / tech balance fan.
Like all games that can be edited its down to the scenario designers to create interesting scenarios, but i think that most players would like the chance to win the games they play not lose them well so IMO CMSF is harder to work with than any other theatre to achieve those aims as one is forced into design corners by the tech imbalance and scale restrictions ( A lot of PCs cant handle the bigger scenarios where Red can utilise their one decent asset, the ATGM, at max ranges )
-
I meant it's less about the defeat of all enemy forces but more about what you achieve with the resources at hand.
Survival is a popular game-mode in a lot of games these days. The goal is not to "win" but to survive as long as possible
Which games are you talking about ?
THAT is, IMO, a realistic standpoint as far as Syria vs a Western Coalition conflict goesYes it's realistic but not very interesting to most wargamers IMO, thats why WW2 is the most popular theatre for wargames, because the variety and balance of weaponry and men is perfect amongst other things so the scenarios can be diverse and not just Partisans versus the SS.
Missions where you're outnumbered and out-gunned doesn't automatically mean it's unbalanced. Maybe the victory points or scenario parameters are skewed in this case. But few against many in a tactical battle can result in a major strategic victory in the long run which most, although not all, of the missions I've played makes quite clearNo it doesn't automatically mean it's unbalanced but generally it does if your both out gunned and out numbered, but as i said earlier its academic now as the migration to WW2 with CMBN will be profound and people can then play a "game" where the scenarios are not one trick ponies like the majority i have come across in CMSF.
Initially i thought the Red situations were a good challenge and offered up interesting and unique situations but one gets bored with an endless stream of ambush scenarios or survival scenarios im afraid, from an entertainment and game perspective modern asymetric warfare is the most boring thing to simulate when you have the variety and diversity of tactics you can use in the average WW2 scenarios.
As a novelty its fine but CMSF to me is just a way of getting used to the new engine ready for CMBN
-
You're absolutely right. The mission is not balanced. But as CMSF is a pretty good representation of the real world one shouldn't expect it to be.
I personally like the really hard scenarios and often play RED. When I find the odds stacked against me I usually perform better than when blessed with Abrams and loads of CAS.
A loss is as satisfying as a win as long as I can achieve at least some local victories through good use of my forces.
Well at least one masochist is happy with the tech imbalance so that fine then, the rest of us that want less predictability and maybe "winning" the odd battle as Red without it being a recreation of Zulu can whistle.
Talking about reality is pointless when you can fly your camera over the battlefield and spot trenches that are behind woods and work out exact LOS with the waypoint tool, what you mean is asymetric warfare is the reality of the modern battlefield which might be topical but it makes for a one dimensional game im afraid.
-
It seems many scenarios are 'too hard' the first time through and 'too easy' the 3rd or 4th. How many of us have won a 'total victory' in a scenario - after having quit out and restarted the match after losing all our tanks in the fist 10 minutes the first time.
Well made point, i don't play Blue much because it's too easy unless the friendly casualty punishment is severe which then forces the aggressor to be passive which is an annoying contradiction and Red's margin for error, even in ambush scenarios is so small the games end up like rock papaer scissors, if you screw up your deployment at the start theres not much chance of redeploying without getting spotted from miles away by a superweapon (Marder).
As a Humans v Terminators game it's a pretty good sim though ;P
-
Yeah I understand that of course... based on near enough every other large scale war in the middle east its easy to see why they did this, and yes you can go into the editor and alter the settings at no great effort to oneself... but the effects of having the game like this from the outset do have their consequences, hence the point this thread is making. It's hardly a game-breaker or anything, and its not going to stop me playing it as much as I do haha but noob does have a point.. why couldnt they make it so that the story went the Syrians actually turned out to be very well motivated and unexpectedly well organised... this is fiction after all
Well the obvious fictional theatre to model would of been the Cold War turned hot or even better the Arab Israeli wars, then we could relive history again but BF chose to model modern asymetric warfare which is topical but boring compared to the cut and thrust of older theatres.
-
Well..it is easy enough to go into the editor and alter things and make them "tougher" also. I am actually more than a little surprised that those who find it "too easy" or "too hard" do not do this more often rather than complain..in about 45 seconds, can even out any scenario you like, in the editor mode.
I only play battles that are double blind, i.e. both me and my opponent have nothing but the breifing to go on about enemy forces and friendly reinforcements so putting a scenario into the editor is taboo, you should direct your comments to scenario designers as up to now the only viable scenarios i have played are Red ambushes and Blue attacks with a sledgehammer.
For any Red attacking scenarios Red needs 4 to 1 numerical superiority and or bigger maps for their ATGMs to be able to operate at max ranges, both these things start straining peoples PC's, this is one of the tragic ironies of this version of CM, the optics are massively better but the map sizes are on average a lot smaller than CM WW2 so you get spotted a lot easier and the fire is more devastating so the margin for error drops dramatically compared to CM WW2 and the flexibility of tactics for Red is almost non existant.
IMO the only way to create consistently balanced attack scenarios for Red is to have Air support and nothing less than the T90 and BMP3 for armor and the squads be special forces with ATGMs and RPG 29's, any other Syrian OOB without massive numbers isn't worth a fig on the offensive.
Anyway it won't be an issue in 4 weeks once the great migration to CMBN takes place so this is all acedemic.
Trident Valley warning !!!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
You might be a really bad player though
True to a point but on small maps there are less places to run to and it will probably be on foot and Blue indirect fire has less opportunity to miss something.
Yes it is but its max range is 500 mtrs compared to 1500 mtrs for the ATGM, plus i just found out that the Saxhorn can be fired from the shoulder, how awesome is that.