GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
In my experience neither friendly small arms nor grenades kill my own forces. Has this changed or have I just been lucky?
-
Really? Have you actually played the Marines campaign on Iron? I have, and I lost quite a few battles the first time I played them. You must be very good, perhaps on another level to the rest of us. I'm not sure what game would suit your needs in terms of vs the AI.
Against the AI all you really have to do is think and apply the correct drills, both the real life ones and the 'Game' ones. Playing a game relies on understanding the game mechanics as much as understanding fire and manouvre etc.
As for the Marines, well yes I did finish the campaign and although in some scenarios I did struggle (Objective Pooh springs to mind), I never lost one.
Now, thats not saying I havent quit some scenarios as being totally unrealistic (in my opinion) though. Against humans is a different thing though and Ive had my arse handed to me a few times by good human players, even by the Syrians. SF is a much better two player game than single player but at the same time RT is a much better way to play smaller scenarios as reaction time can be instant.
As I said - SF suffers from a lack of balance and as I also said its not the fault of the makers, its the modern setting.
Now if it were 1980 in Germany it might be a little bit closer between the sides, but its not so we should just get on with it I suppose.
As an aside, I think a lot of SF players will be rather shocked when the Normandy game arrives and the same tactics they use on the Syrians gets them killed over and over.
-
Let's remember sniper capabilities work for both sides. If sniper shots were really the guaranteed easy kill that some people claim the U.S. casualty rate in Iraq would have been exponentially higher. The variable are many and accumulative. No carelessly exposed enemy plus low light levels plus firing from an exposed position plus a 'weakend' sniper team (after driving cross-country all night) - they all add up.
That assumes a lot, firstly it assumes Snipers abound in iraq and there are plenty of well calibrated sniper weapons to go round, with the added advantage of trained snipers too.
Secondly, do CMSF scenarios take into account that snipers have been travelling all night?
I never gave that much thought to snipers in the game, but reading this makes me wonder. Oh, if you want to know about Brit snipers I would recommend reading 'Sniper One'. Not only a good read but highly informative too.
-
Might be that in your average CMSF size map they are too close to the fighting. Guess most recon stuff is done by stealth and perhaps at longer distances. Or screening the main adavance/line and bugging out when the bad boys show.
I think George hits the nail on the head here. I dont think your average SF scenario does Recon justice. Recon units are there for just that and it would be a rare unit that would engage SF style in my opinion/experience. I think the distances involved in the average SF encounter are not good for any lighter vehicles to be heavily invoved.
One little SF 'trick' I have learned though is to sit your vehicles in one place for a period of 30-40 secs, often the enemy suddenly hoves into view and you can beat a hasty retreat. This works with Hummers and Im assuming it may do with every unit? Not ideal, but thats all Recon is really.
-
Does anyone besides me get the feeling that some complainers haven't played the game in the last year?
Syria is too weak... BUT Britain appears understrength. Syria is too weak... BUT MOUT battles are too bloody to get through. Syria is too weak... BUT that unseen Kornet just knocked out all my Abrams. Syria is too weak... BUT I had to quit out of the scenario and retry three times before geting a victory. Syria is too weak... BUT I would've preferred Blue to have had a full infantry company fighting that particular scenario.
Id like to think that I was more adult than a mere 'complainer' here. Syria is too weak becuase, er, Syria IS too weak and theres not a lot BF can do about that except to buy the Syrian military some fantastic new equipment and train them in new and interesting ways.
Let me play 'Devils Advocate' to your 'Complainer' theme here.
Often when someone has a valid opinion here that somehow comes across as negative of the game a 'Beta tester' jumps up and down as if it were his very function in life to:
a. Degrade the persons opinion by telling them why they are obviously wrong or
b. Tell them they are playig the game wrong and giving some examples of how they can get a better game which usually involve unreal situations.
Now, I admit that SF is a fun little game and at the same time I realise why it is the way it is. No complaint from me there. However, being told that if I want balance I have to play BvB or RvR is kind of getting lame.
Sure there are some tricky situations out there in games of SF and often they are fun to play but not a huge amount of them. In most 'bog standard' scenarios its blow up everything and kill the Syrians, which as I said can be rather fun at times.
There are 2 ways I see to approach CMSF.
1. Take it for what it is and accept it, dont try to put some sort of false gloss over it as it really is a good little game but
2. It is a game and so if you have huge issues with it, walk away from it and play something that will make you happy, it should after all be a hobby and not a bloody chore.
I have some minor issues with it, but have learned to 'play' the game and live with them until they possibly get fixed or included in a future version.
-
Have to admit that i'm not probably going to buy Brit module. One reason being that RED doesnt' get new toys and another reason being that RED still is weakling, it's the one which you take from dark closet and beat with stick. Again and again and again.
I basically have grown fed with background story. Superior West beating Middle-Eastern county relying on Soviet equipment and doctorines (which by default are bad, useless almost). No question of outcome. No drama, tragedy (for West). And devs taking quite purely western approach and point-of-view, so tragedy and drama on Syria side doesn't get noted. Getting rather boring i might say.
Sure i can play as Syria, or Blue-vs-Blue. Yes, i've been doing that. However game has gotten to state that it has become boring, ugly even i might say: I dont' want to play game which has basically grown so west-centric, how many scenarios did we have playable for Syria in USMC module? I doupt Brit module will have more. At start it atleast little bit tried to focus also on Syria. But now it (the game, developers) doesn't try at all anymore: They have gotten sucked into "West being main character, the hero"-state of business, which ofcourse is most cost-effective solution. I somehow have seen Battlefront being somehow gallant/objective/equal knight (back in CMx1 days) but more and more CMSF progresses, less i see that. Quite frankly i dont' see objectivity or equality at all anymore.
Ofcourse this is just me. I'm not whining or anything (If my text seems to be dramatic that is just the way i like to write). I'm not that fanatic fan to actually really-really-really care about it. just rambling as i have time and this thing crossed my mind.
I would agree mostly with this post. SF is for me a fun little game and I do have at times a lot of fun playing it. As a wargame however its just too unbalanced to play against any other real person without constantly mirroring the games.
I fully realise that the setting dictates this. I also fully realise that BF is NOT a charity and obviously had their reasons for the setting and the type of game we have here.
In sum, yes its fun, but I dont think I have ever lost a scenario when playing as the US side. I think it has a lot to do with balance and why not have some better Red forces there? If I can suspend belief to imagine the Brits or my God the Germans invading Syria, then why not suspend it to have Russian Paratroopers and big kit too?
-
Because the Brits are under-resourced. This is the case in real life.
In other words we rely on the Yanks to do big "war fighting" operations whilst we specialise in things like counter-insurgency, hearts and minds operations, humanitarian missions etc.
At least that's how I see it.
I dont see it that way at all. The British military is a fully rounded off force that is much more capable than any of our NATO partners in Europe. What we suffer from is too much diversity if anything as we really dont have the money or resources to be a mini US.
I also dont see us as being too under resourced. Our kit is comparible to any military out there, our weapons are too. Our training is unsurpassed and our motivation and morale is possibly second to none. We have a can-do attitude and our NCO's (the core of any military) are excellent and would put the officers of most military organisations to shame.
The minus points are obvious though. We tend to be long service and so theres not too many of us. We were designed to fight in Europe within NATO and so we suffer from a lack of air transport assets (helos etc).
Oh and the most important thing the Brits bring to anything is - a sense of humour!
-
Why are the Brits cars and trucks so easy to kill?
Not having played the Brits so far I would have to say that ALL light vehicles in SF are pretty easy to kill. Suspension of Syrian Invasion disbelief aside I dont think that a lot of the thin skinned vehicles would actually be used to tackle the enemy in real life.
Jackals et al are after all light recce vehicles and would scoot rather than shoot in such situations, never be used in built up areas and generally keep themselves out of trouble.
CMSF has far more casualties than real life but is after all a game which would be made all the more boring by being a simulation of how it really is. No one want to play a 16 hour scenario where nothing happens after all.
-
You never have to re-license when you patch, so you don't need to be online (although, even if you had to relicense you don't need online access on the PC where the game is installed, you can use the off-line procedure).
AH, so then I could actually get the Brit Mod from the one downloadable PC here. Cool.
-
Don't you just love how the internet seems to be a license for some people to have no manners? Here comes a guy, into the CMSF forum, and basically says "CMSF sucks, when can we start discussing CMN, without me having to read through all this rubbish about sucky CMSF". All the while ignoring the fact that a. there are actual people (20-30, if you include betas) who put years of their lives into CMSF and b. there are actual people (10000s) who enjoy CMSF quite a bit.
Thanks for your contribution to the forum!
Cheers
PS- to the rest of you, apologies for the rant, this ongoing thread pisses me off... must be the wait for Brits that's driving me mad (hint, hint BFC)
CMSF doesnt suck for me but I know a lot of people who it does suck for. Its all subjective and when I hear soemeone say it sucks (or more rightly read it) then I just take it as their opinion.
I dont mind that some 'Beta' testers have spent thousands of hours for us on it, because they dont have to do it for me and I suspect that they primarily do it for themselves, for a huge variety of reasons ranging from getting a game early to the 'kudous' of having Beta tester in their title.
So let people have their own opinions is what I say.
However, I do think that CMSF will dry up both in the forum and with regards to scenarios etc as soon as CMN arrives. I dont see how the same guys can work on 2 things at the same time.
-
hopefully, this low price on CMSF will drag in folks to also buy CM Normandy when it is released this year!
Turning to CM Normandy. Without a retailer how does the message get out there to the target audience that a new game is available.
CMSF I would imagine is being played by a lot less guys now than actually bought the original game. I also imagine that a very high proportion of guys who bought it upon release, stopped playing before they even got to the 1st patch for various reasons, thats just what most guys do (I have countless wargames that were pleayed for a few days/weeks and then never thought of again).
I saw CMSF in stores where I never seen it advertised on the web. BF stated that wargamers alone werent the audience required and so how do they repeat the process of the initial bulk sale to the 'soapless masses'?
Or does BF see CMN as a return to the wargamer niche market?
-
Question: If the Patch is ready and the Module not, then why not release the patch? Or if its the other way around, vice versa?
Right now I'm only interested in the patch. Or is it the new version thats the hold up?
Anyway, when 2.0 arrives can I download it onto a Memory stick and then patch without going on line? This is important as I have no Internet access on my laptop right now and would like to be able to patch the gamne at least.
-
Steve, I wont reproduce your huge post here but thanks for clearing a few things up for me there. I guess that what we have now is the best we can have now, if this makes sense?
Suffice to say I can live with it until something better comes along and for street fighting close up works fine anyway, not too good in the open though but as I said, I can live with it. Its just nice to get a handle on the why I need to live with it.
Cheers
-
Surely this from Other Means
I just hate them bumping into each other as they do now."Sorry!"
"Oof!"
"My fault!"
"Hey!"
"Why stop there? Come onnn!"
"Ak!"
Doesnt really equate with this
Plus, as a game player I'm "done" with overly abstract portrayals of infantry such as CMx1 had. It doesn't hold my interest at the tactical level any more. Higher up, when individuals don't really matter... different game and different story.Steve
If what the infantry do now is abstract anyway, even though you can see them all, then whats the real difference. It could be argued that the 3 man Block style of CM-1 served the purpose better as it didnt pretend to be anything else but abstract. Now I wouldnt go that far, as I like the 1-1 representation and think its absolutley the right way to go.
That said though, what we have infantry wise now is still to an extend abstracted. I dont mean in their numbers, but in the way they occupy the battlespace. It just does not feel right. A few simple formation commands would be a start.
As I keep saying, I dont know if its possible at all or even fits into the way CM-2 is designed, I dont know if its a feature you can build in or not. Im not really bothered about how other games play or feel either and Im not sure you can use the formations of one game to explain why CMSF has none.
SF has been moved to a scale where infantry has become more dominant than previous CMs and so infantry should feel right. Get that right and everything else should follow I would hope.
Real soldiers use formations because they work. Can I ask:
1. If every round is tracked ballistically in the game. Is the position of every soldier too?
2. Does the PC see these positions as I do,?
3. If the above 2 statements are a yes, then formations would make a big difference to infantry survivability on initial contact, as in real life thats why they are there.
-
One other thing that struck me is that in CMSF this bunching of men gets a let off as the terrain is generally very open (buildings excepted) and the US is so superior. However, come Normandy, the terrain will be much more dense and the opportunity for infantry ambushes will be much more common. This combined with the fact that both sides will be much more even does not bode well for any attacker.
If every bullet is tracked in the game, and the ballistics model is great, then this is the very reason that infantry formations need to exist, to avoid everyone being hit by those bullets at once. This is after all the reason such formations exist in the real world.
We end up with a fantastic ballistic simulator and a very poor infantry one.
Or have I got it wrong and the 1-1 infantry areent tracked in space but are abstracted somehow?
-
Surely its just economics in action. If the end product is more interest in BF products isnt that as bonus? After all 2 year old games tend to sell for very low prices in stores anyway.
I cant see the gripe against paradox as they were selling exactly the same version as BF were, werent they?
-
I can - right now, with no changes to the game - spread a platoon across the breadth and depth of any map - urban or open - with no more than 4 men (and often less) per tile.
Just how spread out do you require?
Yes that is entirely possible. But has nothing to do with realism for infantry.
Even without infantry IA drills having some basic formations would vastly improve the realism of the game.
My whole argument is based solely on the fact that the infantry have been made the focus of the game but dont act the way infantry do. Now I fully appreciate that theres no way in the world that a PC game will ever recreate real life infantry however, a few basic formations would add to the realism.
-
I do get quite annoyed by people who keep claiming that CMSF is a 'bad' game. I am not aiming this at you in particular GSX but please could you die hard CMx1 guys please accept that there are people (like me) who played CMx1 and quite enjoyed it but where blown away by CMSF. When CM normandy comes out I will no doubt enjoy it very much but I have a greater interest a in modern/cold war setting than WW2 so I will continue to play CMSF.
Each group of players have different tastes and in my case I will only abandon CMSF when CM:Modern warfare 2 comes out. I don't knock the multiple shortcomings in CMx1 so could you guys please stop claiming that noone likes CMSF?
\rant over
That felt better
No offence taken at all. My conclusions are based soleley on what I read here. Steve stated in no uncertain terms that CM ww2 would be out in 2009 and so I can only take his word for that.
Then theres the problem of support. Theres only 1 coder and excellent as he may be there will always be a finite limit on his time and so I imagine that time will be spent coding ww2 features and not SF ones. 2.0 will therefore more than likely be the final patch and NATO the final module. SO BF will not be supporting the game as such.
On to the guys here. Most of the scenario designers will no doubt be turning their talents to ww2 and I forsee the already paltry amount of scenarios for SF drying up too.
So with no new modules and a limited amount of player support, a QB system that does not lend itself much to anything interesting, I honestly believe that SF will slip quite quickly into that bottom drawer we all have for wargames that we once played and get taken out once in a while.
Longevity for any game I believe rests with the community and if that isnt large enough or interested enough the game surely cant last to more than a few guys who play the same scenarios and campaigns over and over. Thats not for me.
So, and getting back on topic, I dont see much activity in the SF forums once the ww2 one opens and its probably best for BF to hold off opening one for as long as possible.
-
CMSF has brought definite advances to CM, you’ll get no arguments out of me about that. The graphics are far superior and the vehicle models are spot on. A lot of the new commands and the ability to give orders on waypoints are one of the biggest steps forward in my opinion and the artillery system is also great. One area though that I see as needing more work is the crux of CMSF and presumably all future CMx2 games, the Infantry.
The infantry models are good and on the whole, bar a few glitches, so are the animations but for me the whole thing is let down by the infantry actions. After playing with them for 2 years they haven’t learned anything. They run around in bunches like raw recruits and fire and move in an RTS style without a thought for theirs or their buddies’ safety.
In an ideal world my infantry will be able to form a few simple formations, line, extended line, arrowhead etc. When they get ambushed they wont all be together, as real infantry aren’t trained to run in a couple of bunches into buildings or over open terrain. I also don’t want my infantry to get killed giving buddy aid to a guy under fire. I would also like to know that my guys will react under fire in the correct way, carrying out a few simple IA [immediate Action] drills.
Now, Im no where near a PC game coder and have no idea of how hard or easy the above would be to program, but I do know that if it was possible to have infantry formations and a basic IA drills, then the game would have improved immensely. CMSFs reduced scale means that infantry is much more important than in previous games and as such I think a more representational infantry would make the game so much more immersive than it is now.
Are there any plans to attempt this?
-
In my humble opinion they opened the CMSF forum about a year earlier than they ought and the result was it blew up in their face.
Well its now just 5 short months until we will all be playing CM-2 ww2 Westfront. Perhaps a good point to open the new forum would be the 3 month point in September?
I agree that when the ww2 game forum is opened then the SF one will die. I also think that when CM ww2 arrives SF will be tucked into a drawer and forgotten by all involved.
Hopefully the game will be out before the Xmas Holiday.
-
It all depends on what 1-1 brings to the game. Overall I feel that it enhances the game, you actually get a visual representation of any casualties etc, I have forgotten how many times in the past I used to try and assault something with a squad only containing one or two men in CM-1 games and so 1-1 gives you that instant appraisal of whats there.
However, at other times it can detract from the immersion as CMSF doesnt have proper infantry formations or IA drills for infantry and so I often find myself saying that 'trained soldiers just dont bunch up like that' or wishing I could programme in some basic ambush skills etc into my men.
As for violence, as already covered, its practically non existent really, guys get hit and go down.
Do I personally empathise with the little men on screen, well sometimes I do, most times I dont. Like real life I wont try and deliberately save lives if the mission calls for action and like real life sometimes not doing something to save lives may actually contribute to losing more lives. It is at the end of the day a game and Im in it to have some fun and SF has a time limit, something thats more often than not irrelevant in real life. Who wants to play 16 hour scenarios just to save a few cyber soldiers?
-
jst looked it up Geordie at gsreid@btinternet.com is the english contact for the site, maybe if you contact him he would be able to help.
Actually thats me!
I can only echo what others have said here. The site is working and has been perfectly fine lately. Although it is taken off line occassionaly for updates etc and you may have just gotten unlucky there.
A quick plug for those interested..... World at War is as far as I know the only site where SF is played on a regular basis competitively and is the only site where any tournament has been held for SF.
In fact, we are taking sign ups right now for a new Tournament/Campaign which only requires the base game.
-
I just can't wait for the CM Normandy Brit Module thread. I assume the Brits as just "US lite" will be discussed at great length. Please...this is getting silly...
Apologies for this assumption, but did you know that the US and Brit forces in 1944 were very different beasts? They have totally different infantry weapons and support weapons and the comparison between them and modern infantry is just not there.
In 1944 I would say that everyone would be German-lite to one degree or another.
-
GSX
I have never served in any branch of the Armed Forces and before I started playing this game, I had ZERO interest in Modern Era warfare. But I suspect that you have. Therefore, you will be in a better position to determine what the major differences between the US and UK kit should be. I believe that the US expenditure on Defence is about the same as the rest of the world's combined, although that reckoning may be a bit out of date by now. At any rate, it is massively more then the Brit Government is willing or able to spend. Therefore, the heavier Brit kit is not nearly as impressive in combat with Syrian forces as US forces is.
The Warrior is definitely NOT a dumbed down Bradley. It's not even close to being in the same league with that vehicle. Neither is the Bulldog is a dumbed down Stryker. These differences between these two types of vehicles alone will change the way you play the game. Further, the Brits have no dedicated ATGM vehicle. Neither do they have an equivalent for the Stryker MGS or the Syrian BMP-3 for that matter. Therefore, they need the Challenger to take out the strongpoints. It might be more accurate to say that you will have to play the 'heavier' game as a sort of higher tech Syrian side with split sections, air support and super fast call in time for your artillery. That's obviously an exaggeration but that's how different the game feels to me.
As a fellow Scot, I can assure you that you will enjoy the voices for the Brit module. It has no impact on gameplay whatsoever but, as a Scot, I'd have to say that hearing authentic Brit accents in the game is one of the most immersive features in this module. There are Scots, Brummy and Scouse accents all mixed in there (No Dick Van Dyke 'Mary Poppins' voice acting thankfully) and that really enhances the immersion exponentially for me.
Thanks for that, its nice to get a decent answer to a question. From what youve written then it does seem like giving the Brits a try will bring something else to the game that the US Army doesnt. It seems the Module will be released any minute now, so hopefully others will describe more of the same.
Cheers
Moaners
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Threads like these are always interesting as they draw you in by the tag...... 'Moaners' I thought! Must be good. But its a congratulation thread, so why not just say, 'thanks BFC'.
Nah lets take a sly swing at anyone who has a different opinion from others on a game instead.
I agree with most of what Leto says and dont think its just a case of people moaning for moanings sake. Some of the so called 'Fanbois' here have never seen anything wrong with the game ever and if it were up to them we would all be playing in a blissfull world of Ver 1.01 where nothing was wrong.
I actually think somewhere in between 'Moaner' and 'Fanboi' is a good place to be.