GSX
-
Posts
938 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by GSX
-
-
Were there actually any Tigers in the American sector of Normandy?
Not for a long while. However, it looks like BFC have played a blinder here and the first outing for ww2 cm-2 will be the Brits, look at that grass, no sign of the Bocage at all.
Hopefully we can see the Firefly soon.
-
GSX, yup, we will be revisiting a modern setting again in the future, likely in a temperate setting with a modern opposing firce. If you do a search I belevie Steve has mentioned it in the past.
Btw as it stands the forces in CMSF as is can represent quite a wide variety of nations, even North Korea for instance. If I had the time I think that a short NK campaign with some supporting textures would be a lot of fun. For now though its Tigers and Shermans for me
Dan
I meant in CMSF, you know, instead of adding another NATO Mod, add a Russian one.
Your ending statement tells me all I need to know though, the writing is on the wall for SF and I strongly suspect that support for it will be non existant when the Normandy game comes out. Which will be a shame but understandable I suppose when you only have the one programmer.
-
Have you ever thought about expanding the premise?
What i mean is, we have the fictitional 2008 fight between the US and Syria, we bring in the more fictitious aspect lately of the Brits getting involved and I hear talk of a NATO Mod now too, that is so widely left field that were getting into sci fi situations.
SO why not just drop in something that will be a lot more interesting to gamers. Why not bring out a few Taliban skins to make a more Afghan friendly atmosphere. If your stretching to sci fi Mods, why not include a Russian mod as that is just as plausible to having german troops invade Syria.
The effect would be to beef up the limited here come the next nations to beat up on the same old Syrian stuff and possibly increase the logevity of what is becoming a boring premise.
Of course, Im sure that as soon as CM Normandy arrives the BFC support for SF will quickly dissapear.
A pity really as SF could be something much more than it is now with a little more effort to beef up the REDFOR.
-
Well CMC has gone beyond me now as my new PC does not do CM-1 games. Could have been fun though..........
-
If anyone's already getting antsy waiting on the Brit module may I suggest they visit the Histwar Grognards discussion board to learn the true meaning of patience.
Or the CMC game. The first mention of that was just around the time SF was mentioned I believe.
-
My Laptop has 1 Gig RAM and no sound Mod affects its performance, weird problem there.
-
No doubt that someone from one Regiment would see differences between theirs and others. What differences that there actually are? I don't think that there is anything that can be readily simulated in game.
Please tell me what you think these differences are.
In operational terms, you have light infantry, armoured infantry and mechanised infantry. And paras and commandos. The organisation and, critically, the equipment for any given unit of a particular role is pretty much identical to any other unit of the same role.
Just to clarify, an example.
We have a regiment. Let us say it is the Royal Regiment of Scotland - Proud people those Scots.
The Regiment consists of five regular Battalions and two Territorial Battalions:
1 SCOTS (The Royal Scots Borderers) are light role infantry
2 SCOTS (The Royal Highland Fusiliers) are light role infantry
3 SCOTS (The Black Watch) are light role infantry
4 SCOTS (The Highlanders) are armoured infantry
5 SCOTS (The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders) are Light role infantry
6 SCOTS (52nd Lowland) are TA light infantry
7 SCOTS (51st Highland) are TA light infantry
The Royal Regiment of Scotland never, ever, ever deploys as a whole. Two of it's light role infantry battalions are deployed with 16 Air Assault Brigade, along with elements of 4 SCOTS.
Battalions, with equipment and organisation appropriate to their role, deploy as part of Brigades. A Regiment is not a fighting unit.
Just to stick an emphasis and clarification on this one. All those Battalions are CURRENTLY fulfilling this role, everything else is true, except that Brit units will rotate through the various roles changing about every 2-3 years. So the Highlanders might be Armoured Inf right now, but a year or two ago they may have been in one of the other roles.
Therefore it would be difficult in the least to designate units in CM as they will quickly get out of date.
I think the current situation is ideal. Designate the establishments of each and let us play with them how we want.
As for Ghurkas, I would love to see a Mod of those after having done a tour or two with them. Youd have to track a few down to do the voices though!
-
While playing a USMC battle against the AI just now, I am increasingly annoyed the we did not get a new set of American voices.
I know this has been whined about before, but right after a team blows a hole in a wall to begin an assault, I hear "quiet down lets get some noise discipline here!" Well you know how that ruins the moment.
Any chance of getting new voice mods?
One thing I always wondered about was why they kept the voices from CM-1.
-
But then you would also have to include everything else, both equipment and organizations, that may or may not enter service in United States, Syria, Britain, Germany etc. within that time frame. And that's a lot of extra hassle for a game that is supposed to model a war taking place in 2008.
This is a good point, we already have a fair few things that werent in the inventory of the forces in 2008. For the Brits alone there are weapons and aircraft that were not deployed in Summer 2008. Then theres BMP-3 etc.
These things do add to the game, but its kind of like having the Centurion as the main UK MBT in 1944.
Im in the we have enough sci fi in the game camp for now, safe the future stuff for future games beyond 2010 or such.
-
I have PCK, the game is good, but there are little things that put me off PBEM play, like the 2 x 40 second phases and the double emails. Its feels CMBBish though and has some better graphics and what not. The better features are platoon commands and formations for the armour, a definite advance.
Games are for playing, as has been said here already, and there cant be enough of them.
I dont think anyone should start knocking CM Normandy before it comes out, I realise that we may have a lowered expectation after the SF release debacle, but Im firmly of conviction the that BF will get this one right first time.
-
If your simulating 1-1 infantry then you should aim to simulate 1-1 formations, wedge, extended line, columns, diamonds and so on. Does it matter, certainly, in CM-1 you could imagine, in SF 1-1 you get what you see. Walk down a city street in SF and they gaggle along, walk down the same street it real life and then your guys split left and right and do proper infantry drills.
I dont mind not having the last, but not having real life infantry formations in 1-1 does take the realism out of it a bit.
-
AH, I see then, possibly 'milking' was the wrong term to use, perhaps maximising your profits then. As I said, I can understand why, you dont need to be so defensive all the time about it. You need to make as much from the game as possible, nothing wrong with that.Not "milk", rather get paid for the work we do. It's a simple principle in economics that work put in should be repaid. "Milking" would be like what Talonsoft used to do with 18 different versions of the same exact game with minimal changes like adding scenarios and calling it "Super Über Gold Pack!!". We don't do that and never will.No. As we've said over and over again for the past 12 years or so... this Forum represents a skewed version of our customer base. Heavily populated by "hardcore" gamers and very under represented (proportional to total sales) with general customer types. Which makes sense because usually the ones motivated to post here are the ones most invested in the game and/or wargaming. Those posting here are important, and very necessary for our success, but they aren't representative of our customer base as a whole.However. And there is always a however. How do you get feedback from this great unwashed mass of casual customer? All of the improvements to SF over the past 18 months seem to have been driven by the wants of the guys who come to the forum. Pathing, Blue Bar, Qbs and the rest. So do you get feedback from the rest? Do you send out customer surveys etc?
Im not being negative for the sake of it here but it seems on the one hand you dismiss the hardcore gamer as not being too significant, but on the other you adapt a game to encourage the old CM-1 fanbase to return. Which is something that has appeared to be succesful lately as Im encouraging and playing more and more of my old CM opponents.
I think that if you really though what you wrote you would have stopped developing SF at V1.07, possibly earlier.
-
So back to my question, what happens when I only have original SF and I try to play an Army scenario designed by someone who has the Marines one but has included a T-90.
I dont particularly give a toss whether you make your sales targets, CMAK outsold CMBB or any of that stuff. I understand that if you had put out SF as a combined Brit/Marine/NATO effort from the start and charged the same, you wouldnt be able to milk the franchise. Thats perfectly understandable for me.
I have no illusions that all Im buying with a Module is a bunch of Mods to the original game. A Marine LAV, could just be a modded Stryker, a Challenger will no doubt be extremely similar to an Abrahams that it will feel the same.
Ultimately, the success or failure of a Module will be decided in the marketplace, not this Forum.
Yes but surely this forum reflects the market in general, minus the Beta testers that is.
-
Back to the original question.
The marines are Ok, but not a huge leap forward over the Army. Ive actually gone back to playing more with the Army as a lot of the time the Marines are just too powerful infantry wise.
If you dont want to do both Id say get the brit as if anything you will get another nation complete with different weapons and vehicles.
The marines doesnt bring that really, you get the Lav and the AAV, but all else remains the same. Even the much vaunted T-90 and BMP-3 arent that much of a leap over the base games vehicles.
Of course you can always get the marines later. I do think its a wee bit eyebrow raising though to not include the new Syrian vehicles with the brits.
My question is this.
If Ive got the Brit pack and want to play someone with the Marines pack and original in a scenario that has BMP-3's, what happens? In fact, this might happen now I suppose, so what do I do if I havent got the marines but someone designs an Army scenario with a T-90 in it.
Will it load? Should Army designed scenarios with T-90's etc be called USMC-Army ones?
Seems like it could get very confusing.
Also if we can bring in NATO countries, why not have Russia? As the whole game is an exercise in ficticious what if, then what if Russia appears in Syria. This seems as plausible as Germany being there.
Cheers..............
-
I would also agree with this statement. This is not a knock against the great scenarios in the Army campaign. Obviously as the scenario designers have become more comfortable with the incredible depth of the campaign editors, they get better at making them.
The Army campaign is OK, actually I re-did this under V1.11, not having tried it since about 1.06 or so.
I would agree somewhat with the above, but if you havent played it in 1.11 its well worth another go. For a start its a much smoother version and secondly, if you have been playing this game for a while you will find that your tactics have improved a lot too.
-
Why not give the following squad a pause order? That's what I always do.
Now why the heck didnt I think of that! Doh!
-
Speaking of the Campaign, the scenario that has you holding the line on the hills opposing the Syrians advancing is probably one of the worst there, Im not knocking the designer as the map is good, but the Syrian AI in it is Uber dire.
The Syrians mill around on the hill, then decide to advance, then mill around a bit more and even if they reach the end of the map, guess what, they mill about waiting to be killed.
The Ai in this game just isnt good enough to support a Syrian assault of this type.
-
Well, I've decided to give the Marine Campaign a serious go. I haven't played the campaigns much because Its frustrating (although realistic) to have to be so careful with force preservation. But I figured I should take another shot at them because they contain so much content and the scenarios seem really well-made.
So anyway, about my question: I've just completed Mission 4, with the forking campaign objective. I chose the Eagle objective, because a head-to-head brawl with the Syrians seems like it would be to my Marines advantage (as long as I can keep my distance). I see now that I have chosen to kick off the infamous Pooh mission... oh boy!
So, my question is: What am I missing by chosing the Eagle objective? I am happy with my choice but I am wondering if its worth it to go back and play the other route as well. What sort of missions/maps/forces are presented on the other campaign fork? What fork did ya'll choose, and what would you choose if you did it again?
I think heading onto Pooh is the better option. The other way is decidedly flatter and definitely not as challenging.
That said, its a game and why not just do them both?
-
I just played this scenario by 'afreu'.
Thanks for taking the time to make a very interesting and thoughtful scenario. I thoroughly enjoyed it from start to ultimate finish.
Well designed, plenty of room for tactical manoeuvre and an excellent balance of forces. It makes a fine change to play an infantry heavy scenario in SF.
A true challenge from start to finish and one of the best scenarios Ive played so far. A big well done and I look forward to having more of the same in the future.
It also fully demonstrates the new Blue bar as I cannot imagine playing something of this size in RT. Far from my infantry dying in droves when they ran into an ambush, they actually turned tail, headed for cover and I could swear one of them gave me the finger for being so stupid...... I still had some minor pathing problems but Ive worked out a way round them.
If you use some engineers to blast a wall and you want a squad to follow them immediately, then give that squad a small run to the rear then double them back, in the 15-20 secs it takes them to do this the wall will be blown and they head straight through the gap and not around the bloc. Yes I know, it was obvious really!
-
The fools, they cant make fighting Robots, havent they ever watched sci fi movies and read the books! Give a Robot a gun and he will attempt to take over the world, happens every time!!!!!
-
Is the release still planned before the end of Jan?
-
Wrong area of operation. Syria has AA weapons, Gunships don't work well if they are burning wreckage. Remember it's a cargo plane with guns stuck on it not a combat aircraft.
The other wrong area of operation would be they're mainly used for air interdiction missions.
Actually in SF, Syria has no AA weapons.
Realistically, they would be about as effective as the Iraqis were, that is, taken out on days 1-14 of an Air offensive. For surely if an F-15 is able to fly around, then a Spectre would be too.
Im sure the usual plan would be to ruin the Syrian high altitude AA and then cruise around at high level dropping PGM and the like. The AC-130 would therefore be fairly safe as it would only realy be opposed by MANPADS, which are non existent in SF and realistically have not brought down any ac flying at altitude.
I see no reason other than coding problems etc for the Ac's not to be in.
Still, the less the firepower, the more fun.
-
Pick a weapon system, any weapon system, and you'll find some people complaining it is over modeled and some complaining that it's under modeled. So the answer to your question is yeah, we feel we had it about right
Steve
Now that has been a true statement since the beginning of wargames! The old you cant please all of the people all of the time comes to mind there.
At the end of the day, as long as its approximate Im never going to argue the minutia as long as the substance is there, of course the great British, how do we wear our trousers debate is exempt as its a fundamental requisite!
-
What is the sticking point for Ip WEGO?
Could this be the first pic of CMx2 WWII ? [Edit] Yes!
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Of course not, but I suppose all the sexy German big Cats is what you have to advertise nowadays to get guys to buy the game. SO Im sure we will be seeing more Tigers in Normandy screenshots, together with those pesky SS that faced the US units in their murderous droves.
Indeed, one thinks that the game will again emphasise how only the US fought the SS and every PzIV was really a Tiger. Heck, if it sells games though does it matter if history gets a bit skewed in the process?