TheNathan

Gotta admit this is the weakest part of the whole CMSF thing. While the Syrians aren't exactly pushovers, they're punks compared to the Americans and are simply not a compelling side to play as. The decision for a Syrian campaign still boggles the mind, as much potential as the game itself has. Iran would have been a much more solid choice if they wanted a modern mideast setting.

Well, I'm wondering if anyone here has a firm grasp on the military structure and equipment of the Iranian military, and whether or not the Syrian side in CMSF could be up to the task of simulating a American-Iranian war for the purposes of fan-made scenarios and campaigns. My guess is it probably could, at least enough for a passing degree of realism. I also imagine that in such scenarios the (simulated) Iranians would fair quite a bit better than the Syrians if equipment and training, as well as terrain are suitably modified.

I'm curious to see if CMSF can handle scenarios involving a war with China by using Syrian forces with better equipment than usual, somewhat better training/morale, and copious amounts of infantry backed by a lot of the more advanced T-72s. Perhaps with a good amount of artillery and a airpower stalemate situation where neither side has complete control of the skies. Think it's possible?

The behavior is entirely random though. I remember placing a stryker alongside the Airforce HQ building in campaign mission 2 and having the soldiers pile into the building fairly quickly, though still far too slow to be realistic. In other instances I've seen the exact same thing, some situations as bad as Malcom's situation, or soldiers moving to the roof, three quarters of them getting shot up, and the survivors moving to the location I originally set. Also, I'm seeing formations take damn near 90% casualties without so much as a panic. One would think if three quarters of your squad was just rapidly gunned down, the survivors would hunker down somewhere nice and safe for a while, particularly while the bullets are phasing themselves through multiple walls and wizzing around them.

It's particularly annoying when they mill about the front of the building like so many teenage hooligans in front of a 7/11 while getting chopped to pieces by gunfire. "What is that sound?" "Gunfire I suppose..." "What, and this part of town was so nice too."

You know, unless you are playing at elite level, there is a pause key (ESC) which you can use to get a grip on things.

Mostly yes

Yeah, the ability to use pause in real-time is pretty much a necessity, things get very overwhelming very quickly unless it is employed.

IMO I find the game very much enjoyable and definitely a step in the right direction as far as the 1:1 modeling, graphics, arty system, and RT features go. The game is rough, sure, and the TacAI needs some serious improvement (My little pixeltruppen have been cut to pieces exiting the strykers on numerous occasions by their inability to run for cover and exit the vehicle in a timely manner) but it is not as if Battlefront is intentionally subjecting us to this out of some sort of malice or incompetence. Hell, I'd rather have the game sooner and deal with patches than wait till 2008, seeing as I enjoy the game that much, bugs and all. If there is any one single area where Battlefront have seriously faltered, other than the TacAI, it would be the setting. As good as the game is, Syria is not very compelling of a conflict and even through the Syrians have given me a tough time (And have been downright frustrating on occasion) they are no big deal as far as OPFORs go. The U.S really is simply too overwhelming of an opponent, and I can think of a few OPFORs past and present better suited for a wargame (Vietnamese in the Vietnam War, Koreans/Chinese in the Korean War, modern Chinese in a Sino-American war, Iran) if Battlefront really wants to have an American side and a modern setting. However, I am still happy to pay the 65 dollars for Shock Force as it is still a good game, and I harbor some hope that Battlefront will have one their next releases be one of the conflicts. Also, as far as the real time goes, I do find it superior to WeGo in many respects aside from the fact that in order to pause the damn thing, you have to press escape which brings up that annoying text in the center of the screen. I would have really liked it if there were some kind of "command mode" so the game can be paused without having that text, or the ability for intermittent pause periods for RT multiplayer so people can catch their breath a bit.

I'm a bit put off by the setting, though I think the fact that it's not WW2 is a refreshing change of pace. I'll probably buy it anyway, just so I can release Tonal Island Operation Flashpoint scenarios.

How about the Team America theme? No? Ok, how about Butthole Surfers' "Jet Fighter"

Just wish there was a solid date for it, or at least some idea what year it will be released.

Balance does not equal into similar capability. Similar capability are the Soviets, if the player really plays his hand correctly, having some chance of repelling or stalling a German assault in the opening operations of Barbarossa. I've done this, and I don't fancy myself some phenomenal CM player. In most historical matchups in CM, you stand a chance of winning against your opponent, aside from the odd number of fictional military snuff scenarios. Even the AAR’s become rather satisfying when you realize exactly what you did. I recall one Barbarossa scenario that I was playing TCP/IP with a very good friend of mine where, as the Soviets, not only did I manage to halt the assault, but I made some gains to boot. Granted, in the operational and strategic sense I would still be encircled, it was satisfying to know I beat the odds. Can a player expect the same kind of outcome in this game? Only if the typical player as the Syrians is satisfied with a single vehicle kill and a handful of infantry kills in the face of near eradication without indefinite numerical superiority to counter-balance this. Does the Syrian player even get to play properly modeled scenarios “After the war?” Doesn’t seem so. Am I bitter? Not really, it is just a game and it is their company and talent to do what they please. Does it seem to make sense at this point? Not in the slightest, with other fascinating conflicts available such as: Iran vs. U.S, N.Korea vs. U.S, China Vs. U.S/Coalition, Vietnam War, Korean War, Afghanistan vs. Soviet Union, or even the Chechnya Conflict. It’s not even the matter of WW2, which I really empathize with you on. It must get tiring to essentially live WW2 day in and day out. I would even go so far as to give WW2 a significant break ATM because you really have run the full course of the WTO. I guess my main issue is that it seems like wasted talent/resources on such an insignificant and paltry conflict, when you could be working on something so much better, mainstream and wargamer interest aside. Ah well.

Hm, maybe I should redefine "wargamer" as in not so much a grog, which I would just barely be classified as, but people interested in somewhat realistic gameplay and are enthusiastic about combat sims. Opflash, Armed Assault, IL-2, RO, Infiltration Mod, and even the grand strategy types who play those wonderful Paradox games could be classified as such, with some lesser emphasis on the realism mods of the total war series, and JA2/Brigade E5 as well. However, and this is my main point, every single one of these games offers various "sides" of a conflict with similar capabilities. Syria does not have these capabilities, especially since guerrila warfare will not be modelled. Syria is, effectively, a neutered opponent who's demise is set in stone in most engagements and all the player can do is bloody the nose of their American opponent. Somehow, this doesn't seem like it'd appeal to the mainstream/wargamer cusp market, and might only appeal to the hardcore, now that I think about it. Can you imagine your typical player gushing over an AAR that goes like this: "Yeah, he killed three quarters of my force, but I took out a M1A1 and 6 infantry!" I've got a hunch they'd instead be saying "WTF!" and then be playing blue vs. blue and red vs. red matches for then on, effectively ruining the game as the whole red vs. red and blue vs. blue thing is really a cop out. As for wargamers and cusp gamers pretensions about similar capabilities and how it will change... I wouldn't count on it. Most stories of struggle, which is what a game is, is based upon opponents of similar capability. Not identical, perhaps not even remotely similar, but they can do the same things to their opponent and their environment, which is what makes it a struggle to begin with. Until there is a huge shift in the market and the human psyche and military snuff suddenly becomes very appealing, I highly doubt the love of epic struggle will cease.

Which leads back into the "wargamer" and "casual A-RAB blaster" market situation, doesn't it? Just my observation, I'm probably wrong, but with my limited knowledge of the wargaming market, and associated wargames, isn't a niche audience anyway? That's what CM is, a wargame, no matter how you package it. I'm also concerned about this development, mainly due to the fact BF may be trying to break a niche product into the mainstream with a mainstream scenario, which most wargamers are none to thrilled about. Said mainstreamers will also most likely not like the gameplay that CM has to offer either, and believe me, I've tried with no less than 7 different people who are mainstream gamers. Most common response isn't graphics, it's not even how slow it can be. It's this: "Too complicated and/or realistic" So it may just be a niche market you are looking at, although I really couldn't say for sure as you have the data, not I. I'll also state that even mainstream gamers like sides with similar capabilities, not steamroller scenarios. What do you think most mainstream strategy games are? Identical factions, or varied factions with similar capabilities. Quite frankly, most mainstreamers may potentially find playing as the Americans too easy, and the Syrians too hard. Nevermind offending some patriotic sensibilities in the A-RAB blasters when their stryker is destroyed, adding another factor that makes the A-RAB blasters both an unappealing and an unreliable market element to rely on.

Yeah but my big question is why bother with a scenario the audience is not all that enthusiastic about. If we start playing almost exclusively Blue vs. Blue matches, then it is reduced to the status of cheap RTS game in which every side is a mirror of the other. Powerful nations with similar capabilities offers both flavor to the game, and a tactical variety and playstyle for each factions which adds to originality and playability. Nato vs. Warsaw would fit this, Vietnam would fit this, Sino-American war would fit this. Tinpot dictatorship with no real military capability vs. one of the world's preeminent powers does -not- fit this. It's not even like guerrila warfare and the like will be modeled, which would suit the Syrian-American scenario perfectly. If all these things which would enable such a scenario to be at least mildly entertaining are not being incorporated, then I wonder why not a different scenario? The Sino-American war scenario seems to ve very popular here, as well as Vietnam and Korea.

Is the whole Syrian vs. U.S thing that viable either, though? It seems to me all it would attract are the typical die-hards and the "blast A-RABS" types, with the latter quickly finding the cerebral nature of the CM series rather unappealing and quickly falling back to America's Army and Counterstrike:Source. In regards to the wargamers, you'll also notice a marked interest in eras in which there was similar capability among all major players in said era. WW2, the American Civil War, and the Napoleonic Wars come to mind, with a lesser emphasis on Vietnam and Korea. There are also a few examples of the classical, medieval, and early modern period I can point to, such as the Hundred Years War and Japan's Sengoku period. Even in hypothetical or fictional set-ups, it seems to follow a similar trend. A fair to wide variety of similarly capable factions. Nato vs. Warsaw Pact comes to mind, as does China vs. U.S. What doesn't seem to come up are scenarios which involve a juggernaut and a largely insignificant player, because these tend to emulate not so much an epic struggle as a steamroller. And no, the Winter War does not count under this category because the Finns had a response to the Soviet juggernaut, and quite a good one at that. A very minor power like Syria simply cannot offer the same kind of resistance Finland could, largely due to a very high technological and material resource disparity between the two. Even Vietnam does not fall under this category, nor Korea due to outside resources being funneled into North Vietnam and North Korea, thus allowing them similar capability in respect to their opponents. Syria does not have this, and Battlefront has stated they will not have this, which enables the steamroller scenario as opposed to the struggle scenario so loved by wargamers.

More like he's hiding cataracts or somefink. </font>

Wow, that guy looks pretty cool. Almost has a middle aged hipster kind of feel about him.

Maybe if one harbors some deep inner loathing...

Why not? That'd be delicious for CM, just imagine it! "You stand on the ridge, and see companies A-B, they are all rather grumpy yet look strikingly handsome, what with their piercing eyes and square jaws. The battlefield is quiet, except for some giant iron crosses littered in some dense forest. Funny little Germans you think to yourself, such odd decorations. Do you 1. Tell one platoon to move 2. Wait 3. Go personally inspect those bizarre crosses"

So it's gonna be crap?

Oh the flooding wasn't -that- bad, at least here in south-eastern mass. I guess there is an advantage to living in a more-or-less swampy area: excellent drainage. I didn't know battlefront was based in New England though, whereabouts?

I'd rather not have the the playability of a scenario hinging upon Deus Ex Machina in the Syrian's favor. How many points would a Syrian Deus Ex Machina be? A sandstorm? Can you even put a value on an incompetent screw-up? I may be in something of a minority here, but the whole U.S-Syria thing simply isn't panning out. Far too easy for the Americans, and Syrian players are going to become quickly frustrated at the distinct lack of what they can do, and how little of an effect it has. Much better choice for a modern setting would have been Iran or China, but I digress.

So basically the concerns of many people (Including me) are pretty much justified. CMSF is going to be a turkey shoot, especially since the developers have repeatedly stated that it's going to be on the main battle side of asymetrical warfare.