meade95
-
Posts
481 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by meade95
-
-
I use to play CMSF (all through NATO expansions). Though, I don't believe I was still playing when patch 1.30 finally came out. I have since long ago uninstalled CMSF.....but I'm thinking of repurchasing the CMSF/Marines pack......
Did 1.30 change the game much for most? I know I've read the patch list ......Just wondering how people felt the game played out after that long awaited patch. I think I remember being on 1.21 forever...
-
So. If I'm still at Patch 1.21 (never saw the need to upgrate with what was fixed). But I do want Patch 1.32.
I SHOULD Download 1.31 FIRST. Then do 1.32 (and then hopefully will not have to do a complete uninstall / reinstall of CMSF/MARINES/NATO.
-
Look forward to this, if you make it - Not sure how CMSF plays out small scale operations like this (as is). I think CMSF could definitely do this well if BFC wanted it to with some small tweaks / added features.
I'm looking to put something together with ARMA2 along this Ops lines...
-
Would be a great gift if BFC could include the ability for US units to carry more gernades, smoke and demo charges.......In MOUNT conditions these are readily avaliable to any/all units conducting such operations today......They are in to limited a supply within CMSF (IMO).
Now that CMSF is going out to pasture (more or less) it would be a nice if perhaps BFC could allow the community a little more leeway in what units have avaliable to them......with this last patch...
-
More Demo charges for ALL units would be a great addition. All units in MOUNT combat have access to Demo charges (if needed).
More gernades and more smoke are needed as well. Really wish this simple add on could be included in the last CMSF patch (1.31).
-
LLF - Just DL, can't wait to try it out tomorrow when I have more time to think through my decisions - Though I have a question when looking via the editor - On your map I don't see any exact "set-up" zones - I was always under the impression that the AI needed / must have a setup zone to start out from. Guess I had this wrong.
-
Could you buy two seperate Marine Batt's?? And cut down each from there?
-
Been away with work for awhile - Very glad to see this one is finally about to be openly released! Great work LLF!
-
There is lack of smoke, lack of gernades, lack of the ability of units to bring breaching charges. For MOUT Ops, I've never understood this situation not being addressed in some manner within CMSF throughout all the patches / exapansions.
-
I still contend that BFC lost a tremendous secondary market with CMSF (by not putting in several SOF type dedicated / outfitted units with the NATO expansion). There is a whole sizable market of 'gammers' that don't go the CMSF route as is.....but would have jumped in, if such units were avaliable. This would could have been done with very little extra costs on BFC end (as all the attributes for the most part are already included within the engine). Simply reouttfitting a couple units, weapons wise, capability wise, etc.
All the fixed costs were already there within CMSF. I believe BFC would have been surprised at the number of new customers that would have jumped in and bought CMSF + NATO had such units been included, just from my discussions on other forums of mainly FPS / RTS types.
-
sounds great look forward to getting my ass kicked:D
Me to! Can't wait. This map is exceptional.
-
one thing occurred to me, I could remove the doors to the small cell buildings. Then the only way in would be with explosives, this would make it so the red side couldn't get to the prisoners so easily, and would even make the "prison break" seem more realistic and exciting... though I'm still unsure how to work the points out as i wondered in my first post... :confused:
I like this idea - Put them in a building / area that is closed off to both OPFOR / BluFor - Where BluFor needs to break their way in -
-
With CMSF-1 going to the way back burner - It would be nice if BFC would tweak up Sniper Teams overall observation ratings / performance - As this has been a years long discussion / request now.... which seems many are not happy with -
And the idea of tweaking up status to "elite" just doesn't seem to do enough (in many customers views). Perhaps an additional tweak up in ratings above where it stands now (for elite) could finally happen with the last patch of 1.32?
This would have no negative effect to users - As only those wishing / believing their should be a performance increase for such units would then use this "elite" status.
-
LongLeft: It's not about bashing anybody, just that the CIA enabled Saddam to power, in the same way we engineered that corrupt idiot in Afghanistan. At the time I am sure it seemed like a good idea, and/or an easy fix to an intractable problem. It's probably got more to do with corporate interests. As an (expat) Brit we are used to cynically exploiting everybody and installing satraps as is normal for any empire since empires existed. It's just the "circle of life."
PS: "Once Uncle Sam sends the heavy armour..." About as likely as Islamic hordes crossing via Istanbul and overwhelming Europe (as a Brit military guy I knew worried about). Logistics and lines of supply are the issue. Look how stretched everyone is in Iraq and Afghanistan etc. when you consider all the pre-positioned crap we had in Saudi Arabia (a friendly base next door and no ocean to cross).
With respect, if you believe Saddam came to power because of (or had anything to do with) the CIA, that just isn't accurate. Saddam came to power via himself, squarly. He was a self made dictator if there ever was one.... The guy was banished from Iraq for a period of his life (sent off to exile in Egypt/Jordan) only to return via his own efforts. Absoutely nothing to do with the U.S.
And that is a long growing fable regarding UBL and the CIA. He was nothing within the mojahedin which with the CIA worked in the 80s. His legend has been greatly exxaggerated in that period.
As for the idea of the US being stretched because of the GWOT. While I'll agree, it is fact that professionals think logistics, logistics, logistics...while the amatuer thinks tactics......I think what the GWOT proved....was it wasn't the US who couldn't fight an effective, prolonged multi-front war.....it was AQ who couldn't.
-
I'm not sure there is anyway for China to "court" the Muslims (the jihad fanantic section that is there to be dealt with) though??? - They're already having some of their own problems within their border regions with such elements.
The only true counter it seems to me, against the Muslim Jihadists movement is quasi-freedoms within. That grow and mature. And this, freedoms, China likely wouldn't be offering or they would be helping in areas now. They missed a big opportunity in Iraq, I think, a decision they will look back on with regret. As not only an opportunity missed within shaping the future of a productive Muslim world but also in becoming more than just a regional power....
While these situations are complex. There is nothing more complex than avoiding the obvious....and to me the obvious is, the counter to radical Islam/Jihadists is helping in providing an atmosphere within/throughout the Middle East that allows for the notion of self-worth. With the notion of self-worth spreading within the peoples of those countries, radical Islam with be rejected more often than not. Compoudning even more so with time against them.
It is either that or bombs. And at times the latter is going to needed before the prior can have even a shot at taking root. The world is simply too small any longer to allow radical Islam to go unconfronted, 24/7.
But as for a gameplay backdrop.....I agree, it would make a great backdrop for CMSF-2/3.
-
Well 10 secs with the search tool found this:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/announcement.php?f=56&a=361
So that’s the good news, I’ll let you look for some of the issues related to it.
I know there is a 1.31 patch - That was my question (perhaps wrongly worded, as I was traveling while typing). Typically the most recent patch, is the one highlighted. Yet, it seems patch 1.30 is the one with the 'sticky' here in the forums (not 1.31). Which is why I had the question that perhaps 1.30 was more stable and waiting for 1.32 would be advisable to those who haven't already patched to 1.31.
-
"Our only other option, is to find our own young, meanest, baddest, knuckle dragging Pastun MFer and give him all the butter, guns and gold treasure he desires as long as he brings us scalps from this region..."
Unfortunately, that's how we get a Saddam H.
There are some direct and indirect differences to that analogy - But for the sake of an argument, even if accepted, such decisions / associations sometimes are the best short term solution to the complex realities of the times.....
-
Bhutto clain is as corrupt as any that have ever ruled in Pak - Especially the husband - Sans any true allegiance from within the ISI. Terrible combination at this stage for both Pak and the world outside of it.
The sh*tty reality is.....The Pak's have as they see it a "good" and "bad" Taliban. Problem is for us, we have more then helped them with their choosen "bad Taliban" but it is their "good Taliban" that we truly need taken out....that are most assoicated with AQ/AQ mimics.
Yet they see this "good Taliban" as their first line of defense Vs India and as their proxy influence going forward in a developing Astan...... There is no great surprise that HVTs of Pak's "bad Taliban" are routinely taken out within these lawless border regions (by us). The HUMINT is clearly provided.....yet HUMINT on good Taliban / AQ elements is non-existent.
The time has long passed now though, where we need to tell them come hell or high water, XY and Z individuals / elements are going to be taken out.....They would be best to be fully on board.......after / as that is accomplished they can still maintain their "good Taliban" (with new leadership and without AQ assoication) for reasons they see fit....
Our only other option, is to find our own young, meanest, baddest, knuckle dragging Pastun MFer and give him all the butter, guns and gold treasure he desires as long as he brings us scalps from this region...
-
But if you want to war-game tomorrow's headlines, check out what's going down in Pakistan..... The next Islamic Republic in the making there. With the Bomb.
Gigantic CMSF potential there, with the arid/mountain terrain set perfectly relevant. Start with a brutal Red vs Red campaign as the Indian Army plows into Pakistan. Meanwhile, in addition to wiping out the PAF and any missile forces, the US/NATO has to secure the Pakistani nuclear arsenal before they either press the button or ship them to Iran or worse, AQ. And occupy the rest of lovely hospitable Pushtunistan (aka NWFP). Meet the new Tora Bora, infidel b*tchez, with OBL sitting on a Hiroshima nuke ticking away next to his dialysis machine hoping to take a bunch of Crusader spec ops forces with him to Paradise....
So you now have all the deep airborne commando raid scenarios you can possibly imagine, badly outnumbered, surrounded and outgunned except for air support with Ffailure Not an Option. Challenging stuff.
A little too much like Syria for BFC to do a module, methinks. At the end it would still be a superpower killing Muslims asymetrically in a sandy rocky place. But all the tools are there.
+1 - Would love this addition / mod with CMSF or as a mod to CMSF-2, more likely.
Pakistan, since the Musharraff gov't fell has gone from a quasi-ally to now being a strategic liability. That is a huge game changer. Some would suggest it has always been the latter. Though, others would contend, and I would be one to agree, Mush ties within the ISI were worth more than most gave credit to.
-
So where are we regarding Patches? I'm at 1.30.
But I see there is a 1.31 patch out (yet not really highlighted here on the main page). I also reading about 1.32 patch coming out at some point (the last CMSF patch most likely).
Are there issues, new issues with patch 1.31 that makes keeping patch 1.30 a better idea (and thus why patch 1.31 is not really highlighted).
-
Why can't all units have the same screen layout as do MG and Scout units, where each man within the unit is represented as a "dot" within their unit symbol screen (that is not the correct term, but my mind is drawing a blank after just having played for about 2 hours).
But within both the MG units as well as the Scout units, you can easily tell when pulling their units up if they have lost anyone, KIA or seriously wounded (gray dot) if they have anyone lightly wounded but still in the fight, yellow dot or how many are healthy and fine blue dot.
These quick reference points (espeically serioulsly wounded and KIA) are very helpful. Why can't this be implemented for the rest of the units?
-
So, 12.7mm AP-I, is equivalent .50cal ammo? For resupply.
-
Flaming Knives,
If the aim of the CM series of games is to produce as realistic a simulation of modern warfare as possible, it is worth stating that the main problem is that the virtual soldier does not behave in the same way as his real counterpart. Simply put, you cannot give him his orders and let him get on with it because he cannot think for himself. Consequently you have to micro-manage him to an extent that you would never do, or be able to do in real-life, particularly if our virtual soldier is a sniper. In simulations such as these, I suppose that it will ever be thus, until such time as artificial intelligence approaches the levels displayed in the Terminator series of movies:rolleyes:
The key is to identify which elements of our virtual soldier require a separate imput from the gamer, and which can be covered by the program. As you so correctly imply, much of the way they perform in the game depends directly on you the player. There is no way around this and nor should there be. For example unskilled CMSF players will deploy snipers on bare hilltops, rooftops or deploy them in isolated cover, locations that no real-life sniper would consider even for a moment. Their choice of route for the sniper will often be equally inappropriate. All of this will have inevitable consequences; the life of the virtual sniper will be both short and exciting. But that is the beauty of products such as CMSF. No one gets hurt:D You learn by your mistakes, re-boot, and try again.
However, I digress. There are certain characteristics which the software can and IMHO should replicate. 1) When snipers/sniper pairs are statically deployed in cover, there should be a modifier that makes them significantly harder to spot than the normal soldier. 2) Their long range accuracy should be ramped up considerably from what it is at the moment in the game and 3) They should be given FOO/MFC capabilities. If all this was done the improvement in realism with regard to the sniper would be considerable.
And finally, the game designers would do well to ask the question; "What is a sniper?" Merely giving someone a highly accurate rifle does not a sniper make. My definition of the kind of "sniper" currently depicted in the game would be the term 'sharpshooter' I would reserve 'sniper' only for someone who had undergone extensive training in the art of sniping. In my opinion both sharpshooter and sniper should be featured in any future CM releases.
SLR.
+1 - I believe tweaking to snipers has long been needed - Ditto that for the experience level of "elite" in general as well.
-
Pretty much this. I actually think that it is only CIA UAVs that are armed, although that may not be true any more.
That isn't, the case, any longer.
Old Playler perhaps coming back -
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
Thanks for reply!
So a new modern CMSF-2 is going to come out for sure! Great to hear. Is there any ETA (ball park within Qtr of year).