cabal23

Pay for the Marines mod...worth every cent.

I have both a mountain and a jungle scenario soon to be released so keep an eye out. Just tweaking. Meanwhile check out Clear and Present Danger for a nice jungle scenario.

So after the events of the past few days in world news, maybe we should add Navy Sniper to our list of wants(hilarious ticker on FOX news this morning...Navy Snipers take down pirates). I can see it now, module Somalia, follow the Navy as they track down and hunt Somalian pirates. I see $$$ in BF's future for this hypothetical game.

Crossing the Rubicon is amazing and easy. I really had a great time with it.

I like "On the Edge", a great recon scenario. Teaches you the basics of vehicle-based recon with light to moderate enemy contact. Lot's of fun. "Clear and Present Danger" is a fun infantry based, jungle scenario that is pretty easy, yet entertaining. FISH is a fun one for really huge infantry battle. Good for learning how to control multiple platoons. I have played this one over 10 times and I still am not bored. Great PBEM scenario as well. Hopefully they should all be in the repository.

Uh yes, but it wasn't necessary to read the author's entire though process. I just wanted to highlight his main points. Most people would look at that source and not even bother reading it based on the length, hence the highlights I felt were important. Would you like me to use APA to cite the works as well? I went to college, I use a computer, we all know how to link a source. I swear some people spend more time worrying about the insignificant things and not the point at hand. Now that I see the scope of vehicles that might play out in a NATO mod, I firmly agree that it is a great idea because of the possibilities outside the actual scope of the NATO. I admit was wrong with my first opinion. As a scenario designer myself I see the value and think it is a great idea. What I have learned from BF over the years is they always have a firm idea of what they are doing for years to come. They rarely change course based on our comments, and they comment frequently on this. As entertaining as it can be, pie in the sky want list never get anywhere, except for a smart Ace to join the convo and say "This has been talked about in X forum X number of moths ago(I am suspect of both)" Yes an Israeli mod would be great and honestly I think it would sell well(not as well as say the Brits mod), but obviously that is not the direction they want to go for whatever their reasons may be. I always hear the number one reason why is because they just don't have manpower to make it worthwhile, when they could be (and are) working on other things, like Normandy which will sell like gangbusters. If they could find a way to pump out mods faster and more frequently, don't you think they would?

Shall I cite the hundred of articles of NATO's problems? I can only comment on what I have read. My faith in the organization isn't too high. That says nothing of the brave men and women who serve. These are not my words but sum up the reality of NATO... We can therefore summarize the problems facing NATO today in the following ways: 1. It has little post-Cold War function, as the nature of warfare has changed. The NATO-Russian Council constitutes more a diplomatic than military move, as seen in the mutually suspicious positions of the Kant and Manas bases in Kyrgyzstan. 2. Its ideology and role is no longer well-defined in the present climate, as seen in the shift of attention to Asia and the 'coalition of the willing'. 3. It has not proved itself capable of decisive action, as seen in the war against Iraq. 4. It is not up to the job of the war on terror, as seen in the assault on the Taliban. 5. It is, and has been, funded and functioned predominantly by the US, as seen in Kosovo. 6. Splits have occurred, as seen between France and the US. 7. The US uses it as a tool for its own military objectives, as seen with the ISAF. NATO therefore does not have a viable future, hinders possible military progress, and should be disbanded as soon as possible. It is not expected that the Middle East will be strong enough to establish a military Arab entente. However, by 2025 the four blocs of the US, South-East Asia, South Asia, and Europe should offer a degree of multilateralism and balance. An Asian coalition, including Australia and India, and a functional EU army is essential to this proposal, as is an increased European defense budget. Establishing the blocs detailed above would ensure strong local coalitions which deal effectively with local issues and then - in a geographical continuum - can link to solve global issues. The US would maintain its greater degree of control, but less so. We have seen how easy it is for the US to defeat theoretical objections in the UN Security Council. However, it would be less easy for the US to act against a strong continuum of strong local coalitions: the continuum exists, in a way, as one long string of vetoes; it also exists, when it works, as a sort of diplomatic rapid response force. This of course is the writers opinion, and whether it should be disbanded is up for debate. I am open to enlightenment on the subject, but the general consensus amongst many military professionals in the loop echoes the statements above. I can only read their thoughts and base my opinions on that. But please offer your thoughts.

I already spoke to my ignorance, do you really have to make the point over and over. Not everyone here is a military equipment expert. But when searching news articles about NATO I saw US equipment. It was short sighted comment and I already stepped away from it. Wow some people really feel the need to express their superiority here. I couldn't have excused myself from the convo more humbly.

Once again it is ambush scenario. It even says that in the briefing. The US still has a superior force to a decimated Syrian force. That ambush is their advantage, until their tanks roll out at the end of the scenario. I have one thing to say. Pop smoke on turn one and get you troops positioned to make the best of it. I played it PBEM against multiple players and came up with lots of different results. Some Marines win, some Syrians win. Even if your forces take a hard hit, you have way enough firepower to take down the Syrians. once again until the tank battles start near the end. Me and my opponents all felt it was balanced, but of course that is an opinion. I can only assume 570 downloads can't be wrong. Perhaps my idea of balance is not yours. Correct me if I am wrong but the number one complaint is...drum roll...that the Syrians are too weak. Give them a slight advantage and now it's no longer balanced. I give up. Nothing in the Syrian armory is superior to the US, so you have to find other ways to challenge the players and make things balanced. Point taken though, though I disagree.

It was my ignorance on their equipment. I did a search and found little info. My only recollection of Nato has been seeing pics of US equipment.

Fat chance. I am sure this has been discussed ad nauseum in past posts. There have no reports of anything cool like that. I heard NATO(silly in my opinion..when was the last time NATO did anything worthwhile besides get their equipment destroyed by militants) and an unknown highly speculated temperate red force. The NATO things is goofy because a mod already exists that turns all your vehix into NATO vehix. The forces don't seem that drastically different than US forces. I can't help but think of all the military blunders NATO has participated in over the years and that alone makes the addition of NATO to seem like a waste.

I just see it as something that would make this game way more marketable. But I don't think that is high on BF's "do we really care" list. I think (correct me if I am wrong guys) that they are all doing fairly well finance wise and they aren't out to become millionaires, just make a fun product that they can make some money on. I think hiring someone to figure out coop would pay off in the end because of the number of new players that would come into the fold. Not to mention you would carry this over in all future games. I get the feeling they only want a realistic war sim and not a stunning multiplayer game(though PBEM is pretty awesome, but it is limited to two players) and that will be left to other companies to hash out and fill the void. By the way the only reason I am not plating SS3 is because it yet another WWII game and frankly I am burned out on that. But it does look beautiful. Should a company ever release a modern warfare game that doesn't suck I might just jump ship. World in Conflict was nice, but lacking in some areas of tactical decision making and realism. But the multiplayer was where it shined. Having everyone control different aspects of the battle made it exciting. Some people controlled arty, some the air, some the ground forces, and some the tanks. You had to coordinate with your teammates to be successful and that made it a step above other RTT's. The game won almost every strategic award in 2007, so they must have done something right. Take that kind of versatility and somehow factor in the elements that make this game great and you have something unstoppable.

Good point. But I doubt we would go gunning down civs in their home regardless what the circumstances.

My only issue with recon fire is that with rules of engagement would unlikely allow you to machine gun every building in the hope that one has a hidden enemy in it. I know this has been brought up as gamey. I really do wish there was a way to encourage rules of engagement and score based on that. An example would be losing points for firing on civilian positions. Perhaps creating a unit like the spy that is a civilian. One more aspect of realism that would be awesome. The only way I see to accomplish this now is to set the intel to a high level for the Blue forces, giving the Blue player those cool little question marks showing where it is likely that Red forces are stationed. This could represent snipers scoping out the building or town hours if not days before the scenario takes place.

Thanks for the great response. I just too many times play a game and say to my self how cool that feature would be in this game or that. The features are out there maybe just not in the same games. But I respect the fact that the little guy makes a killer product and I am just a selfish American who wants it all. Keep doing what you are doing. If we didn't love it we wouldn't be buying it. By the way if a few million ever comes my way we will talk and I will need that routing number. Until then, keep on keeping on.

I think your ideas sound awesome! The SS3 engine looks nice and it could possibly do the job. I agree an entire new engine would be an great way to go. It may seem easier to continue with the current engine now that all the work has been done to get the product to where it is today. But it seems like this build has been nothing but problems and limitations. I have seen almost everything we have ever asked for in this game piecemeal in other games. It is unfortunate because I feel a lot of what people have asked for could be achieved with other game engines. The problem is that I have yet to see a modern warfare game that pulls this off. Just WWII games and unrealistic RTS's. If only I had a million dollars(sigh) to help you out.

It seems that the "server" could be the host of the game, no? I mean this is how most multi-player games do this kind of thing in other non-dedicated server games. What I hear is not so much the difficulty, but the time it would take to implement such a thing. The struggle BF fights being a small developer. I also agree this should be bumped to the top of the list as far as things to implement. In my mind this gets more people playing. Multiplayer is the future. As a static single player game it is mediocre at best. Where I think most people get their enjoyment is PBEM and TCIP games. Adding more multi-player functionality only increase the scope of the game, hence more players for sure. It is clear that the AI will ever evolve in this game beyond what it has so the growth has to occur in the multiplayer realm. BF has already stated there will be no more AI orders added than what already exists so I feel the game is at a wall in regards to the single player aspect. I mean you can only do so much with the limited AI options given to you. So once again I come back to multiplayer..build it up because it is only a matter of time before another company provides that. Doing some research has lead me to believe that there are some games on the horizon that might do this a bit more effectively than CM. (although somewhat different ARMA II and Operation Flashpoint 2 have great promise) Who know we will wait and see, I am loyal as they come, but I would like to see the game grow a bit in terms of multiplayer. Tactical wargames are getting big with the success of several FPS's that have come out in the past few years and developers understand a need for team based/mulitplayer modern warfare games. People have been screaming for this for years as WWII smothered the wargame circles. I am curious to see what the future holds.

Well the opening moves are supposed to be an ambush, hence the no room to maneuver. This is not a meeting engagement, but a probe gone bade, turned into a rescue. Your scout squad was supposed to get in a no win situation until help arrives. They are just a probe that get pinned down. In the briefing it clearly states that your reinforcements are are rescuing the scout team from an unattainable situation. It is supposed to start off badly. But once you reinforcements arrive you have the upper hand, once again if you play cautiously. It is supposed be dramatic and tense because of the overwhleming firepower of the Syrians in the beginning(how often do you hear that statement? Syrians and overwhelming firepower..heheh). **Spoilers** I have played this single player and PBEM multiple time and none of my opponents seemed to have any problems. The reason I stated it was balanced was because if you set up your scouts in the buildings they start next to and hold the those building defensively until help arrives, you will be in an amazing firefight between buildings. It will be a tug of war the whole scenario. Then once help arrives you will reinforce those building and slowly clear the buildings in the area, making your way up to the warehouse and then you clear the warehouse. This is not supposed to be a scenario where everyone get out alive. The scouts and anti-armor have a real possibility of getting put out of action if luck is not on their side and you are not cautious(they are only a scout probe, not an attacking force). The scouts are not inexperienced, just the reinforcements. My scouts with sniper rifles and the anti armor units with them manage to hold off the enemy every time I play this if you play them cautiously. You have a bunch of jeeps with anti-armor(hint..anti-building) capability. One or two well placed TOWS and you have an empty building and smoking critters inside. Use them wisely and they will ruin the enemy. You are supposed to keep loses under 25%. that is pretty generous considering the firepower at the US's disposal. Also you have arty you can call in. I think you just had a bad game, because everything about this scenario that I have watched my PBEM opponents play, indicates to me a challenging and balanced scenario. Also one last note, if you look around the number one complaint about this game is how easy it is for the Marines to secure a victory due to their awesome firepower. My intention was to give the Syrians an edge and make this a challenge(mainly for PBEM players). Special force Syrians vs Inexperience green soldiers. I put buildings on each side for a nasty building to building battle (balance) and roughly similar sized forces (balanced), Inexperience troops played by and experienced player and experienced enemy Ai played by and idiot AI(balance). Lastly the enemy forces start at the edge of the board and must drive to the building, unload, enter and set up a defensive position, just as you scouts do and they each have the same amount of chance to stop the other from obtaining to strong of a defensive position. It's not like they just start in the buildings blowing US soldiers away. So I thank you for your assessment and will keep those factors you mentioned in mind for future scenarios, but I personally disagree based on the feedback I have received from my PBEM opponents.

Peng who? Oh that's right...that nasty thread that drones on and on and on and on and on and on and on and on..........................................................

Sounds awesome I can't wait. Great flick, I can see your vision.

I think I will have a hand at another jungle themed scenario. The trees do add another layer of chance. With the condition of South America right now and narco-terrorism, the door is wide open for possible scenarios in jungle environs. I do agree that Clear and Present danger was not hard enough.The US also get's a nice advantage crossing the river coming up a hill with low visibility on their side. I have played it PBEM and no matter how well the left flank is secured by the red forces in the trenches, they can't seem to spot Marines(just lots of question marks running through an empty area with no cover which my men obviously can't shoot worth a crap) running up a hill at them in the haze and the US can move right up on those trenches and decimate the enemy. I wanted to simulate a steamy jungle in the morning, so visibility would be cut. It makes the US too uber powerful in that particular scenario. So off to the drawing board for some narco-terrorist fun South of the Border.

They are all on cmmods and the repository. Soon to just be on the repository as cmmods closes. I would suggest downloading all you can form cmmods since it is so much easier than the repository.

I second this..who wants to be legendary in the wargame circles for taking over one of the greatest BF resources ever?

CMMODS is closing down so if you have files up on there you need to make sure they make it to the repository, which will soon be your only source for mods and scenarios. A very sad day. Their no frills, easy to navigate website breathed new life into the BF games. It is shame we must see it go. I know I speak for everyone when I say thanks for the SIX years of supporting BF games CMMODS. We will miss you!!!! Make sure you let them know you appreciate everything they have done....here: cozog@cozog.com

I just went back and replayed On the Edge and it was really well done. Also I think FISH, Siege of Latakia and Trial by Fire are all well balanced. I really like Trial by Fire because that one pits two very similar forces against each other in very explosive gun battle. The marines are inexperienced and the Syrians are the Elites. Adds a nice challenge. Perhaps some people could add a few of their favorites to the list.