Sulman

It's a much tougher game than CMSF. Much tougher. There's some real difficulty spikes that require several retries. I think the enhanced spotting (NVG and TIS on both sides) and the fact that scenario designers have really got to grips with CMx2 contributes. Some of the scenarios fall on the side of frustration-by-design rather than enjoyment, but that's something that started with CMBN.

I don't know if you've played CMSF since the final patches but it's very similar. Obviously a lot of little refinements aren't there but gameplay-wise what you describe is definitely in Shock Force.

It's hard to know if it makes much difference. Infantry surviveability in CMBS and CMBN (less so CMSF) is down to seeing and shooting first. Even modest resistance (a single man...) can rip platoons up if they are caught on the hop, and that happens whether they're moving quickly or not. Scouts change a lot of this in CMBS. Use them everywhere; they're usually plentiful and their spotting is outstanding. If they stumble on a unit while moving they'll take a beating anyway. I have few complaints about CMBS/BN but I wish troop's reaction to fire was just a little more aggressive in terms of quickly executing a get-out-of-dodge drill.

I really liked CMSF, but this feels like a little more in every way. I love how immersive it is.

Someone better tell Valve that, and all those Linux and OS X devs. This thread has at least been good value if only for the notion of ArmA III's engine being some sort of example of performance. Thanks for the laugh, seriously. It's notoriously inefficient. The animation refactoring project and continual AI work are a legacy of of the original OFP code. The fundamentals of CMx2 are newer. I still don't really understand the point of this. They're completely different games. I'd expect there's little if any crossover, and most people would want to play either.

How isn't it realistic? You're talking about procedural simulation versus abstraction and modelling; this isn't a realism argument. They're both trying to simulate something. Steel Beasts Pro PE is arguably very hardcore in terms of modelling but the player experience sees many things abstracted - it is not a button-pushing sim. ArmA's scripting system is the heart of these things - it makes much of it possible but it is also its achilles heel and the cause of a lot of multiplayer synch weirdness.

I should add it didn't quite hit. It landed inches away from the side, but this was enough to get the crew to bail and for the vehicle to be classed as knocked-out.

I think, and I speak as someone that has played ever BI game since OFP, that is a very optimistic description of ArmA II/III. It is not reliable. It will frequently break serverside, and the forums are full of pissed off customers with regard to the absurdly high system requirements to get any kind of fidelity out of it. Besides which, I don't even think the comparison works. They are totally, totally different things.

I actually really like the appearance of CMBS. I'm not sure what it is about it, but there's something about the colour and lighting that is really immersive in a way none of the other CMx2 games have grabbed me.

I had a Russian FO get killed by smalls arm fire (he was spotted by the BMP he was lasing) and the target still got destroyed after; how much later I can't be sure.

I think the CMx games have two types of scenarios. Those you can apply experience and techniques you have learnt to win (or nearly win!), and those that must be gamed; i.e. the designer has set out to trick and frustrate, so multiple playthroughs are required. I love the former, and they're usually a majority, but in the case of the latter I have no problem replaying them as frequently as possible - and that includes rewinds. There's no shame in it, and it's a big part of learning. Also accepting that you will lose some

My grandfather was an engineer with some munitions experience, and he mentioned years ago even pre-ww2 shells required about the thickness of a paper bag to trigger the fuse.

You have a lot to do on this one, Quarry, Cattle farm, Beaches and phase lines. I'm running out of combat power in the middle of the map. I have a UAV available but can't target accurately with it. Lots of Enemy APC's .These are the real headache. I can scout them no problem but my spotters don't stay concealed long enough to kill them, and they're bleeding out my recon squads badly if I try and attack, though I've had some success. Resistance at the cattle farm is just too steep; 3 APC's and various concealed infantry. There's plenty of flanking options but you don't live long in the treeline due the thermal sights - my FO was seen by the BMP he was targeting after about two minutes; he did get it by then the whole farm was shooting at him. Quarry fight isn't too bad (Grenade launcher a huge headache...) but the only real purpose of securing it is to open the left flank of the map for the BMP 3 platoon that turns up later... Said BMP3 platoon could solve my problem but it's murderously hard getting them to the middle of the map due to ATGM ambush points; they're quite deliberately out of position on a geographically isolated start line.. I will retry my save and try and get the BMP 3's screened properly (I'm using the remnants of my quarry force to screen with some success), but time is tight and it is essentially the enemy light armour that is giving my so much trouble. I breezed the first mission but this one is thwarting me quite badly - any tips?

I don't think that is fair, and it says nothing about the merit of the points people are making. Personally I can live with these things and I really like Black Sea, but it's healthy to look at them. I was busy playing Shock Force. I only knew that happened in CMBN when I read the patch notes. I actually think CMSF had infantry about right - if you didn't look after them they'd punish you for it. I do think the crewed MG changes specifically were good because they are pretty useless in CMSF.

Similarly if you have a crewed weapons or that one guy in the squad with the AT weapon, Murphy's Law results in them never having the LOS you need to the target.

CMSF is more like this; US units (and Syrian paratroopers) are resilient under fire, for the most part. This changed with CMBN for me. I was surprised to see platoons getting suppressed and then taking significant casualties from fire a few hundred metres away. The only thing I would disagree with it is not just US troops. I'm doing the Russian campaign and it's making me very tentative in my attacks as infantry cower even under modest fire when they dash. A few times I've had to rescue them with the supporting APC, which they are meant to be screening! I feel the small arms modelling could be dialled down a little bit.

It's in the manual. USA use GPS guidance thus a designator is not required. If you have precision artillery available your FO should be able to call it in if they have LOS to target. Even 120mm mortar with 'near precision' is still a vehicle killer. Perhaps you didn't quite have required LOS?

I hope they don't do a Cold War gone hot scenario. Based on their previous form, it will happen in real life...

My T-90s got surprised in the first campaign mission, and I was quite surprised how much of a battering they could take and keep going. Haven't had that kind of confidence in a T tank before.

I think a lot of that is from people that spent a short amount of time in CMSF before CMBN came out and have convinced themselves they're totally different games. I wrote elsewhere it's strange as a Shock Force player to see so many people enjoying Black Sea. My instinct is to say "where have you been?". World War 2 is the answer. Still, this is a very nice problem to have.

Funnily enough, it would be hard for me to summarise the differences outside of the graphical enhancements and order refinements, but CMBS feels quite a bit different. The armour feedback is really good. The machine gunners are a different world to CMSF

I think those stating CMSF is a walkover are being a bit unfair; some of the missions can be very challenging, especially where you are required to undertake MOUT. Those missions without heavy armour support (Stryker or LAV at best) are no walkover, especially if opfor has decent anti-tank capability.

CMSF onwards taught me one thing about urban war - I finally understood why it is so savage. Any directive about preservation of buildings usually had me biting my lip, as I knew I was in for a hard time if I couldn't simply pulverise them rather than risk taking squads in.

I got my PC version installed and I've really enjoyed it so far. I've got far more time in CMSF than anything else and it's interesting to see the similarities and differences. I love precision artillery - what I wouldn't give to have that in Shock Force. Enjoying the highly mobile Russian scout teams too - they're a Godsend as they're so fast and cheap, and suit my very tentative style of play. Machine guns though? Hoooooly crap, they got a buff. Terrifying.

The most wicked in CMSF are buildings with an interior dividing wall that is basically an exterior type wall with a window. Essentially two buildings joined as one. Troops walking into the adjacent room can get torn to pieces, even if they greatly outnumber defenders. It only takes one occupant with an AK. The only way of dealing with them is to indirect fire them into dust, or take a vehicle or squad outside to suppress.