Sulman

I agree and I think the later modules - Marines onward (once the mission designers have really learnt the ropes of the engine) are up there with some of the best CMx2 experiences you can have.

What bug is this? I have CMSF on a 2012 Macbook Pro and Windows 7 64 bit and I haven't seen it on any playthrough. I'm tnot saying it doesn't happen but I'm curious as to what it is. I have lost count of the amount of people that have just bought Black Sea, liked it, and admitted they have CMSF but haven't played it much. I suspect the slightly rocky release of CMSF made people gun shy. It's a shame because it is excellent.

Javelins are outrageous in CMSF. Huge, and I mean huge force multipliers. The only downside is not using them on low value targets, as infantry will happily target buildings if you forget to switch them to target light. M1's are still behemoths if you protect them from the ATGM threat. In fact, if you can keep them away from heavy ATGM's they're almost unstoppable unless you're unlucky.

I think Players expecting a CM-like experience from GTOS are going to be disappointed: Philosophically, the games could not be more different. You are not supposed to micro in GTOS; in fact, it is discouraged. The entire point of the AI - imperfect as it is - is to take the burden off the player. Your base of fire example is one such thing - most of the time the AI will use an attack order correctly and will create their own fire and maneuver. It doesn't always work, but it goes both ways. Likewise, getting a lot of vehicles from A to B is a very straightforward matter as they'll do it themselves without needing micro, just a simple set of orders. The perfectability of strategy is the appeal of CMx2; that's what makes it interesting. GTOS has a confusing fog of war/snafu element that actually makes it an interesting fight, most of the time. Getting your strategy right and watching it unfold (or...not) - I'm usually quite happy to leave the game unpaused and see how things go.

There's a type of building - apparently beloved of scenario designers - that has an internal divider with windows. I've seen a full squad get wiped out by a couple of men with AK's; they're hard to suppress as firing into the adjacent room doesn't do much. The only recourse is to find one of the other walls and go around. It got me thinking how difficult urban combat is, and why city blocks essentially get destroyed rather than trying to fight through with footsloggers. The flip side of the modern setting is, unlike CMBN or the CMx1 games, I don't fear tanks at all. They're no longer a magic bullet (I remember CMBB pbem games where losing your tank was often decisive) when you have the possibility of killing one with any squad. I think every CMSF player had the 'Javelin moment'; when they realised that a handful of those things represents incredible striking power and the ability to beat anything on the entire map at any practical range, right there in your squad.

I still find using the battle taxis correctly rather difficult. If you've got some distance to cover, you don't always have time to scout really far ahead, so you have to risk moving close enough to the objective to get your squads in effective range/cover but not exposing the vehicle and meat cargo to fiery death. There's a good Marines scenario - Road To Shin - which requires you to get to an objective in around an hour through some pretty dangerous spots. It seems unfair on the first few playthroughs but it's actually a great scenario on security and using vehicles where they really are vulnerable.

At some point you've got to decide to move your main elements around. Your scouting efforts won't turn up everything. Those Shock Force maps with long sightlines were great exercises; the Marines 'Afternoon Delight scenario is a good example. You've got a tonne of firepower and lots of men to move, but you're probably going to lose some of it.

It seemed to be particularly effective when shot into buildings from window to window, such as those inevitable CMSF MOUT objectives with multiple sightlines.

The AI will often prioritise, too. You can move heavy MBTs up and they won't take a shot at them unless they're critically close, but the second you move an IFV or Hummer into LOS they'll have a pop at it.

I just learnt to scout, scout, and scout some more. Overwatch is excellent for RPG's at all ranges - if you've got proper cover the shooter won't usually get away without being at least heavily suppressed the moment they fire. The big ATGMs though are so tricky, and they can be tough to kill, even with arty.

The problem is their ubiquity; and the fact that everything except heavy MBT's is vulnerable to RPG's. I think it's the latter that provided a challenge to CMSF; IFV's need care if they are going to play their support role. I think every newish player has experienced total vehicle losses on a simple advance to contact, even against green opponents.

...Those of you looking forward to this that haven't dipped a toe in Shock Force waters, you're going to be shocked and awed by RPG's and ATGM's. They will be far and away the biggest culture shock if you're used to CMx1 and CMBN onwards. They'll make you rage, make you miserable, then you'll go with it and start having some fun Edit: This is a good example http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94550

I don't think quick battles were ever a strength of Shock Force. Have a look at the repository for missions; there are some real gems in there.

Even the newer missiles? I thought they reached higher, but I could be mistaken. There's plenty of systems to choose from - the USSR seemed to go a bit nuts with AD stuff. It is easy to overlook that drones haven't as yet operated in any decent IADS environment. Outside of their inherently low RCS they are pretty much defenceless.

A Tunguska or similar would make mincemeat out of them.

I think the thing that makes it tricky is it is mechanically very similar to CMSF, but the small differences add up. Artillery is the same, essentially; as is (strangely enough) anti-tank warfare. As with CMSF's eternally frustrating ATGM's, the AT emplacements in CMBN can be handled in exactly the same way, using the same methods. It's infantry that need a lot more care, and you're normally fighting similarly skilled units. Not having the instant base of fire that an IFV affords has taken some getting used to. At least the crew served machine guns are really very useful (not so nice to go up against ) whereas I never really liked them in CMSF. Market Garden is on my Xmas list

I find this with ATGM's too, it makes me laugh (beats crying!). You can have one unit in a clump of trees 500m away; you can pepper it with grenade fire; suppress and hit it with two squads; finally plaster it with a 155mm barrage. In the last turn, it will still take out a vehicle with its last remaining crew member.

I still play it. I think it's actually my overall favourite. The newer titles have a lot of little enhancements, but CMSF still looks and plays very well. The modules are worth it - Marines in particular is a hoot to play. You'll get an appreciation for how effective modern infantry are, and also how vulnerable armour is.

Yes, I try and follow most of the things in there; I think where I got caught out was the effectiveness of HMG's and suppression effects (seems more acute than CMSF). In Shock Force as long as you took care with cover (and didn't mind trashing buildings) NATO units would nearly always prevail on a 1:1 basis, often with less favourable odds because their firepower and morale is so good. I'm going to have to work on my execution of tactics, I think; I've got a bit lazy. Hard Knocks is a beast, a bit of a Kobayashu Maru I think

Hi all, I returned to CMBN (I've owned it for ages) now that I fixed my main PC. I've played CMSF for years on my laptop, and got reasonably good at the single player - once you get the basics down the stock campaigns have only a handful of difficulty spikes. I've found CMBN much more challenging. I've been playing Courage and Fortitude, and - I'm aware of the second mission's difficulty - but I've been quite taken aback how hard it is to be effective with Infantry vs defenders. The first two missions remind a little of CMSF's worst drive-down-this-path-and-await-death marches, but I kind of expected that after a little reading. One of the changes in 2.12 is seeing unit kills. In the first mission, I set up my FO with a great view of all the main approaches, and also HMG's overlooking same. Didn't know you can see through bocage standing next to it... My American infantry were beaten back exceedingly easily by defending units, particularly mounted MG-42's. It was hard to get them to advance at all. Reminded me a little of playing Red on CMSF. Infantry and HMG's fired tonnes of rounds but didn't cause a single casualty. Mortars and a single Sherman did most of the damage. A single German rocket team singlehandedly stopped the right flank and left three burning Stuarts; leading infantry didn't see them and got beaten back by covering MG fire which the HMG's I'd provided didn't suppress at all. Pretty brutal learning curve! I kinda love it, although I may try another campaign and come back as I suspect this will get frustrating. I pretty much feel I need to forget everything I know.

There is some argument that WeGo is a good substitute for the real planning an actual commander would be required to do, but which nobody really has time for. I.e. it allows for terrain analysis and movement planning (what-if's) that would actually have been thrashed out in detail before the fight. I think the God-like view and intervention afforded to real time goes some way to compensating for the slightly irrational tendencies of TacAI...

This puts better what I was getting at - the flow of battle is totally different when you can change things in the space of a few seconds. It's a new game. Got to have the right scenarios, though.

It's true, there's a couple of things that I really like about R/T though, and one of them is the ability to shift support area fire almost instantly. That really changes the tempo of some assaults, as you can 'rescue' a bad situation with reasonable reactions. Nothing puckers me up more in the CM games than an assault that has gone wrong in WeGo and you're waiting for the timer to run down with your head in your hands... How nice we have the choice, though!

Situational awareness. I've said before that one crucial difference with WeGo is that the human player can basically 'Max Payne' it - you can slow down time! Against the AI, this hands you a huge advantage. I'm not the world's best CMx player, but my success rate vs AI in WeGo is much higher than it is in R/T, simply because I have all the time in the world to plan even small moves. In R/T, you can get disorganised real quick unless you're practiced at it; part of enjoying it is learning to give orders very quickly and effectively. WeGo gives you absolute situational awareness of every single unit you have, and fine control of their movement. Certain scenarios (even the original US Army ones, out of the box) are absolutely thrilling in real time, when they can be a bit snoozy in WeGo. The truth is (for me, at least), it is perfectly manageable; you have a God's eye view of the Battlefield, and while TacAI is stupid at times, you have a 'big picture' that any commander on the ground would kill for. Any seasoned RTS player would not struggle with the workload; learning this is part of the skill set required of those games. I'm not saying RT is fundamentally better, but it's an entirely different, and interesting challenge that any player should try, especially if you play vs. the computer. It'll frustrate you when you first try, because you need to learn to be quick, and be okay with missing stuff, because you will, but this is okay, it's all part of the experience. but this in itself adds a totally different challenge to the game; the fog of war becomes an absolute swine. The other thing is the passsage of time; when one plays a scenario in R/T, you find an hour isn't long at all. Scarily so. Play the same scenario in WeGo, and you'll be amazed how far your forces can advance because you get so much more efficient at movement. Edit: I too pause for artillery/airstrikes, and covering arcs, because I find those two things rather fiddly. If I find myself overwhelmed, I normally just play the scenario in WeGo. It is better for some cases, for sure.

I've got CMBN 2.0 and actually prefer CMSF. There's just something about it I love; I even bought a separate copy for my Macbook Pro. It may just be that I'm a little more drawn toward the modern theatre, even If I wasn't aware of the fact.