niall78
-
Posts
278 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by niall78
-
-
What confuses me is the actual gameplay, the mechanics and the concept etc of the CM series appeals to a broad church, tactical squad based play where real world tactics actually work, it should be a must have title for the millions of military gamer types but graphics matter and this games graphics are definitely holding it back and keeping it 'niche'.
What are all these 'military gamer types' playing instead of CM that have better graphics at the moment?
Most military simulations still rely on hex and counter graphics to this very day with a few notable exceptions. As for full 3D simulations you have CM, Graviteam Tactics and Scourge of War - after that my mind goes blank trying to think of others.
-
I've seen multiple messages that from Debaltsevo Ukraninan Army pulled out ~2450 men and 200 vehicles including 15 tanks and 50 BMPs.
Any sources on total amount of forces Ukranian Army had in Debaltsevo?
Has only unofficial source in LJ saying that inside Debaltsevo there was 5 BTGs and 4 more were sent to rescue.
European MSM is quoting Ukrainian forces saying they had to retreat though fields - as the road network was cut or under sustained artillery fire - in groups of under fifty and under small arms fire. From reading these sources it looks like whatever was in Debaltsevo only came out in fragmented pieces minus their wounded and heavy equipment.
-
There is. Panzer Command Ostfront.
CM games ARE the most state of the art in this particular niche.
Panzer Command Ostfront is a very pare imitation of the CM series. It doesn't reach the heights of the CM series in nearly every conceivible comparison. As a wargamer I respect their effort - without the CM series I would laud their effort.
As it stands nothing on the market comes within an asses roar of CM - with better graphics or not.
-
The 'graphics suck' compared to what other product like this?
There is no other product like this on the market.
-
A lot of major European media outlets are calling this a major military disaster for the Ukraine, calling it a major strategic defeat and wonder if the present Ukrainian government can survive the fall-out from this defeat. There's also many quotes from Ukrainian soldiers and commanders bemoaning the scale of their losses, the position they were left in until encirclement was a certainty and attacking their government for abandoning them.
These aren't Russian sources - these are MSM European news sources like The Guardian, BBC News, The Independent, FRANCE 24, The Telegraph, etc., etc.. All these sources point to a disorganised retreat under massive artillery fire and small unit ambushes of the fleeing columns. The columns themselves consisting of shot-up soft vehicles filled with lightly wounded men towed by the few remaining armoured units. Interviewed survivors speak of leaving all their more heavily wounded comrades in the pocket and the loss of all their heavy equipment.
-
Nope. Probably not. But one or two called in on a HVT spotted by a MARSOC team deep in Indian country.....yep.
Maybe but unless the target is static time to target would be an issue as I think all Tomahawks are ship or sub mounted. So again more a strategic asset than a tactical asset.
-
I hope the hell not. I'd rather pay fees to upgrade what we have even if they are full price. I don't wanna go all the way back to 2007 and wait and wait and wait.
My biggest fear is that Battlefront will move to a new engine and we'll see CMBN 2, CMFI 2, ETC. That is precisely why I'm 'Ho-hum' about CMSF 2.
We've got a modern Middle-East asymmetric warfare simulation featuring nearly any force-mix we would desire. It's still a very playable game. Lets make new history and go with a new setting.
-
Unit cost of a Tomahawk “Block IV” : $1.59 Million
Can't see this getting used with any regularity as a tactical asset on the battlefield.
A Hellfire missile comes in at about $110,000. A GBU-12 Paveway II at about $22,000.
-
I think all of those have been requested before, but were I believe explicitly denied by BF for various reasons (unfortunately).
Yeah I've read that before on the forum. Pity a third party doesn't do a few of these scenarios like we had with CM:Afghanistan.
I'm just thinking - if I win the European Lottery maybe I'll have them made.
-
no make more ww2 games =D
That is a time period that could be certainly be expanded on. Invasion of Poland (both USSR and German), Battle of France, Battle of the Low countries, the desert war, Barbarossa, the Pacific (both island hopping and the Burma campaign), China, Spanish Civil War, Operation Sealion (for a what-if) - my mouth waters just thinking of the possibilities.
Early WW2 is also much more interesting in terms of units than late war. CMBB's early war battles were probably my all time favourite when playing CM.
-
Not sure why we have to have an either/or. How about they update CMSF in its original setting while continuing the modern series in other settings? We can have our cake and eat it too, it just takes patience.
Patience? For me it isn't a matter of patience. No other company is ever going to make a product like CM - it is a wet dream for a guy like me who grew up with hex wargames, table-top and PC games like M1 tank platoon, John Tiller and Empire softwares 'Campaigns'. I just want to see CM tackle other settings like Cold War gone hot, Vietnam, Pacific WW2, African Bush Wars, Iran-Iraq War, Arab-Israeli Wars and a whole lot more before revisiting AS warfare in Syria.
I want this from Battlefront because no other company is capable of fufilling my desires for tactical gaming of such conflicts. I don't lack patience - I'm just greedy for more settings because I know only BF can do them justice.
-
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.
SF got a lot of hate on release. I wasn't at all happy when I fired up the original game - I stopped playing and only returned to it months later. With patches and modules it eventually found its feet and could stand proudly with any other CM game but I think it never won back the love it lost by many due to its starting issues.
I may be wrong but I also seem to remember a lot of people not being impressed by the setting or the OPFOR being so weak compared to previous titles. It was a big jump from WW2 CMBB, CMBO and CMAK to AS warfare in a modern setting in Syria.
-
I am all for BF updating it don't get me wrong, just saying it is still an enjoyable game and doesn't feel as archaic or obsolete as some comments suggest. I have read people call it CM 1.5 but really it is basically the same engine, it is more like SF is CM 2 and what we have now is CM 2.3.
It's basically the same game as CMBN, CMFI, CMRT and CMBS but missing a few bells and whistles - some of which can be added with mods. It's still very playable. I don't feel it's worth the time or effort to add those bells and whistles when a new setting could be concentrated on instead.
Saying that I'd still purchase an upgrade - and that is all it would be - if it was released. But then again I'd buy anything released under the CM umbrella of titles.
-
MANPADS, movable waypoints, armor arcs, target briefly, vehicle hit text, better UI, onmap mortars, greatly improved editor (performancewise and featurewise), greater small arms effectiveness, casualties stay in squad view, amphibious vehicles (USCM AAV!), improved foliage draw distance, larger maps, those are the things that more or less spontaneously came to my mind.
All that would be very nice. But when playing CMSF I hardly miss any of them - they don't change the core of the gameplay. Is it worth the time and investment away from other settings to relive CMSF with some extra features?
-
It would be nice if BF upgraded Shock Force's engine but really it is entirely playable as it is now. You will miss a bunch of features compared to the latest games like no shaders, no armor covered arcs or target quick commands etc.... but the game hasn't been rendered obsolete imo. In other words the differences between SF and BS aren't as big as some people make them out to be. The game was really rough around the edges when first published but with all the patches and modules, it was pretty solid and it still is. That doesn't mean I don't want an upgrade if that's possible , all I am saying if that it is still an enjoyable game, just missing a couple of features that are no show stopper. So if you have skipped it or someone is considering buying it because they like modern warfare, or revisiting it, go ahead, it is still a fun game, just missing a few bells and whistles.
That's a very good point Zveroboy1. CMSF is still a very playable game - barring an improvement in graphics and a few missing orders what is there really to add? Drones and AMS will only make the game more of a walkover against the OPFOR. Even the graphics and sounds can be dramatically improved from stock with the available mods.
Seems a waste to go back in time and release CMSF 2 and possibly a load of modules and have basically the same game as CMSF at the end of its development cycle.
In my opinion we already have great AS warfare in the Middle-East with CMSF. Why not move forward to a different setting instead of reliving the past with a few extra tweaks to graphics and user commands?
-
If I recall the original release was definitely a bit of a cake walk. After Marines though things got a lot more interesting.
Nato German campaign was difficult due to lack of infantry. Again though it was more about force preservation than being scared the OPFOR would win the battle. Come to think of it in scenarios this didn't even matter that much it was the campaigns where casualties really mattered as in the next battle you'd be even poorer for boots on the ground.
-
Well think this through: Shock Force wouldn't really be Shock Force if it wasn't set in the Middle East right? So since you pretty much are arguing against a asymmetrical warfare themed CM game, which means arguing against ever continuing Shock Force, because having a non-asymmetrical war set in the Mid East (with NATO involvement) seems pretty implausible.
So if you don't care for AW thats fine, but don't spoil everybody else's fun
Also, having a CMSF 2 set in more recent time or even in the future would probably just shift the balance even more towards the conventional force's side, with APS, platoon level drones, etc. What a large part of CMSF was about, was detecting and neutralizing hidden ATGM positions before they could cause harm. APS take a lot of the excitement out of that.
Just my opinion mate. If they release CMSF 2 I'll be at the front of the queue to buy it even though I'm a bit 'ho-hum' about revisiting the setting with its gross force imbalances. It was a very fun game once the original bugs were ironed out and I bought all the modules that were eventually released.
It's actually hard to think of a modern setting for anything other than AS warfare. Maybe Battlefront should do a Cold War gone hot game or Arab-Israeli Wars type setting. Even 'Tet Offensive' if infantry got a bit of work.
-
I definitely DON'T want them updating CMSF 2's setting; Keep it Syria, keep the time frame (but they could expand it beyond a couple months). At this point it has history, even if it's fictitious history, it's our history, that we all helped create.
It is our history - a history I loved participating in. But lets make new history.
-
SF style enviroment is much better suited to a squad level game rather than a company/battalion level game. The OPFOR gets a bigger and bigger hammering the further you move away from squad level firefights.
-
The fun of CMSF was how asymmetrical it was. We have WW2 for stand-up fights, and now we have CMBS for conventional warfare with the latest high-tech equipment. I'd love for CMSF2 to keep its focus on the original imbalance of forces but to add features making that imbalance even more interesting: false intelligence, more robust infiltration, civilians, scripted events, etc. Bring the asymmetrical elements to greater life.
CMSF was a locate then stand-off and blast game - the OPFOR had nothing it could counter such tactics with. Even IEDs weren't much of a threat as you had the firepower and ammo to shoot up anything that could be even remotely considered an IED location.
A game about thinking how to keep losses to a minimum rather than thinking how to engage and defeat a stead-fast opponent who could potentially beat you quite badly if you messed up. Messing up in SF was losing a few guys to an IED or an unspotted formation - not losing the battle.
-
While I love SF and all its modules it has to be said that the opposing force was little more than cannon-fodder with the real challange being to keep casualties low rather than actually fighting hard at winning a scenario or campaign - you were always going to win. Add in modern stuff like drones and it would make the opposing force in SF even easier to defeat.
While SF will always have a place in my heart and hard drive BS and the WW2 titles are much more challanging for me as a player. I'm not sure we really need a re-run of SF. Main line combat between fairly evenly matched opponents is just more fun - in my opinion - than counter insurgancy fights between grossly mismatched opponents.
-
May I surmise that the phenomenon the op described happens with light weapons and infantry too? I remember several games in Normandy and Italy where my infantry was jogging in column formation and an MG-42 on their front dropped two or three men istantly. I don't understand though, if it was a single bullet passing through a soldier and hit the one standing behind him, or they were just invested by different bullets of the same volley
No reason why it wouldn't be the same bullet. Hitting two or more people with the same round has been with us since firearms were invented. Oswald killing Kennedy and nearly killing Connally with one round is a famous example from history.
-
Wow - nice work LT Smash.
-
Yes I would like to know that - it was stated there would be - getting stuff from there is a tortuous time consuming process and its the single most frustrating thing in the whole battlefront experience.
In my opinion the repository needs urgent work. It is a complete pain for the fan base to use while also doing a great disservice to the modding and campaign/scenario designer community.
If it costs extra money to host and run a proper repository stick a dollar on each game to cover it.
As it stands the community and Battlefront is lucky to have GreenAsJade's Combat Mission mods warehouse taking the slack for a barely usable repository.
Graphics suck?!!?!?!
in Combat Mission Black Sea
Posted
You are comparing CM - a tactical wargaming simulator - with Total war, Men of war, World in conflict and Company of heroes all arcade RTS games. Close Combat is a 2D game firmly rooted in the early 90's while Arma is an FPS.
Like I was saying barring CM, Graviteam Tactics and Scourge of War there are very little games on the market that are 3D tactical wargaming simulators. That you can only point to vapid RTS games, an FPS game and a twenty year old 2D tactical game kind of proves the point I was making.
I'll ask again - where are all these 'military gamer types' playing instead of CM that have better graphics at the moment? Are they getting their military simulation from Company of Heroes - where tanks duke it out ten feet from each other and your base builds you a new infantry squad every thirty seconds? Lets face it most wargaming aficionados are still playing table-top, board-games, hex and counter computer games or playing CM, Graviteam Tactics and Scourge of War. They aren't playing Men of War because it has prettier graphics.