Apache Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I've got the CMSF and NATO module and on the US side I have a preference for using Bradley based forces. I have Task Force Narwick which is HBCT based and am aware there is also Forging Steel which is a USMC Bradley orientated campaign. Generally I'm not that much of a fan of moderns and play much more CMBN but as an occassional change it's OK. I'm just wondering what the major differences are in pros and cons between using the marines v army in terms of the modules? I've scoured the site to see if there are any headline descriptions of units/IFVs etc available in Marines but can only find purchase links. From what I gather the Marines campaign is not great fun and I'm wondering if it's worth getting the module now, esentialy just for a Bradley based campaign, or whether there are lots of other factors that make the Marines more enjoyable to use. Because of their nature I'd expect USMV to be more lacking in heavy support but packing more intrinsic firepower with not so much in terms of AT, unless vehicle based. Any comments appreciated. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 The Marines module is probably the best module to buy as the Marines are a blast to play with. Not only do you get the Marines but you get the Syrian Airborne as well. I got brought onto the Beta team for the UK module but I wish I'd been around to do something for the Marines as they really pack a terrific punch. For a laugh, you might also want to add 'USMC Gung Ho!' to that list Yes, it's mine but it's much smaller and more manageable that handling a whole Battalion. Personally, I thought the Marines and the IBCT (UK module) were the two coolest US units to play with. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakai007 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Marines was an obvious must by for me! Not just for the Devildogs, but also the new Syrian units, which I use all the time in missions since they can really give NATO/US/UK units a hard time. The next module I picked up was NATO. Besides the THREE allied countries, with their varied TOE and kit (except the Leopard MBT, but several versions are included) I finally got my Syrian trucks, ZSU-23-4 Shilka, AND Red air support. Red air support can make a serious impact on what would otherwise be an awesome day for Blue forces. The newer birds (new is a relative term here) like the Su-25 can carry some really devastating precision guided munitions which will knock out ANY Blue or Red tank on the battlefield. One scenario in particular that ships with NATO has you defending against an Armored attack with OK troops. The Reds have air, and it makes all the difference!!! UK was the last CMSF module I bought, and this was only a few months ago after getting all hot and bothered over the Commonwealth module for CMBN. GREAT buy!!! No new Red units, I know, but you get the whole UK army plus a new formation for the US Army, an actual factual light infantry TOE with a new truck to go with them. The smoke shells from the Chally 2's and the 'knee' mortar carried by infantry HQs are awesome and unique weapons that bring a new dimension to the fight, really love that stuff!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Syrian airborne, BMP3 and T90ies are a must have. marines are ok to top it off. in my eyes you can save the brits, they are most useless, most of the time you need to win with HQ´s and Land rovers , but you want nato, marines and the syrian goodies. by the way, bradley may be more powerfull, but styker can be lots of fun to play with. get yourself some ragheads with the advanced US army technicals, instead of relying on 25mm overkill on bradley. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stikkypixie Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I've got the CMSF and NATO module and on the US side I have a preference for using Bradley based forces. I have Task Force Narwick which is HBCT based and am aware there is also Forging Steel which is a USMC Bradley orientated campaign. Generally I'm not that much of a fan of moderns and play much more CMBN but as an occassional change it's OK. I'm just wondering what the major differences are in pros and cons between using the marines v army in terms of the modules? I've scoured the site to see if there are any headline descriptions of units/IFVs etc available in Marines but can only find purchase links. From what I gather the Marines campaign is not great fun and I'm wondering if it's worth getting the module now, esentialy just for a Bradley based campaign, or whether there are lots of other factors that make the Marines more enjoyable to use. Because of their nature I'd expect USMV to be more lacking in heavy support but packing more intrinsic firepower with not so much in terms of AT, unless vehicle based. Any comments appreciated. Marines platoons have so much more firepower. Watching them light up a target is a blast! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Posted February 16, 2012 Author Share Posted February 16, 2012 Thanks for replies folks. Guess I'll get the Marines. Tried the TF Narwick but if the first two missions are anything to go by the maps are VERY small, not much manoeuvre. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 I have to disagree re the Brits. I love all the modules, but the Brits especially. The Brits don't have the massive firepower and ammo to waste that the US does esp the Marines. You have to be "clever" and thoughtful to win as the Brits. And while they have great tanks and some good AFV's it's a lot of fun to figure out how to use their light-skinned vehicles. The Brit inf also have to be handled differently as their rifles have about twice the accurate range of the US M16. I suppose it's question of play style. You want to just have massive firepower to blast everything and win easy, or you want more of a challenge where economy of force is more critical...? I also like the Red vs Red campaigns for the same reason. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sakai007 Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 When I get the urge to play Red vs Red, I normally load up CM:Afghanistan I do like to play the newer Red equipment against peer opponents, as the BMP-3 is just a beast of an IFV. I find that I have far more fun with IFVs and infantry then all out tank battles in CMSF. I like to use the forces at hand the best way I know how to kill the enemy, and reduce my losses to an absolute minimum. In scenarios like that, say you get a single M1 Abrams or Leopard 2 as reinforcement, you can truly see the power a modern MBT can bring to the fight. Amazing 'game' we have the privilege to play isn't it??? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phantom Captain Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 You want to just have massive firepower to blast everything and win easy...?QUOTE] <==== This one!! Honestly though both styles are fun depending on the mission. I like realistic missions best where the forces you get are sufficient to carry out the mission regardless of which style you use. I actually really like the Brits too and find them a ton of fun. I also have to say, that like the Brits, this is exactly the reason I REALLY love using the Soviets in CMA. You have to be clever, use your tactics correctly, and really think things through on how you are going to go about your mission. As long as I'm not massively underequipped and outnumbered I just enjoy the challenge of coming to realistic solutions to the proscribed missions while having a fighting chance to succeed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 16, 2012 Share Posted February 16, 2012 Another thing to think about are scenarios & campaigns. The basegame was really just the starting point scenario-wise. The difference in quality between the earliest of the basegame scenarios and final the NATO module is tremendous. 'Marines' was where the learning curve was flattening out and the patches weren't making such drastic changes in combatant behavior. Marines/Brits/NATO have excellent-excellent scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ranger33 Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Another thing to think about are scenarios & campaigns. The basegame was really just the starting point scenario-wise. The difference in quality between the earliest of the basegame scenarios and final the NATO module is tremendous. 'Marines' was where the learning curve was flattening out and the patches weren't making such drastic changes in combatant behavior. Marines/Brits/NATO have excellent-excellent scenarios. Came here to say this. The base CMSF stuff is okay, but things get far more interesting with all the goodies from the expansions. The skill of the map makers themselves improved quite a bit over the years as well. Simply taking away the dozens of Javelins you get as regular US Army forces you to change tactics drastically. You have to, like, actually go fight the enemy instead of just leveling every building with a red marker on it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sixxkiller Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 I like the Marine module too. One problem is that there are Marines in it though. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Posted February 17, 2012 Author Share Posted February 17, 2012 OK, thanks. Dumb question I suppose as it depends on the scenario designer but, in terms of TO&E and scenarios, how often would the Marines have access to Bradley support. For some reason I just can find much appeal in the Strykers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pandur Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 maybe i should have explained better, i like tricky scenarios and missions, i played about 75% of my CMSF times Red vs Red, but when i wanted to not play Red on Red i wanted firepower to have some fun and the brits just seemed to me every time i played them like too many chiefs not enough indians. and way to many land rovers for my taste, but i guess yo uneed em when you have so many chiefs after takeing some casualtie you suddenly have to fill roles with Hq´s or XO teams and i dont like that, even in Red vs Red i dont like to do that, HQ is for command and not fighting. thats why i like the brits least, i get my tricky games by playing red vs red, but when i play western force i want firepower and brits have the least of it to deliver i think. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Marines don't get Bradley, they either get their up-armored truck, LAV-25 (same gun as Bradley) or the gigantic AAV-7 with a .50 cal/grenade launcher mix. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Yeah, the scenarios and campaigns created after the NATO and Brit modules came out were the pinnacle of CMSF. The quality of the earlier ones was uneven. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 USMC doenst get much armoured support, their basically a big infantry based corps. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 OK, thanks. Dumb question I suppose as it depends on the scenario designer but, in terms of TO&E and scenarios, how often would the Marines have access to Bradley support. For some reason I just can find much appeal in the Strykers. They never get Bradleys except when supported by the US Army. The Bradley is a US Army-exclusive vehicle. Marines use LAV-25s for armored reconnaissance and the AAV7 for their mechanized infantry transport. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 17, 2012 Share Posted February 17, 2012 Oh, did I mention? Marines in the game get two flavors of LAV-25. The original unmodified type and the uparmored A2 version that can withstand HMG fire. Game timeframe is circa 2007 so LAV-25 A2 was brand-new equipment at the time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Hmmm. Thanks. I suppose though that some scenarios have been designed for USMC to have Bradley support. Might give it a whirl anyway at only $25. Infantry only doesn't appeal much to me generally. I don't really like tons of firepower, just larger maps with a bit of variety to keep things interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 The Marines don't just have Infantry. While it's more Infantry-centric than either the Stryker or Bradley Infantry they have lots of cool Humvees and the LAVS and the AAV-7s are awesome. And they have tanks too. I used to think Humvees were really lame until I started playing around with the CAAT. Then I grew to love 'em. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Apache Posted February 19, 2012 Author Share Posted February 19, 2012 Thanks. I'll DL it next week when back from hols :-) Now, pack for Phuket :-) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I disagree - Marines had plenty of armor. In fact of all my favorite Allied units to play with, Marines are definitely my favorite. Insane amounts of firepower per squad. That grenade launcher really makes a massive difference, and the squads are big. Plus the campaign is a nice long one as well. US Army was pretty cool as well. I loved playing the Germans. Honestly I think part of it was just me watching them run around with MG3's and zooming in so I couldnt see modern equipment so I could fantasize it was 1940 something.. But now I have CMBN for that I wasnt as crazy about the Canadians, some things I liked, some I didn.t. As far as weapons and force makeup, they seemed to be the least powerful of the Allied Armies. I often liked playing them because the amount of firepower reminded me of a Vietnam era US Army squad for some reason.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I am very glad that I decided to get the Marine module bundle when I decided to get CMSF. They turned out to be my favorite infantry units to play with. The M32 rocks! I recommend it to anyone who gets the game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Boche Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I still dont know why the M32 was put into the game, IMO its nice to watch and all but I dont think it was even fielded in `08. but still 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.