Jump to content

Minefields


Recommended Posts

I've been playing CMSF for a while and I love the new stuff, and improvements that have been made.:)

But one thing I still have a question about is minefields, why is it that this is still a challange so deal with?:confused:

I don't like that the only way to find mines still is to use troops, or a vehicle to hit them so that engineers can mark them.

Even engineers are useless to find them, it seems that for an engineer unit to find, and mark them. You have to walk them out into the field where you know mines are, or the briefing tells you (not always told so a little more ok with those, its war and it happens.), let them walk into them, and one or two of them gets killed to find them.

isn't it the engineer units job to find and mark mines by looking for them, not blind walking them into them? :confused:

I just would like a simple answer as to why? could this ever be fixed? or do I just simply have to continue to keep getting a blank stare on my face every time I have to watch my engineers keep dying?:(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

True, but this isn't what is being asked, in this game their is no way to find them. only if you have someone run into them can you mark them for clearing, its hard to put "Modern Warfare Simulation" as part of a games title when this is part of the modern warfare itself.

On some missions you are told about possible locations of minefields from intelliegence reports, but other times the war part of the game takes over, and it can be a unfortunate event during the battle and I have to admit I didnt take the necessary precaustions to prevent that lose, but have to keep going to complete what is at hand, knowing that I lost a man or men.:(

I take the precaustion of capturing the area around the mine so they can do their job without being shot at, but if thats impossible then I do whatever I can to provide overwatch for them

Please dont take it as an insult, but its worth trying to improve the realism of the game.:)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an entertainment GAME, I completely agree that it would be more fun if engineers could locate mines (as they could to some degree in CM1), and clear em. And there are lots more items in CM2 that could be abstracted/fudged for greater gameplay enjoyment.

However, some feel that this is supposed to be an accurate sim of RL that could be used for training.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for this imput, but if you can elaborate on why the way it is now , can be left as is? how is this a RL when it truely has a flaw or two? ( not saying that all don't have any.)

This would make an even better game if the designers are continued to be encouraged to keep improving things like this to allow them to be used for training pruposes.

(and I am one of those who treat this game like as if it is real life as I may never be in this position in RL. It gives me a chance to understand only a small part of what commanders feel like when they accomplish something, but feel like it could be done better.) and it keeps my mind active.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel your pain - unfortunately Battlefront have stopped development on this title so it won't be fixed.

I take the point about mines being the type of weapon they are and therefore quite often you hit them unexpectedly but also it is frustrating that engineers do not seem to have any advantage when moving across terrain in respect of finding mines.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sad :(

If only they could have made a command that is specific to units with engineers to hunt or search for mines ( your choice, I can't decide what works better.) without getting their legs blown off.

It would make a lot of peoples day with this game :)

Well thanks for the imput, it kinda helps others understand this fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If its any consolation - many of the scenario designers are aware of this and will give pointers to where mines are or will designate areas as minefields that need clearing by making them 'touch' objectives without any mines being there. This is usually specified in the briefing and is a good workaround.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yeah, they give mention to possible, or absolute minefields in certain areas.( kinda like intel gathered at the time.) but not all minefields will be mentioned so you gotta go with you gut based on how you wanna attack, and this is hard to do as they can be anywhere( like ied's but harder to see).

Is their ever gonna be another patch for CMSF?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You might deal with this in the scenario briefing indicating the presence of minefields in a certain area and perhaps showing areas where minefields exist. However, not all minefields are known and a nasty scenario designer could position unknown minefields for you to blunder into. It might be argued that in a fast moving situation unknown minefield might be more of a risk but some warning might still be given in the scenario briefing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for your imput

But, this is discussed in earlier post, and this is kinda still the topic that minfields are hidden well and won't always be mentioned in the briefing.

So yes you will lose men to mines if you don't plan it out with that in mind, or they just seem to be placed at major points of advance.

And the problem addressed is why is it that the only way to find mines is to run into them? (addressed in the first and probably thee other post.)

Even the engineers are usless to find them, and if you've played this game enough then you should know this problem to.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thing is, how will you know where to look for mines? are you going to search every box within the map?

If you know where the mines are, then avoid them. If you dont, its a bad suprise and should avoid that area for the rest of the scenario.

Completely true statement, you wont know where to look for mines,and it is one of the hardest things to look for.

Now im not saying that you are ever gonna be right about where they are, but if you try to put yourself in their shoes and think of what they're mind set is ( or what the designer makes as their mindset) such as to cause as many casualties to the opposing forces, or to stop armored vehicles. Then you have a better idea of where they are, and as you say just avoiding them.

Its easy to think of places to look for them, its difficult to get rid of them when you don't know where they truely are.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, CM2 is a lot harder to play as it has pretentions to being a training sim (or at least a lot of milpros thought the CM2 system as implemented in CMSF was heading that way). CMSF was more complex than CM1 and CMBN seems even harder.

When I want to just relax and have fun, I join the many people who still prefer CM1 as a fun entertainment that provides an almost perfect versimilitude for the scale of unit it depicts.

It's like the difference between the Oscars and the Golden Globes. As some wag noted, "The Globes are as great at the Oscars but without all that "gravitas."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, CM2 is a lot harder to play as it has pretentions to being a training sim (or at least a lot of milpros thought the CM2 system as implemented in CMSF was heading that way). CMSF was more complex than CM1 and CMBN seems even harder.

When I want to just relax and have fun, I join the many people who still prefer CM1 as a fun entertainment that provides an almost perfect versimilitude for the scale of unit it depicts.

It's like the difference between the Oscars and the Golden Globes. As some wag noted, "The Globes are as great at the Oscars but without all that "gravitas."

I know you have this opinion. You post it in almost every thread. You said:

And this is one of the many features that make CM2 more of a sim that a "game" as CM1 was.

Can you explain?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you're not sure why CM1 is more of a game than a sim, suggest you go back and read some of the large number of posts on this (by others) over the last years.

However, given your impressive professional BG, it would be much appreciated to read your analysis as to why CM2 is more of a game than CM1 and less of a sim.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am simply asking how you see minefields as a supporting your opinion on the merit of CMx2 as a game compared to CMx1. Again, you said:

And this [minefields] is one of the many features that make CM2 more of a sim that a "game" as CM1 was.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...