Jump to content

What Do You Think?


Recommended Posts

Not long after CMSF was first released I came here and posted comments praising the game. Shortly thereafter a number of replies explained how wrong I was, and that it (CMSF) was a dog, at least in its early form. Though I have been enjoying digital gaming since “pong” debuted in the early 1970s, I accepted that perhaps my understanding of what constitutes an excellent modern digital wargame is lacking, and I deserved my visit to the “woodshed”. So tell me please, all you digital wargaming masters, what is your assessment of CMRT now that you’ve had some time to shake it down? The campaign and its massive scale are probably not for me, but I think that I, a 60 year-old casual gamer, could enjoy QBs and smaller scale scenarios.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So tell me please, all you digital wargaming masters, what is your assessment of CMRT now that you’ve had some time to shake it down? The campaign and its massive scale are probably not for me, but I think that I, a 60 year-old casual gamer, could enjoy QBs and smaller scale scenarios.

The Soviet campaign isn't really massive in scale, moderately larger than previous ones however. CMRT overall is pretty good, given the engine has had like six years of refinement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

By the time they got up to CMSF NATO module BFC was at the top of their game. I still consider those the best scenarios they've ever made.

CMRT? Anti-aircraft guns that target skyward whenever the sound of a plane is heard. That alone makes it worth the price of the game. But there's everything else too. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no 'digital wargaming master' but my search for a 'realistic' tactical WW2 game ended the day I downloaded the CM:BN demo. I've since bought all of the CM games.

Not least because there are/will be user generated scenarios I'd be surprised if CM:RT doesn't tick your boxes; and then some. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I get the impression that CMSF's teething troubles killed off a lot of interest. For me, the interface controls got in the way enough that my lack of interest in the period didn't motivate me to find ways round the issues. WW2 comes along, I get my keen on and figure out how to work with the interface, and now I'm in wargaming hog-heaven. It's the game every tabletop figures gamer always wished for: Plausible Fog of War, maintained by a disinterested Umpire, with a tolerable punch-bag AI opponent and the opportunity to go head to head with other real people; detailed and realistic combat resolution that rewards real life tactics; the ability to set up your own maps and scenarios of infinite variety.

And that's just CMBN. Worth the effort, worth the money. Any of the three families so far released will please. Even as a casual gamer, you can attempt the large scenarios vs the AI, because the game can be picked up at any time and set aside at need.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been a fan since CMBO. But I was late to the party with CMSF, although that was no bad thing from what I've heard. I missed the teething troubles and instead ventured into an absolutely amazing world of the combat simulator. NATO was definitely the best module in my honest opinion. Full of glorious vehicles, and lovely, lovely missions. But that said, I can see vast improvements since then. Market Garden was pretty phenomenal and Red Thunder seems to get the balance right for the scale. It's full of little improvements which add to the overall enjoyment. But I think the biggest improvements are probably editor based. I can see the next RT module(s) being exceptional. Keep an eye on things.

One theatre really surprised me though - the Italian one. I was really gob-smacked just how good it was. I never expected it to feel so different. Some of those campaign missions felt like WW1 trench warfare!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, most of the negative attitude either left the game or converted over to the new style of engine. So now we are back to just people wanting improvements here and there.

The game system is very good and it allows you to enjoy many aspects of combat.

So if you thought it was great back then, you will wet your pants now. So enjoy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like you I bought CMSF to support BF in its development programme but was very disappointed with the result and did not buy any more of the series.

Tried CMBN version 1.0 with the same result and stopped there.

Tried the demo of CMFI and was quite impressed but am not that interested in the Med so carried on playing CMBB.

Have now pre-ordered CMRT (on the basis of CMFI) and am really pleased by the result - it really is a huge step up from CMBB, CMSF and CMBN version 1.0. We now have a really accurate playable game that will handle small section sized battles right up to battalion sized ones.

My one gripe is the spacing of the individual infantrymen within a section - all the pictures I have seen, my own military training all tell me that men spread out with 20m between individuals and so a grenade will kill one, maybe two men at a time. But in CMRT the section is so bunched up that they all fit within a 20m square and grenades almost always wipe out 3-4 men at a time.

Other than that I think this is a great game and it will go on for years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My one gripe is the spacing of the individual infantrymen within a section - all the pictures I have seen, my own military training all tell me that men spread out with 20m between individuals and so a grenade will kill one, maybe two men at a time. But in CMRT the section is so bunched up that they all fit within a 20m square and grenades almost always wipe out 3-4 men at a time.

That is why BFC have mitigated the HE blast effects somewhat to compensate for the bunching up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is why BFC have mitigated the HE blast effects somewhat to compensate for the bunching up.

And WW2 infantry (not to mention modern infantry) weren't so good at staying at their recommended spacing, neither... It would be good to have the area they occupy be somewhat dependent on their soft factors (inexperienced poorly led troops with low morale would bunch up like sheep, whereas better trained and led troops with more self confidence could spread out over more than one AS. Don't think we'll see that any time soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My one gripe is the spacing of the individual infantrymen within a section - all the pictures I have seen, my own military training all tell me that men spread out with 20m between individuals and so a grenade will kill one, maybe two men at a time. But in CMRT the section is so bunched up that they all fit within a 20m square and grenades almost always wipe out 3-4 men at a time.

Other than that I think this is a great game and it will go on for years.

WELL, NEVER BUY CMFI,

I had no real problem with it and started to learn to make sure the unit was going to multi square locations or split them to force them to spread out.

But in cmfi, the Italians have huge squads and they cannot split. So I complained, and boy did they put me in my place. Anyway in there you might find you are entering a one hex building and you have 12 guys that must go in together. Needless to say, you have to find ways to be creative to not let that type of bunching up happen when playing some of the italian units

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I arrived rather late to the party that is CM. Bought BN two years ago. Was thoroughly blown away to the point I would play the Normandy Campaign for breakfast, lunch and dinner. Didn't feel the need to buy another game.

Until Red Thunder.

If you base your investment on wins per dollar, you may be disappointed. I have yet to beat the AI in either QB or single scenario mode. And yet, I've gotten my money's worth ...and more. Damn you, AI. Thank you, BFC.

My $00.02.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You lost to the AI? Dam you must suck pretty bad at modern day wargames. :) I on the other hand can't seem to lose to the AI and that's why I don't buy too many games of any type anymore. Not enough ai work in games for me, not like the good ole days anyways when games like War of the Lance or Centurion Defender of Rome could kick my butt.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, I don't spend my LIFE posting on game forums like you do. lol I have a life and much better things to do. ;)

Mind sharing? I don't and I'd really like to live my life vicariously though yours. :cool:

That was a joke. Well at least an attempt at a joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Back to the original topic. Really, ALL the titles are enjoyable if you find the subject interesting. CM:Afghanistan, for example, might be a few years old and not updated to the current standard, and the strongly asymmetric force mix (Soviets vs Mujihadeen) takes some getting used to. But if you just play the title that's in front of you without worrying about which generation of the game engine you're on its still a hoot. I go the supermarket, drop $35, and return home without anything edible in my shopping bag. These days $35 ain't nothin'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would definitely put a vote in for CMFI + GL - one I keep coming back to. Lots of distinct nationalities and really enjoy the earlier time period which seems to result in more evenly matched sides (apart from the Italians that is - but they are fun in themselves). Really enjoy the challenge of open, hilly terrain. Some tricky scenarios too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Enjoyed CMSF from the get-go since I'm into modern. Tried CMx1 when it was too old or I was too young ;)

Even if it was buggy it was till a gem compared to 'similar' games I played before. Realistic spotting and every little detail modeled. Got a lot better over the course of time, all 3 modules provided rich new content. The blunt firepower of the marines, esprit de corps of the British troops with their silly TO&E that somehow works like a charm and last but not least the NATO module! PaperTiger's RED campaigns were like a module too.

Also I was 7 years younger... :D

Good times!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bought CMBB and CMBO the same day in 03. I played very little BO becauss most of my dice playing was Panzer Blitz. I got SF on preorder and quit pretty quick. Continued with BB against my original Blitz buddy. When BN was anounced I finally patched SF but didnt like the one sided battles. Ive ordered everythings sinceon preorder. Hell I burn more cigar $$ than I spend at BFC. Just keep them coming.... The faster the better.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have all the CM games and modules and if I didn't buy another title there are still scenarios, campaigns and all of the other features to enjoy.

The only one I did not like out of the box was CMSF. I put it away being quite confident that Battlefront would fix it and they did. I always have at least 1 CMSF PBEM on the go.

Battlefront have the mix right for success. Quick Battles, a full featured scenario editor, accessible modding, campaigns, scenarios, RT or turn based, PBEM or online play, active forums and players. I can't think of any other game engine that is so flexible.

Their move to a module system was a wise one that ensures cash flow for them and games for us.

So, in short, buy it you will most likely like it.

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.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...