Poll: Would you prefer the original 2008 Syrian setting or something up to date for CMSF II

[Sequoia]

My first poll. I hope I did this right. Title says it all.

[sburke]

Cool thanks for putting this up

[BlackMoria]

I voted for an up to date setting but truth be told, I am fine with the original setting as long as current equipment is added.  

 

A sort of "the 2008 invasion went well but the aftermath (long term insurgency) is still being dealt with".

 

Still, a 'War Against ISIS' would be a cool, currently relevant backstory for a re-imagined CMSF.

Edited February 12, 2015 by BlackMoria

[astano]

I voted for an up to date setting but truth be told, I am fine with the original setting as long as current equipment is added.  

 

A sort of "the 2008 invasion went well but the aftermath (long term insurgency) is still being dealt with".

 

Still, a 'War Against ISIS' would be a cool, currently relevant backstory for a re-imagined CMSF.

 

This was my vote as well.  The 2008 storyline is fine, but if the game's to be redone I'd prefer it have modern NATO forces.  It's my understanding from past BFC statements that most of the assets from CMSF are unusable today anyways, so I think it would be easier to just re-use modern CMBS forces where possible (they might well have to re-do the Syrians anyways though, because I don't think much of the Syrian equipment beyond trucks, BMP-2s and BTR-70s made it into CMBS).

[Fizou]

I don't really care if its the old or a new setting as long as CMSF is brought back up to speed. Id pay full price for base game and modules again without hesitation. If it was certain that it was brought back to speed, and resources was no issue etc, then maybe a new setting would be more interesting. But my main interest is the ability to be able to play and create scenarios depicting the conflict in Iraq, Afghanistan and current day Syria etc. 

[Sequoia]

^{It is my understanding that TO&E research takes up more time then one would think. This is Steve's job so he could best answer the question. The TO&E work for 2008 is already done at least.}

Edited February 12, 2015 by Sequoia

[vincere]

I went with updated setting, seems like many more possibilities.

[z1812]

I originally was going to vote for the old setting but I realized that I am already playing and enjoying CMSF as it is.

I thought it better to have an up to date setting and have a broader palette of games to play.

Edited February 12, 2015 by z1812

[General Jack Ripper]

If you want to play with ultra-modern NATO forces just go buy CMBS. I would prefer CMSF to keep the same setting and forces, just be updated to the current version of the game engine. Maybe add a few pieces of equipment that weren't in the original, like Anti-Aircraft weapons, and T-12 Antitank guns.

[Skwabie]

I wonder if a CMSF update might happen at all.

 

It could involve the same amount of work, be it bring SF up to snuff, or add those NATO/Marine/Brit TOE into CMBS. Why the former and not the latter? BFC might as well make a new game or make additional modules to BS.

 

And once BS have all the modules like SF does... I see nothing left in SF that can be recycled.

 

Unless one likes the Syrian TOE, desert terrain or the decent campaigns. Some like it, myself included. But on the broad scale I fail to see enough interest in it to generate sufficient sales. Or maybe in Hollywood terms... the sequel is a creative graveyard.

Edited February 13, 2015 by Skwabie

[Fizou]

Skwabie, yes.. I'm afraid that might be the case (why make CMSF 2 when other stuff can be made instead). But with all the modern conflicts in ME it is a very current/relevant game, and although CMSF still work, the CMx2 engine have come such a long way. 

[Combatintman]

Voted for the original - the 2008 snapshot allows both Iraq and Afghanistan to be done with the correct TO@ Es and there is enough flex in it do the Libyan and Syrian civil wars.

 

A couple of new weapon systems would be nice such as adding the M-113, anti-tank guns and some MRAPs.

 

Most of all though, all I want is proper water and bridges and the special editor overlay.

[Sequoia]

Am I correct the infantry model in the other games is flexible enough that one could make a decent looking Taliban fighter mod to look something like an updated version of the CM:Afghanistan rebels?

[z1812]

It looks like opinion is evenly split.

[Kieme(ITA)]

I would like a new setting. Because, in the end, I belive all the content should be redone according to the new possibilities the game engine would give, map making, AI editing options, units functionalities etc.

 

But I'd like to see a strong OPFOR. That rules ISIS out, because even a detailed amount of unconventional formation wouldn't make the game much different (30 types of technicals is not much different than 4 types of technicals...), and fighting T-55 with M1A2 SEPs wouldn't be much of an interesting setting.

I really don't know what could be added, but a real OPFOR with at least some modern assets would be necessary imho.

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Uncons can be a challenge in good urban scenarios.  The great thing about SF was that it had lots of good infantry fighting possibilities.  BS is definitely more AFV oriented.

[astano]

Uncons can be a challenge in good urban scenarios.  The great thing about SF was that it had lots of good infantry fighting possibilities.  BS is definitely more AFV oriented.

 

Yep, this.  To me, the heart and soul of CMSF was the assymetric, often infantry-focused, frequently COIN-style fights.  If CMSF2 is going to happen, it's much more important to me that it keep that flavor than that it include the most modern NATO forces (and by correlation, the updates I most want to see for NATO are to infantry, not to the M1A2 SEPUBER et al., though it makes no sense to do one without the other).

 

To paraphrase a poster above, if you want a peer-to-peer slugfest, just go buy CMBS.

[sburke]

I would like a new setting. Because, in the end, I belive all the content should be redone according to the new possibilities the game engine would give, map making, AI editing options, units functionalities etc.

 

But I'd like to see a strong OPFOR. That rules ISIS out, because even a detailed amount of unconventional formation wouldn't make the game much different (30 types of technicals is not much different than 4 types of technicals...), and fighting T-55 with M1A2 SEPs wouldn't be much of an interesting setting.

I really don't know what could be added, but a real OPFOR with at least some modern assets would be necessary imho.

The problem is that no opfor exists that fits that description. The only scenario that comes close is CMBS. Unless BF decides to do a Cold War gone hot game, there is no even hypothetical conflict where NATO faces an opponent anywhere even close to parity. Hence my own vote to stay within the original concept. CMSF allows one to create conflicts in a particular period of a major commitment by the U.S. and it's allies in an actual real world situation where you can compare actual performance. Changing the period of the game to a more current period would simply create a "little brother" version of CMBS without the viable opfor represented by Russia. The result would be an even more one sided game than CMSF. And I really want to still do Fallujah, Ramadi, Sadr city in Iraq and operation anaconda in Afghanistan yet with the new engine.

[General Jack Ripper]

I know I posted in here before but I must stress this point.

 

The whole reason I bought Shock Force in the first place was it's setting. At the time Shock Force came out, many of my friends had joined the military, and some had been deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. Having some of my friends deployed to a war zone on the other side of the planet made me naturally curious. Unfortunately there were not many good sources of information aside from the television, and some internet bloggers. While writers and television can describe events, they cannot really convey the gravity of events.

 

I think video games are a medium that allows an audience, to some small degree, to experience an event. However, with the fate of Atomic Games Seven Days in Fallujah, it seemed that video game developers were effectively told to back off. For some reason examining the events of the recent conflict was considered to be "too sensitive a topic for the public".

 

Here at Battlefront, it seemed no one got that memo, and we were given Combat Mission: Shock Force, in my opinion the most realistic depiction of war in a middle eastern country ever made. It offers those who have not experienced it a very small, but well built window into what may have been the most important event of the 21st century. It also stands as a unique product from Battlefront. While we will get other modern warfare titles in the future, something tells me they won't be jumping back into the sandbox anytime soon.

 

So for anyone who says Shock Force should be rebuilt into a different setting, think carefully about what you are saying. The first game of a new generation, and a completely unique setting as far as Battlefront Games goes, deserves to be preserved in it's original form going into the future.

 

Well, that's all I have to say about that.

Edited February 27, 2015 by SLIM

[Sequoia]

_{At the risk of influencing my own poll, I think the addition of historical gameplay with a "2008" date could be a significant draw. The topic would be less sensitive than in 2007 and the name is generic enough to include support for Iraq and Afghanistan gameplay. No need to include the Iraqi army as the conventional war wasn't much but, as others have already done, using Syrian insurgents as Iraqi insurgents is a non-issue, and maybe just giving us Taliban skins and Afghan terrain and allowing the time to be set back to 2001 would be all we need. I can't think of any weapons needed we wouldn't already have.}

[Combatintman]

I heartily agree with astano, sburke, SLIM and Sequoia on this one - the time snapshot and Middle East setting is just right - you can do Iraq and Afghanistan, as I have done with my released scenarios:

 

Op GLACIER 1 - Afghanistan

Op GLACIER 2 - Afghanistan

OP GLACIER 4 - Afghanistan

CIMIC House - Iraq

Habibollah Kalay - Afghanistan

Into the Green - Afghanistan

Zumbelay Withdrawal - Afghanistan

Fallujah Hospital - Iraq

 

If I ever finish it I have a campaign based on 3 Cdo Bde RM on Op TELIC which does the warfighting bit as well - Syrian Army TO&E is not that radically different from the Iraqi Army that you would notice the difference.

 

Current and recent red on red conflicts such as Syria and Libya can also be done in CMSF and I have seen at least one historical mission released set in Syria and (from memory) a fictional/semi historical mission or even mini campaign based on Libya - some new Gucci setting for CMSF 2 takes all of this flexibility away and would be a mistake. As I have said before on this and other threads - the ability to do rivers and bridges and the Special Editor Overlay feature would bring new life into CMSF and would allow time poor people like me to knock out real terrain maps and missions at a much quicker rate.

[astano]

I heartily agree with astano, sburke, SLIM and Sequoia on this one - the time snapshot and Middle East setting is just right - you can do Iraq and Afghanistan, as I have done with my released scenarios:

 

Op GLACIER 1 - Afghanistan

Op GLACIER 2 - Afghanistan

OP GLACIER 4 - Afghanistan

CIMIC House - Iraq

Habibollah Kalay - Afghanistan

Into the Green - Afghanistan

Zumbelay Withdrawal - Afghanistan

Fallujah Hospital - Iraq

 

If I ever finish it I have a campaign based on 3 Cdo Bde RM on Op TELIC which does the warfighting bit as well - Syrian Army TO&E is not that radically different from the Iraqi Army that you would notice the difference.

 

Current and recent red on red conflicts such as Syria and Libya can also be done in CMSF and I have seen at least one historical mission released set in Syria and (from memory) a fictional/semi historical mission or even mini campaign based on Libya - some new Gucci setting for CMSF 2 takes all of this flexibility away and would be a mistake. As I have said before on this and other threads - the ability to do rivers and bridges and the Special Editor Overlay feature would bring new life into CMSF and would allow time poor people like me to knock out real terrain maps and missions at a much quicker rate.

 

To clarify, what I would really like to see is the same asymmetric setting of CMSF with the updated TO&E and gear for NATO as CMBS.  This is in no small part because I think it's easier to go backwards than forwards with the gear and have much greater scenario flexibility with the 2017 CMBS TO&E than with the 2008 CMSF TO&E - for example, in CMBS for US rifle squads you can get the XM25 (which has been in Afghanistan since 2010) and the M110 at squad level (which I believe has also been the case for some Afghanistan-deployed units for some time, but I'm not positive), with options to replace each with older gear (XM25 for M320, M110 for M4 ACOG).  So while you can use the CMBS TO&Es for older scenarios, to me it's harder to do the other way around - an M203 is not as good a stand-in for an XM25 as an M320 is for an M203.  Therefore I think it would be easier to do a 2003/4/5/whatever scenario with CMBS infantry gear than it would be to do 2010/11/12/future scenarios with CMSF equipment.  I remember in fooling with the editor in CMSF to make 2008/2009/2010 era scenarios that I was even then running into issues with getting the correct equipment.  A lot of this could already be mollified with the cherry-picking and team attachments of CMx2 versions 2 and up, but even though upgraded equipment might not sound like that big an issue, when you're trying to design a scenario that has no more than a squad and some attachments even slight firepower differences become much more apparent.

 

(Edit to add:  I'm not certain, but am fairly confident that the same would be the case with armor and other vehicles.  I keep harping on infantry because those are my preferred CM scenarios, and thus I am less familiar with the kit and TO&Es as far as tanks and IFVs go in CMSF vs CMBS, but my sense is that just using the non-APS equipped vehicle variants in the CMBS TO&E would give you substantially the same organization and equipment as was available in CMSF).

 

That said it's a matter of priorities for me.  I will happily go back to the original CMSF forces and TO&Es with the newest engine if that's the trade-off for the original asymmetric force mixes to be combined with new features, but in absolute terms it's not my number one preference.  Conversely I don't think CMBS in a desert setting is enough to get me excited about a new game because I'm just much less into the armor-heavy, symmetric fights characteristic of CMBS (even though I'd probably buy it anyways).

 

Who knows, maybe BFC will surprise us all and (1) move ahead with CMSF2 in the first place - they haven't said anything about it in a while, so I'm not holding my breath - and (2) give us options for both 2008 and 2017 flavors of TO&E.

Edited March 2, 2015 by astano

[Banex]

Really loved Shockforce and replayed the scenarios and campaigns numerous times but something slightly different would be a breath of fresh air but then again if the engine was just updated,i would be equally happy.I was surprised BF went modern with the first CMx2 title and not WW2 so was very disappointed.Once i got into the game and it's modules,it became a total gem for me.So it would be great if only the engine was just updated.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

Up to dateand expanded to a general Middle East conflagration involving all the regional powers. IS or a similar future version US/NATO, maybe even the Russians helping Iran. I see this one as being a complex, multi sided scenario

[Holman]

The good thing about the original setting is that it plausibly allowed both conventional warfare (albeit interestingly unbalanced) and counter-guerilla scenarios.  It offered a pretty wide mix of possibilities.  Restricting the next game to a war against ISIS or an Afghanistan-style COIN situation would limit those possibilities pretty drastically.

 

I'd like to see the Syria scenario (with its original alternative history intact) but updated by a few years.  It could even be tied into the Black Sea timeline:

 

If the fundamentalist Syria regime makes its move while the conflict in Ukraine is in full swing, US/NATO forces would be spread thin dealing with simultaneous crises.  No Desert-Storm-style steamroller would be possible at first, so the operational situation wouldn't be quite so lopsided. 

 

I like thinking of CMx2's World War 3 as a series of moderate-scale crises erupting concurrently in different areas of the world.  It helps to make tactical gaming meaningful (as no side anywhere is opting for total or nuclear war), and it sets up for new games in new settings.