CMSF vs CMBS

[rogue189]

Greetings all-

I know this is an old topic but the other day I dusted off my old CMSF (due to some computer issues, I am only playing the base game and not the modules at the moment) and I really had some interesting observations playing the game.  I have played CMSF since the 1.01 days and had not played it much since CMBS came out.  I have never been a great player of the combat mission series, but after watching ChrisND's videos, Krause, and others, I finally figured out things like how to employ over watch and discovered the movement command that has completely changed my game play....the assault command.  Plus I am now far more liberal with the area fire command.  Before I only shot at what I could see, but now its fire at will!  But some observations of the two games:

*I never realized just how dominate the US is in CMSF.  All too often I would get hit by RPGs or stumble into close combat with the Syrian troops.  I used to get killed all the time, but now I can end missions with 10% or fewer casualties.  As I said earlier, the assault command and overwatch really help keep the casualties down.  I now see just how one sided combat can be with less developed armies.

*Its amazing how much has changed in 10 years.  You look at the Abrams or Bradleys, and they have so much less protection in CMSF than they do in CMBS.  Heck, if they had APS back then, the US would have been even more dominant.

*Fighting a near-peer enemy is MUCH harder.  It seems like an obvious statement, but man, the Russians are tough!  It seems like the Syrian's buy their RPG's by the gross or at the comer market and the Russians don't have them quite as plentiful.  But even though they don't have as many RPGs the use of artillery really brings the battle back into balance.

*CMSF seems more like training now.  If you play the two games back to back, CMSF seems like training since you can be make mistakes and get away with them.  Syrians will break and run, but Russians are more likely stand their ground or fall back.  The only exception is the Syrian Special Forces as they will also stand their ground.

*Drones.  Still having trouble with them.  They are nice to have and help shape the battlefield, but the Russians knock them down so fast that they aren't really useful in my tactics.

*Warfare is more deadly.  The use of new ammunition really make combat more difficult.  Trying to move my troops through open territory does not work as well.  For example, I could do short Quick or Assault commands in CMSF and be relatively safe from enemy APC or Tank fire.  Sure if they hit your guys it sucks, but they may also miss.  The Russians have the airburst round which really makes it hard to move through open ground.  Even woods aren't as safe.  I would love to hear some ideas of how to cross open ground in First Clash or some of the other big maps.

Thank you Battlefront for the great game and everybody to has posted videos of how to play the game!    You have taught me the fundamentals!  I continue to enjoy watching them and learning how to improve my game play!

Edited February 4, 2017 by rogue189

[Buzz]

Great to read your experience rogue189?

CMSF is not CMBS for sure. Warfare is more deadly much faster in CMBS. Russians are heck of a challenge in CMBS.

Many are hoping to see CMSF brought up to V4.0 some day. Would make CMSF a lot more difficult with all the changes in 4.0 engine.

Buzz

[DMS]

Trenches in CMSF are better for sure, May be we will see them in CMBS sometime?

[Vergeltungswaffe]

Steve has expressed interest in CMSF 2, so let's hope thats in the Pipeline of Goodness^TM

Edited February 5, 2017 by Vergeltungswaffe

[Euri]

1 hour ago, DMS said:

Trenches in CMSF are better for sure, May be we will see them in CMBS sometime?

In what way are trenches worse in CMBS?

[DMS]

4 hours ago, Euri said:

In what way are trenches worse in CMBS?

In woods and marshes they are good, (And realistic) But in open landscape they are not effective. Tanks and artillery kill everyone inside after 1-2 accurate shots. If trenches would be under the ground and set in good position, tanks wouldn't be able to take aim at all.

I made a deep trench setting elevation in editor. My opponent had to move tanks to 50 m distance to support infantry. If they were more narrow, tanks would move even closer. Standard trench would be cleared by few HE shots for a minute.

 

Edited February 5, 2017 by DMS

[cool breeze]

They are pretty good when you have an elevation advantage too.  Unless there are airburts.

 

Edit to add.  I think the trenches are better overall now, or at least in the ww2 settings.  While in CMSF it was harder to get kill the guys with direct fire without moving to a good position, it didn't matter that much because airburts artillery would do a great job and you knew where the trenches were.  Maybe with the prevalence of drones and satellites the CMSF trenches are a better fit for CMBS?  Seems hard to make a trench fast enough that it wouldn't get seen by recon assets.  Either way in WW2 its really nice not having em visible from game start.  Air bursting at game start over all the secret enemy trenches wouldn't  be very WW2 style

Edited February 5, 2017 by cool breeze