Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Dear developers, first of all, I would like to thank you for making this wonderful game. I'm familiar with Combat Mission games since Combat Mission: Barbarossa To Berlin came out.

I think that Combat Mission: Black Sea is a true Venice of this game series.

I understand that such massive project has a huge potential. Furthermore, I understand that you guys are working hard on each update. So I’ve decided to write you guys an open letter where I would express some functional and content related wishes of myself, and where people would be able to share their thoughts as well.

So without any further due, I will list few things what I think would make this wonderful game even better.

Environment

It would be great if Combat Mission: Black Sea had more than one season in it. More specifically it would be great if we would have a chance to have winter in this game.

First of all, by adding winter, you would boost community to produce more content such as reskins for uniform, armor, etc.

Second, of all, it would be great to experience battles in the snow.

Fortifications

This game is covering modern warfare. Fortifications represented in this particular game are very basic. There are no bunkers whatsoever. That’s a very pity thing because bunkers are actively used on the modern battlefield. Bunkers and other fortified fire positions (mg nests, artillery positions, etc.) are an important part of the defense. It would be wonderful if you would add some sort of those things in the game.  

Units

I’ve already written about units a lot, and I got some response from some of you guys. Thank you for being so responsive gentlemen. Recently I thought that this wonderful game lacks some additional units in it.

For both sides (Ukraine and Russia) it would be nice to see some units what were already represented in other games. Those are:

GAZ 66 and variants (especially one with ZU-23-2), BMP-1 (and variants), BMD’s (of all kinds for VDV units), KAMAZ trucks (different models for both sides), KRAZ trucks and APC’s, additional BTR variants. It would be also great to see T-72(early variants) and T-80(and variants) tanks within this game. Adding some of these units in my opinion, would make this game more authentic. I’ve seen how you guys are making some additional packs before and I know that you can do it very well.

Conclusion

Guys I would like to thank you once again for doing what you are doing. The game is great; the story is fine, the gaming experience is awesome. I’m an absolute fan of yours. This open letter is just another way to ask for some more content. I hope that other guys who are hanging around here will add their wishes under this post and together we will be able to make this wonderful game even better. I’m sure that you guys will read this because you are always giving us some feedback.

P.S.

I’m sure that there will be some people around here who will be saying things like,  “Blah blah blahThose changes are not necessary, that game balance is already achieved, and that additional content is long to produce and that blah blah blah no need to do it blah blah.” Please ignore people like that because progress is our everything. For us, true fans of this game, each update is an important event, each model what you create is a gift, and each change you make is excitement. So please, keep on doing what you doing. Thank you for your time.

 

 

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 72
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

20 hours ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

I'd like it more if you swapped all the Russians & Ukrainians for Head-Choppers, set it in the desert and called it CM:SF II.

For me, having battles with a super advanced entity against a poorly equipped enemy is not interesting at all.

 

I hate doing patrols against head choppers. I want battles with advanced equipment on both sides.

Edited by Bufo
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bufo said:

For me, having battles with a super advanced entity against a poorly equipped enemy is not interesting at all.

 

I hate doing patrols against head choppers. I want battles with advanced equipment on both sides.

In CMSF II you'll be able to do MOUT vs Uncons, or armored battles with decent equipment on both sides.  You might be pleasantly surprised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Bufo said:

I want battles with advanced equipment on both sides.

In CM:SF the Republican Guard with 'excellent' equipment have access to T-90s and Kornet missiles, the Syrian airborne have access to BMP-3Ms, and the Syrian special forces are loaded with RPG-29s. That's just as good as the Russians in CM:BS while keeping in mind that the game is set in 2008 where the US don't have some of the goodies that they otherwise have in CM:BS.

Edited by JUAN DEAG
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

In CMSF II you'll be able to do MOUT vs Uncons, or armored battles with decent equipment on both sides.  You might be pleasantly surprised.

I think you don't believe this yourself.

Syrian army is even more poorly equipped and trained than the Ukranian. T-90s? Maybe a few. According to wikipedia around 40. And thousands of T-54, T-55, T-72s.

 

Even if they have T-90, the rep cost would be crazy high because it is extremely rarely found on the battlefields. Didn't see no BMP-3, just 1s and 2s (which are not M).

 

I don't understand what is a problem with a conflict of US vs USSR.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Bufo said:

I don't understand what is a problem with a conflict of US vs USSR.

I can only speak for myself. And for the record - I support CMBF. It's just that the conflict between US and RF seems so unlikely due to its potential consequences that it is hard for me to suspend my disbelief and to take it seriously... but that's just me...

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Bufo said:

I think you don't believe this yourself.

Syrian army is even more poorly equipped and trained than the Ukranian. T-90s? Maybe a few. According to wikipedia around 40. And thousands of T-54, T-55, T-72s.

 

Even if they have T-90, the rep cost would be crazy high because it is extremely rarely found on the battlefields. Didn't see no BMP-3, just 1s and 2s (which are not M).

 

I don't understand what is a problem with a conflict of US vs USSR.

I most certainly believe it. 

I didn't say absolute top of the line equipment for Red, I said decent equipment and you can bet BFC will include things within the reasonable range of hypothetical, just as SF had T-80's. 

No one has a problem with US/Russian conflict.  I love BS, but I will love me some SF II every bit as much.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Vergeltungswaffe said:

I most certainly believe it. 

I didn't say absolute top of the line equipment for Red, I said decent equipment and you can bet BFC will include things within the reasonable range of hypothetical, just as SF had T-80's. 

No one has a problem with US/Russian conflict.  I love BS, but I will love me some SF II every bit as much.

What the Russians have probably been doing is combat testing the T-90 in Syria.

 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-military-presence-syria-continues-t-90-tanks-spotted-latakia-1519724

One point Ido have to call you on is that CMSF does not include T-80s. I assume however this was a typo and you actually meant T-90 :D

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, DreDay said:

I can only speak for myself. And for the record - I support CMBF. It's just that the conflict between US and RF seems so unlikely due to its potential consequences that it is hard for me to suspend my disbelief and to take it seriously... but that's just me...

One hopes that US and Russian forces never shoot at each other on a real battlefield. However, back in the 1980s in  similar Cold War situation moderns table top and board wargamers invariably gamed World War 3 situations in Germany and sometimes in other parts of the World. In the event the real world situation never developed.

However it mustbe stated that in both cases we were/are gaming hypothetical situations

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, kinophile said:

Go on.....? 

I wonder what the back story for a CMSF II might be. With such a fast moving real world situation it could be very hard to write  convincing back story before the situation changes again. in the bboadest terms however we might be looking at a massive regional conflagration with multiple nations involved including US/Western and Russian intervention forces clashing. In effect the game in a CMSF 2 might be representative of the region being just one theater of a global war.

We are however moving to far away from the OP. Oleksander raise a number of good points, many of which I agree with such as extending the time frame to allow for a winter war and including additional fortifications. To his list I might add anti tank ditches and for that matter ICMs/artillery delivered mines. Not essential for enjoyment of the game but certainly would be nice to have.:D

As for the units/equipment list I would suspect some of these would be coming in new modules B)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I fully agree on fortifications. The lack of a broader choice of defensive structures is a real pity and my biggest (still very, very small compared to other games on the market!) criticism. For CM:BS, it is most significant, because you don't even get bunkers. Ideally, we'd get a variety of different bunker/pillbox sizes and shapes, slit trenches, proper foxholes (single, two-man), additional camouflage options, options for overhead-cover, battlepositions for vehicles, straight sandbag-walls, (oh and also allow the defender to use democharges during the deployment phase!) etc. Right now, I think that overall casualty rates for defending infantry are too high -  especially in CM:BS -  which is to a good part also the result of a lack of fortifications. The first thing an infantry unit would do if tasked to defend is to dig in. And if they had only half an hour, they would still have some kind of pan for cover. 

A problem seems to be that fortifications need to be set into the ground-mesh/earth. If you're a scenario-designer and do some terra-forming to make your fortifications "sink" into the ground properly, then their position is immediately evident to any opponent who takes a look at the ground. Far from ideal. If you make fortifications purchase-able and placeable by the player, then that kind of blatant terra-forming is impossible and the fortification needs to be spotted, but the fortification will be placed on top of the ground-mesh, rather than sink into it - I can't really tell the gameplay-implications of it. Obviously the fortifications is easier to hit/the troops within it suppressed more easily?

That being said, I wonder if it would be possible for fortifications and soldiers occupying them to simply clip into the ground. I couldn't vare less if the legs of my soldiers in a slit trench were cut-off. This way we would need no terraforming and the bunkers/trenches would still have a low profile. I think it's already partly the case with foxholes right now, while soldiers in treches or bunkers don't clip.

I can only speculate wildly - and there are some theories about how foxholes and trenchers are working right now -but another issue might be to model the ingame-effects of fortifications. Here a problem might be that an action spot comes in the size of 8m², whereas some fortifications might ask for a more detailed resolution. 

Also, I think it's worth noting that strong defenses (bunkers) might not be that interesting from a gameplay-perspective. For the attacker, it's a case of identifying them (which is rather one-sided in favour of the defender) and then either evading it (not on CM's tactical scale) or bringing heavy weapons to bear to suppress & assault it or knock it out - which, in turn, is rather one-sided in favour of the attacker. Scenarios in which support is not strong enough to fully suppress a bunker might be interesting though.

 

Edited by Kaunitz
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kaunitz said:

I fully agree on fortifications. The lack of a broader choice of defensive structures is a real pity and my biggest (still very, very small compared to other games on the market!) criticism. For CM:BS, it is most significant, because you don't even get bunkers. Ideally, we'd get a variety of different bunker/pillbox sizes and shapes, slit trenches, proper foxholes (single, two-man), additional camouflage options, options for overhead-cover, battlepositions for vehicles, straight sandbag-walls, (oh and also allow the defender to use democharges during the deployment phase!) etc. Right now, I think that overall casualty rates for defending infantry are too high -  especially in CM:BS -  which is to a good part also the result of a lack of fortifications. The first thing an infantry unit would do if tasked to defend is to dig in. And if they had only half an hour, they would still have some kind of pan for cover. 

A problem seems to be that fortifications need to be set into the ground-mesh/earth. If you're a scenario-designer and do some terra-forming to make your fortifications "sink" into the ground properly, then their position is immediately evident to any opponent who takes a look at the ground. Far from ideal. If you make fortifications purchase-able and placeable by the player, then that kind of blatant terra-forming is impossible and the fortification needs to be spotted, but the fortification will be placed on top of the ground-mesh, rather than sink into it - I can't really tell the gameplay-implications of it. Obviously the fortifications is easier to hit/the troops within it suppressed more easily?

That being said, I wonder if it would be possible for fortifications and soldiers occupying them to simply clip into the ground. I couldn't vare less if the legs of my soldiers in a slit trench were cut-off. This way we would need no terraforming and the bunkers/trenches would still have a low profile. I think it's already partly the case with foxholes right now, while soldiers in treches or bunkers don't clip.

I can only speculate wildly - and there are some theories about how foxholes and trenchers are working right now -but another issue might be to model the ingame-effects of fortifications. Here a problem might be that an action spot comes in the size of 8m², whereas some fortifications might ask for a more detailed resolution. 

Also, I think it's worth noting that strong defenses (bunkers) might not be that interesting from a gameplay-perspective. For the attacker, it's a case of identifying them (which is rather one-sided in favour of the defender) and then either evading it (not on CM's tactical scale) or bringing heavy weapons to bear to suppress & assault it or knock it out - which, in turn, is rather one-sided in favour of the attacker. Scenarios in which support is not strong enough to fully suppress a bunker might be interesting though.

 

One fortification type I would like to see is an anti tank ditch

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

I wonder what the back story for a CMSF II might be. With such a fast moving real world situation it could be very hard to write  convincing back story before the situation changes again. in the bboadest terms however we might be looking at a massive regional conflagration with multiple nations involved including US/Western and Russian intervention forces clashing. In effect the game in a CMSF 2 might be representative of the region being just one theater of a global war.

We are however moving to far away from the OP. Oleksander raise a number of good points, many of which I agree with such as extending the time frame to allow for a winter war and including additional fortifications. To his list I might add anti tank ditches and for that matter ICMs/artillery delivered mines. Not essential for enjoyment of the game but certainly would be nice to have.:D

As for the units/equipment list I would suspect some of these would be coming in new modules B)

The tactical/short term political situation changes constantly but the long term Geopolitical trends will remain - energy control, religious antagonism, population exploitation by the regional powers and external global powers. 

BFC's recognition, exploration and understanding of Russia's permanent needs and desires is what underpins CMBS and makes it so plausible as a concept (instinctive aggression against a westward leaning Ukraine leading to conflict with the West). In fact, an article talking about just how close their narrative was to reality is what brought me to CMBS in the first place :-). 

I'd fully expect BFC to do as thorough an analysis and breakdown of the ME regions trends as they did of the Black Sea region. It would take longer, with a lot of wild cards constantly popping up,  but the base needs and wants of the governing elites would remain.

If you're building your story on hard truths then it will ring with the echo of authenticity. CMBS is a perfect example, dispite its various disconnects from the final real life narrative(s). 

Personally, a SF 2 is my biggest interest right now. And I haven't even played SF. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

In CM:SF the Republican Guard with 'excellent' equipment have access to T-90s and Kornet missiles, the Syrian airborne have access to BMP-3Ms, and the Syrian special forces are loaded with RPG-29s. That's just as good as the Russians in CM:BS while keeping in mind that the game is set in 2008 where the US don't have some of the goodies that they otherwise have in CM:BS.

BUT THESE ARE NOT RUSSIANS. POINT.

I wish more and bigger modules for CMBS.

Times of CMSF are away. Do you think that CMSF II will be some hollywood remake or what???

I have all modules of CMSF - i am not ready to buy the same again because it will be running on better engine. SORRY, BUT NOT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COFFE..

Link to post
Share on other sites

More toxic verbage that I can only describe as waste from you. I wasn't aware the Russians lacked T90s and Kornets that the Syrians get :rolleyes:. As for the game, if you don't want to pay for it - don't. Steve isn't the man with the gun.

Everyone else wants more modules as well, all caps hammering on the keyboard and hairbrained rants don't make them come any faster. Have a shred of class.

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Marwek77 aka Red Reporter said:
21 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

In CM:SF the Republican Guard with 'excellent' equipment have access to T-90s and Kornet missiles, the Syrian airborne have access to BMP-3Ms, and the Syrian special forces are loaded with RPG-29s. That's just as good as the Russians in CM:BS while keeping in mind that the game is set in 2008 where the US don't have some of the goodies that they otherwise have in CM:BS.

BUT THESE ARE NOT RUSSIANS. POINT.

I wish more and bigger modules for CMBS.

Times of CMSF are away. Do you think that CMSF II will be some hollywood remake or what???

I have all modules of CMSF - i am not ready to buy the same again because it will be running on better engine. SORRY, BUT NOT, THANK YOU FOR YOUR COFFE..

This was in response to someone that said you can't have good, balanced, conventional fights in CM:SF. I have no idea what the point of your post is.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, kinophile said:

And I haven't even played SF.

Seriously?  :o

Dude, you should buy it.....While the basic game is a little bit dated, it's still dead good fun and with all the Modules it's an outstanding game. 

In many ways CM:A is even better.

FWIW

PS - I'd really like to see the Russians playing a big role in CM:SF II.  B)

Edited by Sgt.Squarehead
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Sgt.Squarehead said:

 

PS - I'd really like to see the Russians playing a big role in CM:SF II.  B)

I'm starting to hope for it myself. If they release a Shockforce II that's just a straight upgrade of the current scenario I quite naturally won't complain but if they try to reflect the current world situation or tie it into Black Sea somehow (doubtful) I'd sprain something reaching for my wallet.

Edited by Rinaldi
Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, LUCASWILLEN05 said:

What the Russians have probably been doing is combat testing the T-90 in Syria.

 http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russian-military-presence-syria-continues-t-90-tanks-spotted-latakia-1519724

One point Ido have to call you on is that CMSF does not include T-80s. I assume however this was a typo and you actually meant T-90 :D

Yep, typo.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, kinophile said:

The tactical/short term political situation changes constantly but the long term Geopolitical trends will remain - energy control, religious antagonism, population exploitation by the regional powers and external global powers. 

BFC's recognition, exploration and understanding of Russia's permanent needs and desires is what underpins CMBS and makes it so plausible as a concept (instinctive aggression against a westward leaning Ukraine leading to conflict with the West). In fact, an article talking about just how close their narrative was to reality is what brought me to CMBS in the first place :-). 

I'd fully expect BFC to do as thorough an analysis and breakdown of the ME regions trends as they did of the Black Sea region. It would take longer, with a lot of wild cards constantly popping up,  but the base needs and wants of the governing elites would remain.

If you're building your story on hard truths then it will ring with the echo of authenticity. CMBS is a perfect example, dispite its various disconnects from the final real life narrative(s). 

Personally, a SF 2 is my biggest interest right now. And I haven't even played SF. 

True. The problem is that things are happening so fast at the moment. 

Edited by LUCASWILLEN05
Link to post
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
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...