Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 618
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end. This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has be

Honestly I am so grateful for the reduced price for previous owners of the game. $35 to bring the who deal up to engine 4 is not a bad deal, I mean we're getting on board regular/vehicle mounted morta

Huh? This makes no sense. How did you jump to the conclusion that I was angry with you or anyone else? Sarcasm doesn't = anger. It means I'm tired of waiting for news from you guys and tired of w

Posted Images

2 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Huh! It does have an EW option like CMBS but frankly I don't think anyone's thought to test that out yet with radio IEDs. I'll go run and give it a look. If it works as it ought in the final game it'll be partially because of you.  ^_^

rumor has it that certain vehicles have that capability even in CMSF.  

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

Thanks Mike, I'm very happy to hear that it will be looked into. I'm also asking, and I know it would be a new feature. could/should engineers have the ability to mark/disarm them like they do mines?

 

Thanks again.

I am one of those who thought I'd like a feature like that, but everything I have read or seen makes me thing maybe not.  I would like the ability to spot an IED, but disarming is a specialized engineer function and tends to mean the cordon troops sitting around to make sure as much as possible the area is clear while the engineers deal with it which in CM terms would be a fairly slow scenario with nothing happening.

@Sgt.Squarehead has developed (my apologies if the idea originated elsewhere, but his scenario is the first I saw using it) a methodology where you have clues to IED placement.  You can't disarm, but you can potentially avoid and hunt for the triggerman.  The additional use of touchpoints would allow a designer to give the player an opportunity to confirm an IED location even if you can't see it and the triggerman is gone.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4.6.2018 at 1:12 AM, Battlefront.com said:

As for the Predator, it's a strategic weapon that tends to be used for high value targets that can't be reached by other means.  CIA and strategic USAF missions aren't within CM's scope of operations.  CMBS does, however, include the MQ-1C Grey Eagle armed drone because that one is operated by the US Army and is more likely to be used in combination with ground operations.  It only came into service in 2009 so that's too late for CMSF2's time period.

Steve

Please when thinking about additions or features don´t narrow yourself too heavy on the original timeframe depicted by CMSF´s campaign. I am not talking about the Predator proposal specifically but more in general.

Sure replaying the remastered original campaigns will be great but my main CMSF2 purchase reason is this: With the tons of modern multi-national weapon systems SF provides I do honestly hope that the release of CMSF2 will spark additional mission content potraying current real oder hypothetical middle eastern conflicts (Syria, ISIS, Iran). be it made by talented custom campaign designers or by Battlefront in form of battlepacks or modules. Especially if we keep the fact in mind that many will find (or regain) interest in CMSF2 due to the current ongoing Middle Eastern Conflict.

Keeping hold onto this "we won´t add or do anything that depicts post 2008 stuff because thats were our fictional story ends..." would hamper to act out this interest and also limit your own options in the future.

Edited by MANoWAR.U51
Link to post
Share on other sites

ManoWar this has been discussed more than once before and Battlefront is firm in their position that CMSF is not a sandbox for other Middle-eastern conflicts. AND initially they had not intended to add any additional features to CMSF 2. We're all happy they bent that rule I'm sure, but their schedule is full with many other projects, so asking for features outside of the main focus of CMSF will probably go to the bottom of a very long wish list they maintain. I feel a bit hypocritical telling you this after enquiring into engineers disarming IEDs above, but we just have to dampen our expectations for new features a bit.

That said I think modders and scenario makers will come up with new surprises for us for CMSF2 once they have the tools Engine 4 provides.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

What Sequoia said :D  The problem with opening up the timeframe is that means we have to add in a lot of stuff that isn't currently in the game.  That's way beyond the scope of the CMSF2 project which is, already, beyond it's original scope.  "Mission creep" is the enemy and we shall keep it at bay!  Well, mostly anyway.

That said, one can pretty reasonably simulate combat that's gone on since 2008 with CMSF2.   Likewise, it's possible to use CMSF2, as was seen in CMSF1, to simulate battles in Iraq and Afghanistan from dates prior to 2008. Add in some visual Mods and it gets even better.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MOS:96B2P said:

Looked into. ECM appears to work against radio IEDs. ECM strong, no boom, ECM off... BOOM! Radio IEDs have about a 20% failure rate, regardless, I believe.

Useful to know.  Never played a scenario that featured it unfortunately.  To clarify:  Is the 20% failure rate when no ECM?  When ECM used is it closer to 100% failure?

Edited by Erwin
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Erwin said:

 

 

12 hours ago, MikeyD said:

Looked into. ECM appears to work against radio IEDs. ECM strong, no boom, ECM off... BOOM! Radio IEDs have about a 20% failure rate, regardless, I believe.

Ooops.  Bad quote @Erwin.  Just be be clear @MikeyD said the above not me.  (I just found it interesting.) :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was in battlegroup in 08, so if anything it's more familiar to me than being forward deployed in the present day.

We still had lots of fun toys in the sandbox.

Will coalition forces be able to use US air during QBs? We called in A-10s a handful of times but never had the RCAF supporting us on station.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Sequoia said:

ManoWar this has been discussed more than once before and Battlefront is firm in their position that CMSF is not a sandbox for other Middle-eastern conflicts. AND initially they had not intended to add any additional features to CMSF 2. We're all happy they bent that rule I'm sure, but their schedule is full with many other projects, so asking for features outside of the main focus of CMSF will probably go to the bottom of a very long wish list they maintain. I feel a bit hypocritical telling you this after enquiring into engineers disarming IEDs above, but we just have to dampen our expectations for new features a bit.

That said I think modders and scenario makers will come up with new surprises for us for CMSF2 once they have the tools Engine 4 provides.

 

 

3 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

That said, one can pretty reasonably simulate combat that's gone on since 2008 with CMSF2.   Likewise, it's possible to use CMSF2, as was seen in CMSF1, to simulate battles in Iraq and Afghanistan from dates prior to 2008. Add in some visual Mods and it gets even better.

Steve

I am fine with what you guys planning with CMSF2 and do not request anything. I know there are many other CM games to attend and like you mentioned Steve I also believe that CMSF is pretty cabable to simulate even current conflicts as most of the weapon systems in SF are still deployed today and some didn´t even see their deployment that much (T90 and BMP3 are still not very common in Middle Eastern Armies).  Sure some vehicles saw upgrades in the meantime but still you could simulate for example the ongoing Syrian war with it.

What I just wanted to say, is if lets say CMSF2 sells really good and you guys would consider a campaign battle pack or even see an additional module viable don´t be afraid to "bent" the timeframe.

And I am pretty sure the modding community will also contribute some great ideas once CMSF2 finally is out. Very excited.

Edited by MANoWAR.U51
Link to post
Share on other sites

Pretty much the same.  We've found a few that were pretty weak and are now even weaker.  We decided it was better to cut them out and focus on others than to (basically) remake them from scratch.  So far we've only definitely cut one and have maybe two others that are possibly getting left behind.

Steve

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

Pretty much the same.  We've found a few that were pretty weak and are now even weaker.  We decided it was better to cut them out and focus on others than to (basically) remake them from scratch.  So far we've only definitely cut one and have maybe two others that are possibly getting left behind.

Steve

Good to hear you are not afraid to cut subpar missions. As I understand it SF2 is definitely not lacking in content! Very few things are worse than being forced to grind through a painfully flawed mission.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, MANoWAR.U51 said:

What I just wanted to say, is if lets say CMSF2 sells really good and you guys would consider a campaign battle pack or even see an additional module viable don´t be afraid to "bent" the timeframe.

And I am pretty sure the modding community will also contribute some great ideas once CMSF2 finally is out. Very excited.

Heh been lobbying them to bend to.a Fulda gap timeline.  So far the answer is still no. I am looking at retirement soon though and at that point I can seriously invest some time to wear Steve down. :P

seriously though CMSF is in a nice sweet spot time wise .  M1s are not uber powerful and it has great modding possibilities.  My one wish is probably to have the ability to do a more temperate climate region and snow.  Maybe we’ll see another European mod pack for CMSF2.

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

Heh been lobbying them to bend to.a Fulda gap timeline.  So far the answer is still no. I am looking at retirement soon though and at that point I can seriously invest some time to wear Steve down. :P

Of course I will help in the grinding as much as possible ... :ph34r:

It seems such a great period to model - modern ATGM's and attack helicopters and suchlike were still in their infancy, but nevertheless changing the battlefield environment.
Even though I am not a great player of moderns, I think Fulda Gap would be a brilliant sandbox.

Caveat : If the choice is between Fulda Gap and 1940-41, Early War gets my vote. :wub:

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

Heh been lobbying them to bend to.a Fulda gap timeline.  So far the answer is still no. I am looking at retirement soon though and at that point I can seriously invest some time to wear Steve down. :P

Count me in on that as well! A CM: Fulda Gap is my dream CM game. I'm ok knowing that it is basically impossible within the next 5 years or more, but I'm hoping eventually they get around to it. 

Back on topic, I'm glad to hear that the scenarios are getting a dressing up with all the new engine improvements in mind. Can't begin to imagine how tedious that must be, so hats off to everyone slogging through that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, IICptMillerII said:

 

2 hours ago, sburke said:

Heh been lobbying them to bend to.a Fulda gap timeline.  So far the answer is still no. I am looking at retirement soon though and at that point I can seriously invest some time to wear Steve down. :P

Count me in on that as well! A CM: Fulda Gap is my dream CM game. I'm ok knowing that it is basically impossible within the next 5 years or more, but I'm hoping eventually they get around to it.

Rarely do the good captain and I agree on anything entirely.....But this is one of those times.  B)

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...