chrisharvey Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 I'm sorry if this has been explained or asked before but will the new CMSF have new missions or re-vamped old ones? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted October 31, 2018 Share Posted October 31, 2018 Revamped original ones. I am sure that people will create new scenarios for the game too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 Every scenario has had work done to it. The better scenarios may have been little-altered (because they started out good). The worse (I call them 'first generation') scenarios have been really REALLY changed, to the point where a few of my least favorite older scenarios are now my most favorite! One scenario in particular, the AI orders went from a single group 'assault' command into the map center to now playing with ALL the AI gizmos. Orchestrating unit movements, AI area fire commands, retreat commands, triggers, reworked victory conditions, expanded and updated terrain maps, adding AA assets and fortification items, proper AI orders for both sides, etc. Just because you recognize the name of a CMSF2 scenario doesn't mean you've played it before. 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_MonkeyKing Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 2 hours ago, MikeyD said: Every scenario has had work done to it. The better scenarios may have been little-altered (because they started out good). The worse (I call them 'first generation') scenarios have been really REALLY changed, to the point where a few of my least favorite older scenarios are now my most favorite! One scenario in particular, the AI orders went from a single group 'assault' command into the map center to now playing with ALL the AI gizmos. Orchestrating unit movements, AI area fire commands, retreat commands, triggers, reworked victory conditions, expanded and updated terrain maps, adding AA assets and fortification items, proper AI orders for both sides, etc. Just because you recognize the name of a CMSF2 scenario doesn't mean you've played it before. Sounds awesome! And worth the wait. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted November 1, 2018 Share Posted November 1, 2018 The scenario that MikeyD is almost certainly talking about is Al Huqf Engagement. That's currently a "symmetric" Syrian vs US platoon, with a single Bradley and a BMP 2. The AI is a single Assault order onto the objective, so they just run in without much thought. A lot of the very earliest CMSF scenarios were similarly crude. They didn't have much simulationist weight, and certainly didn't play to the strengths of the AI, instead exposing the very real weaknesses. So... re-doing the AI in this scenario, even if the forces and map remained unchanged, would absolutely make it a new scenario. There will be a ton of similarly "new" content when CMSF 2 hits. Clearest example in the demo is the Marine scenario. This is mission two od the marine campaign, and involves an opposed amphibious landing. There are two major differences with this scenario that completely change the mission - since CMSF 1 has no water, the new scenario extends the map's depth and puts the "amphibious" into the mission. This changes the nature of the tactics involved, since the AAV's don't just apparate onto the beach now. The other major differece are the hidden trenches - since trenches used to be visible, their location would dictate your approach to a map, and you could easily plot pre-battle bombardments to take out the scariest potential atgm positions. Removing this is a major buff to the Red side, and a significant deepening of the game's tactical depth - even if you tried to "play fair" and ignore trench works, it was really hard to not have them affect your schemes. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisharvey Posted November 6, 2018 Author Share Posted November 6, 2018 Thank you for the replies but to be honest this is a bit of a downer. Hmm... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 23 minutes ago, chrisharvey said: Thank you for the replies but to be honest this is a bit of a downer. Hmm... Not sure if you quite understand the amount of work that represents or how the scenarios will play out differently but you may want to withhold judgement until you actually see it. Also I think the interest level is high enough that you likely won’t have to wait long before new user created content starts coming out. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 CMSF2 comes with a full up-to-date Quick Battle generator and the number of new high quality maps continue to grow daily. That should take care of any 'new scenario' needs for quite awhile. If you want to play a night battle between Canadian infantry and Syrian airborne or a mountain battle between Syrian mech infantry and uncon rebels the battle is just a couple mouse clicks away. Heck, if you want you can go into the editor and make a huge water map then have your amphib vehicles attack each other like dreadnoughts! ...That last comment inspired me. 5 minutes work and I whipped up a quick 'dreadnaught' island-hopping scenario just for fun. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 (edited) Haw haw! I did my 'Dreadnaught' scenario as a joke but I'm having much too much fun playing it. I think I'll expand the map, increase the force size and turn it into a proper 3rd party scenario for upload. The clincher was when I killed a BTR 'battleship' and it slowly sank beneath the waves and disappeared. That was hilarious. The premise is the forces start out of weapons range so must maneuver to close the gap and hold an advantage, just like in old-timey naval warfare. Edited November 6, 2018 by MikeyD 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lethaface Posted November 6, 2018 Share Posted November 6, 2018 1 hour ago, MikeyD said: Haw haw! I did my 'Dreadnaught' scenario as a joke but I'm having much too much fun playing it. I think I'll expand the map, increase the force size and turn it into a proper 3rd party scenario for upload. The clincher was when I killed a BTR 'battleship' and it slowly sank beneath the waves and disappeared. That was hilarious. The premise is the forces start out of weapons range so must maneuver to close the gap and hold an advantage, just like in old-timey naval warfare. lol nice one. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xorg_Xalargsky Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 1 hour ago, MikeyD said: Haw haw! I did my 'Dreadnaught' scenario as a joke but I'm having much too much fun playing it. I think I'll expand the map, increase the force size and turn it into a proper 3rd party scenario for upload. The clincher was when I killed a BTR 'battleship' and it slowly sank beneath the waves and disappeared. That was hilarious. The premise is the forces start out of weapons range so must maneuver to close the gap and hold an advantage, just like in old-timey naval warfare. Make your "battleships" BMP-1's, have "transport ships" carrying SPG-9 "naval guns" to scattered islands, sprinkle some HMG-armed "escort ships", make the crews "green", and you've got yourself a fully-realized game-mode! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 The problem with BMPs and LAV-25 is their guns are just too powerful. Your opponent gets sunk from the far side of the map (I know 'cause I tried). You need a gun with a limited range and marginal penetration abilities to make it interesting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melm Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 So that means the scenarios in respository for the older CMSF no longer works for the upcoming CMSF2? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted November 7, 2018 Share Posted November 7, 2018 No? Quite the reverse. Existing CMSF scenarios should work fine, they just won't have been built with Engine 4 in mind. That means they won't have things like water or bridges, and the balance might be skewed in some cases (in the same way that the balance of some CMBN scenarios were altered when the MG rate of fire was changed). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisharvey Posted November 7, 2018 Author Share Posted November 7, 2018 22 hours ago, sburke said: Not sure if you quite understand the amount of work that represents or how the scenarios will play out differently but you may want to withhold judgement until you actually see it. Also I think the interest level is high enough that you likely won’t have to wait long before new user created content starts coming out. I don't doubt it is a lot of work and I'm very impressed by the results of all the work on CMSF. I'm simply saying that playing old scenarios again is a bit of a downer for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet 0369 Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 On November 1, 2018 at 7:14 AM, domfluff said: Clearest example in the demo is the Marine scenario. This is mission two od the marine campaign, and involves an opposed amphibious landing. There are two major differences with this scenario that completely change the mission - since CMSF 1 has no water, the new scenario extends the map's depth and puts the "amphibious" into the mission. This changes the nature of the tactics involved, since the AAV's don't just apparate onto the beach now. The other major differece are the hidden trenches - since trenches used to be visible, their location would dictate your approach to a map, and you could easily plot pre-battle bombardments to take out the scariest potential atgm positions. Removing this is a major buff to the Red side, and a significant deepening of the game's tactical depth - even if you tried to "play fair" and ignore trench works, it was really hard to not have them affect your schemes. Good God, I hope this isn't the case! I just finished playing the second mission in the CMSF1 Marine Campaign, and the ONLY similarity is that the men were Marines! The map is completely different, and the first units on the beach were a Recon Scout platoon instead of a Combat Engineer platoon. In CMSF1, the Naval gunfire support was 5-inch from a Destroyer, and air support was an F-18 and Super Cobras. Also, there were only two or three trench lines, and the majority of fighting was MOUT. Maybe it's been "balanced," but it's not the same mission by any stretch of the imagination other than it starts with Marines on the beach. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted November 19, 2018 Share Posted November 19, 2018 31 minutes ago, Vet 0369 said: Good God, I hope this isn't the case! I just finished playing the second mission in the CMSF1 Marine Campaign, and the ONLY similarity is that the men were Marines! The map is completely different, and the first units on the beach were a Recon Scout platoon instead of a Combat Engineer platoon. In CMSF1, the Naval gunfire support was 5-inch from a Destroyer, and air support was an F-18 and Super Cobras. Also, there were only two or three trench lines, and the majority of fighting was MOUT. Maybe it's been "balanced," but it's not the same mission by any stretch of the imagination other than it starts with Marines on the beach. I think there might be some confusion there. Day at the beach is as far as I know not part of the Marine Campaign. Day at the beach is a standlone scenario in both CMSF1 and 2. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 NOOOOOO!!! I had forgotten about my 'Dreadnaughts' scenario and deleted the scenario by accident! Oh darn. Well, it'll certainly be simple to reproduce. On the plus side, I just now uploaded my ancient CMSF1 3rd party scenario "USMC vs Army_Lone Star Shopping Plaza" and gave it a test run. It runs perfectly, everything looks great. I think its a keeper. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet 0369 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 5 hours ago, sburke said: I think there might be some confusion there. Day at the beach is as far as I know not part of the Marine Campaign. Day at the beach is a standlone scenario in both CMSF1 and 2. Thank goodness!!! I never played "A Day at the Beach" in CMSF1, didn't even realize that it was a standalone there, and I was horrified when I read that it was the second mission in the Campaign. I have no problem doing the campaign again in CMSF2 because the changes should make it so much better. Domfluff probably meant to say that it was the second mission in CMSF1. I apologize for spazing out Edited November 20, 2018 by Vet 0369 Addition 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet 0369 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 1 hour ago, MikeyD said: On the plus side, I just now uploaded my ancient CMSF1 3rd party scenario "USMC vs Army_Lone Star Shopping Plaza" and gave it a test run. It runs perfectly, everything looks great. I think its a keeper. Now that looks interesting! How do you balance it; two Marine platoons vs. an Army company? Close quarter MOUT should benefit the Army M4s if the benefits of a shorter barrel in MOUT are modeled. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 I did it almost 8 years ago so its hard to remember. Let met take a quick peek. 148 Army vs 125 Marines. Army attacker has 4 Humvees, a Stryker, 2 Kiowa gunships and an 81mm mortar. Marines defenders have a 91 connected building mall complex that's a death trap to assault. And according to the orders text both sides are drunk. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vet 0369 Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 12 hours ago, MikeyD said: I did it almost 8 years ago so its hard to remember. Let met take a quick peek. 148 Army vs 125 Marines. Army attacker has 4 Humvees, a Stryker, 2 Kiowa gunships and an 81mm mortar. Marines defenders have a 91 connected building mall complex that's a death trap to assault. And according to the orders text both sides are drunk. LOL! Ah, Standard Operating Procedure for the Marines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
domfluff Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 13 hours ago, Vet 0369 said: Domfluff probably meant to say that it was the second mission in CMSF1. Nah, I was just getting massively confused. Nothing to see here, move along 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt.Squarehead Posted November 20, 2018 Share Posted November 20, 2018 (edited) 18 hours ago, MikeyD said: On the plus side, I just now uploaded my ancient CMSF1 3rd party scenario "USMC vs Army_Lone Star Shopping Plaza" and gave it a test run. It runs perfectly, everything looks great. I think its a keeper. That was you? That thing's a madhouse.....It was also a big inspiration for my Trumpton stuff. Edited November 20, 2018 by Sgt.Squarehead 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.