CMSF Preview @ Gamespot.com

[Hagleboz]

Just wanted to let everyone know that there is a new preview of CMSF at Gamespot with Steve being interviewed. For anybody who has been following the CMSF forum closely there isn't any news that hasn't been discussed here already except for one small tidbit (At least I've never come across it). That is a choice of 3 difficulty levels to play at which include: basic, veteran, and elite. Elite of course is the most realistic level which I would assume most who are CM vets and who frequent the forums would be playing at. I still think it's an excellent inclusion, especially for those new to the CM series and wargames in general. Hopefully that will help to continue to increase CM’s visibility and interest levels to more of the general public. I don’t see Battlefront as ever lowering their standards to suit the whims of the general public so I have no fear that increased popularity will come at the expense of quality or realism. Also there seem to be a couple of new screenshots along the vein of what we’ve already seen and most are what we’ve already been privy to here at Battlefont.

It seems like a lot of news is coming fast and furious and it's really good to see more new coming out on multiple gamer's websites like The Wargamer and Gamespot. Hopefully that means the game might be in our hand within the next 3 or 4 months. Cheers all.

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/combatmissionshockforce/news.html?sid=6165874&mode=previews

[ February 13, 2007, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Hagleboz ]

[C'Rogers]

Thanks for finding the interview.

That is a choice of 3 difficulty levels to play at which include: basic, veteran, and elite

BFC, is the use of difficulty levels here really the right phrase? When I think difficulty levels I am thinking of more difficult playing experiences against an AI. You seem to be describing somewhat different modes of play though, kind of like an expanded version of how fog of war can be chosen at the moment.

I may just be over analyzing though.

[aka_tom_w]

Secondly, the player is able to choose from three difficulty levels: basic, veteran, and elite. Behind these three labels are some fundamentally different playing concepts. Basic plays pretty much like a regular real-time strategy game. Veteran introduces some profound differences such as relative spotting and command-and-control delays. And elite gives the player a much more realistic military experience with regard to communications and fog of war.

[MeatEtr]

Interesting read, looking forward to it even more. Thanks for the link.

So, when can we pre-order this badboy?

[Thomm]

The 3D shell holes (even for small shells) are particularly impressive! Must be a killer remeshing algorithm at work there!

Best regards,

Thomm

[John Kettler]

The interview was great, but I loved the screenshots. Did you see the MGS?

I think the variable game complexity level will help a lot in seducing, er, recruiting new players who might otherwise be scared off by the steep learning curve of the earlier CM games. This way, we can hook them with a low initial dose of E-crack, then let them ramp up the dose (realism/complexity setting) once hooked.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ February 14, 2007, 04:48 PM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Kineas]

"For small arms, each bullet is tracked, including physics effects such as ricochets off of walls and penetration capabilities."

Great, I never heard this mentioned before.

"First of all, most of what I just described is happening under the hood. The player is not confronted with this myriad of details during gameplay unless he chooses to."

Can we hear about the concept on how to get the myriad of details? This sounds very promising to me.

[aka_tom_w]

"unless he chooses to" (re: get the myriad of details) may simply mean playing the Elite level of hardness and turning on the ALL the hardest and most challenging reality and Fog of War options.

I am guessing.

-tom w

[Sgt Joch]

"In a nutshell, the war is triggered when a number of "dirty" nuclear bombs explode in several major Western cities in 2008. The terrorists are clearly traced to Syria. A US-led invasion force is put together and the player is part of that task force, which is built around the US Army's new concept of a highly mobile Stryker Brigade.

What is remarkable about the story is that it has evolved over time, not only as real-world events in Iraq developed (we began plans for the game in 2003), but also because we've deliberately entered a public dialogue with our fans on the Battlefront discussion forum about what the most likely scenario for a future conventional war could be. This story has been collectively agreed upon by us and our fans, which include casual gamers as well as former and current military personnel."

I don't remember that particular scenario being discussed. However, the backstory is the least important aspect of CMSF.

[luderbamsen]

As I suspected, the sly buggers at BFC are trying to attract a wider customer base WITHOUT turning the game into the usual mainstream dribble and ticking off the hardcore fans, something A LOT of other developers/publishers could learn from.

When this game is released, I'll try go get my local net/gaming cafe to install it. With the ton of money I spend there, they usuall listen when I request a specific game

Now everyone: Spread the word! Let the gamers of the world know that CM:SF is coming, and it's coming out shooting!

Respectfully

luderbamsen

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt.Joch,

I don't remember that particular scenario being discussed.

It was the central answer to the question "we're Euroweenies and we don't like going to war, so how do you expect us to be in Syria with Imperialist American and Britain?". Or somefink like that The answer was to up the ante of things like the Madrid and London bombings to something that couldn't be blown off. Anybody that knows anything about the spread of domestic militant Islam in Europe knows that these were just the opening shots in a much longer, and unfortunately bloodier, war yet to come.

Still, some have rejected the notion that even dirty bombs would be enough to get Europe's militaries mobilized and deployed in the ME. It certainly is possible, but I personally doubt it. When downtown Berlin and Paris are off limits to Human habitation for 1000 years, me thinks people are going to be a tad bit more than upset with whomever was behind the new urban planning initiative.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Sgt.Joch,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I don't remember that particular scenario being discussed.

It was the central answer to the question "we're Euroweenies and we don't like going to war, so how do you expect us to be in Syria with Imperialist American and Britain?". Or somefink like that The answer was to up the ante of things like the Madrid and London bombings to something that couldn't be blown off. Anybody that knows anything about the spread of domestic militant Islam in Europe knows that these were just the opening shots in a much longer, and unfortunately bloodier, war yet to come.

Still, some have rejected the notion that even dirty bombs would be enough to get Europe's militaries mobilized and deployed in the ME. It certainly is possible, but I personally doubt it. When downtown Berlin and Paris are off limits to Human habitation for 1000 years, me thinks people are going to be a tad bit more than upset with whomever was behind the new urban planning initiative.

Steve </font>

[gautrek]

Well it is a plausible backstory, in the sense that with everything which has happened in Afghanistan & Irak since 2001, it would probably take at least a 9/11 type of attack against the west to incite NATO to invade Syria in 2008.

No mate what it takes a 9/11 type attack by OBL again so we can invade the wrong bleeding country again and f*** up some where else.

Which is one of the reasons that a lot of the Europian countries didn't back the Iraq war in the first place.Its nothing to do with not wanting to fight.

Its more to do with making sure we get it right in the first place.

Not that that seems to bother that twat Bush and B'liar.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Still, some have rejected the notion that even dirty bombs would be enough to get Europe's militaries mobilized and deployed in the ME. It certainly is possible, but I personally doubt it. When downtown Berlin and Paris are off limits to Human habitation for 1000 years, me thinks people are going to be a tad bit more than upset with whomever was behind the new urban planning initiative.

Steve [/QB]

I think the Continental Europeans still have it in them. Notice the recent uproar about the release of a Bader-Meinhoff murderer.

[Battlefront.com]

Gautrek is correct and it is a good reminder of what I've been saying all along. Afghanistan was, and is still, supported by Europeans. Why? Because the country was the base of operations for 9/11, no if ands or buts about it. Iraq, on the other hand, was a neutered state that had very little ability to threaten anybody. The attempts to tie it to the larger terrorism issue was, as is plain to see now, a fabrication (or at best a hopelessly misinformed misunderstanding of facts). Very few bought the BS, so very few supported the invasion of Iraq.

Therefore, if our backstory was like Iraq, then Europe would sit on its hands. I also put forward the notion that the US military wouldn't do anything either. The bulk of the American people know the war in Iraq is a mistake and most have fully grasped the fact that at best they were misled and at worst delberately lied to. Some people, unfortunately, can't/won't see that. Therefore, in order for the US to go to war again soon, it would have to be something akin to Afghanistan - an open and shut case. And if that were true, then so it would be for Europe as well (or at least it is highly likely).

Although if this particular scenario had been discussed in the forum, some of us "fans/casual gamers/current & retired military personnel" might have pointed out that the chances of any Syrian government, even a radical islamic one, being so stupid/reckless/suicidal as to launch a nuclear attack against western europe /USA would be exceedingly remote.

Don't be so sure. By that logic Saddam wouldn't have been so stupid as to hand the Bush Admin exactly what it needed in order to make its weak case that Iraq has WMDs. If Saddam had completely and utterly allowed for inspections and verification that it was weapons free, the Bush Admin would have had to come up with something else as a pretext for invasion. But Saddam overplayed his hand and he lost. The Taliban also underestimated what would happen. The Iranians may also be overestimating ow much they can get away with without some sort of response. And cleary the US and Britain overestimated what they could acheive.

In short... if you study history you will see that states more often than not behave poorly and irrationally. They often pay for it. Whether it be Nazi Germany attacking the Soviet Union, Argentina challenging the British militarily, etc. etc. the common thread is nation looking to expand its power in a way that in hindsight was extremely stupid and self defeating. To think that Syria, a country that already made a dramatic mistake in Lebanon recently, is above such state sponsored stupidity is hard to defend.

Lastly, the backstory is not saying that Syria engaged in the attacks, rather they aided the ones who did and then overplayed their position when caught. Just like the Taliban.

Steve

[J Ruddy]

Who knew Steve was so articulatmatishy...

[Moronic Max]

Originally posted by gautrek:

No mate what it takes a 9/11 type attack by OBL again so we can invade the wrong bleeding country again and f*** up some where else.

Which is one of the reasons that a lot of the Europian countries didn't back the Iraq war in the first place.Its nothing to do with not wanting to fight.

Its more to do with making sure we get it right in the first place.

Not that that seems to bother that twat Bush and B'liar.

Y'know, you don't really need to defend or explain away a desire to avoid war. That's, um, pretty rational. And sane. And, on balance, A Good Thing.

Whereas seeing war as a cureall is not (and no, I don't think anyone in this thread does view war that way. Some people in government, perhaps).

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Moronic Max:

Whereas seeing war as a cureall is not (and no, I don't think anyone in this thread does view war that way. Some people in government, perhaps.

I think you are confusing "cure all" with "opportunity". Opportunity to advance one's career. Opportunity to please your financial "base". Opportunity to make money. Opportunity to retain power. Opportunity to achieve some political goal, no matter how misguided or flawed.

But hey - no politics allowed right?

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In short... if you study history you will see that states more often than not behave poorly and irrationally. They often pay for it. Whether it be Nazi Germany attacking the Soviet Union, Argentina challenging the British militarily, etc. etc. the common thread is nation looking to expand its power in a way that in hindsight was extremely stupid and self defeating. To think that Syria, a country that already made a dramatic mistake in Lebanon recently, is above such state sponsored stupidity is hard to defend.

Lastly, the backstory is not saying that Syria engaged in the attacks, rather they aided the ones who did and then overplayed their position when caught. Just like the Taliban.

Yes, States, like people often act irrationally, however in all the cases you mention, the leadership had valid reasons to believe they could get win their gamble. In 2007, any government involved directly or indirectly in a 9/11 type of attack against the USA or western europe (since it is not clear what would happen if the bomb only took out Tallinn )should know that it would be quickly invaded and its leadership arrested or driven into hiding.

That does not mean it could not happen, since governments like people, often make stupid/reckless/suicidal decisions, but since it is a very high risk move, it has a low probability of occuring. Syria, for example, has been very smart in its handling of Lebanon, backing off when the international pressure is high and moving back in when no one is paying attention.

However, I think it is a excellent choice for a backstory, since it is one scenario where you could be certain that NATO would get together to invade and take out the "rogue" syrian regime. Plus, it has a "24" feel to it, which leads me to my next suggestion for a marketing slogan:

"Jack could'nt stop the Terrorists this time, can you clean up his mess?"

[J Ruddy]

"If you don't think it could happen, then you don't know Jack"?

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt.Joch

Yes, States, like people often act irrationally, however in all the cases you mention, the leadership had valid reasons to believe they could get win their gamble. In 2007, any government involved directly or indirectly in a 9/11 type of attack against the USA or western europe (since it is not clear what would happen if the bomb only took out Tallinn )should know that it would be quickly invaded and its leadership arrested or driven into hiding.

Unfortunately, I'm not so sure. Leaders can dellude themselves. Saddam, for example, totally missed the fact that the Bush Admin was going to go to war with or without a good reason. Saddam could have made it extremely difficult for the Bush Admin to get even tacit UN approval, but instead he overplayed his hand and lost out big time.

With the US bogged down in Iraq, the US population very cautious about military action, and the general lack of action from Europe over the various attacks/attempts over the past few years... yeah, I can see someone thinking they could get away with an attack. Afterall, if you were a terrorist organization, would you want to attack when your enemy was at its strongest and most unified, or weakest and disunified?

Syria, for example, has been very smart in its handling of Lebanon, backing off when the international pressure is high and moving back in when no one is paying attention.

Moving out of Lebanon was a shrewd move. However, the reason they had to leave in the first place was a major miscalculation, and therefore a big screwup. Killing Hariri (and it looks like they did) was supposed to make their position in Lebanon stronger, not untenable. So no, I don't think Syria was too smart about Lebanon.

Steve

[Sixxkiller]

I love that the mortar crew covers thier ears. Nice attention to detail even if it has nothing to do with anything.

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Syria, for example, has been very smart in its handling of Lebanon, backing off when the international pressure is high and moving back in when no one is paying attention.

Moving out of Lebanon was a shrewd move. However, the reason they had to leave in the first place was a major miscalculation, and therefore a big screwup. Killing Hariri (and it looks like they did) was supposed to make their position in Lebanon stronger, not untenable. So no, I don't think Syria was too smart about Lebanon.

</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt. Joch,

We do agree that it was a shrewd recovery from a rather big blunder. You're choosing to focus on the fairly smart recovery, I am focusing on the stupid mistake that forced them into it since my point is that regimes, even fairly smart ones, often make big mistakes.

You don't stay in power that long in a country like Syria if you don't know what you are doing, since in the 20 or so years before Assad senior took over, no Syrian government lasted more than a few years before being overthrown.

Saddam was in power for 24 years and his party another 10 before it. Saddam even managed to stay in power after a massive, bloody, and largely unsuccessful war against Iran, a humiliating defeat by the West, years of sanctions, several major insurrections, and in general a huge amount of international interference. Yet Saddam screwed up big time and lost out as a result. I see no reason to think that Syria is somehow exempt from such a mistake.

Back to the backstory for a moment, it is possible a new untried regime, possibly one controlled by a criminal mastermind like "Dr. Evil" would hatch an evil plan to explode nuclear bombs in the west.

Again, the backstory does not say the Syrian government had a direct role in the attacks. It simply didn't do anything to stop them. Then when it becomes clear that the West is coming after those responsible, it tries to hand them over (unlike the Taliban). That would be the shrewd thing to do. But it isn't practical and there is a coup by the powerful nationalist and terrorist forces that would see such a move as akin to treason. People that think in black and white like that tend to not care about the ramifications. If they did, they by definition would be more reasonable.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Interesting article on the issue of Nuclear Terrorism:

The Unthinkable

"The term “dirty bomb” can refer to a wide variety of devices, but generally it describes one that would use a conventional explosive such as dynamite to release radioactive material into the air. The initial explosion and its subsequent plume might kill or sicken a dozen or perhaps as many as a few hundred people, depending on such factors as wind and the bomb-maker’s skill. If the weapon was particularly well made, employing one of the most potent and long-lived types of radioactive materials that are used in medicine and in the food industry, it might also cause considerable economic damage—perhaps rendering a number of city blocks uninhabitable. Radioactive ground contamination cannot easily be scrubbed away, so it might be necessary to tear down scores of buildings and cart the rubble to disposal sites. It’s easy to imagine what the impact of such an attack would be if the contaminated area was, say, a quarter of the East Village, or the Seventh Arrondissement of Paris."

"It is common, in defense studies, to evaluate an adversary on the basis of capability and intent. Pakistan has a nuclear-weapons capability, but its government, however fragile it may be, is presumed to have no hostile intentions toward the United States. Al Qaeda, on the other hand, has demonstrated hostile intentions but has little known nuclear capability. Osama bin Laden has declared that the acquisition of nuclear weapons is a religious duty, and it is well documented that he tried to buy uranium during the mid-nineteen-nineties while he was living in Sudan. (Like many other would-be purchasers of black-market nuclear material, he apparently fell victim to a scam.) After September 11th, bin Laden met with Pakistani nuclear scientists to discuss weapons issues. More recently, Al Qaeda-inspired radicals have sought nuclear materials. “We know they have a significant appetite and they have been searching for different materials, in different venues, for the past several years,” Vahid Majidi, an assistant director of the F.B.I., who is in charge of the bureau’s newly formed weapons-of-mass-destruction directorate, told me. “The question becomes our vigilance and their ability to execute.”

Last September, the Nuclear Threat Initiative posted a translation of a message that appeared on the Web and was attributed to Abu Ayyub al-Masri, the leader of Al Qaeda in Iraq. The speaker called for experts in “chemistry, physics, electronics, media and all other sciences, especially nuclear scientists and explosives experts.” He continued, “We are in dire need of you.… The field of jihad can satisfy your scientific ambitions, and the large American bases are good places to test your unconventional weapons, whether biological or dirty, as they call them.”

The available evidence, then, suggests that while jihadi leaders might like to acquire a proper fission weapon, their pragmatic plans seem to run to dirty bombs—a more plausible ambition. Among other things, the international nuclear black market holds more promise for dirty-bomb builders than for those who are interested in fission weapons. In all the cases of nuclear smuggling reported to the International Atomic Energy Agency since the collapse of the Soviet Union, none have involved significant amounts of fissionable materials. (There have been at least two cases in which a seller possessing small amounts of highly enriched uranium promised that he could get much more but was arrested before the claim could be tested; the most recent of these occurred in the former Soviet republic of Georgia, in 2006.) By comparison, the I.A.E.A. has recorded about three dozen black-market smuggling incidents through 2004 involving radiological isotopes in quantities that would be useful for a destructive dirty bomb, according to European diplomats who have analyzed the records. It would not be simple to build a damaging device with these materials. Still, Peter Zimmerman, who served as the chief scientist of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee from 2001 to 2003, said, “I think there are Al Qaeda people who, given finely divided material, could think of very creative and malicious ways to use it. Why hasn’t it happened? The answer is we’ve been lucky.”

"The Bush Administration’s fixation on radiation sensors has not been accompanied by a comparably ambitious drive to fund, for example, increased inspections of companies that hold commercial nuclear material that could be used to build dirty bombs, and, as a result, the country’s regulatory system in this area remains strikingly weak. For decades, the purpose of government regulation of trade in portable nuclear materials was to protect workers and the public from the effects of accidental exposure to radiation; much of the day-to-day responsibility rested on compliance by private businesses. Until September 11th, the possibility that a terrorist might mount an attack using commercial radioactive isotopes received very little attention. In 2002, after it had become clear that Al Qaeda or its followers might be seeking radioactive material, the N.R.C. and the Department of Energy formed a task force of physicists and engineers to study precisely what kinds, in what amounts, might be used effectively for dirty bombs. The I.A.E.A. conducted a similar study. The scientists who participated struggled with questions of bomb engineering and malicious intent which they had never before considered; among other things, they had to decide what level of skill could reasonably be attributed to an attacker. Edward McGaffigan, a commissioner at the N.R.C., said they assumed that they would be dealing with someone who knew some science— “Not super-smart, but certainly well above Jose Padilla.” The result, in 2003, was a new system for identifying which materials were truly dangerous.

The final official list contains only fifteen risky isotopes. (Other commercial isotopes, such as polonium, which was employed in London last autumn to murder the former Russian spy Alexander Litvinenko, can kill individuals or small groups but cannot cause damaging long-term ground contamination; these materials are not classified as a security risk.) Because of their widespread availability and their potency, the isotopes of greatest concern are cesium, cobalt, and americium. There are, for example, several hundred irradiation machines in the United States that employ large amounts of cobalt and cesium, and thousands more of these machines are scattered around the world under light control—Ethiopia has at least one, and Ukraine has at least a hundred. Investigators in Markey’s office, searching the Web, found one such machine, with its entire stockpile of cobalt, available for free, provided that a customer would haul the material away; the machine was in Lebanon."

"Fifteen years ago, many feared that a nuclear weapon might be bought or stolen by terrorists in the former Soviet Union. The country had large stockpiles of fission weapons and highly enriched uranium that were, in some cases, so poorly inventoried that nobody could say for sure how much material existed. Although Russia’s resurgent security police and years of investment in nuclear security by the United States and other countries have reduced the dangers, international organized-crime networks still thrive in Russia and the smaller countries on its southern rim. The A. Q. Khan case has led some in the American defense bureaucracy to conclude that Pakistan is now a greater problem than Russia. India has large amounts of fissile material at civilian facilities and is a site of recurring, violent terrorist conspiracies. North Korea’s dictator, Kim Jong Il, has a record of kidnapping and other erratic acts. A gloomy mind (edit note: Battlefront? )can readily devise plausible scenarios for nuclear terrorism in which any of these places might be a source of weapons or materials. As for potential targets, Al Qaeda’s long-standing interest in New York, and its status as the largest seaport on the East Coast, has made the city, along with Washington, D.C., the focus of continual attention by the federal government since September 11th."

Scary stuff.