C'Rogers Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 But really, and I can appreciate that maybe it's my CMx1 experience talking, to play the Syrians and to lose 5:1 in men and still win, or to play US and beat the crap out of the Syrians and lose due to having 5 casualties. Neither seems fun. In general I would agree with you and would far prefer to play two equal sides than one superior side playing against very different objectives. On the other hand it will only be one game before we are back to more balanced sides, will be an interesting test in ability to adjust strategic thinking, and still there is always blue vs. blue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Dorosh Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Originally posted by C'Rogers: and still there is always blue vs. blue. That's a horrible fallback position. Imagine a sports fan buying NHL 2007 and finding half the teams so overpoweringly modelled that the only games not ending in a blowout are inter-team practices. Would he really content himself to practice sessions in his own arena vs. his own teammates and never play the full-blown season to try and take the Stanley Cup? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Ah! all this complaining! I thought this "Syria too easy to defeat" talk had abated after Israel's humiliation in Lebanon earlier in the year. Pretty much any alternate opponent out there will have much the same (or inferior) combat equipment, air resources, and logistical capability as CMSF's Syria - unless you want to pit a U.S. expeditionary force against the full brunt of 8 million Chinese army regulars! BFC's already backed-off the 'hardcore' Syria backstory, trending more along the lines of "Red Force roughly matches Syrian army structure in order to provide a believable opponent to fight against." And for those who don't like to 'modern-wargame' as though every American life was precious... don't! Try Soviet style human wave attacks if you want! That's what wargaming is all about, to test out your tactical theories before any real blood gets shed. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 The main excitement for the US player in CM:SF will come from knowning that you have specific missions to acheive and knowning that you have to figure out how to do it within the parameters. The tension that is created knowing that at any time you can lose way more than a real world US unit would likely lose creates a really big challenge from a tactics standpoint. Therefore, I don't understand where the lack of fun is in that? I suppose that if you gauge fun based on how many casualties you suffer then you probably won't like to play the US side. You are NOT supposed to take casualties because in real life any commander that lost the sort of stuff you guys routinely lose in CMx1 games would find himself peeling potatoes for the rest of the conflict. So yeah, if you use sloppy tactics and a couple of your Strykers get smoked and platoon is reduced to 2 guys with a bad attitude, you will lose even if you gain all the other Objectives without any losses. And I don't see any "fun" problem with that since sloppy play should never be rewarded with a positive rating at the end of the battle. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 One of my weaknesses as a CMx1 player is that I am too cautious and too concerned about losing a single man - so much so that having successfully probed the enemy and moved my men up to ideal attacking positions I usually have less than 5 turns remaining to complete the mission! Given the above I am looking forward to playing CM:SF, as in theory my current CMx1 tactics are probably just what are required for CM:SF. However, I hope something is done about the time limit of scenarios. You cannot be cautious AND speedy. Then again, perhaps the scenario designer will be able to juggle speed and caution to provide some variety. In one scenario for instance, you might have all the time in the world but will lose if you take anything more than 4 or 5 casualties. In another, you might be told that the mission must be executed at lightning speed because of strategic or political considerations, and in these special circumstances anything below about 20 or 30 casualties is acceptable. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WineCape Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 The main excitement for the US player in CM:SF will come from knowning that you have specific missions to acheive and knowning that you have to figure out how to do it within the parameters.And the reason, given previous postings of Steve, why the Victory Conditions in CM:SF are way more fleshed out than the CM trilogy - a sine qua non so to speak for CM:SF enjoyment (and long time playability) given the USA's array of equipment at their disposal to sic the enemy out of existence. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'Rogers Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Imagine a sports fan buying NHL 2007 and finding half the teams so overpoweringly modelled that the only games not ending in a blowout are inter-team practices.Its more like a hypothetical war game wherein the two sides have different victory conditions and one side has to use very different tactics than traditionally present in war game. However if you at times want to play a balanced battle than that option is also availble. That sounds like a good hypothetical game . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 17, 2006 Share Posted October 17, 2006 Cpl.Steiner, Given the above I am looking forward to playing CM:SF, as in theory my current CMx1 tactics are probably just what are required for CM:SF. Yes, I suspect you will do better than most! However, I hope something is done about the time limit of scenarios. You cannot be cautious AND speedy.Well, not easily. I posted some info on game length in the current bone thread. WineCape, yup... it's all tied together. Without better victory conditions and true "missions" I think CM:SF would be about 1/4 as cool to play as it will be when it is finished. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted October 18, 2006 Share Posted October 18, 2006 Steve, Battle captains peeling spuds? And to think I thought the loser debriefs in Panzer Elite were harsh! That would be a great animation! Regards, John Kettler 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.