Next module will give us challenging scenarios?

[Barleyman]

Gentlemen.

As much as I enjoy pulling wings off flies and other such escapades, it would be nice to have a bit of a challenge in my wargames.

CMSF has (with recent patches) very solid game engine indeed but the settings are geared toward people who think executing bunnies tied up to poles is sporting.

So what about we get some not-so-much-sci-fi blue side gear and expanded red side gear (like, ahem, helos and air farce in general?) so we could have decent scenarios with real-life military adventures such as Turkey liberating Kurdistan or Russia liberating Georgia? Yes, I know that won't be very salable.. But you nice people at BFC could kind of sneak the necessary units and terrain types into another exciting david vs goliath-module.

Pretty please?

[George MC]

Have you checked out any of the stuff over at CMMODS? Ain't all about killing bunnies

Cheers fur noo

George

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

Gentlemen.

As much as I enjoy pulling wings off flies and other such escapades, it would be nice to have a bit of a challenge in my wargames.

CMSF has (with recent patches) very solid game engine indeed but the settings are geared toward people who think executing bunnies tied up to poles is sporting.

So what about we get some not-so-much-sci-fi blue side gear and expanded red side gear (like, ahem, helos and air farce in general?) so we could have decent scenarios with real-life military adventures such as Turkey liberating Kurdistan or Russia liberating Georgia? Yes, I know that won't be very salable.. But you nice people at BFC could kind of sneak the necessary units and terrain types into another exciting david vs goliath-module.

Pretty please?

Maybe you need to actually pick challenging scenarios. I regularly get my butt handed to me.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

If you haven't been challenged by what's out there already, either you're a tactical genius or you've been very, very "lucky" in your scenario selection. (lucky as in that in real life, you would be lucky to be fighting those battles and not the rest )

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Normal Dude:

Maybe you need to actually pick challenging scenarios. I regularly get my butt handed to me.

Those are kind of fantasy. Assuming you're talking about blue vs red. Reality is that USMC (and US army helps a bit too) has so much firepower vis-a-vis anyone not in silver-spoon 1st world country that it's not funny. And even going against australia or something you should give them a couple of years notice to give them a decent chance to defend themselves.

So just for realism sake, US vs anyone post 90s in a pure firefight is not very interesting.

Well, anyone who doesn't have a significant stockpile of nukes, that is.

[YankeeDog]

Barleyman, it sounds to me like you're actually looking for a challenging, roughly *symmetrical* fight, rather than the challenging, but usually assymetrical fights that include most of the scenarios that come with the game. IME, most of the assymetrical fights included with the game are very challenging, whether played as Blue or Red.

If you are looking for more symmetrical fights, I suggest looking for Red vs. Red (or even Blue vs. Blue) scenarios on CMMODS. Lots o' fun.

If you want Symmetrical Blue vs. Red, I think there will be much wider possibilities for this with the addition of the T-90 and BMP-3 in CMSF:Marines. Both are very competent AFVs that compare very favorably with their US analogs. Bradley vs. BMP-3 is a particularly interesting matchup, I think.

As far as Red Air Power, Steve has said that adding Red Air Power is on the plan eventually, but not for the Marines Module. But the air assets available to Blue can be added to Red side just fine. Some of the Red vs. Red scenarios available on CMMODS use this trick and the practical in-game effect is very similar. At the CM scale, there's not much difference between a 1000-lb. laser-guided bomb, whether it's actually dropped by an F-16 or a MiG.

Cheers,

YD

[Barleyman]

meh, double post

[ May 10, 2008, 03:55 PM: Message edited by: Barleyman ]

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

At the CM scale, there's not much difference between a 1000-lb. laser-guided bomb, whether it's actually dropped by an F-16 or a MiG.

I think the recipients would be very surprised by such development!

However, 500kg bomb delivered by Sukhoi CAS or strike plane would no doubt cause appreciatable consternation. Not to mention all kinds of nasty bomblets or FAE ordinances..

AFAIK Russians are fielding FAE munitions IRL.

[M1A1TC]

I think some are underestimating other world's militaries, notably Russian and Chinese. Either one could give Americans a fight for their money

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by M1A1TC:

I think some are underestimating other world's militaries, notably Russian and Chinese. Either one could give Americans a fight for their money

I think I mentione "significant stockpile of nukes" conditioner there

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by YankeeDog:

At the CM scale, there's not much difference between a 1000-lb. laser-guided bomb, whether it's actually dropped by an F-16 or a MiG.

I think the recipients would be very surprised by such development!

However, 500kg bomb delivered by Sukhoi CAS or strike plane would no doubt cause appreciatable consternation. Not to mention all kinds of nasty bomblets or FAE ordinances..

AFAIK Russians are fielding FAE munitions IRL. </font>

[Paper Tiger]

Barleyman

a very interesting post and I know exactly how you feel. It took me a while to figure out that I wasn't going to be able to play the kind of missions I wanted to play in CMSF with the US v Syria. Yes, there are ways to make VERY challenging scenarios but that's usually done by handicapping the US in some way. But that's not what I want.

Because the US has the most powerful military in the world coupled with the sexiest equipment, I want to play a challenging US v Syria mission using ALL the bells and whistles. Otherwise, there's a big pinch for me. After all, the game simulates these aspects (US air and artillery support) really, really well and I want to be able to use them. Since neither the Russians or the Chinese are in the game (yet) it's not possible to have this experience yet.

Instead, it looks like the Syrians are about to get slaughtered by a different arm of the American military with even more devastating firepower at their disposal (cool!). Yup, they're getting the T-90 and the BMP-3 but I'm pretty sure that the US military as it stands is more than a match for these. The T-90 is going to get killed by a javelin just as easily as a T-72 I suspect. And the M1A2SEPS is really the KING of the world on the battlefield. That's why the US spent so much money developing and fielding it. It doesn't want any comers for control of the countryside. I don't think the T-90 is going to change that. In the real world, that's fine by me. In a game, it's not so funny.

Before talking about Red on Red, you really should try 'Armour Attacks' (UK spelling) at CMMODS. It's probably as close to what you want as you're going to get.

Red on Red will give you a more challenging conventional warfare experience but it's definitely not for everybody. It's an acquired taste and the modelling of Red artillery and air power in the game is a bit less than thrilling. But you can do quite realistic meeting engagements and straight forward battles between mechanised and armour forces this way. There are some designers who are doing a lot of work this way. Check out The Louch's 'Polyanskoe' or MikeD's 'King Copper Mines' at CMMODS to see if you like it.

The alternative is to do what almost everybody else here does and just 'get' into the infantry/MOUT actions. The real challenge here is to win the mission without losing more than 5% of your force which is actually quite a realistic condition. Sometimes it works for me but I prefer the fighting outside of the built up areas than the MOUT.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

Red on Red will give you a more challenging conventional warfare experience but it's definitely not for everybody. It's an acquired taste and the modelling of Red artillery and air power in the game is a bit less than thrilling. But you can do quite realistic meeting engagements and straight forward battles between mechanised and armour forces this way. There are some designers who are doing a lot of work this way. Check out The Louch's 'Polyanskoe' or MikeD's 'King Copper Mines' at CMMODS to see if you like it.

The alternative is to do what almost everybody else here does and just 'get' into the infantry/MOUT actions. The real challenge here is to win the mission without losing more than 5% of your force which is actually quite a realistic condition. Sometimes it works for me but I prefer the fighting outside of the built up areas than the MOUT.

MOUT with no-losses-tolerated requirement may be realistic but not very exciting. Also as blue side you're not supposed to level city-blocks wantonly because it'd look bad on CNN. If you look at how Russia handled Grozny, leveling points of resistance is pretty basic tool in your disposal. Not to mention direct fire support by 125mm HE grenades into specific apartments..

Biggest snatch on making realistic red vs red scenarios at the moment is that you cannot call in smoke. It's not like all of those T-72 models serving worldwide have TI upgrade in place which goes for most russian gear in use in general. If you cannot call for smoke on known enemy positions in supposed high-intensity conflict between two roughly equal sides, it gets funky. Then again, since the AI cannot even call in regular arty in a sensible manner, we should do things one step at a time.

Yeah, you don't really need all that in the "Syria" setting, but that setting is what I see as the problem to start with.

As for conventional warfare, I know it's much more interesting for me, personally! Bit like the CMBB setting is infinitely more intriguing but we're still going back to normandy for the WWII game as you cannot sell in US unless you have shermans winning the war against germans

In any case, when british and french (?) modules are introduced you probably should get material to model many kinds of conflicts. Then again. I dare you to come up with a setting where you get involved in Congo without taking the role of a bunch of murdering scumbags.

[Chelco]

EDIT: Nevermind. Post deleted.

[ May 11, 2008, 03:01 PM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Barleyman:

Then again. I dare you to come up with a setting where you get involved in Congo without taking the role of a bunch of murdering scumbags.

Wow. That's quite a challenge.

[MikeyD]

Remember, when CMSF came out initially the scenario designers and the players were both as green as grass. There was an understandable tendancy to construct scenarios a player had half a chance of surviving. Now its 9(?) months later, the scenario designers are considerably more experienced, the game engine has substantially fewer gameplay glitches to work around, and its assumed a module purchaser will be an 'experienced' purchaser. Sounds like under these circumstances they could get down-&-dirty with the Marines scenarios!

[C'Rogers]

MOUT with no-losses-tolerated requirement may be realistic but not very exciting.

Well that is a personal opinion, I personally enjoy the scenarios I have to run nearly perfect.

I think with the CM series, especially with what has happened with quick battles, we are buying more of an engine then what some people would think of as a complete game. I know there are people who aren't crazy about this idea but but perhaps a necessary approach for a small company like BFC. I know I have far greater enjoyment when things I have dled (For both CMx1 and 2) then what was packaged.

But the better the scenarios that come along I am sure the happier we will all be.

[Barleyman]

Originally posted by YankeeDog:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Barleyman:

Then again. I dare you to come up with a setting where you get involved in Congo without taking the role of a bunch of murdering scumbags.

Wow. That's quite a challenge. http://community.battlefront.com/uploads/emoticons/default_biggrin.png' alt=':D'> </font>

[Paper Tiger]

"it's all a bit, er, SPISPOPD."

What?!!!

[Barleyman]

Google for it

[Paper Tiger]

Aha, found it. Cute...

[Barleyman]

I better go and take a look at some of the recent scenarios. I've been holding out on CMSF for a while on hopes of getting proper multi-core support and AI capable of calling in arty in sensible manner.

I don't think AI arty fix will happen before the marines module and I'm not sure it'll be there either! BFC attitude seems to be that AI (red) arty does not matter since it wouldn't happen much in syria scenario and nobody would play red vs blue. Ditto for red air farce.

As for multicore support, I understand everyone wants it in but they already tried it with 1.05 patch and failed to get the code and compiler to behave..

[Paper Tiger]

Don't get me started on the condition of AI artillery. You have no idea how frustrated I get when I'm working on a new mission and I have to try to make the AI use it's artillery in an effective way.

Your arguments are pretty much what I said in my last attempt to get an answer from BFC re this matter. It's my only real gripe with this otherwise fantastic game. It's such a crying shame as, even it just worked the way the manual and the editor interface suggests it should, I could do some good things with it. The way it stands just now it's unbelievably crap.

[PD]

I've always thought that the main reason to choose a red force like Syria and not the CIS is the amount of hardware available, the multiple terrain possibilities, and the hardware/software required to genearate and successfully run those simulations.

What we get over time is better hardware, refined software techniques and models.

So eventually, you might get what you want, provided of course, that Charles doesn't escape his jar.

[Secondbrooks]

I don't know about challenge itself. Syria is hard and same with US with right combination of troops.

But something isn't right. I mean if i play hard and honest battle against enemy i still end up feeling somehow let down to outcome or how the outcome was reached... It doesn't matter do i lose or win, there just something which doesn't quarantee (very) happy state of mind to me.

-Maybe it's modern setting and expetations i have from performance of certain modern trooptypes and weaponsystems.

-Maybe it's the word simualtion you hear quite often used these days (or is it just me?)... I notice that i have tendensy to get depressed from word 'simualtion'... Or am i barking (or lifting my leg) at wrong tree? was CMx2 stated to be simulation or wargame?

Or

-Maybe i'm getting cynical and hard to please... I shouldn't be that close of age where i start to dig my closet for things from my youth... like Iron Maiden's casettes and Sylvester Stallone's VHS-tapes. I think i have 10-20 years before that, indeed sad thing, should happen... But i enjoy older games (like CMx1) while their newer versions (like CMx2) aren't that good at granting me The Absolute Pleasure Of Gaming (=good feeling after game has been finished).

Engine in CMx2 is good and i truly like the things it can do... But it's just something. Yes-yes, i play it, i like it, but i'm generally just not pleased to outcome of battle.