Sequoia Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Just curious. Maybe Jarheads weren't your thing 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I've corresponded with a few people who said Marines were just not their cup of tea, perhaps under the mistaken notions that gameplay would be too close to Army or that the drive east from the coast would resemble the drive west from Iraq. But their use of the phrase "cup of tea" leads me to think they could perhaps be persuaded to look at a Brit module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahger Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I didn't get the Marines module after I heard that the Campaign was borked. I'm eager to get the Brit add-on, as I am an expat and have a buddy in London with deep professional knowledge of the OOB so there is a chance I might learn something playing -- and losing -- against him in TCP/IP games, now that they work. Having read the book and seen "Generation Kill" on TV, I'm curious about Marine ops and dubious that a recon team would be sent to take and hold a bridge in Iraq in nothing but Humvees, as happens in Generation Kill (a better book than it was a TV series, IMO). Maybe I'll buy CMSF Marines now that the Campaign appears to have been fixed in 1.11. Ou of curiosity, can anyone summarise the tactical/operational differences between US Army and Marines? I'm assuming Marines have a lot more CAS (Marine helos and AV8s, A-10s and F-18s) but how is this, and other key distinctions, modelled in the game and how do they affect tactics previously honed in the "regular" game? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slug88 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Having read the book and seen "Generation Kill" on TV, I'm curious about Marine ops and dubious that a recon team would be sent to take and hold a bridge in Iraq in nothing but Humvees, as happens in Generation Kill (a better book than it was a TV series, IMO). Maybe I'll buy CMSF Marines now that the Campaign appears to have been fixed in 1.11. Ou of curiosity, can anyone summarise the tactical/operational differences between US Army and Marines? I'm assuming Marines have a lot more CAS (Marine helos and AV8s, A-10s and F-18s) but how is this, and other key distinctions, modelled in the game and how do they affect tactics previously honed in the "regular" game? I think the differences can be best summed with the following quote from Generation Kill (indeed a better book than TV show): "If you want supplies, join the Army. Marines make do." In other words, for every situation in an Army mission in which your butt is saved by that Javelin or that Abrams or even that Bradley, as a Marine your only choice is to get creative. Furthermore, even if you disregard the doctrinal disparities, I think Marines provides a sufficiently different playing experience on the virtue of it's excellent campaign alone, which is much better crafted than the Army campaign. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I didn't get the Marines module ... Hey, get it now! Who knows when the Brit module will come out! Until then, you have some nice Marine stuff to play with. Does not cost a fortune, either. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabal23 Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I don't mess with Army much anymore. The Marines are way too much fun to play. I love watching scores of grenades arcing across the sky by the multitude of grenade launchers in my unit. Nothing is safe from Marines at a distance. The wall will not protect you from a rain of grenades. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahger Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Hmm, I'm now very tempted. One important question: Is it the case that most decent user-made scenarios are now being done for the Marines module? This is a biggie for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George MC Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 The USMC module has some decent Red armour - T90 that can face the M1 on a more equal footing. Also Red gets the BMP3 which whilst it still has all the armour of a cornflakes packet (like the BMP2) does have some nasty on-board armaments. I think recent user made scenarios have taken advantage of this when designing scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Is it the case that most decent user-made scenarios... Speaking for myself, the most EXTREME scenario I've ever built has to be "Lone Star Shopping Plaza", the Army vs Marines scenario (up on cmmods.com). When Army trys assaulting into the teeth of a veteran Marine company its unlike anything I've experienced fighting against Syrian units. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RadioactiveMan Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 The biggest difference I've seen in play style between Army and Marines is in the grenade launchers, as cabal23 mentioned. You get 3 launchers in a regular infantry squad, and another launcher on all your AAVs... This is drastically different from the Army infantry and their strykers, where grenade launchers are far less common. The grenades really make killing infantry in trenches or behind walls much easier, and allow a marine platoon to handle anything less than a tank with relative ease. The army, on the other hand, can put a Javelin in every squad. This is nice if you go up against a lot of armor. Lastly, the Army Bradley seems more lethal than the Marine LAV, but I haven't played with either all that much. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Despite the implications of poor supply in slug88's quote, the Marines have more men and proportionately even more firepower -- they're quite well equipped. A typical Army infantry squad has 9 men (two four-man fireteams and a squad leader), whereas a typical Marine infantry squad has 13 men: a squad leader and three four-man fireteams. Thus a Marine infantry squad is like a platoon in miniature, and the Marine infantry platoon has almost a squad's worth of men more than the equivalent Army formation. And the typical weapon of the Marine rifleman is the M16A4, which (thanks to its longer barrel) has greater effective range that the M4 which equips Army riflemen. (Fireteam leaders equipped with M32 grenade launchers carry M4s to supplement.) I wouldn't say that the Marines have more CAS, but air assets -- attack helicopters and Harriers -- are (on paper, at least) organic to MEUs, and they can call on F/A-18s as well. On the other hand, as RadioactiveMan alluded to, the Army's Bradley has a greater passenger capacity and -- with its 25mm autocannon and ATGMS -- is able to tackle a wider range of targets than the Marine LAV. (Though the LAV responds better to "Target Light" commands....) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guinnessman Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 Speaking for myself, the most EXTREME scenario I've ever built has to be "Lone Star Shopping Plaza", the Army vs Marines scenario (up on cmmods.com). When Army trys assaulting into the teeth of a veteran Marine company its unlike anything I've experienced fighting against Syrian units. Second that - the best scenario there is for demonstrating the differences between US Army and USMC. And an absolutely carnage-tastic scenario to play as well! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I think the main thing is I fight as the Army with the vehicles and the Marines as infantry led. It makes a difference. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 I would get marines however I don't have the correct credit card. Also it seems to me that only the Marines use the M16 in mass as I was under the impression that it was the basic weapon for both the Army and Marines. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 it seems to me that only the Marines use the M16 in mass as I was under the impression that it was the basic weapon for both the Army and Marines. Do you mean that you were under the impression that the M16 was the primary infantry weapon for both the Army and the Marines in CMSF or in real life? Whereas I haven't seen any Army infantry in CMSF using M16s, I have noticed certain soldiers in Marine squads sometimes using M4s (usually w/o M203 grenade launcher) -- fireteam leaders, when responding to a Target order at extended range (beyond 300m or so), will unsling their M4s and squeeze off rounds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 ...that it was the basic weapon for both the Army and Marines. Emphasis on the word 'was'. I recall even experts in the field seemed mighty surprised when Army went 100% for the M4 carbine. If you think there's a range difference now between Marines and Army, wait for the difference between Brits and Army (L85 barrel 518mm, M4 carbine barrel 368mm). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dima Posted January 16, 2009 Share Posted January 16, 2009 But Marines module also has T-90 and BMP-3. And British module alone won't have them. So, personally, I don't know what fun is that using 21-st century british equipment against 60-s era BMP's and tanks? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 But Marines module also has T-90 and BMP-3. And British module alone won't have them. So, personally, I don't know what fun is that using 21-st century british equipment against 60-s era BMP's and tanks? Well a lot of the Brit kit isn't 21st Century - Bulldog is an uprated FV-430 series which was first deployed in the 1960s, CVR(T) was designed in the 1960s and rolled out in the 1970s, Warrior doesn't have the luxury of an ATGM and Javelin is restricted to certain specialist units in the Brit TO&E. I think T-72 TURMS and BMP-2 properly employed will challenge the British. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bahger Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 I think T-72 TURMS and BMP-2 properly employed will challenge the British. Just as they would IRL. In the game, you need to be careful around all enemy battletanks, as unless you can either outrange them or have javs, it's a bad idea to expose any of your non-M1A1 vehicles to T-72s. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yair Iny Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Just as they would IRL. In the game, you need to be careful around all enemy battletanks, as unless you can either outrange them or have javs, it's a bad idea to expose any of your non-M1A1 vehicles to T-72s. I don't think the challenger 2 is any less survivable than the M1A1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 So, personally, I don't know what fun... Even a T90 doesn't usually survive more than a couple Javelins strikes, just like a plain vanilla T55 would. Not having interest in a Brit module because that distant burning tank on the map would be a T72M1V TURMS and not a T90 seems a bit... random. CM is a 'combined arms' game not just a heavyweight slug-fest. Besides, if you've got the Marine module you'll be able to build as many T90 vs Scimitar slugfests as your heart desires! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bergerbitz Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Getting back to the main issue here (my apologies), I'm going to actually buy Shock Force because of the British module. I just piddled around with the v1.11 version of the demo and that was the best time I've had by myself for a long time without hand lotion. Seriously. And, yeah...maybe I'll just throw in the Marine module just fer the hell of it. We'll see. Thanks BFC! I'm loving you with my mind! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Thanks and let's keep the loving to the mind, eh? We don't want to start the neighbors talking Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 If you think there's a range difference now between Marines and Army, wait for the difference between Brits and Army (L85 barrel 518mm, M4 carbine barrel 368mm). Thanks to the bullpup configuration (magazine and upper receiver between stock and trigger assembly rather than above/in front), the L85 can have a longer barrel than the M4 while being only 1.1 inches longer overall. =) If the next module is going to be NATO, will any German troops (or at least Bundeswehr equipment) be included? I'd love to unleash some rapid-fire 7.62x51mm at some mock-Taliban via an MG3. =D 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smaragdadler Posted January 17, 2009 Share Posted January 17, 2009 Bundeswehr (+ Canadian Forces and maybe Dutch) are affirmed by Battlefont. So we can hope to see at least Diemaco C7/C8, G36, MP7, MG3, MG4, Panzerfaust 3, MILAN, Marders and Leos. 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.