How does CM:SF stack up against CMx1?

[tacitrain]

As the title says...

[bodkin]

Well I'll have a go at this.

I presume you know it's different in that infantry squads are not abstracted so each man in the squad is represented. It's also obviously different and hard to compare in that it's based in a different era of warfare, as it's asymetrical modern combat.

But as far as game mechanics go, personally I find it easier to manage my forces with the new UI. The camera view is now mouse based so no more keyboard manouvering around the battlefield - if you want. I also find the tab based mouse click orders system to be easy to use once you forget about the right click CMx1 system.

As was the case in CMx1 the game enjoyment often depends on the scenario being played and how well it was designed. Fortunately enough good designers have put alot of effort into making some great scenarios.

But it is a different style of warfare so the tactical feel that you got in CMx1 maybe missing for some old fans, as the modern battlefield is alot more deadly.

One of the main things for some players is the immersion factor. As CMSF is bascially fictional, there are few scenarios where you can play well known engagements.

One of the joys for me in CMx1 was playing in command of historical units, however modern warfare has only been a recent part of popular culture unlike WW2.

I grew up building WW2 models, designing my own miniature wargames, playing old Avalon hill board games, watching WW2 movies and documentries, reading countless books on the era. So playing a fictional wargame however similar to current conflicts dosen't quite have the same immersion as I'm not as familiar with it.

I'm sure you'll get some more technical responses but this is my brief opinion. I do enjoy the game though and play it constantly.

[Apocal]

Graphically, I have to turn my eyes off to play CMx1. Immersion-wise, I can't get into WW2 the same way I can with modern warfare. Gameplay-wise, they are both fun, but slicing everything into 1 minute chunks gets frustrating for me at times. Superior scope and variety are definitely held by CMx1, even as varied as the terrain of Syria is, it just can't stack up to the diversity of WW2. It was a world war after all.

Honestly, out of the people I've put up on CM:SF, the typical one who likes it is a relatively young wargamer, 'raised' on Close Combat or various FPS or RTS, who couldn't tell you the day of the Normandy landings but can give you a two hour lecture on local politics in one Iraqi or Aghani community.

[Paper Tiger]

Star Trek - James T Kirk, Spock, Bones and Scotty

Star Trek TNG - Jean Luc Picard

Think of CMSF as series 2 of Star trek TNG (NOT season 1)

I was brought up on Star Trek and so the first lot mean a LOT to me. However, TNG was just so much better once you got used to the new faces and setting. If you started on CMx1, you'll probably find CMx2 a bit difficult to start with. Do it the other way round, who wants to watch THAT.

Download the v1.11 Demo mate and decide for yourself.

[Sergei]

I actually first saw TNG and later fell in love with TOS. It must be all those chicks in mini skirts... but I digress. To me CMSF is more like Babylon 5 - for old Trekkies there is very little familiar, except the genre. All the technology is different Then CM Normandy would be like TNG or any other Star Trek spin off, although hopefully not Enterprise...

[MikeyD]

As CMSF is bascially fictional

Real countries, real equipment, real units, in many cases real regions and locations. CMx1 fans somehow don't recognize that despite those games' historical context most scenarios were 'fictional' despite the proper place names and unit designations. CMx1 didn't have the fidelity of detail to faithfully recreate history. One of the biggest complaints about CMx2 is no CMx1-style random generated map and AI cococted QBs. You can't get much more fictional than that! :eek:

[flamingknives]

I'd like to second MikeyD. As much as I loved CMX1, I was always cognisant that any scenario was basically fictional. ISTR some comment along the lines that more of particular German tanks were deployed in scenarios in the first month of CM:BB than were ever deployed over four years. Some individual scenarios had more armour than was available on that front over several weeks.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[tacitrain]

Thanks for the replies! I'm going to try the demo soon, but I wanted to see what the community thought about it too. I just recently got CMAK to run on my computer again, and so I have been busy "modding it up" and enjoying my favorite turn based combat game all over again.

I hope I don't get so used to the new graphics in shock force that I don't want to go back to CMx1 though, ha. Are there plans to go back to the second world war with this engine?

PS. I liked ST:Enterprise

[JonS]

... CMX1, ... ISTR some comment along the lines that more of particular German tanks were deployed in scenarios in the first month of CM:BB than were ever deployed over four years. Some individual scenarios had more armour than was available on that front over several weeks.

While true, that ciomment/rationale always bugged me since it's more than a tad meaningless. To put that comment in perspective, it's just as true whether you refer to bog-standard Shermans or King Tigers.

The same comment also applies to all equipment is essentially all games; there are more spectacular crashes in an afternoon playing F1GP than in an entire season in the real world; more goals in an hour of FIFA Soccer than in a whole week of the Premier League; and more planes shot down in a typical weekend of IL2 Sturmovik than on the entire Eastern Front. Etc.

Also, the whole point of wargaming is getting 'do-overs'. Fight Villers Bocage a dozen times, assault Cassino three score and ten, defend the Tractor Works ad-nauseum. That's the point. Try, learn, try again. Otherwise we'd all have deleted CMBO about a month after it was released.

[Sgt Joch]

Biggest differences for me: CMSF has more updated graphics, CMx1 is more realistic/groggy. CMSF has a potentially better small arms model, but imo that potential isn't being used.

Adam, I am not sure where you get that from. I still play CMBB as well as CMSF (still have to get my eastern front fix ) and I can't think of a single aspect which is more "realistic/groggy" in CMx1 as opposed to CMSFv 1.11

[MikeyD]

and I can't think of a single aspect which is more "realistic/groggy" in CMx1

Speaking as a longtime CMx1 player I suspect a lot of the "cool/realistic" CMx1 stuff people talk about is imagined. A counter clicks down and they 'see' their stores of 7.62mm ammo being used up, or they 'see' individual soldiers valiantly dying in battle. A text message pops up saying "Bow hit - partial penetration" and they 'see' the bow being partially penetrated. The imagination is always better than seeing things acted out. There are still people nostalgic for best game ever ASL! The more adbstacted the game the more of yourself you're able to pour into it.

[panzermartin]

Thats true MikeyD. The problem is, CMSF is 1:1 now but it still cant compete with our imagination. When you have animations for reloading a rifle and shells ricocheting of the turrets and then landing on the ground, you ask for this detail in every corner of the battlefield. You want infantry formations, hit marks on tanks, tracks blown off, soldiers being thrown by blast waves, bullet holes on buildings, variety in environments, dead holstein cows and the list is endless. BFC has picked the what you see is what you get but it is entering a world very demanding in visual representation, in which our imagination cannot help. It's like a photorealistic painting with exhausting level of detail that its very demanding to finish and you cant cheat with abstractions here and there because they will look out of place. So, in a way the game is always in WIP mode. It feels very different compared to 1.00 release and I bet in 2 years time it will feel quite different from 1.11. I have started to think that the flexibility and the easy way to add new things with the new engine is both good and bad. On the other hand, I do like seeing our favourite game shaping and improving with our input here.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[LRC]

Adam, I am not sure where you get that from. I still play CMBB as well as CMSF (still have to get my eastern front fix ) and I can't think of a single aspect which is more "realistic/groggy" in CMx1 as opposed to CMSFv 1.11

In some sense, CMX1 feels more realistic because the abstracted display/simulation "hides" some non realistic behaviors of the CMX1 engine.

From a different angle, in CMX2 the 1-1 display/simulation highlights non realistic behavior of the engine.

An example that is frequently frustating me, in actual MOUT when a building door is exposed to MG fire, the troops will sneak into the buidling via the back/side windows. In CMX2, troops can only enter via the door ==> and get slaughtered by the MG... In CMX1, they move through walls ==> this better reproduces the expected tactical behavior of entering via windows.

Another example, are fords that are clearly displayed in CMX1 because of the basic display capability. In CMX2, it is almost impossible to read the screen and find the best way through a river...

[panzermartin]

Yep, CMBO had simple, bordeline crude, yet perfectly working solutions. You dont want to go through the protected front door? Go through the transparent back wall CMSF can't do that because coding and animations will require quite a few extra weeks to add.

[MikeyD]

Yeh, is REALLY hard to get across a river in CMx2

[Dietrich]

Speaking as a longtime CMx1 player I suspect a lot of the "cool/realistic" CMx1 stuff people talk about is imagined. . . . The imagination is always better than seeing things acted out.

Apocal said he had to turn his eyes off to play CMx1. I just find that my imagination comes more into play when watching the action in CMx1.

To each of my friends who sees the seemingly poor graphics in CMx1 and marvels that I even play it, I say: "It's not an RTS, it's a tactical simulator." Company of Heroes has great graphics and such, but it's an RTS; the game's engine prevents it from being on the same continent, so to speak, as CMx2 in terms of tactical simulation. Similarly, Falcon 4.0 Allied Force has substandard graphics compared to newer titles like LOMAC, but the comprehensiveness and detail of Falcon's simulation is yet unmatched.

The more abstracted the game the more of yourself you're able to pour into it.

Which is (in part) why the 16-bit sprite-based Final Fantasy VI is my favorite, as opposed to the graphically superior (but overall very good) later Final Fantasy games.

MikeyD, sorry you are just way off in your assessment. There's nothing imaginary about it.

While you do make some fairly reasonable points, Adam, I would have to say that my experience confirms MikeyD's assessment. The relatively greater abstraction in CMx1 makes me use more of my imagination based on the information the game provides; whereas in CMSF I can see tracer rounds ricochet off buildings and soar through the air while not knowing just how many magazines of 5.56 the seven yet-unwounded soldiers in a given squad have.

In the end, though, it seems that you just don't like CMSF. If so, why do you bother going on and on about the ways in which it fails to live up to your expectations? Sure, there are things about CMSF that I would like to see improved, but do I rant about it? For example, I don't like Theatre of War (no disrepect to BFC or 1C, etc.) as much as I used to (which is largely because I later purchased CMSF ), but I don't go to the ToW forum and go on and on about the game's deficiences.

[Other Means]

I agree that CM2 has set itself a very high bar to achieve. I also don't think that it's met it yet.

But the main point is that this standard is what gamers expect now. CM1 wouldn't get played if it was released now - even if a Bren tripod was included.

Therefore CM2 must try and attain it - and I think it's on the right path. Things are much, much better. And I think they'll get better still.

[Kwazydog]

Joch

SF's defenders are both easier to spot and easier to kill

Considering the training and technology available today for both spotting and killing people compared to 60 years ago, shouldn’t this be the case?

As always Adam, we are open to considering changes providing there is reason to do so. I have ran some controlled tests recently on both spotting and leathality and been happy with the results. To me it feels about right at the moment, but as I have no real world experience in this area for the most part I currently default my opinion to those in our beta team whom have (and have provided us with feedback for the last couple of years). If you have information to suggest tweaks need to be made though, please pass it on for discussion.

Dan

[panzermartin]

I think we have to get back to WW2 to make a direct comparison between CMx1 and CMx2. I try to imagine CMAK with CMSF units and I'm not sure I would enjoy it. At least with a PZIV against you, you have a sporting chance to go hunting on the hill crest and survive after a minute of exchaning fire. In CMSF even a T-55 gets a first hit 95% of the time. No need to mention the death of wargaming, the gamey javelin I also think rifle infantry battles in CM Normandy will be a tactical chess and we will see the return of improved cover/concealment- or maybe decreased weapons lethality?

Also, isnt a fact that today's soldiers shoot more to kill compared to WW2 where most infantrymen only wanted to scare or wound the enemy? I think book "on killing" has some insight about that, on how drills and even FPS games are used to literally turn a soldier into a hitman.

[Sgt Joch]

Adam, if we look at the differences, there are certain elements of CMSF which are distinct improvements over CMx1, such as relative spotting, improved pathfinding, better indirect artillery and air modeling, more refined LOS/LOF calculations.

spotting is harder in CMSF 1.11. I am still debating whether we went a bit too far or not, but that is easy to scale back. In CMx1, it was much too easy to spot units because of borg spotting.

the effect of terrain/cover is debatable. In CMx1, it was easier to fudge the results because of the level of abstraction. I agree that in CMSF, the pixeltruppens are not as quick as real soldiers to find cover, but BFC has factored that in the calculations so that the final results should be close to RL. There is still a fudge factor in CMSF, but it is smaller than in CMx1.

[Sergei]

SF's defenders are both easier to spot and easier to kill

:eek: Are you threatening CMSF fans with deadly force??? :eek:

Clearly some people take this whole matter too seriously!

[panzermartin]

LOL...and I was wondering why it is so hard to find opponents online.

[Dietrich]

:eek: Are you threatening CMSF fans with deadly force??? :eek:

I hereby maintain that no one has LOF to me.

infantry in SF don't get the same benefits from getting below ground level as AK/BB's infantry

Is digging in even covered in modern military training? Entrenching tools are obviously no longer default part of the infantryman's kit, but is entrenching really no longer a factor in modern combat?

As far as I understand, in WW2 there were instances where an attacking force was forced to halt by fire from the defenders' positions, so that as the defenders' fire became more sporadic (whether due to decreasing ammo supply or other factors), the attackers broke out their entrenching tools and -- perhaps while still under fire -- dug themselves foxholes.

In modern Blue-on-Red combat, if (for example) a company of US Army infantry were attacking entrenched Syrian positions and became pinned on account of the defensive fire, they could call -- more promptly and accurately than their WW2 counterparts -- on a range of support, from company-level or battalion-level mortars and SBCT-level howitzers to air assets like AH-64s and even F-15E or F-16s (though probably not more than one or two at a time). Thus there would be much less of a need to dig in, because supporting fire would suppress or eliminate the defenders. (Of course, this scenario assumes that the US Army infantry in question have to operate dismounted, on account of significant Syrian AT assets or the absence of direct supporting fire from Stryker MGS, etc.)

Actually, there are even more reasons why modern first-world infantry have little or no need to dig in, but elucidating such would involve a much longer post.