Revna Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I would like to start off saying I loved CM WW2 games. I felt they were the best and the most historically accurate. AI tactics were good and sometimes great, especially on CM Overlord. I felt a real need to understand tactics in order to play effective in either singleplayer or multpilayer. In 2007 I was really looking forward to Battlefronts new CMx2 engine for the upcoming CMSF. Of course when I got the game it was impossible to play. I was running vista at the time and when I did play it was choppy. Now I have a computer that will run it so I installed it again and downloaded all the patches. I was finally going to Shockforce... I have been playing for about a week, mostly scenarios and a little bit of the campaign and I hate to say that I'm not happy with the game. Even on elite the game is somewhat easy. Playing blue has an incredible advantage and not to mention the enemy AI makes weird decisions or no decisions at all. Most of the time I can just lay a target to waste before I enter a building or a zone. I might suffer a couple of casualties but ultimately I will achieve my mission and clear all my objective. Sometimes my objectives will have already been achieved before I'm halfway there! I'm sure multilayer will have a different effect and would be more challenging but I would think I should find some enjoyment in single player. I'm writing this thread to see if anybody else feels the same way. I noticed there are not to many complaints in the forum. Maybe I'm being to critical? I really want to enjoy this game but I find it hard to. Maybe I should look into multiplayer instead? I'm not trying to be negative at all. The battlefront team in my opinion I have made great games over the years and I wish them success for the years to come. Looking forward to reading any comments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Too easy? Load up Task Force Panther from the Repository and enjoy. ETA: I can easily see how this type of warfare is not everyone's cup of tea. Hang in there, CM:Normandy is around the bend. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Most of the time I can just lay a target to waste before I enter a building or a zone. I might suffer a couple of casualties but ultimately I will achieve my mission and clear all my objective. I would agree that this is the case much of the time but bear in mind the following. In real like, Blue would have an incredible advantage over the Syrian Army or any Syrian unconventional forces. Most CM:SF battles result in only a few Blue casualties but dozens or even hundreds of enemy casualties but that's what would happen in real life. How many US casualties were suffered in the entire combat phase of Operation Iraqi Freedom? Have a look at what Wikipedia has to say about that. According to that article, the US suffered 138 dead in the entire invasion phase. The enemy's losses aren't even accurately known but are in the tens of thousands. That's just the way things are. As CM:SF is supposed to attempt to simulate reality, it has to simulate these sorts of loss ratios too. I'm writing this thread to see if anybody else feels the same way. I noticed there are not to many complaints in the forum. Maybe I'm being to critical? I really want to enjoy this game but I find it hard to. Maybe I should look into multiplayer instead? I'm not trying to be negative at all. The battlefront team in my opinion I have made great games over the years and I wish them success for the years to come. Well, the AI of CM:SF does have difficulties giving a good fight but it is improving all the time. The new "evade from danger" behaviour makes them look more human rather than being robots lined up to be knocked down. Hopefully even more refinements are to come. You could try Multiplayer. It would definitely give you a better game. However, I've played Red in Multiplayer games and still suffered the sorts of casualty ratios you don't like. It sounds to me like you just don't like "asymetrical" warfare, which is what CM:SF simulates. In this sort of warfare, you can lose 1 or 2 men and kill hundreds of the enemy but still lose just because you damaged a mosque. You might want to just pass on CM:SF and wait for the Normandy game coming out later this year. You can bet your bottom dollar that the US will NOT have light casualties every scenario in that game! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShaneO Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I find my biggest problem stems from putting too much stock in the scenario's victory allocation. I've ordered stupid and costly wave attacks and netted a Total Victory. I've killed dozens and dozens of U.S. men and vehicles and suffered a Total Defeat. I've seen objective buildings razed and rules of engagement completely ignored without any seeming negative effect on the stated outcome. So ignore it. Read the mission briefing and decide yourself if you achieved that in a satisfactory fashion, regardless of what the points system tells you. Enjoy playing the game, not how the game tells you you did. I certainly concur that that area is a failing in the game and needs work - maybe primarily from scenario writers - but there's an easy workaround to the problem, and it's in one's own head. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moon Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 CMSF has evolved a great deal since the release days of 2007. With the game soon to be upgraded to v1.20 when British Forces is out, you're looking at a very much different gaming experience than a couple of years ago. This, of course, is part of the whole design plan behind the series. Have you updated to v1.11 (the currently latest version)? Are you playing any of the newer scenarios? Just like the game engine has evolved, so did the scenario designers. CMSF has an extremely powerful editor but it takes time to really master it, and the newer scenarios you can find (e.g. at the Repository) are miles ahead of the early offerings (and this includes my own as well). Some of the Marines scenarios are real nailbiters and when British Forces hits the virtual shelves in a few weeks, the difference between it and the early campaign will be even more staggering. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sivodsi Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 Play Red vs Red scenarios with a human opponent. I recommend 'the Eid Offensive' at the repository. Great fun on a well balanced scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 17, 2009 Share Posted June 17, 2009 I've noticed people decry the 'unbalanced' nature of the game but refuse to give up their Abrams and Bradleys and artillery strikes. The game is as unbalanced as the scenario designer make it. Include 'Elite' Red forces. Give your Red units overlapping protective fields of fire. Don't include that 'convenient' terrain depression for Blue to move forward through. It is a simple enough task to construct a meat-grinder scenario for Blue. Not every game has to involve Abrams vs immobile T54s and passive conscripts. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revna Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 Have you updated to v1.11 (the currently latest version)? Are you playing any of the newer scenarios? Just like the game engine has evolved, so did the scenario designers. CMSF has an extremely powerful editor but it takes time to really master it, and the newer scenarios you can find (e.g. at the Repository) are miles ahead of the early offerings (and this includes my own as well). Some of the Marines scenarios are real nailbiters and when British Forces hits the virtual shelves in a few weeks, the difference between it and the early campaign will be even more staggering. I did update to v1.11 but I haven't downloaded the scenarios for the repository. I'll give that a try. I glad to read all the responses so far and it helps to see it in a different perspective. I'll try messing with the editor as well. That's something I did often on the WW2 games. My loyalty to BF games is still strong. Who knows, maybe my next thread will be about how awesome this game is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 BTW, try PaperTigers Red vs. Red campaigns. They are very fun and very challenging. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slug88 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 BTW, try PaperTigers Red vs. Red campaigns. They are very fun and very challenging. Seconding this. Play through any one of PT's very challenging campaigns and I bet you'll feel that CMx1 magic again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TempV Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 The game is as unbalanced as the scenario designer make it. Smart thought. I've always said there's no unbalanced "races" in wargames as RTS crowd thinks. Only scenario designer's skill counts. You can clearly see the difference between vanilla CMSF scenarios and Marines' ones, the latter being more difficult and suitable for H2H. I hope British forces will include dedicated multiplayer scenarios. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Revna Posted June 18, 2009 Author Share Posted June 18, 2009 Just downloaded SF Marines and played a couple scenarios and loved it. I also played through a newer scenario from the Repository as Moon suggested and experienced a more challenging battles. I was pretty happy to see that the scenarios from the Repository also made it in the Marines module. I played my last game more realistically this time around and got a better experienced. I treated it as if I was there what I would do really do. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cabal23 Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 I also recommend playing every scenario on the Repository. I have found many gems there that far outclass what BF has done. Being they used the same editor, it only makes sense that players would come along and really push the editor to the extreme. When I design scenario's I always try and give the Syrians an edge through environmental modifiers or a higher caliber of troops. Check out the Siege of Latakia V2. I think you will enjoy. There are a ton of great ones out there, you just have to take the time to download them and try them out. I have downloaded every scenario and fe have dissapointed me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 18, 2009 Share Posted June 18, 2009 Something else to do with good 3rd party scenarios - open them in the editor and inspect how the AI action was constructed. AI setup has always been more of an art than a science. The manual is only partially helpful (they inadvertantly reverse the "Exit After/Exit Before" order in the text). Some scenario AIs I'm amazed at when I look them over, some I'm just perplexed over. Just last week I 'learned something new' from someone elses AI orders that I immediately used in a scenario of my own. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrocles Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 I would like to start off saying I loved CM WW2 games. I felt they were the best and the most historically accurate. AI tactics were good and sometimes great, especially on CM Overlord. I felt a real need to understand tactics in order to play effective in either singleplayer or multpilayer. In 2007 I was really looking forward to Battlefronts new CMx2 engine for the upcoming CMSF. Of course when I got the game it was impossible to play. I was running vista at the time and when I did play it was choppy. Now I have a computer that will run it so I installed it again and downloaded all the patches. I was finally going to Shockforce... I have been playing for about a week, mostly scenarios and a little bit of the campaign and I hate to say that I'm not happy with the game. Even on elite the game is somewhat easy. Playing blue has an incredible advantage and not to mention the enemy AI makes weird decisions or no decisions at all. Most of the time I can just lay a target to waste before I enter a building or a zone. I might suffer a couple of casualties but ultimately I will achieve my mission and clear all my objective. Sometimes my objectives will have already been achieved before I'm halfway there! I'm sure multilayer will have a different effect and would be more challenging but I would think I should find some enjoyment in single player. I'm writing this thread to see if anybody else feels the same way. I noticed there are not to many complaints in the forum. Maybe I'm being to critical? I really want to enjoy this game but I find it hard to. Maybe I should look into multiplayer instead? I'm not trying to be negative at all. The battlefront team in my opinion I have made great games over the years and I wish them success for the years to come. Looking forward to reading any comments. Sir, you have hit the nail on the head! The game is simply not fun! CMX1 is a much better series and CMX2 is striving to attain the same level of worthiness. Now you must be prepared for the CMSF beta tester backlash! INCOMING!!!!!! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted June 19, 2009 Share Posted June 19, 2009 CMX1 is a much better series and... ...and despite my having dedicated endless hours on CMx1 in the past I now can't play more than 15 minutes without giving up on it. The "inferior product" wins out over nostalgia. 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.