A worthy foe - The difference between CMSF and CMx1's

[Chad Harrison]

Chad, Steve has put out the current best guess of the list you are looking for some time in the recent past, and there is an excellent compilation thread as well. There is also this handy little search function on the forum.....

Oh, THAT thing

[MikeyD]

Some of those lists have up to thirteen titles on them! Considering the typical module construction schedule there's a chance by the time we see #13 the oceans will have engulfed the coasts and the few remaining survivors will be battling eachother for salvaged cans of cling peaches.

[Other Means]

Some of those lists have up to thirteen titles on them! Considering the typical module construction schedule there's a chance by the time we see #13 the oceans will have engulfed the coasts and the few remaining survivors will be battling eachother for salvaged cans of cling peaches.

I see what you're saying. We'd better practice so we have the tactical skills necessary to take Tescos.

[Sequoia]

Well as I understand it there will be at least 3 teams working on stuff, plus the teething problems will be solved so we'll be getting modules at least twice as fast as we are now (i.e every six months at least rather than a year apart).

Thus the team working on the Brits right now will have the CMSF NATO module by years end, around the time the core Battlefront group has the Beyond Overlord II game ready.

Then the module team starts working on modules for the WWII game getting us the Commonwealth before next summer while the Battlefront team works on the Bulge.

Meanwhile the Russian team that's doing Afganistan 1980s will be leading contenders for doing Bagration, meaning that within two years we will have:

CMSF complete with 3 modules.

CM Afganistan

CM Beyond Overlord II with 3 modules completed.

CM Bulge with one module completed (the Commonweath).

CM Bagration core game mostly done by third part Russian team.

plus any other surprises by third parties.

I think it's doable now without burning out Charles' brain in the jar.

[Pandur]

Age has nothing to do with it. Capability does.

damn it took me too long to respond, anyways hope you see it...

in my view, capabilety is a function of "age". the more age you accumulate, youre capabilety will shrink proportionaly. this has some limits but its valid.

you can compare a tank wich was build in the pre electronics age, with a vehicle build at the high time of electronics and sensors but its not just like the different forms of strategic thinking where involved in the designs and a difference in craftmanship like in WWII. there is a huge gap of technology, wich compared to age does rise proportionaly the less age you accumulate. so in my view you cant take out age of the capabilety calculation.

[Sgt Joch]

Back to the main thread, this is really a matter of personal choice and again the same old argument about whether ww2 is somehow "better" than all the other wars.

Of course on a strategic/operational level, Syria is no match for US/NATO (anymore than Iraq or Afghanistan), but neither was the Soviet Union v. Nazis, pre-november '42 or the Nazis after july '43.

However, none of that has any pertinence whatsoever to CM. At the platoon/company level, you can find interesting matchups in any period, whether you are playing as '41 Soviets, '45 Nazis or '09 Syrians.

I have played hundreds of CMBB, CMAK PBEM games over the years. I have now transitioned almost exclusively to CMSF PBEM games. There is now a large pool of interesting CMSF PBEM scenarios, CMSF PBEM games, clubs and players. I have played as both US and Syrian and the games are as fun, tense and challenging as any CMBB/CMAK PBEM game. There is certainly no lack of a "worthy foe".

If someone wants to limit themselves to only playing ww2 games out of personal interest, that is of course their choice. But I dont see how anyone can argue with a straight face that tactical matchups which occured in ww2 are somehow more "challenging" than those which occurred in other wars.

I enjoy ww2 as much as the next guy, but I don't see why I should limit myself to only playing with the obsolete equipment of a war which occurred 70 years ago. WW2 represents only 6 out of 6,000 years that humans have been killing each other in a semi-organized fashion. Each of the Vietnam war, Afghanistan war and Iraq war have now lasted longer than ww2.

I am looking forward, like everyone else to the new CM:ww2 game, but it will certainly not stop me from playing CMSF, the new CM:Afghanistan game or (hopefully:)), CM:Vietnam and CM:Korea.

[Battlefront.com]

Sgt. Joch,

Back to the main thread, this is really a matter of personal choice and again the same old argument about whether ww2 is somehow "better" than all the other wars.

Absolutely. We also get into arguments about which PART of WW2 is "better" than another. The Eastern Front guys are very, very sure it is the Eastern Front, the Western Front guys are very sure it is the Western Front. Nobody I know of thinks it is Crete 1941 or France 1940, but I'm sure there are some out there that do Then you get into arguments within arguments with the Western Front guys thinking "August is the best part" while others insist it is January. While back on the Eastern Front argument you have a free fisted fight because there's just so much to fight about!

Of course on a strategic/operational level, Syria is no match for US/NATO (anymore than Iraq or Afghanistan), but neither was the Soviet Union v. Nazis, pre-november '42 or the Nazis after july '43.

I still think that anybody who thinks things are "unbalanced" in CM:SF should play as the Romanians in 1944 against an armor heavy Soviet force, then come back to the discussion

Sequoia,

Well as I understand it there will be at least 3 teams working on stuff, plus the teething problems will be solved so we'll be getting modules at least twice as fast as we are now (i.e every six months at least rather than a year apart).

Correct. Development times so far are not indicative of development times in the future. Just like CM:SF too about 3 years to make and Normandy will be about 1.5 years (actual development time in both cases, not time to market).

Without outside developers we wouldn't be seeing the Eastern Front for several years and CM:SF 2 would be out a couple of years AFTER that. Obviously this is unacceptable to all of us since gamers that like Modern shouldn't have to wait for a bunch of WW2 stuff to be developed before they get a crack at Modern again, likewise someone waiting for a specific Eastern Front release shouldn't have to wait until the Western Front is completely done before they get a crack at the Eastern Front again.

As I've said since the beginning... when asked why we ditched CMx1, this is why. CMx1 could barely handle the transition from Western to Eastern Fronts with very minor changes to the game engine. And it took us 2 years to do. To be fair to CMx1 it simply wasn't written with modularity and multiple teams in mind. Which is why we wrote CMx2

Steve

[Schmoly War]

Let me second Sgt Joch. I too exclusivly play CMSF PBEM scenario games now, mostly as the syrians. You can bet the blue player never has it easy. I shake my head at you people saying red forces does not provide a true challenge. Stop with the quick battles!

[Pvt. Ryan]

The point of this thread is not that CMSF isn't or can't be challenging, but that the OP's perception that the Syrians are not a worthy opponent - a view I share, even though I routinely get my ass kicked by the Syrian forces. In WWII the allies didn't know they were going to win early on. And even as the momentum shifted to the allies, they still respected the Germans because they had been so dominant early on. The US hasn't been truly challenged by a Syrian type force in open combat, so I, as a player, don't see them as a challenging, or "worthy" opponent in CMSF. I expect to win every time and I expect to do it with minimal losses. And from many of the Syrian briefings I have read, their job is to inflict as much damage on the US forces as they can - not necessarily to defeat them. It is all about perception.

[Chad Harrison]

The point of this thread is not that CMSF isn't or can't be challenging, but that the OP's perception that the Syrians are not a worthy opponent - a view I share, even though I routinely get my ass kicked by the Syrian forces. In WWII the allies didn't know they were going to win early on. And even as the momentum shifted to the allies, they still respected the Germans because they had been so dominant early on. The US hasn't been truly challenged by a Syrian type force in open combat, so I, as a player, don't see them as a challenging, or "worthy" opponent in CMSF. I expect to win every time and I expect to do it with minimal losses. And from many of the Syrian briefings I have read, their job is to inflict as much damage on the US forces as they can - not necessarily to defeat them. It is all about perception.

That sums up all I have been saying over the past couple of pages much better than I ever could have

I have no doubt that I would find challenges as either Red or Blue in a PBEM scenario. That's not my reason for not playing PBEM games in CM:SF. Like I said earlier, from my PBEM experiences with CM:BO and CM:BB I know that there are plenty here who would give any Blue player a run for their money in a CM:SF PBEM game. But it takes a special situation that is unfavorable to the Blue to consistently bring those results and present a balanced fight. Within CM:SF this is a urban fight where the Blue has to play an endless game of hide and go seek against the Reds. I have no doubt that a good Red player can be challenging in other situations, but I think that is a little more rare and inconsistent.

As Steve and others have pointed out, you can find the same problems in the WWII setting. But those are not the setting that I play in WWII for that reason. This is a game after all, so I play for enjoyment. I do not enjoy beating a lesser foe. I enjoy overcoming an equal foe through tactics, cunning and most of all: luck.

This is most certainly a personal preference, and not the way that everyone else should view the game. Urban fights do nothing for me. Instant kill modern weapons do nothing for me. And having a world power beat down on untrained, ill equipped and poorly lead troops does nothing for me.

That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy CM:SF. I do. And I will be first in line to get Brits. But the main reason I enjoy CM:SF is because of the two first letters there: CM.

[Battlefront.com]

Well, it still comes down to perception I personally don't give a flying fig's backside about the geopolitical standing of the nations behind the forces in my tactical battle. It's a tactical battle... none of that is relevant at all to tactics, weaponry, luck, terrain, or anything. What is relevant is the tactics, weaponry, luck, terrain, etch

By the logic described by Chad and Pvt Ryan (which is personal taste, so I can't disagree with it) then nobody should want to play a 1945 battle in any of the three CMx1 games. I mean, Germany is definitely beat by all standards, right? The Allies have largely closed the technology gap, right? The German forces, when portrayed realistically, are generally average to poor condition with a definitely lack of numbers and fancy stuff to back them up. Yet they can still inflict a lot of harm on the Allies. Even in built up areas where infantry is king and big boom-boom vehicles don't matter nearly as much.

Again, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Just as I'm entitled to point out the inconsistencies about the logic behind them

This is a game after all, so I play for enjoyment. I do not enjoy beating a lesser foe. I enjoy overcoming an equal foe through tactics, cunning and most of all: luck.

But that's just it... if you go into a CM:SF game expecting that you're just going to roll over the "lesser foe" without using tactics, cunning, and setting the stage for good luck (luck doesn't happen in a vacuum)... I bet you'll get your butt handed to you. Which indicates another logic flaw here...

If you can get beat, even by a "lesser foe" (especially one commanded by the AI), then you can't say there isn't a tactical challenge. Because if that were true then you wouldn't loose, what with all those technological advantages and what not on your side.

Therefore, the only person I see who can make a legitimate argument that a "lesser foe = no challenge" is someone who can use tactics, cunning, and what not to win all the time, pretty much every time, against either the AI or a Human. If said player can not do that, then said player is perhaps being challenged too much instead of too little In 2 years of CM:SF play, or 3 including significant play testing, I've not found one player that can claim this to be true. So inherently there is a significant tactical challenge taking on the "lesser foe" in CM:SF. The difference is some don't care about it. Which is fine and no justification should be needed. Especially justifications that I can so easily poke holes in using WW2 which, supposedly, has it all ;

Steve

[Chad Harrison]

By the logic described by Chad and Pvt Ryan (which is personal taste, so I can't disagree with it) then nobody should want to play a 1945 battle in any of the three CMx1 games. I mean, Germany is definitely beat by all standards, right? The Allies have largely closed the technology gap, right? The German forces, when portrayed realistically, are generally average to poor condition with a definitely lack of numbers and fancy stuff to back them up. Yet they can still inflict a lot of harm on the Allies. Even in built up areas where infantry is king and big boom-boom vehicles don't matter nearly as much.

The irony is that I actually enjoy those battles. Sure, Germany has no chance. But since it is a non modern setting, I still get a kick out of it. Again, personal taste. Tactically, there is no difference between that and Syria, except of course the era. Which is why it *feels* and plays differently for me.

Again, everybody is entitled to their own opinion. Just as I'm entitled to point out the inconsistencies about the logic behind them

That's all any of this is. It's not my thesis statement While playing the other day, I had this epiphany of thought and decided to post it here to see if anyone else felt that way. It's simply the difference in how I *feel* when I play CM:SF compared to CMx1 games. It has nothing to do with the games themselves from a technical standpoint. I still greatly enjoy both, but for the last two years I was having a hard time figuring out why I enjoyed CM:SF less, beside the switch to modern combat. The more I have played CM:SF, the more I love all the new technical advances that the game itself made, and as I mentioned before, a few patches ago it surpassed CMx1 games in every regard - except the setting

Therefore, the only person I see who can make a legitimate argument that a "lesser foe = no challenge" is someone who can use tactics, cunning, and what not to win all the time, pretty much every time, against either the AI or a Human.

I have not played PBEM, but this is my situation against the AI with the stock scenario's and campaign's. The AI can put up a great fight, but like I said earlier, zero friendly KIA's as the Blue's is my goal and I consistently meet that more times than I don't. It's to the point where if I don't, I feel like I did something wrong. Thus my attitude towards the typical Red forces you face in the game.

On a different note, while I have you in here Steve, I had asked a few pages back and it might have gotten buried: how are we looking for CM:Normandy this year?

Thanks again

Chad

[[hirr]Leto]

I have played hundreds of CMBB, CMAK PBEM games over the years. I have now transitioned almost exclusively to CMSF PBEM games. There is now a large pool of interesting CMSF PBEM scenarios, CMSF PBEM games, clubs and players.

Can you provide us with a list of all those clubs that play CMSF? I have belonged to 5 major wargaming clubs and know of two others, and not one of them have any real player group or ladder for CMSF.

Cheers!

Leto

[Yair Iny]

I have not played PBEM, but this is my situation against the AI with the stock scenario's and campaign's. The AI can put up a great fight, but like I said earlier, zero friendly KIA's as the Blue's is my goal and I consistently meet that more times than I don't. It's to the point where if I don't, I feel like I did something wrong. Thus my attitude towards the typical Red forces you face in the game.

Just as an observation, that is exactly the kind of attitude a "Blue" commander takes into a mission in Iraq or Afghanistan, so at the very least that tells me that a) BFC have fairly well simulated the relative differences between the sides and that you are probably a better player than most, most definitely than me, as I would be most pleasantly surprised to have 0 KIA in a typical stock scenario.

Cheers

[Dietrich]

Relative to Yair Iny's comment on Chad Harrison's comment: I think that perhaps part of the 'problem' is how we're much more aware of the relative kill/casualty ratios of the various armies in WW2, whereas to a great extent the calculation of OPFOR/insurgent casualty rates in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2003 is a matter of guesswork and hypothesization.

I play Blue 85% of the time. In general, my forces inflict much heavy casualties than they take. (I won the second mission of the TF Thunder campaign with only 3 WIA.)

In short, I concur with Yair Iny's observation.

[Cpl Steiner]

If you want "a worthy foe" then play RED vs. BLUE. Seriously, this is a non-issue.

[Scipio]

Everybody says that this war is lost right from the beginning, that Syrian forces are chanceless from the stratic point. I bet somewhere I've said that, too .

May I mention: Vietnam and Afghanistan 1980s, and the conflicts of today? Even after 7 years of combat, the current war in Afghanistan is undecided. Same for Iraq. If Allied forces would leave Iraq or Afghanistan today, it is unpredicable if the country can keep a stable political situation that pleases the Allies for a long time, other than Germany after WWII.

Funny enough - with the release of CM:A we have indeed this contradictory stratic problem. The USSR goes into the war against a clearly inferior opponent, but other than in CMSF, everybody knows that they are fighting a war that is lost.

CMSF covers just the three month that might be necessary to invade the country and defeat the regular Syrian forces. If we concentrate only on this operation, of course the Syrians will lose. But the war ain't necessarily over with this.

Syria ain't a worthy military opponent for the Western Allies, or Afghanistan for the Russians? A quote from the movie 'Heartbreak Ridge' about the Vietnam war: 'We have lost the war, but we have won all the battles'! Maybe this should be kept in mind, even if this is clearly out of the scope of CM.

[Guest Guest]

deleted per user request

[Paper Tiger]

I think it's pretty obvious that you will get a much more balanced action if you take 1 WW2 US Infantry company with artillery support and square them off against 1 German Infantry company with artillery support than if you do the same with modern US and Syrian forces. This is without resorting to penalising the US side for taking 1-2% casualties in that mission regardless of how realistic a condition that might be. I believe it's that kind of balance Chad is missing. Most folks really like the infantry v infantry actions. With regards to the tank match ups, if you keep Tigers out of the tank battles in CM:Normandy against the US (and you should most of the time), the tanks actions should be quite well balanced too.

[Dietrich]

With regards to the tank match ups, if you keep Tigers out of the tank battles in CM:Normandy against the US (and you should most of the time), the tanks actions should be quite well balanced too.

While it's satisfying to see my Crack-experience-level Tiger knock out one M4 or T-34 after another, it's even more satisfying to see my Veteran-experience-level Panzer VIJ knock out more than two M4s.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I think it's pretty obvious that you will get a much more balanced action if you take 1 WW2 US Infantry company with artillery support and square them off against 1 German Infantry company with artillery support than if you do the same with modern US and Syrian forces.

True, but this has other factors at play as well. Something that scenario designers need to keep in mind is that, ignoring equipment and training differences, US Companies are WAY larger than Syrian companies. One company organized like a US Rifle Company has a huge advantage against one company organized like a Syrian Rifle Company even if they have the same equipment. If you're looking for balanced infantry action, try either:

-US Army unit against 1.5xSyrian SF or Airborne unit

-US Marine unit against 2xSyrian SF or Airborne unit

-UK unit against 1xSyrian SF or Airborne unit (once CM:SF:UK is out, of course!)

These will give you rough numerical parity and a tough-as-nails opponent that's well armed and motivated. The only advantage Blue has in this case is body armor.

[Sgt Joch]

Leto;1142994']Can you provide us with a list of all those clubs that play CMSF? I have belonged to 5 major wargaming clubs and know of two others, and not one of them have any real player group or ladder for CMSF.

Cheers!

Leto

I am not really into ladders. If you are looking for opponents, there are many right here hanging around the forum.

-One new club which started and now has a nice size CMSF community is "World at War":

http://worldatwar.eu/index.php?esid=574d3cd5fe9de15e4e547e33f38d6a39〈=3&refcode=0&location=intro

They are hosting a CMSF tournament, "Syrian Dawn", in which through a combination of dazzling skill (and dumb luck ), I managed to find myself in the final. My oppo and I are now in the process of detroying a Syrian town....

Its a very welcoming and informal group if you want to check it out.

-"Band of Brothers" :http://webandofbrothers.de/index.htm does not officially support CMSF since the leadership had the same irrational "Burn the Heretics!" reaction when it came out, but a core group of CMSF players hang out in the "other games" section of the forum.

[Paper Tiger]

Its a very welcoming and informal group if you want to check it out.

Ha ha. I don't think [hirr] Leto is trying to find opponents to play this game against. I think it's more likely that he's trying to say that huge numbers of CMx1 fans have turned their backs on BFC and don't support CM:SF...again!

[Thomm]

If you want "a worthy foe" then play RED vs. BLUE. Seriously, this is a non-issue.

A corresponding campaign would be great and a great challenge for both the designer and the player!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Pandur]

If you want "a worthy foe" then play RED vs. BLUE. Seriously, this is a non-issue.

funny thing is, it took 7 and a half pages to get to this conclusion

its like just a selected few know that you can play red at all.