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

[Pandur]

Even playing around with untextured Nashorns and Stuarts...

now it strikes me, did steve more or less confirm here that the (Normandy) game will have nashorns?

bring on CM Normandy !

[Scipio]

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.

I guess the point is that many players won't kill Americans, not even virtually.

[Sgt Joch]

I guess the point is that many players won't kill Americans, not even virtually.

That is an understandable sentiment. I know german players that prefer to play as "Germans" and Russian players that prefer to play as the "Soviets". I also have qualms about playing against the "Canadians" in CMAK and prefer to choose the Canadian side when I can.

However, I have never personally had a CMSF player refuse to play the RED side. If a player has a real problem playing as the reds, it is probably not a good idea for him to be playing wargames to begin with (or have ready access to firearms ).

[Chad Harrison]

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.

That is *exactly* what I am missing and why I loved QB PBEM with CMx1 games so much. It was a test of skill between the two players across a more or less even playing field. Sure your opponent could have purchased a Tiger, but that means he has fewer points elsewhere. CMx1 PBEM QB's using the Short 75 rules was the most enjoyment I have even received from multilayer experiences in any gaming format. I played extensively on the Rugged Defense ladder and loved the challenge of playing more experienced players across an even playing field.

For those who were not around back then, the Short 75 rules kept players to the Mk IV and the early 75mm Shermans. With that rule in place, a supreme balance was achieved and it was up the skill, cunning and luck of the players to win the match.

You can not recreate that against the Syrians. That is what I miss.

Chad

[Chad Harrison]

I guess the point is that many players won't kill Americans, not even virtually.

I don't find this to be true. In CMx1 games, I played as the Germans against the Americans *all* the time. Actually, in my PBEM games, it was exactly 50% of the time as we traded sides evenly. While its not 50/50 in CM:SF, I will try my hand at a scenario as the Red's quite often.

This may be true for other Americans, but it is far from the truth for me.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I guess the point is that many players won't kill Americans, not even virtually.

I am reluctant to play Red vs. Blue, but I don't know how much this has to do with my reluctance to kill my pixel-countrymen or my vast distaste for Red equipment. I will play Red vs. Red, but I still get frustrated by my own stuff. I'm not particularly excited to play against Brits either, so maybe that shows that it's mostly the equipment issue.

Also, I'm with Chad re: WWII on this topic. I expect that I will play Germans about as much as Americans (although that's a complicated topic for me, since I live in Germany and have German ancestry, but I'm an American citizen).

[hcrof]

...my vast distaste for Red equipment.

As someone who loves the old Soviet kit I have to ask, why do you dislike red equipment? I don't want that to sound like critisism, I am just genuinely interested why you hate it!

[Sequoia]

As someone who loves the old Soviet kit I have to ask, why do you dislike red equipment? I don't want that to sound like critisism, I am just genuinely interested why you hate it!

I think there may be an irrational association of Soviet kit with nameless masses therefore no personality. It really surprised me even the Russian version cover of CMBB had a King Tiger on it rather than a JS II for instance. That's my two cent psychoanalysis anyway.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

As someone who loves the old Soviet kit I have to ask, why do you dislike red equipment? I don't want that to sound like critisism, I am just genuinely interested why you hate it!

Oh, it's not that it doesn't have a certain coolness factor, it's just so much worse than modern Blue equipment. Red tanks and vehicles have terrible optics, most Syrians have no NVGs, none have body armor, etc. I bet that I will play as the Russians in CM:SF 2 and enjoy it more.

I like being the one with the toys!

[sfhand]

That is *exactly* what I am missing and why I loved QB PBEM with CMx1 games so much. It was a test of skill between the two players across a more or less even playing field. Sure your opponent could have purchased a Tiger, but that means he has fewer points elsewhere. CMx1 PBEM QB's using the Short 75 rules was the most enjoyment I have even received from multilayer experiences in any gaming format. I played extensively on the Rugged Defense ladder and loved the challenge of playing more experienced players across an even playing field.

For those who were not around back then, the Short 75 rules kept players to the Mk IV and the early 75mm Shermans. With that rule in place, a supreme balance was achieved and it was up the skill, cunning and luck of the players to win the match.

You can not recreate that against the Syrians. That is what I miss.

Chad

I think I understand your feelings on this, and I share them regarding the potential for balance and beauty of CMx1 PBEM games. However, as I tried to suggest before, comparing CMx1 PBEM games to CMSF single player seems a bit like comparing apples to oranges to me.

I have found, by playing CMSF PBEM, that it can be every bit as exciting, balanced, and beautiful as the old PBEM battles I used to have. I'm not talking about Quick Battles though, I've read far too many damning things about them (including from the designers and BT) to even check them out.

[Chad Harrison]

I think I understand your feelings on this, and I share them regarding the potential for balance and beauty of CMx1 PBEM games. However, as I tried to suggest before, comparing CMx1 PBEM games to CMSF single player seems a bit like comparing apples to oranges to me.

Playing against an AI opponent will never hold the same excitement, challenge, surprise and all together enjoyment that comes from PBEM/TCP-IP play. CM:BO was the first PBEM game I ever tried out, and it was an entirely different game than compared to playing against the AI.

If I had more interest in the theater and playing as the Red's, I would give CM:SF PBEM a whirl.

However . . .

The day CM:Normandy comes out, I will be here looking for opponents

[hcrof]

Oh, it's not that it doesn't have a certain coolness factor, it's just so much worse than modern Blue equipment. Red tanks and vehicles have terrible optics, most Syrians have no NVGs, none have body armor, etc. I bet that I will play as the Russians in CM:SF 2 and enjoy it more.

I like being the one with the toys!

Ah I see - For me, In CM at least, that weakness is what gives the units flavour. With Blue forces you can afford to make mistakes because you can usually fight your way out of them. With Red, the tension and emotional reward for success is so much greater for me as I really have to earn every victory!

Each to his own I suppose..

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Ah I see - For me, In CM at least, that weakness is what gives the units flavour. With Blue forces you can afford to make mistakes because you can usually fight your way out of them. With Red, the tension and emotional reward for success is so much greater for me as I really have to earn every victory!

Each to his own I suppose..

Yup, I'd say it's largely personal taste. In all war-related games, I prefer to play the small, elite army with excellent equipment.

[Scipio]

The day CM:Normandy comes out, I will be here looking for opponents

Put me on your list!

[Lethaface]

Im with hcrof here, for me there is nothing above nailing an abrams with an rpg or even immobilizing it with a handgrenade from a uncon fighter.

[Chad Harrison]

Put me on your list!

Consider it done! Unless someone beats me to it, once we get the full Normandy game or a PBEM capable demo I will be starting a PBEM opponent thread for everyone to throw their name and preferences into.

Hmmmm . . . new engine . . . new hedgerows . . . new QB system to limit cherry picking but still allow human choice . . .

Where's the downside?

[Battlefront.com]

Obviously, as a self professed lover of playing as the Hungarians or Romanians, I agree with Hcrof as well Especially when playing against the AI. Playing as Germans against the Soviets in 1944 with a Cherry Picked force (i.e. a Quick Battle) I'm sure I rarely lost. But playing as the Romanians... if I won I was very, very proud of myself

Steve

[Malaspina]

I sometimes play as Italian blackshirts (pure infantry) defending against mechanized Newzealanders and Brits in the Italian theater (1943/44) and I have had my ass handed to me several times over!

[Alan8325]

I really like the modern setting of CM:SF because it is all weaponry that we see in action today and it looks to be modeled more realistically than in any other modern-setting game. There is something I prefer about the thought "it could happen" over the thought "what if this had happened" as with WWII games.

I'm really looking foward to more symmetrical modern warfare with CM:SF2. I don't really care if it is US vs. Russia or US vs. China or even if Bluefor is not the U.S., as long as the sides are symmetrical western vs. eastern equipment and training, inluding Red air power.

[[hirr]Leto]

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!

And once again, the straw phantom menace is hoisted up by pitchfork, the fires lit, and rationality drowned out by the cultish chantings of "we know better and how dare you say otherwise."

Cheers!

Leto

[[hirr]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.

I'm at BoB and have not run into much of the pro CMSF group... I agree that BoB and The Blitz as two major CM clubs did really not take to the CMSF game at all.

I also am a founding member of the WaW english players section and the tourney you are referring to was created by Geordie (or GSX on these boards). I didn't have CMSF at the time, or I would have joined the fray as well.

But you do make a fundamental point that I think Chad is really honing in on: compared to CMx1, CMSF is a less competitive PBEM human against human type game. This is somewhat pointed out by the absence of ladders and clubs that are designed around CMSF, where CMx1 had over 20 clubs around the world when it was in its heyday.

What CMSF has over CMx1 is realism, IMHO. But with that realism, fun and competitive human to human gaming for world war 2 gamers (that are another market I very much admit) was ultimately sacrificed (or so they think). This has a lot to do with the QB system being left dysfunctional in CMSF and the asymmetric warfare aspect.

At the end of the day, it's all down to taste and what you want from a game. Personally, I think CMSF is less of a pure wargame, and more of a simulator. For people who like that sort of thing, that's great.

But which is better? It is like arguing amongst religious fanatics IMHO... the vocabulary of the discussion begins to be peppered with words like: heathens, zealots, pagans, devils, jihad, and "I KEEL YOU"... while amusing as it reveals the character and lack of unbiased insight by some, this debate is practically unwinnable by either side.

So we wait for Normandy... the return of cherry picking QB's, and maybe some good old fashioned honest to goodness wargaming fun (for some of us like me and Chad). That's all folks.

Cheers!

Leto

[Moon]

Having "spoken" (via email) to some H2H clubs in the past, the biggest hurdle for having CMSF ladders is mainly the "fuzzy" scoring of CMSF vs. the old CM1-3 games, and nothing else. The lack of a clear score like in the old games makes rating games quite difficult, and I have experienced first hand how a (french IIRC) club was struggling for a few months to set up a "fair" system. I am not even sure if they managed to get the tournament off the ground in the end because of that.

[[hirr]Leto]

Having "spoken" (via email) to some H2H clubs in the past, the biggest hurdle for having CMSF ladders is mainly the "fuzzy" scoring of CMSF vs. the old CM1-3 games, and nothing else. The lack of a clear score like in the old games makes rating games quite difficult, and I have experienced first hand how a (french IIRC) club was struggling for a few months to set up a "fair" system. I am not even sure if they managed to get the tournament off the ground in the end because of that.

I agree with this. But as you say, the scoring system (one major criterion of how I evaluate a wargame) lends to an ambiguous environment for competitive play and thus deters much in terms of wargaming fun as we like to know more information about how to win games. Ergo, no clubs, no ladders and no relatively comparative presence in the typical wargaming community. That does not mean that CMSF doesn't have its legions of players.

Once again, those people who just love to immerse themselves in the simulation of CMSF may feel that they are playing a competitive wargame, and I won't disagree with them.

Again, back to the original post, for some people, our opinions of how we translate "fun" and "competitive" may be a little different than others as it enters the domain of personal taste. That does not take away anything from the fact that CMSF is an extroardinary piece of work (I continually read about how guys over in the mid east feel it is a great sim)... but once again, it IS different from CMx1... if you think in contrast and comparison terms, you will be forever left to wander the ethereal planes of message board limbo.

Cheers!

Leto

[Moon]

Ergo, no clubs, no ladders and no relatively comparative presence in the typical wargaming community. That does not mean that CMSF doesn't have its legions of players.

Right, it doesn't mean that. Because, for example, the by far biggest wargaming community on the web is right here

Again, back to the original post, for some people, our opinions of how we translate "fun" and "competitive" may be a little different than others as it enters the domain of personal taste.

"our" opinions? Who are "yous"?

but once again, it IS different from CMx1

Heck yeah! Thank Lord! phewww...

[dan/california]

You know, the Brits are going to add an incredible amount of variety to blue on blue fights. In particular I think the brits vs the Marines would be an extremely even fight. And I will attempt to confirm this....... As soon as you release the *&%*&&*&*&* module.