Jump to content

Beta Testers - Does the BF Module plays differently


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 106
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.

1. We all get 1.2 right? Its not Brit Force exclusive?

I am also late to this party.

Yes. If you have CMSF you will be patched/upgraded to include all the features added with v1.2.

As for the module, I think there should be a big shout out to the scenario designers. They are challenging and clever. The campaign is unlike the others in ways that may be inappropriate or spoileresque to talk about before release.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That T-80 deal never went through. When it came to payment terms the Syrians said "can we pay with credit like the old days?" and the Russians said "er... we're Capitalists now. No" ;) Around 2006 or so, I can't quite remember when, Syria's old Soviet era debt was forgiven with some help from Iran. Assad went on a shopping spree, which included T-90s supposedly. But the majority was focused on anti-air technologies and, uselessly, aircraft. As far as I know they haven't taken delivery of any of that stuff yet.

Steve

Question is: is that a good reason to exclude it from a game that is hypothetical and plays in the future in the first place? Why not just "assume" the deal went through in early 2008 and use it as an excuse to give us stuff.

I for one would have greatly appreciated at least one more major red vehicle, per module. I think it should be SOP to do that.

At least psychologically it will make the module appear to offer "much more" because now the mental model is that both sides were expanded, not just one. And you get it for a tank that isn't that different from previous models and doesn't have any special weapons requiring new game mechanics.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Lower firepower in what sense Other Means?

A British Section is 8 men vs 9 in the US squad, both have 2 minimi and 2 grenade launchers but the British have 2 dedicated longer ranged weapons as well (LSW) and all British rifle calibre weapons have full automatic capability and magnifying optical sights. Not to mention that the SA80 has a better performance at range than the M4.

More firepower, more range but with fewer numbers and fewer support weapons organic to the platoon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is: is that a good reason to exclude it from a game that is hypothetical and plays in the future in the first place? Why not just "assume" the deal went through in early 2008 and use it as an excuse to give us stuff.

I for one would have greatly appreciated at least one more major red vehicle, per module. I think it should be SOP to do that.

At least psychologically it will make the module appear to offer "much more" because now the mental model is that both sides were expanded, not just one. And you get it for a tank that isn't that different from previous models and doesn't have any special weapons requiring new game mechanics.

What do ya say,Steve? It ain't too late. The module hasn't been released yet.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question is: is that a good reason to exclude it from a game that is hypothetical and plays in the future in the first place? Why not just "assume" the deal went through in early 2008 and use it as an excuse to give us stuff.

I for one would have greatly appreciated at least one more major red vehicle, per module. I think it should be SOP to do that.

At least psychologically it will make the module appear to offer "much more" because now the mental model is that both sides were expanded, not just one. And you get it for a tank that isn't that different from previous models and doesn't have any special weapons requiring new game mechanics.

Yep, Steve's talked about including a Maus for WWII for crying out loud. Don't delay the Brits, but consider reviving the "ahistorical section' for the NATO module.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yep, Steve's talked about including a Maus for WWII for crying out loud. Don't delay the Brits, but consider reviving the "ahistorical section' for the NATO module.

I fail to see how inclusion of the Maus in WW2 has anything to do with leaving the T-80 out of the British CM:SF module.

Our Syria here is fictional and in the future. It is entirely reasonable to assume that by then they payed for the T-80 or that the Russians decided to give them a couple cheaper just to piss off the U.S. (or Brits) and/or to see the T-80 "evaluated" in combat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want them to delay the British module some more? I'm all for including the T-80 in a "ahistorical section" in the NATO module just like they will presumably have the Maus in a "ahistorical" section of a WWII game, but to lobby for the T-80's inclusion with the Brits at this late date seems like jousting with windmills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want them to delay the British module some more? I'm all for including the T-80 in a "ahistorical section" in the NATO module just like they will presumably have the Maus in a "ahistorical" section of a WWII game, but to lobby for the T-80's inclusion with the Brits at this late date seems like jousting with windmills.

No one ever joust at windmills on this forum, never, not once, except for ..............

No shortage of straw horses either.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really want them to delay the British module some more? I'm all for including the T-80 in a "ahistorical section" in the NATO module just like they will presumably have the Maus in a "ahistorical" section of a WWII game, but to lobby for the T-80's inclusion with the Brits at this late date seems like jousting with windmills.

Actually yes. It's not that anybody really cares about the Brits as such if there not enough new stuff in the Brits module. Just look at how utterly pathetic posts #2 and #3 in this very thread try to tell us why playing the Brits is so much exciting than U.S. Yeah, right. Nobody outside a very hardcore circle cares. But a nasty beast to bolster up the defenses, that actually changes gameplay.

And who knows when/if the NATO module comes out?

Then there's the issue of who's contracting the NATO module. If it's 1C you can see me raise my right eyebrow from where you are right now. Personally I think a "Fulda Gap" modern CM:SF is never coming out, mainly because of the difficulty of vegetation modeling which would have to be backported from the WW2 code. That's not gonna happen until the full engine circus swings back to modern.

Delaying Red forces upgrades to the next CM:SF module probably means never.

Nah, you see if they brush up the Brit module right now we have a nice CM:SF/3mods set with some tough opponents, namely the T-80. So that we can start having some actual gameplay fun. Fighting versus hunting, you know?

Without having to resort to Red-on-Red or Blue-on-Blue which in my opinion is crippled from not being able to load different textures for the same vehicle for both sides. Might wanna through that into the Brit module code updates, too.

Did I miss to insult anybody? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The question is, what version of T-80 is better to what version of T-90. :-)

T-80B/BV as standard model is less armored tank even if we compare it to T-72B/BV :-) Not to mention T-72B(M) or newest T-72BA or a prototype of T-72BM (a real monster BTW ;-) ).

T-90 is a derivative of T-72B, slightly better but same type of inserts in turret, so called "Reflective plates", it works similiar to BDD armor or British Stillbrew.

T-80B uses armor similiar to Combination-K used on T-64A and T-64B.

T-80U is a different story, new type of armor, so called "Cellural castings", some tanks have also so called "Steel-Ceramic Packadge" but this offers no significant upgrade on armor protection compared to "Cellural castings", + of course K-5 ERA.

T-80U is comparabale to T-90.

T-90A is a completely different story, new welded turret, a derivative solution from Object-187.

But funny thing is that, all Russian turret's in tanks starting from T-72B and finish on T-90A have same LOS thicknes (in cast turret's in thickrst place), 600-650mm + ERA.

So T-90A is superior to any other Russian tank, and T-80U and T-90 are comparabale to each other.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think Dan's point is why do you need the T-80 if you have the T-90. From a purely game play point of view there's little reason, but some, like me, just like new toys. I donated $20 to CMMODs over the years just to support my Mod habit. I'd be happy to pay $20 for a module consisting of just 10 new vehicles and nothing else even if half of them were trucks. I'm funny that way. Some people would probably buy a module for just a few new Red vehicles if it had them that otherwise wouldn't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OK, coming in late to this one!

Redwolf,

Note that we did include the T-90SA even though, for sure, the Syrians don't have them. The thing is that T-80 contract didn't happen and the T-90 contract supposedly replaced it. So if we are to be logical about it, if we assumed the T-80 contract went through then we shouldn't have the T-90 in the game.

For better or for worse we are trying very hard to make each game consistent with the setting we have chosen. CM never has been, and never will be, an open ended sandbox. It doesn't work for us as a developer and we think it doesn't work from the product's standpoint either.

Sure, sure, sure... I know that many of you don't give a flying fig about the setting and just want more stuff to play with, but there are those who do care. I remember many debates about if we should include the JS-III, Centurian, E-100, or any number of other things into CMx1 games. There were many which opposed this because it would dilute the historical setting. While CM:SF isn't exactly historical, it isn't exactly fictional either. This gives us a little more latitude, but we feel it doesn't open the door full wide either.

Actually yes. It's not that anybody really cares about the Brits as such if there not enough new stuff in the Brits module. Just look at how utterly pathetic posts #2 and #3 in this very thread try to tell us why playing the Brits is so much exciting than U.S. Yeah, right. Nobody outside a very hardcore circle cares. But a nasty beast to bolster up the defenses, that actually changes gameplay.

How would the T-80 change the gameplay? I think the "pathetic posts" which explain how different the fighting experience is from the Blue's side are far more relevant.

And who knows when/if the NATO module comes out?

No if. Most of it is already done.

Then there's the issue of who's contracting the NATO module.

As long as we know who is doing the NATO module that's all that's important.

If it's 1C you can see me raise my right eyebrow from where you are right now.

Why is 1C being mentioned here? They have nothing to do with CM at all. And no, our Russian partners for the Afghanistan game (Snowball) are not involved in the NATO Module.

Personally I think a "Fulda Gap" modern CM:SF is never coming out, mainly because of the difficulty of vegetation modeling which would have to be backported from the WW2 code. That's not gonna happen until the full engine circus swings back to modern.

Correct. We have said on many, many occasions that a Module will never, ever change settings. CM:SF will remain in Syria and only Syria. CM:SF 2 will be set in a different location, specifically a temperate one.

Delaying Red forces upgrades to the next CM:SF module probably means never.

How so?

Nah, you see if they brush up the Brit module right now we have a nice CM:SF/3mods set with some tough opponents, namely the T-80. So that we can start having some actual gameplay fun. Fighting versus hunting, you know?

Yup, there is no gameplay in the game right now. None. But if we add the T-80, then it's all better. Too bad the T-90 in the game already isn't the magic wonder weapon you're looking for.

Without having to resort to Red-on-Red or Blue-on-Blue which in my opinion is crippled from not being able to load different textures for the same vehicle for both sides. Might wanna through that into the Brit module code updates, too.

The idea itself is fine and definitely something to consider. Not that I think textures kills the gameplay.

Did I miss to insult anybody?

You did pretty well! Gold star for you :D

I can't believe we actually have a disagreement on whether Red forces should be updated in modules. Not doing it devalues the module severely.

In your opinion, obviously. The way I see it is adding Red Forces *adds* value to the Module. That's a different thing. Obviously opinions will differ, but that's why they are opinions!

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, "new toys" sounds about right.

I can't believe we actually have a disagreement on whether Red forces should be updated in modules. Not doing it devalues the module severely.

Not having Shilka severely devalues a module. Maybe.

On the desirability of the T-80, a wise man said:

And you get it for a tank that isn't that different from previous models and doesn't have any special weapons requiring new game mechanics.

Which is as fine an argument against the the T-80 as I ever could've hoped to formulate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is an argument for putting in the Shilka just to demonstrate that Javelins blow them to dust bunnies and Bradley 25mm turns them into swiss cheese. The fundamental game balance issue remains the same, if the other side has more armor than you have anti armor assets you are about to have a bad day.

T72s have not had any problem turning my blue squads into greasy spots when I screw up. A Shilka is just a different distribution of unpleasant greasy spots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you still wouldn't think that not expanding the red side at all isn't a mistake?

What about ignorant American SF and Marines players who aren't interested in the Brits but might want to blow up something new? They might fork out the $25.

I don't mean it has to be literally the T-80 (which BTW should still be more potent in the mobility department and would hence offer more gameplay). Something even more interesting can be found, but would require more work. More work isn't what you want either, so there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know nothing, but I am seriously guessing that at this point 80% plus of BFCs effort is towards Normandy. Which I will surely enjoy immensely when it comes out.

For my own two cents I would prefer a vast expansion of CMSF to cover Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, and perhaps the drier parts of the ongoing Africans disaster zones. I would pay 25 bucks just to get a good tactical treatment of drones. But if Normandy is what will produce the most active multiplayer community, and by extension sales for BFC, I can go with it. And enjoy the expansions they do make to CMSF in the meantime.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well i guess when one argues with "...is just stuff to blow up" one could say all the RED gear is mainly there to get blowen up or teared apart, however all this stuff is still there, and in comparison, without all this stuff BLUE has nothing to fight...means no game.

so no matter how crapy the red forces are they are nessesary, as nessesary as the guys wich try to blow em up. you allways need two for a fight, simple.

so im my eyes the expansion of both sides "should" be equal as they have a equal load of roles to play in the game, though i know this is not going to happen but id love to see a little more care taken about red side.

as said here some times befor, there are people wich actually like to play RED side, either RED on BLUE or RED on RED doesnt matter, and somehow are attracted to the RED gear and the flair they bring into the play.

i for myself really hope for the EURO module, although, the time the EURO module hits i gona play more blue side for sure :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Angryson,

IIRC we gave all US vehicles a base ability to decrease the chance of falling victim to remote detonated IEDs. However, you are correct that we should make sure of that. It's not possible to do for v1.20, however it is a fairly simple fix that can be put in after if we think it's needed. At the very least perhaps we should toss up some more icons in the Defenses Report :D

Dan/california,

There is an argument for putting in the Shilka just to demonstrate that Javelins blow them to dust bunnies and Bradley 25mm turns them into swiss cheese. The fundamental game balance issue remains the same, if the other side has more armor than you have anti armor assets you are about to have a bad day.

Correct. While I agree it is nice to have more variety on the Red side because variety is a cool thing on its own, I completely disagree with the notion that something like the T-80 or Shilka is some sort of magic game changer in terms of tactical capabilities.

Redwolf,

And you still wouldn't think that not expanding the red side at all isn't a mistake?

No because that implies that a Module without significant Red improvements is somehow lacking in value, therefore adding Red stuff would make a big difference. That's not a point of view I see being valid.

What about ignorant American SF and Marines players who aren't interested in the Brits but might want to blow up something new? They might fork out the $25.

True, but...

I don't mean it has to be literally the T-80 (which BTW should still be more potent in the mobility department and would hence offer more gameplay). Something even more interesting can be found, but would require more work. More work isn't what you want either, so there.

The way we see it is adding a T-80 or whatever doesn't significantly change the gameplay and therefore might not get someone to shell out $25 any more than they would for a Module without more Red stuff. To radically change the equation we'd have to put in a lot of work, which then undermines the value of the Module from our standpoint.

Plus, you haven't thought of an obvious possibility... perhaps we're adding some more Red stuff to the NATO Module? Obviously whatever we add would be along the lines of the T-90SA and BMP-3 added to the Marines Module, since everything I've said previously about the limitations of Modules is still valid.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And you still wouldn't think that not expanding the red side at all isn't a mistake?

What about ignorant American SF and Marines players who aren't interested in the Brits but might want to blow up something new? They might fork out the $25.

I don't mean it has to be literally the T-80 (which BTW should still be more potent in the mobility department and would hence offer more gameplay). Something even more interesting can be found, but would require more work. More work isn't what you want either, so there.

Oh, I think they could've done themselves little harm including an extra bit of Red kit. Though the case for the T-80 is weak. Doesn't add to red capability or variety in any real way.

Hey, and those "ignorant Yanks" can blow up a Challenger 2 instead of yet another Red tank model. Somehow, I think they might just enjoy that even more. Modern versions of battles of the American War of Independence in 3...2...1... :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pandur,

so im my eyes the expansion of both sides "should" be equal as they have a equal load of roles to play in the game, though i know this is not going to happen but id love to see a little more care taken about red side.

You have hit upon one significant limitation we have. Almost all Third World countries use Soviet and/or Russian hardware. They also generally use Soviet and/or Russian organizations. If we cover one Red force we usually have to include pretty much the full range of Soviet and/or Russian hardware the first time.

This is not true for the Blue forces. Each Blue Force is generally made up of its own equipment. Or at the very least a unique mix of equipment. Which means that we can have 6 or more full Blue Forces but maybe only 1.25 Red Forces simply because there isn't anything else to give the Red Forces. Therefore, it's impossible to have the Red side get as much stuff as the Blue side for each Module *unless* we expand the setting/scope. Even then we get only a little more freedom of action, not much beyond that. Though we get into "scope creep" problems from a development end, and we refuse to get sucked into that :D

With WW2 things are a lot easier. Unlike the current Red forces, the Germans have tons and tons of unique hardware and formations to simulate. Way more stuff than we can ever possibly put into a single release. On the other hand the Allies have a lot of common hardware in use between them and probably, in total, less organizations than the Germans. Even more true on the Eastern Front. So we do expect things to be very different for WW2.

When we come around again to CM:SF 2 we'll have a situation somewhere inbetween. The Blue forces will still be vastly more varied than Red, however with the setting we're choosing we can easily add Red force stuff just because it exists.

Steve

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...