pad152 Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I didn't see any new RED forces mentioned in the demo manual! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Maybe there aren't any. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 BFC has said for a while now that there's no new Red forces for the Brits module . . . were you expecting any? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pad152 Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 BFC has said for a while now that there's no new Red forces for the Brits module . . . were you expecting any? Well anytime a game add forces to one side, I some what expect some addition to the other side, not everybody plays just Blue. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Why did you expect that, though? The module's name could hardly have been clearer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
-Eddie- Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I believe I've seen the reason stated as there being nothing new to really add to the Syrian faction, apart from utility vehicles or Shilkas, which would be of no use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 There are two new 'Red' things in the game that could be of some use. First is that lonely little spy FO, so your uncons now can 'officially' get their own mortar support. The second new feature is more easily overlooked. In the scenario editor you now can assign your placed mines to different AI 'Groups' (Group 2, Group 3, etc.). That means when making AI orders you can alter the minefleid's location depending on which AI orders set gets picked. That means the first time someone plays the minefield is to the north of town, the next time the minefield may be to the south. Not as glamorous as a shiny new T80 MBT, but it is a Red feature (blue doesn't get Fortifications), and is is more likely to do actual damage to an attacking force than just another tank type. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pad152 Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 Why did you expect that, though? The module's name could hardly have been clearer. The Marine Module came with additional Red forces, Duh! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Maybe you should petition BFC to get those T-90s and BMP-3s taken out, then. The Brits come with a helluva lot of new vehicles. Yet because the Marines module gave you some extra Syrians, you are now expecting more still. And what vehicle should they add, Shilka? Acording to your logic that would oblige them to include the Gepard/PRTL in the next module, so I'm suddenly seeing why they wouldn't do that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I am sure we will see Syrian towed AT guns some time, because the code for them gets written for Normandy, anyway. Add a Marder, and the NATO module will be mine!! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 There was a hint we would see something new Red in the NATO module. I don't think it'll be the Shilka as that would require adding a whole new AA element to the game but AT guns do seem like a good possibility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 There was a hint we would see something new Red in the NATO module. I don't think it'll be the Shilka as that would require adding a whole new AA element to the game but AT guns do seem like a good possibility. It doesn't NEED to have AA capability. But people will piss and moan that once Shilka is included, it has to have AA capability. I've got some suspicion the people with "expectations" have robbed me of any chance of seeing Shilkas in CMSF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 It doesn't NEED to have AA capability. But people will piss and moan that once Shilka is included, it has to have AA capability. I've got some suspicion the people with "expectations" have robbed me of any chance of seeing Shilkas in CMSF. You can always get the upcoming Afganistan game. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wengart Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 Even if there are no new Red force the game has still changed, if you play from the Red perspective. I Usually play Red, and I can tell you fighting the Marines is strikingly different than fighting the U.S. Army. Just as fighting against the British will be different than fighting against the U.S. forces. I would also like to say the AA element of AAA can be abstracted by the scenario designer. There are a huge number of scenarios where blue air assets make no appearance whatsoever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hcrof Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 I havn't played the demo but I was hoping at least for a red truck for the Syrian infantry. Seeing as the Americans got one and all 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pad152 Posted July 25, 2009 Author Share Posted July 25, 2009 To me it's game balance, if you give something to one side then give a little to the other. I'm still surprised there are no on map Syria mortars squads or AA/ATG guns. If Syria thought they would be going to war with the US/Nato you can bet they would have bought some new toys and not all of them would necessarily be Russia made. Maybe they should consider a RED module. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisND Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 If Syria thought they would be going to war with the US/Nato you can bet they would have bought some new toys and not all of them would necessarily be Russia made. Maybe they should consider a RED module. It would be an interesting idea for a module (I wanna see some French equipment!), but not necessarily a logical conclusion. They can't just go to the Weapons R' Us ™ and pick up some new hardware. How many new toys did Iraq acquire prior to OIF? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Field Marshal Blücher Posted July 25, 2009 Share Posted July 25, 2009 EDIT: Never mind. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Why does the British Forces module have no new Red stuff, whereas the Marines module did? Because the new Blue stuff in the BF module is an entire army, rather than just a segment of one nation's armed forces. If you compare the total amount of new stuff (Blue and Red) in the Marines module with the new stuff in the BF module, I suspect you'll find they are about the same. For example, how many new vehicles in the Marines module? Eleven (nine USMC and two Syrian). How many new vehicles in the BF module? Ten (nine British and one US Army). But, like I've said, I'm no beta tester, so this is just hypothesizationalizing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Redwolf Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Meh. I told you so. Wasn't it just last week? Just including one single vehicle (if something at least semi-cool) might have gotten the Brits module a positive forum thread. But no, no way. How many, 20 new 3D models but you can't go 21 or 22? Now the whole forum is filled with Brits/code1.20 bashing threads with not a single positive headline. At some point, when the code changes have to be kept minimal, you should at least do some token marketing and give something shiny distracting. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Savage Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 I didn't see any new RED forces mentioned in the demo manual! There's a Syrian spy forward observer. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dan/california Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Which is probably the most useful thing they could give them, really. The conventional types have a half life measured in seconds. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Meh. I told you so. Wasn't it just last week? Just including one single vehicle (if something at least semi-cool) might have gotten the Brits module a positive forum thread. But no, no way. How many, 20 new 3D models but you can't go 21 or 22? Now the whole forum is filled with Brits/code1.20 bashing threads with not a single positive headline. At some point, when the code changes have to be kept minimal, you should at least do some token marketing and give something shiny distracting. Given the nature of wargamers, especially those involved in CM, it wouldn't have made a difference. If it had been a truck there would have been threads saying "C'mon, only a truck?" If it had been towed ATGs there would have been multiple threads bemoaning the lack of AAA or some kind of generic tank. Whatever. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted July 26, 2009 Share Posted July 26, 2009 Have to admit that i'm not probably going to buy Brit module. One reason being that RED doesnt' get new toys and another reason being that RED still is weakling, it's the one which you take from dark closet and beat with stick. Again and again and again. I basically have grown fed with background story. Superior West beating Middle-Eastern county relying on Soviet equipment and doctorines (which by default are bad, useless almost). No question of outcome. No drama, tragedy (for West). And devs taking quite purely western approach and point-of-view, so tragedy and drama on Syria side doesn't get noted. Getting rather boring i might say. Sure i can play as Syria, or Blue-vs-Blue. Yes, i've been doing that. However game has gotten to state that it has become boring, ugly even i might say: I dont' want to play game which has basically grown so west-centric, how many scenarios did we have playable for Syria in USMC module? I doupt Brit module will have more. At start it atleast little bit tried to focus also on Syria. But now it (the game, developers) doesn't try at all anymore: They have gotten sucked into "West being main character, the hero"-state of business, which ofcourse is most cost-effective solution. I somehow have seen Battlefront being somehow gallant/objective/equal knight (back in CMx1 days) but more and more CMSF progresses, less i see that. Quite frankly i dont' see objectivity or equality at all anymore. Ofcourse this is just me. I'm not whining or anything (If my text seems to be dramatic that is just the way i like to write). I'm not that fanatic fan to actually really-really-really care about it. just rambling as i have time and this thing crossed my mind. 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.