No new RED forces w/Brit Module?

[Other Means]

Now the whole forum is filled with Brits/code1.20 bashing threads with not a single positive headline.

Here's one.

As to the others - apart from this specific thread - I don't see how the inclusion of a Red unit would change them.

[Yair Iny]

You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but in fairness, I don't see how you can state that BF are being un-objective. They are merely modelling reality, in that syria, like most middle-eastern countries, uses soviet equipment, and is inferior, militarily speaking, to the west, both in equipment and in training. Now you might rightly argue that BF should have chosen a different slice of reality to model their game after, but I can't see how they are being unfair or not objective. Are you arguing that soviet equipment and doctrine are not inferior?

The one point I can agree with is that there is a dearth of red-side scenarios in the official selection. This was probably a decision by BF to focus on making scens that most of their customers would prefer, i.e. Blue sided, but you definitely have a point. Fortunately CMSF comes with an editor, and equally fortunately, there are some talented, dedicated people like Paper Tiger and many others who have made use of that editor to make some fantastic red-side scens and Blue-side infantry only scens which greatly diminish the blue-side advantage. Perhaps (and I mean this sincerely, with no cynicism), you could suggest some scenario/campaign ideas that would convey what you are looking for in terms of drama and tragedy for the West, and maybe one or more of the aforementioned talented, dedicated people (of which I am neither), would be able to make them.

[pkjsmith]

Secondbrooks

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.

hi i must admit CMSF was becoming boring for me until about v1.8 patch, at which point i stopped playing AI and started playing H2H PBEM, since then i have become totaly addicted to it. I find playing a human opponent is far more exciting and enjoyable.

As for red being the weak force i disagree, i play mirror games sometimes and i must admit that i do normaly loose the red one but if a battle is well balanced by the designer then it can be a good fight with the result not being a forgone conclusion. I also play one person who always plays red and he is forever winning:confused:.

[Secondbrooks]

You are of course, entitled to your opinion, but in fairness, I don't see how you can state that BF are being un-objective. They are merely modelling reality, in that syria, like most middle-eastern countries, uses soviet equipment, and is inferior, militarily speaking, to the west, both in equipment and in training.

By objective i mean not taking sides. Right now CMSF feels more subjective than objective in that way. Whole attitude of BFC (or maybe just Steve) feels wrong for Syria. That is not nice thing for wargame me thinks.

Sure conflict it self might be objective (i don't posses enough brain-powerz to judge that), but then again whole conflict is becoming quite boring. That is my another point.

[meade95]

By objective i mean not taking sides. Right now CMSF feels more subjective than objective in that way. Whole attitude of BFC (or maybe just Steve) feels wrong for Syria. That is not nice thing for wargame me thinks.

Sure conflict it self might be objective (i don't posses enough brain-powerz to judge that), but then again whole conflict is becoming quite boring. That is my another point.

Don't agree at all with you. It is clearly, you, that isn't willing to see things objectively. And your own bias is being projected out on BFC / Steve.

[DaveDash]

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.

Great. Can I have your stuff?

I play the game because it is the most realistic representation in a game that I have found to date (including ArmA) of what is going on in the world RIGHT now. Something I can immerse myself in. WW2 is fantastic etc, but is covered by so many different game companies and so many different genres of game. BFC filled a gap with CMSF and I salute them for doing so.

I think the rest of your post is utterly rubbish, especially the part of Soviet Doctrine being entirely useless. I also seriously doubt BFC are trying to make some hollywood movie here, and I think they approach the game with as much objectivity as possible.

Feel free to provide some examples of how BFC are playing Hollywood movie, and feel free to offer some suggestions (other than Normandy, which is what they are working on) to help BFC get back on track.

[Sixxkiller]

I just hope when CM:WWII comes out you guys thank BFC for all the hard work they did on CMSF. If you guys cant see how detailed and complicated this simulation is then nothing they ever make will make you happy. You know they could have just repackaged the CMx1 engine and made a few improvements like most other companies do.

[MikeyD]

...and another reason being that RED still is weakling

This after people have been complaining about all their problems getting a victory in the demo! Red is as weak as you make it. Kornets vs Challenger 2s is not 'weak'. Heck, HMGs vs Scimitars is not 'weak'. A full company of Marines vs uncons scattered through buildings without mutual support? That is "Red weaklings" but its got nothing to do with the game engine, its got more to do with 6 years' experience fighting in Iraq.

[[hirr]Leto]

I just hope when CM:WWII comes out you guys thank BFC for all the hard work they did on CMSF. If you guys cant see how detailed and complicated this simulation is then nothing they ever make will make you happy. You know they could have just repackaged the CMx1 engine and made a few improvements like most other companies do.

You assume that people don't realize how complex CMSF is and berate them for not loving it. Consumers are fickle, they don't like people telling them what they should or should not like. It may be the most complex and realistic simulation that ever was created, but if people don't think its fun, don't like the setting, or have any other ka zillion issues, they WON'T LIKE IT. And they will like it less if you tell them they are idiots for not liking it.

To the point, some people would have rather HAD BFC bump up the CMx1 engine, include new graphics and stuff in some new units, and they would have been much more happy... to your point, even then, they would probably find something to whine about... and that leads me to the final point: perhaps respect the fact that some people just don't like certain aspects of it and leave it be!! BFC is not a religion that needs to send out missionaries across the world to ensure that everyone loves CMSF (killing all who oppose them in the process).

It's a completely unvirtuous circle, and a nice ham sandwhich with mayo, tomato and lettuce would be so much better... perhaps an olive. Bread slightly toasted with some garlic butter. Therefore, let us eat. With our mouths full there is less bickering.

; )

Cheers!

Leto

[DaveDash]

Well I think if people play the game for "balance" or factors that are generally excluded from simulation type games, then they've bought the wrong game.

They don't have to love it, but berating it because they are unaware of the type of game its supposed to be seems rather odd to me.

It's like me buying a chair and then moaning about it being too small to properly eat dinner on.

[2S7 PION]

Just as a response to some vehicles/equipment they could add for the Syrians, PT-76, MT-LB, D-30's used for direct fire, Ural trucks, ZSU-24-4 used in direct fire role, various AA mounts such as the ZSU-4 and OT-64's, BTR-70A, BTR-40, BTR-150, BTR-50's

Assuming Syria has kept some of their older tank stocks, give insurgents or conscripts a T-34-85 with a few rounds of HE ammunition or even better SU-100 or IS-3's!

[Secondbrooks]

Great. Can I have your stuff?

I play the game because it is the most realistic representation in a game that I have found to date (including ArmA) of what is going on in the world RIGHT now. Something I can immerse myself in. WW2 is fantastic etc, but is covered by so many different game companies and so many different genres of game. BFC filled a gap with CMSF and I salute them for doing so.

I think the rest of your post is utterly rubbish, especially the part of Soviet Doctrine being entirely useless. I also seriously doubt BFC are trying to make some hollywood movie here, and I think they approach the game with as much objectivity as possible.

Feel free to provide some examples of how BFC are playing Hollywood movie, and feel free to offer some suggestions (other than Normandy, which is what they are working on) to help BFC get back on track.

Yes. Conflict in Syria was interesting at start. Right now it ain't. What would make it more interesting? Make Republic Guard division/regiment to score stunning counter attack which wasn't expected or prepared for, that in my mind has various plus-points.

1. Campaign feels (it doesn't need to be) more challenging, not just tactical battles. If i can see large red arrow almost touching blue arrow's flank on briefing screen then i usually start to think that we are screwed. This makes nice vibes runnign down my spine.

2. Results probably will echo to gameplay, forcing developers to design different kind campaign-missions, they might be more challening or not.

3. Syria wouldnt' be as dead horse to beat as one expected. Yes it can be that in tactical scale (like in Objective Pooh), but i'm not talking of tactical scale, i'm talking about whole conflict.

4. It doesnt' need to make Syria to win.

That is simple, but not only solution. Ofcourse it's too late for that, general lines for progress of war have already been set. And i don't expect Brits or rest of company to fare worse.

Another (and better) would be to make mini-campaign(s) from Syrian point-of-view (i doupt BFC has resources to make full campaign for Syria) and more scenarios which are playable for Syria. Atleast that way (official) story of conflict would get more interesting "OMG! We gonna die!"-vibes. Right now CMSF tells mostly just US&co side of story, in which most drama seems to be that will men get their daily rations or not (being bit sarcastic).

In CMx1 most scenarios and operations were playable for both sides. It felt good. I'm not hoping that BFC would go back into WW2 (permanently), modern setting has much new to offer. But the way BFC made it's scenarios and operations playable for both sides (there were few exeptions) back in CMx1 was good solution and BFC should aim for it once again. Hopefully CMSF Cold War as well as Normandy will have that once again. Stories themselves will be more engaging, of that i'm quite sure.

[panzermartin]

Oh, I like the T34/85 idea I think most fun scenarios are US infantry only with no support (even no Strykers) vs some red militia with technicals or some obsolete tanks. When 25mm auto cannons, 40mm grenades, tanks and javelins get in to play the game becomes an uninteresting shooting range. Just try red on red with old T-55s. Its a whole new game and an indication what Normandy has in store for us. The most interesting aspect of modern warfare-blowing stuff up- isnt satisfying enough because this is the weakest part of CM graphics. Special effects. What's the point of blowing T-72s with 120mm when every explosion is the same bitmap, you have no visual damage modelling (turrets flying etc) and burning tanks look like candles on a birthday cake?

I also have to agree with secondbrooks here. Game is overall lacking drama because of the setting. Doesnt have the feel of an all out war, a fight till the end, an all or nothing struggle, all things that seperate good art from excellent art and good games from epic, like CMBB. When you play it, deep in your mind you feel you fight for a lost cause, a war that is already over and won by the US side. A war probably with obscure motives, fought by mercenaries and clueless insurgents. I love the realism and groginess of CMSF but part of myself is a normal gamer who also enjoys the atmosphere, the background story and a robust and balanced gameplay with no asymmetries and complicated winning conditions.

[DaveDash]

Yes. Conflict in Syria was interesting at start. Right now it ain't. What would make it more interesting? Make Republic Guard division/regiment to score stunning counter attack which wasn't expected or prepared for, that in my mind has various plus-points.

1. Campaign feels (it doesn't need to be) more challenging, not just tactical battles. If i can see large red arrow almost touching blue arrow's flank on briefing screen then i usually start to think that we are screwed. This makes nice vibes runnign down my spine.

2. Results probably will echo to gameplay, forcing developers to design different kind campaign-missions, they might be more challening or not.

3. Syria wouldnt' be as dead horse to beat as one expected. Yes it can be that in tactical scale (like in Objective Pooh), but i'm not talking of tactical scale, i'm talking about whole conflict.

4. It doesnt' need to make Syria to win.

That is simple, but not only solution. Ofcourse it's too late for that, general lines for progress of war have already been set. And i don't expect Brits or rest of company to fare worse.

Another (and better) would be to make mini-campaign(s) from Syrian point-of-view (i doupt BFC has resources to make full campaign for Syria) and more scenarios which are playable for Syria. Atleast that way (official) story of conflict would get more interesting "OMG! We gonna die!"-vibes. Right now CMSF tells mostly just US&co side of story, in which most drama seems to be that will men get their daily rations or not (being bit sarcastic).

In CMx1 most scenarios and operations were playable for both sides. It felt good. I'm not hoping that BFC would go back into WW2 (permanently), modern setting has much new to offer. But the way BFC made it's scenarios and operations playable for both sides (there were few exeptions) back in CMx1 was good solution and BFC should aim for it once again. Hopefully CMSF Cold War as well as Normandy will have that once again. Stories themselves will be more engaging, of that i'm quite sure.

I thought the Marines campaign was actually pretty challenging. I found most battles in CMx1 easier, actually.

[Secondbrooks]

I've been trying to say time after time that i don't much mean tactical side of things, but in wider scale. In operational and strategical level.

EDIT: Ali-Baba understood exactly what i'm after. And probably explained it in far more understandable form. Thanks for that.

[Holman]

I've been enjoying the hell out of this western-centric, lopsided game of total blue-red beatdown since the day it came out, and not because it is triumphalist or easy or cruel. I love it because it is an extraordinarily good tactical combat engine.

What's even better is that so many new campaigns, theaters, and time periods are coming in the future. Who knows? Perhaps we'll miss our cozy Syrians when the Reds are plowing us under at Korsun or the Germans are breaking through to the beachhead behind us.

[GSX]

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.

I would agree mostly with this post. SF is for me a fun little game and I do have at times a lot of fun playing it. As a wargame however its just too unbalanced to play against any other real person without constantly mirroring the games.

I fully realise that the setting dictates this. I also fully realise that BF is NOT a charity and obviously had their reasons for the setting and the type of game we have here.

In sum, yes its fun, but I dont think I have ever lost a scenario when playing as the US side. I think it has a lot to do with balance and why not have some better Red forces there? If I can suspend belief to imagine the Brits or my God the Germans invading Syria, then why not suspend it to have Russian Paratroopers and big kit too?

[Thomm]

But you can (or could?) have perfectly symmetric battles with Blue on Blue or Red on Red, can't you?!

Best regards,

Thomm

[[hirr]Leto]

But you can (or could?) have perfectly symmetric battles with Blue on Blue or Red on Red, can't you?!

Best regards,

Thomm

That's about as much fun as kissing your sister (for those of you in the deep south, this does not apply of course).

: )

Seriously: ZZZZzzzzzzzz

That's like saying let's play German Axis vs German Axis, or Russian vs Russian Allied, etc etc etc WW 2.

I think we can just leave it that some people like the Syrian setting, and those with good taste, good looks, and good sense, do not. I think we can all agree on that, right?

CMSF is interesting, much like Geordie said. I boot it up for half an hour here and there when I want to make Red Syrian Jelly (they make nice Jams and Compotes as well).

I think at the end of the day, one is going to find that the tactical engine will be very good in PBEM... (as in CMx1, we all overcame the bugs, understood the limitations, and knew how the engine worked, so after a while, all these things that annoy you about CM 2 may be second nature and not as annoying) but the balance, setting and modern era warfare will really be a taste kind of thing.

I expect grognards to hate it, and younger generation /military types to love it for its realism.

Cheers!

Leto

[MikeyD]

Does anyone besides me get the feeling that some complainers haven't played the game in the last year?

Syria is too weak... BUT Britain appears understrength. Syria is too weak... BUT MOUT battles are too bloody to get through. Syria is too weak... BUT that unseen Kornet just knocked out all my Abrams. Syria is too weak... BUT I had to quit out of the scenario and retry three times before geting a victory. Syria is too weak... BUT I would've preferred Blue to have had a full infantry company fighting that particular scenario.

I recall Steve recently commenting on why CM isn't a big hit in Japan. Japanese players are mainly goal oriented, they want to know there's a way to get from point A to point B if they could just solve the puzzle. Goal/puzzle oriented gameplayers seem baffled by CM's 'situational' esthetic.

[Redwolf]

But you can (or could?) have perfectly symmetric battles with Blue on Blue or Red on Red, can't you?!

Best regards,

Thomm

That would be a lot more fun if you could have different textures for the same vehicles for both sides. With the same markings and same uniforms it's a little bogus.

[Wengart]

MikeyD, I would have to agree with you. But I get more of feeling that they haven't played H2H at all.

That's about as much fun as kissing your sister

Playing Red vs. Red this could be true. Although just about any battle between various middle eastern nations would result in it.

However, Blue vs. Blue is far from it. We currently have two very different Blue forces. The Army, and Marines - Although there heavy equipment is close (M1A1, and M1A2) most of their stuff is unique - and, when ever BFC gets around to releasing them, we can play with the Brits too. Then when the NATO module roles out we will get 3 additional armies to use the Dutch, Germans, and Canadians.

Additionally, I personally have no problems with units using the same textures, but that just personal preference. Which is really what this thread is about.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Leto;1146282']I think we can just leave it that some people like the Syrian setting' date=' and those with good taste, good looks, and good sense, do not.[/quote']

I think baseless insults don't help anyone. I don't disagree that some people like CM:SF and some people don't, but, please, don't say that people have bad taste just because they disagree with you. It doesn't help you, it doesn't help me, and it doesn't help anyone else. There's enough bad vibes on this forum as it is.

Cheers!

FMB

[Bulgaroktonos]

It seems like some people are looking for total war in this game, and the fact of the matter is that until the United States comes up against an opponent that is near-equal in size to the United States, is happy to fight a conventional war, has similar technological development (which often goes hand-in-hand with point 2), and gives the US sufficient motivation to go all-out then there will be no total war.

The fact of the matter is that the puffed up expeditionary warfare that has been fought since the start of the Cold War is not amenable to that kind of situation. I can't think of an enemy which would simulate total war between two powerhouses without significant suspension of disbelief, which I'm pretty sure battlefront is not interested in.

DaveDash put it more succinctly:

It's like me buying a chair and then moaning about it being too small to properly eat dinner on.

[MarkEzra]

Bulgaroktonos:

Welcome to the forum. "Interest: Medieval history, Russian history, Byzantium, USMC history" ...Now that's covering some territory