No new RED forces w/Brit Module?

[MikeyD]

If we go too far down the 'total war' trail we'd have nerve gas clouds floating over the battlfield and tactical nuclear strikes on our rear supply bases. I've got an early 80s translation of the book "The Soviet Theater Nuclear Offensive" on my bookshelf. Its a mighty grim read. The 'real thing' between Great Powers wouldn't be half so romantic and chivalrous as we imagine. Best to stick with the less mesy 'little wars'.

[GSX]

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.

Id like to think that I was more adult than a mere 'complainer' here. Syria is too weak becuase, er, Syria IS too weak and theres not a lot BF can do about that except to buy the Syrian military some fantastic new equipment and train them in new and interesting ways.

Let me play 'Devils Advocate' to your 'Complainer' theme here.

Often when someone has a valid opinion here that somehow comes across as negative of the game a 'Beta tester' jumps up and down as if it were his very function in life to:

a. Degrade the persons opinion by telling them why they are obviously wrong or

b. Tell them they are playig the game wrong and giving some examples of how they can get a better game which usually involve unreal situations.

Now, I admit that SF is a fun little game and at the same time I realise why it is the way it is. No complaint from me there. However, being told that if I want balance I have to play BvB or RvR is kind of getting lame.

Sure there are some tricky situations out there in games of SF and often they are fun to play but not a huge amount of them. In most 'bog standard' scenarios its blow up everything and kill the Syrians, which as I said can be rather fun at times.

There are 2 ways I see to approach CMSF.

1. Take it for what it is and accept it, dont try to put some sort of false gloss over it as it really is a good little game but

2. It is a game and so if you have huge issues with it, walk away from it and play something that will make you happy, it should after all be a hobby and not a bloody chore.

I have some minor issues with it, but have learned to 'play' the game and live with them until they possibly get fixed or included in a future version.

[Redwolf]

All good points.

But it is a fictitious war in the future and Syria has oil, or could find a lot of oil or somefink. And buy cool gear. If they make peace with Israel they can probably get German Leo2s.

The point here is: if it helps the commercial success of the game to a point where the return is greater than the time invested there is no hard reason to let the Syrians sit there with junk vehicles and lack of body armor or whatever.

Lack of a tough opponent is the one major SF complaint voiced by the widest range of users, I don't think there is any disagreement on this.

[Other Means]

Slight disagreement. Syrian airborne are a very tough nut to crack, especially during FISH. Back them with T90s and you've got a near-as-WWII fight on your hands.

Saying that, I don't think we need to stick to tightly to the script now. Maybe introduce some leeway in what the Syrians can have - why not, it's fictitious anyway.

[-Eddie-]

If this is a fictitious war in 2008 (not the future), then surely the Brits could be given FRES and the A-400M early for some great big airborne operations? Stronger than the CVR (T) family by far. Red players would want a new tank though, wouldn't they? Or a few squadrons of SU-25s? Or some great FAC/JTAC training which enables more units to call in air and artillery support.

Or we could keep it realistic?

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Lack of a tough opponent is the one major SF complaint voiced by the widest range of users, I don't think there is any disagreement on this.

Just because someone expresses an opinion doesn't mean it's factually correct

MikeyD pointed out posts on this Forum about losing stuff and being defeated in battles when playing Blue. Not to mention posts about getting defeated by the AI playing as Red! If the enemy wasn't so tough there wouldn't be any such discussions going on.

The other thing is if someone thinks Red offers no challenge for Blue, then play as Red against Blue. Logically speaking, if the balance is tipped in favor of Blue then playing as Red should be a big challenge. And it is, so if one switches to the Red side the opponent is probably tougher than most CMx1 matchups between major nations.

Now, what *is* correct is that CM:SF's Syrian opponent doesn't offer a near-par, toe-to-toe, armor vs. armor fight between Blue and Red. We've gone round and round and round with this one many times before. The truth of the matter is current Red forces, in the real world, are practically no better than what we have in CM:SF. Cherry pick T-90s and BMP-3s, give the units very good Experience, Morale, and Bonuses, outfit them with lots of artillery and Blue Air (if you want to go that far)... bingo... a force that is pretty close to anything the Russians could field today. They don't wear body armor as standard equipment, BTW.

Modern conventional armor vs. armor warfare is extremely lopsided today and probably will be well into the future. The only way to get around this reality is to have Blue vs. Blue or Red vs. Red with similar equipment. It's all fantasy, of course, but it is no more a fantasy than thinking we can add realistic Red forces to the game and have there be a balance between Red and Blue in a conventional armor vs. armor confrontation.

Steve

[c3k]

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.

Well stated.

Regards,

Ken

[sfhand]

I don't understand why Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red is unstatisfying... they've been doing it for hundreds of years on a chess board and have found it to be quite satisfying.

[Redwolf]

I don't understand why Blue vs Blue or Red vs Red is unstatisfying... they've been doing it for hundreds of years on a chess board and have found it to be quite satisfying.

You get to have different skins for both sides

[Bulgaroktonos]

Bulgaroktonos:

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

Thanks for the welcome.

I'm interning with these fine fellows: http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/ so they've indoctrinated me pretty thoroughly. That said, I can tell you all about the Marines in Desert Storm and Desert Shield, but not much else, though that isn't to say I don't like other periods.

Back on topic, how many potential adversaries of the US have indigenous weapon and vehicle designs? I know the Iranians, for example, have their own tank, and the Chinese have their own assault rifles and the Type 99 tank, which seems to be a cross between the Leopard 2 and T-80, but beyond that, who has new kit to offer on the red side that would be readily encountered by the blues?

[Battlefront.com]

Bulgaroktonos,

I'm interning with these fine fellows: http://www.tecom.usmc.mil/HD/ so they've indoctrinated me pretty thoroughly.

I hope you are earning combat pay for that duty

Back on topic, how many potential adversaries of the US have indigenous weapon and vehicle designs? I know the Iranians, for example, have their own tank, and the Chinese have their own assault rifles and the Type 99 tank, which seems to be a cross between the Leopard 2 and T-80, but beyond that, who has new kit to offer on the red side that would be readily encountered by the blues?

Which is exactly the point that gets raised each time someone says that Red needs to be "better". What is it that they realistically have available to them that would make them "better"? Last time someone said the T-80. But really, is that very different in practice from the T-90? No, it isn't. Would it be fun to have the T-80 to choose from for variety's sake? Certainly, but that's not what is the argument being put forward here (i.e. that Red's ability to challenge can be improved by adding the T-80).

Most countries have figured out, a long time ago, that they can't afford to fight a conventional armored battle against Blue type units. The nations which have the money to spend on large armored forces have, not surprisingly, decided to mostly retrofit what they have so that they can at least take on their Red type neighbors. In a few key situations there are Blue type equipment thrown in, such as the Kuwaitis and Saudis, but from a game situation that's the same as Blue on Red or Blue on Blue.

Which gets us right back to where we started... there is no possible scenario that anybody can describe which has the Red forces being able to go toe-to-toe with a current Blue force in a purely conventional, armor heavy setting. At best you can come up with a sort of Cold War quality vs. quantity situation where the Red has hordes of stuff and Blue has much smaller, but higher quality, fighting force. Which CM:SF already does

Steve

[Bulgaroktonos]

Bulgaroktonos,

I hope you are earning combat pay for that duty

Earning, yes. Receiving? No. I'm not a Marine after all, just a student.

Just out of curiosity, is the version of the T-90 featured in-game pimped out with all the electronics and optics and missiles and such that would be found on the Russian models?

[Battlefront.com]

I'm not a Marine after all, just a student.

And I am sure they still have much for you to learn

No, it is short some of the goodies. I'd have to go back and double check, but there's no active defense systems and... argh... I can't remember. Something else is missing too. However, it's not radically different from the Russian version. For example, in the past the export models had weaker base armor or less reactive armor.

The T-90SA is similar to the known export version destined for Algeria and, IIRC, nearly the same as the domestic built Indian version. There are so few of the T-90s outside of Russian hands that it was a bit of guesswork on our part as to what the Syrians may get if their deal ever goes through.

Steve

[DaveDash]

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?

Really? Have you actually played the Marines campaign on Iron? I have, and I lost quite a few battles the first time I played them. You must be very good, perhaps on another level to the rest of us. I'm not sure what game would suit your needs in terms of vs the AI.

However I do see the point some people are making here. You never really get to go all out as blue. You're always handicapped in some way, be it time limit, lack of indirect fire/air support, etc. I usually lose because of timelimit more than anything. What I find amusing however is saying one is not going to buy the British module based on inbalance or overpoweredness, since the Brits (and no offence the the extremely professionalism of their soldiers) seem quite under resourced compared to their U.S. counterparts both in game and in the real world. Brit vs Syrian SF could be quite a challenge, don't you think?

[2S7 PION]

Some conflicts which would be possible with the current engine, fictional Russian-Chinese war, Ecuador/Venezuela vs. Columbia with USMC in like 2012 or something, India vs Pakistan with China or something along those lines, Taiwan straight ground phase, Russia-Georgia extended obviously, Iran Iraq either future or the first Gulf war, Cambodia-Thailand, Russia-Ukraine.

All are a bit more equal then the current scenario, but its easy to tie in other forces such as the United States into all of them. All of them offer very diverse equipment possibilities as well.

[Battlefront.com]

Agreed that if you start looking at some countries with oddball Western defense contract products and legacy equipment (some South American countries still have WW2 stuff in their frontline inventories!) the diversity is definitely interesting. The problem for us is we don't think anybody would buy an Ecuador vs. Venezuela game, no matter how tactically challenging it might be. And trying to make a game which could cover more than one of these matchups is not practical because of the development effort. Not just all the vehicle models, but different voices, soldier models, terrain, etc. Nightmare scenario

Plus, we'd get a pretty large number of people complaining that they're not playing with the most up-to-date hardware. Which, from our perspective, isn't any different than the situation we're in now. Other than we have a viable product now instead of one that would likely be a money loser.

For better or worse, if we don't include recognizable western forces we would have a money losing product. There just aren't enough people out there interested in plunking down cash to play obscure matchups between nations which most people would be hard pressed to find on the map. OK, most Americans would be hard pressed to find on the map

In the end this matters to us because commercial viability is rather high up on our list of requirements

Steve

[Alan8325]

Since units in the game, whether Blue or Red, are supposedly equal given the same experience, motivation, leadership, etc. and only differ in equipment, I like to think of every new weapon and vehicle added to the game as just that, new equipment. It's already been shown possible to add mixed Blue and Red units to one side in a scenario, so a military that uses both western and eastern equipment can be simulated, kind of. You just can't have M16s and AK47s mixed within the same unit and you have to pretend that everyone wears the same uniform and speaks the same language.

Even though the Brit module includes only new Brit equipment, I think of it as simply military hardware that is out there in real life and is being simulated in the game for use with the game's generic conscript-green-regular-veteran-crack-elite simulated troops. It would be really cool to see more state-of-the-art Red hardware added, but since Syria is the setting for this game, it might not be seen till CM:SF2. Meanwhile, some U.S. vs U.K. scenarios sound pretty fun!

[GSX]

Really? Have you actually played the Marines campaign on Iron? I have, and I lost quite a few battles the first time I played them. You must be very good, perhaps on another level to the rest of us. I'm not sure what game would suit your needs in terms of vs the AI.

Against the AI all you really have to do is think and apply the correct drills, both the real life ones and the 'Game' ones. Playing a game relies on understanding the game mechanics as much as understanding fire and manouvre etc.

As for the Marines, well yes I did finish the campaign and although in some scenarios I did struggle (Objective Pooh springs to mind), I never lost one.

Now, thats not saying I havent quit some scenarios as being totally unrealistic (in my opinion) though. Against humans is a different thing though and Ive had my arse handed to me a few times by good human players, even by the Syrians. SF is a much better two player game than single player but at the same time RT is a much better way to play smaller scenarios as reaction time can be instant.

As I said - SF suffers from a lack of balance and as I also said its not the fault of the makers, its the modern setting.

Now if it were 1980 in Germany it might be a little bit closer between the sides, but its not so we should just get on with it I suppose.

As an aside, I think a lot of SF players will be rather shocked when the Normandy game arrives and the same tactics they use on the Syrians gets them killed over and over.

[Thomm]

As an aside, I think a lot of SF players will be rather shocked when the Normandy game arrives and the same tactics they use on the Syrians gets them killed over and over.

Fortunately we have fought over Normandy in soooo many wargames (personally, CM:BO, EYSA, CC5) that this won't happen ...

Best regards,

Thomm

[Wengart]

I like to think my experience with the Syrians will help me. When I am playing early war Russians, or late war Germans. Once we get to the Ostfront of course.

[Battlefront.com]

GSX,

Now, thats not saying I havent quit some scenarios as being totally unrealistic (in my opinion) though. Against humans is a different thing though and Ive had my arse handed to me a few times by good human players, even by the Syrians. SF is a much better two player game than single player but at the same time RT is a much better way to play smaller scenarios as reaction time can be instant.

Fair points which, unfortunately, are true to form for most wargames. Certainly CMx1 IMHO. I rarely lost when playing solo and when I did it was usually due to some sort of issue with what units I got vs. what the enemy got. For example, I wound up with one AT Gun and the terrain was hilly, which meant I could never cover my front. Or that I got completely unlucky and lost my 3 tanks taking out 9 of the AIs, but that 10th one I couldn't kill rolled over me and took the flags.

When I played multi-player there was, of course, some of these same elements. But when the forces were fairly evenly matched I wasn't assured of victory like I was in solo play.

Unfortunately, the AI Player will never do more than offer a challenge. If you know what you're doing with your forces, as GSX obviously does, the AI really isn't likely to win when things are roughly equal. A Human player either has to screw up or have some "artificial" condition which can denny the Human victory. More forces for the AI, time constraints, difficult to achieve victory conditions, etc.

Steve

[GSX]

Fortunately we have fought over Normandy in soooo many wargames (personally, CM:BO, EYSA, CC5) that this won't happen ...

Best regards,

Thomm

theres a lot of new guys here that havent played CM-1 games. Which is good, and so it may be a little shock for them.

[Redwolf]

theres a lot of new guys here that havent played CM-1 games. Which is good, and so it may be a little shock for them.

Uh?

I thought Steve made it clear that he is only selling CM:Normandy to BFC forum member #s below 5000

[Field Marshal Blücher]

theres a lot of new guys here that havent played CM-1 games. Which is good, and so it may be a little shock for them.

Thomm's point though was not that "everyone here has played CMx1 games" but rather that "most people here have also played some variety of relatively realistic game set in '44 Normandy."

I think most people here who are also interested in WWII will be aware of the differences in tactics, equipment, C3, etc. to be able to function effectively in CM: Normandy.

[Battlefront.com]

I agree. I don't think many people, especially CMx1 players, who will take command of a Tiger and think "this is about the same as a M1A2 SEP vs. a T-55" when he sees a Sherman. Then again...

Steve