One sided.

[Preybyemail]

Just finished playing a scenario. Once from each side. Blue:steamroll. Red:get steamrolled.

Every damned map in this game is just like this. Unless the map maker Boosts US experience to green, and puts them against Syrian special forces.

You have made the lamest, one sided war game in history.

Your only options as red are hide until spotted, then die. Maybe, Maaaaybe you might just get a few rounds off from an ak, and every once in a while get an rpg shot off before your entire squad is mowed down in one and a half seconds.

What in the world were you thinking BFC?

[Cuirassier]

And you have made the lamest, one-sided analysis of the game.

Try different scenarios. Try red vs. red. Or maybe use tactics that actually require thought and accomplish more than getting your force killed in one and a half seconds.

[Pvt. Ryan]

So I wasn't having fun all this time?

[Preybyemail]

I did not just get this game today. I have had it since release, and have played both the army and marines campaign. I have also downloaded 25+ user made scenarios.

I spent twenty minutes preparing ambushes, cover arcs, hide commands and overlapping fields of fire for my insurgents in rock around the block.

Then i spent the next hour and a half watching each blue unit advance, trip an arc, and splat every defending unit within a few bursts.

Ive tried every scenario i have that has a blue a.i. plan, to try and learn how to utilize the pathetic Syrian army and after countless hours and missions have come to the conclusion that this game is a lame duck.

Only when greatly outnumbering blue, or when a designer cranks blue down to green troops while upping the Syrian skill to vet or better, can red make a show.

No need to get all butthurt because i slammed the game guys.

The fact is any red unit vs. any blue unit is a one shot charlie. This makes the game unbalanced and no real fun unless your playing the American war machine.

As awesome as BFC is, i just will never understand why they chose a crappy backwater army as the antagonist in this game. So many other countries with modern weapons and tactics would have made a worthy opponent. Russia, China, etc.

Im not one of the guys who hated on modern combat because i wanted to WW2. I love the modern weapons and tactics. But to get any kind of balance out of this game we will have to wait for ww2, or play some silly clone army blue vs. blue.

[MikeyD]

Every damn map in this game is just like that.

Every map out of the fifty or so (campaign and standalone) was like that? You tried them all?

So who was it who got steamrollered in "UK The Mouse Trap", and who was at a disadvantage in "UK the 2nd Eleven"? Was it really that lop-sided in "UK Outmanoeuvred" and "UK Out of the Wilderness"? Did anyone else who played those four scenarios specifically find them to be unbearably easy cakewalks?

So what do you want? Do you want the Syrian army to purchase more accurate small arms? Do you want Syria to buy body armor for its troops? Are you suggesting syria train its troops better? Do you want Israel to sell Syria Merkavas? You're going to be pretty darned disappointed in the WWII title it seems. BFC, you broke the game! My Shermans keep dying when fighting Tigers!

[Elmar Bijlsma]

No need to get all butthurt because i slammed the game guys.

How old are you?

I'll tell you how it works around here. You give a thoughtful critique and chances are good that you'll get a thoughtful reply. If you instead just use deliberately insulting language to merely slam the game without a case being made by you, you'll get a more hostile reception.

Terms like used above just don't do your case any favours.

And frankly, if you are entirely unable to win as Red, you are using them wrong! So what exactly is your complaint? Is there a weapon that you believe over or under performs to make it as bad as you think it is?

[SD Smack]

YEAH! BFC sucks!

[The Warrior]

Wow. I must really suck at this game because I get my a** handed to me a lot by the Syarians.

[Battlefront.com]

Preybyemail,

It's not nearly as one sided as you make it out to be, as is evidenced by the response of people who have been playing the same game you have. Especially if you look at the Victory Conditions at the end instead of the body counts. Since the object of the game is to win, according to the victory level stated in the game, that's really all that matters. Body counts mean nothing unless the scenario designer makes them count. That's the beauty of an asymmetric system like CM:SF.

The fact is any red unit vs. any blue unit is a one shot charlie.

Even if this were true (and it definitely isn't), so what? If Blue loses because it doesn't fulfill it's objectives, what does it matter if Red is nearly wiped out? War isn't about being "balanced" on a unit by unit basis. Not in WW2, not modern. It's about balance of forces through a combination of things. If you fight Red like you fight Blue, you're likely to lose pretty much every time. Which means the game is doing things right, but you aren't. Plenty of people win playing as Red, though you apparently don't. Plenty of people lose playing as Blue, and I suspect you are no different.

This makes the game unbalanced and no real fun unless your playing the American war machine.

I guess the people who are still here, having so-called-fun, after 2 years of play are idiots who wouldn't know if fun came and bit them on the behinds. I guess we really should break the news to them that they aren't having any fun. Such a shame, too, since sales seem to indicate people are willing to keep spending money to not have fun.

As awesome as BFC is, i just will never understand why they chose a crappy backwater army as the antagonist in this game.

Either your definition of "fun" is too narrow or there's a lot of people paying a lot of money just so they have something stupid to waste their precious life on. It's not for me to decide, although keep in mind if I don't make games that people find fun I'll have to look for a new job. Since I've still got a job, and we didn't get any bailout money, I guess what really happened is we just didn't make the game you wanted. That puts you firmly in the majority, along with World of Warcraft and GTA IV players. Of course hardly any of them think wargames are fun at all, but why quibble over details.

So many other countries with modern weapons and tactics would have made a worthy opponent. Russia, China, etc.

So many, eh? I wonder if you can continue that list beyond Russia and China. Me thinks you can't since those are the only two nations on Earth that have large conventional forces which are even remotely modern (and I do use the term "remotely" very deliberately). Plus, I question if you would find a realistically simulated Russian or Chinese force that much less of a "butthurt" than the Syrians. Tactically speaking I'm not sure there has ever been "balance" between any post WW2 Western nation and any other nation, including the Soviet Army at its peak. That doesn't mean I think the West would have won any war it got into.

BTW, we made such a disastrously one sided game that we think the smart thing to do is make another one. Look for CM:SF 2 in the near future. We love making things which nobody thinks are fun!

Steve

[Wicky]

I wonder how 'fair' this game is??

Video-game development in Iran attracted global media attention in 2007 with the release of Special Operation 85: Hostage Rescue. The game saw two Iranian nuclear scientists kidnapped by Israel and you played the role of an Iranian special forces sent to rescue them, while battling Israeli and American forces.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/8213272.stm

[ChrisND]

I've experimented quite a bit with various techniques designed to enhance the not-fun-ness of the game while playing it.

Some things I have found that make the game even more not fun:

- Stand upside down in a bucket full of piranhas while playing the game. This has the added bonus of making the game more difficult.

- Want to play hotseat? Have the other player beat your kidneys with a towel filled with frozen oranges while you do your turn. Return the favor when it is their turn. No peeking!

- Read Sally Forth comics while playing the game. Read one strip every time you kill an opposing soldier/tank. You'll be begging for defeat!

- Watch the Love Guru or Battlefield Earth on another computer while playing the game.

[Bulgaroktonos]

Every map out of the fifty or so (campaign and standalone) was like that? You tried them all?

So who was it who got steamrollered in "UK The Mouse Trap", and who was at a disadvantage in "UK the 2nd Eleven"? Was it really that lop-sided in "UK Outmanoeuvred" and "UK Out of the Wilderness"? Did anyone else who played those four scenarios specifically find them to be unbearably easy cakewalks?

UK Out of Wilderness is pretty easy to win as Red. It's a whole lot of perverse fun to see T-72s chew up some Challengers.

[Apocal]

No need to get all butthurt because i slammed the game guys.

We won't if you stop getting butthurt because the game slammed you

That puts you firmly in the majority, along with World of Warcraft and GTA IV players. Of course hardly any of them think wargames are fun at all, but why quibble over details.

HEY!

[laca25]

This game rocks!!!

True, the Syrians forces melt away quickly when they face US/UK forces but I think this game is a superb attempt to demonstrate the tactical difficulties a commander faces...

Achieving your goals while trying to keep your forces intact is pretty challenging. (at least for me, darn I suck)

I guess this isn't your typical war game where you can try to slug it out...

I bought this game when it came out and I felt it was so, so..... I missed the ww2 settings, the game felt clumsy and buggy....but after the two new moduls it feels solid and now I can't put it down. Darn you Battlefront!

[Cpl Steiner]

Preybyemail,

I really don't understand your problem.

In a straight firefight between Western troops and Syrian troops, of course the Syrians should get creamed. They have no body armour, poor training, and use their already relatively inaccurate "AK" rifles in "spray and prey" mode whereas the Westerners have body armour, good training and accurate weapons often with ACOG scopes and the like. As CM:SF is a simulation game, it favours the Westerners in such engagements every time.

You say, why couldn't we have had Russia or China as the enemy instead of Syria? Have you actually read about the performance of these troops in any recent conflict? Apart from units like Spetznaz, they are all barely trained conscripts too. In the "Battle of Grozny" (1996) the Russians lost scores of men and vehicles to Chechen ambushes because the Russian Federation forces were largely poorly trained conscripts using sub-standard equipment. If you do a search I'm sure you can confirm this for yourself.

The thing with Red is, they don't have to win straight up firefights with Blue to win the game. You only have to look at the current situation in Afghanistan to see what works for Red. At the start of the Afghan conflict, the Taliban were regularly engaging the Brits in firefights, and dying in their hundreds as a result. Now they have switched to large-scale use of IEDs instead and are causing the Brits real problems, with calls for the troops to be brought home every time another coffin is unloaded at RAF Brize Norton.

You can win as Red, but as Steve says, it won't be because you have achieved a higher body count. If the scenario has been designed correctly a few Blue KIA from IEDs and RPGs is often enough to cause a Tactical Defeat or worse for Blue.

[Kat Johnston]

I misread the original post for a second or two, and thought that the point being made was "whichever side I play against the AI, I steamroller them", to which there's an element of truth for some scenarios and most quick battles.

[cabal23]

I don't think you have a clear picture of modern warfare. Red and Blue fight very different wars, looking for very different results. I consider myself a fairly decent player and I still occasionally lose on the elite setting. I get butthurt over it and move on and try and improve my tactics. As a scenario designers, all of my scenarios take into account the lopsidedness of the battles and I introduce environmental elements as well as ambushes, varying degrees of equipment and experience, and goals that may be difficult to achieve based on the situation of blue. I have played this game since day one and I hated it, but fell back in love after a few patches. This is the essential modern wargame simulation on the market. No other game SIMULATES a modern war with a modernized nation better. Maybe command and conquer is more your style.

[Cpl Steiner]

I just played a Quick Battle, British Mech Infantry Probe (-30% force adjustment) into a town defended by Syrian Mech Infantry. I had a couple of Javelin detachments which helped whittle down the enemy armour but even after they'd done their work my single Mech infantry platoon had a really hard time of it in the town, becoming pretty much combat ineffective before game end due to BMP main gun rounds hitting their buildings. They still killed more enemy than they lost but with 6 KIA at the end and the town still occupied by pockets of enemy the battle ended in a draw.

It was a lot of fun to play though and proved that the Syrians aren't so easy to beat all of the time, even against the AI. You just have to pick force mixes that are more balanced. I don't normally play QBs but on this occasion it worked out very nicely and gave an enjoyable and balanced battle.

[Preybyemail]

Ok, most of you guys did not get me. I really like this game. I really liked combat mission games since beyond overlord. If i didnt like the game i most likely would not have spent my money, and a few hours a week since release playing it. Butthurt is what fanboys get when you say anything negative about their personal obsession.

For those of you in the fanboy patrol let me state my main point, if i did not do it clearly enough earlier i am sorry.

-------The Syrians are a paper target. Without Heavily outnumbering blue, or having a huge disparity in troop moral quality (even then they melt like butter under fire), the modern armys roll them like a tire.------

Now, all your griping about how i dont like the game (false).

Dont understand asymmetrical warfare (false. Scenario designers i believe are the most to blame for making victory conditions that dont appear in the briefing, or just plain dont matter. most rounds end in red suffering 90%+ casualties and the game is over anyway).

I dont know how to play with the syrians (hit and run tactics, ambushes. Both of which fail because once discovered the squad is chewed up beyond repair by the next turn.)

So i say again. I love this game, but why god why did BFC pick such a paper doll to play against? Man its great to play blue, pouring down fire, lightning from the sky, ****ing enemy running as fast as he can in the opposite direction, but vs. with red is teh suck.

Just listen to my friend Cpl Steiner

"In a straight firefight between Western troops and Syrian troops, of course the Syrians should get creamed. They have no body armour, poor training, and use their already relatively inaccurate "AK" rifles in "spray and prey" mode whereas the Westerners have body armour, good training and accurate weapons often with ACOG scopes and the like. As CM:SF is a simulation game, it favours the Westerners in such engagements every time."

or Laca25

"True, the Syrians forces melt away quickly when they face US/UK forces ...."

or steves point here

"Body counts mean nothing unless the scenario designer makes them count"

I didnt call your game ****. I would feel like an idiot for all the time ive spent on it, and will continue to spend on it. But i did say you picked a ****ty enemy and everyone knows thats the truth.

Meh. But thanks for all the offhand insults. Ill go back to playing command and conquer, or gta or whatthe****ever. Or maybe my definition of fun is to narrow and im a ****ing crybaby. Ill bet thats it!

[acrashb]

Every damned map in this game is just like this.

Try ATGM Ambush with the 1.11 spotting rules. Not so easy.

[Kat Johnston]

-------The Syrians are a paper target. Without Heavily outnumbering blue, or having a huge disparity in troop moral quality (even then they melt like butter under fire), the modern armys roll them like a tire.------

I disagree. I've been putting together a scenario recently (my first, it isn't finished) pitting two troops (6 tanks) of CR2s (typical settings) against a Syrian Reserve tank company (10 tanks) (typical settings, ie. crap crews - and poor equipment) defending a fairly open village; a Blue attack. It isn't a total pushover for Blue, and that's pretty much best (British) Blue against worst Red. I was deliberately aiming to make Syrian Reserves a challenge, and it kinda works, at least so far as my play goes.

(edit)

And just to expand on that a little, I was testing just now - two CR2s engaged a single T62 (which was behind a low wall) at 1km range, head on. The T62 got off the first shot (which missed) and then took several hits before popping smoke and reversing out of sight. Not bad for a reservist crew in an obsolete machine! They didn't have much chance of doing any damage themselves, but they weren't obliterated and they get another chance.

[Battlefront.com]

Preybyemail,

For those of you in the fanboy patrol let me state my main point, if i did not do it clearly enough earlier i am sorry.

Oh please. You came in with all guns blazing. You insulted a game that people like, you insulted the people who like the game. That was in your first post. What did you expect, a bunch of people fawning over your comments and admitting that they don't have "fun" with the game just because you don't?

I didnt call your game ****. I would feel like an idiot for all the time ive spent on it, and will continue to spend on it. But i did say you picked a ****ty enemy and everyone knows thats the truth.

Good God man... do you REALLY not see why you're pissing everybody off (or getting them chuckling, either one)? You're saying that YOUR vision of what is "fun" is the only thing that can possibly be seen as "truth". That anybody who disagrees with you is a "fanboy" because there's no way someone else can have a valid counter argument to your "truth". And then you go and shoot your own arguments in the foot by saying that you play the game so much. If you aren't having "fun" with it, why on Earth are you still playing it? Don't you see that sort of inconsistency makes people question your hypothesis?

Meh. But thanks for all the offhand insults.

When you tell everybody who disagrees with your OPINION that their opinions have no value because they differ from yours, what did you expect? Hugs and kisses?

Your attitude, and the fact there are so many bleeped words in your posts, are putting you dangerously close to being banned. You are definitely trying to provoke people, you are definitely not conducting yourself with the respect expected. If you want to have a discussion, that's great. We've had dozens of RATIONAL discussions about the setting we chose for CM:SF. Plenty of room for debate and disagreement when both sides want it to be healthy discussion.

On the other hand, if you want to come here to sound self-important and make a martyr of yourself, that's not fine. It's counter productive and invalidates whatever position you're attempting to make. Therefore, it has no value here and it is why Trolling and Flaming are not allowed here.

Take a deep breath and think about what you really want before you post next because if you can't figure it out I'll figure it out for you.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

The truth about modern warfare is as I stated earlier. No nation on Earth can stand up to a Western military, toe to toe, in a tactical setting with even "average" forces of any significant tactical size (i.e. company or higher). And with very good reason... the Western nations have spent trillions of Dollars (or their equivalent) on weaponry that is designed with one explicit purpose... to best anything that Russia, China, or other non-Western countries can produce. To think that this massive spending over the past 60 years has failed to create a gap between the two sides is unreal. So no, given equal circumstances even the Russians and the Chinese aren't likely to win a tactical engagement like Preybyemail has pictured in his head. If a game actually produces results like that then it is completely divorced from reality. Period.

Even in WWII the Soviets were very hard pressed to beat the Germans in tactical engagements on even footing. They knew this very well and developed tactics that favored their strengths and minimized their weaknesses. They also developed weaponry that favored their strengths and minimized their weaknesses. And even though they lost hundreds of thousand in casualties in the final phase of the war, while the Western Allies were losing perhaps only 1/10th as much, the Soviets won on their terms.

I'd no more be involved with a wargame that has a platoon of T-90s being able to go toe to toe with a M1A2 SEP than I would a game that has a platoon of T-34/85s being able to go toe to toe with a Panther of any flavor. I'd also not be involved in any game that didn't simulate the tactical realities that could lead to the T-90s or T-34/84s coming out victorious.

Reality is what we have to work with and CM:SF does an excellent job of simulating it.

Steve

[Combatintman]

The Syrians have a fairly souped up tank and a fairly souped up AIFV and you think the Russians and Chinese would be a more difficult opponent kit-wise?

The Taliban have AK-47, RPK-47, PKM and RPG-7. We have AH-64, Javelin, Warrior, CVR(T) and more aircraft than you can shake a stick at. Who's winning?

The bottom line is that all warfare is assymetrical - how to make it so in this game does depend on the scenario/designer but I point you to Paper Tiger's stuff as an example - a lot of his stuff is red on red but his blue on red stuff is equally as good. I have yet to play one of his scenarios as blue and win.

[lomir]

Mmm... "ATGM Ambush"... that was a very cheeky one: I didn't know where to completely hide the Bradleys to avoid all those incoming shells and missiles

Preybyemail, don't get pissed off, man Look, I'm new here and not part of the "fanboy patrol", but I understand that it's not easy to get you when you start a thread stating that "you have made the lamest, one sided war game in history", "what in the world were you thinking BFC?" or "I've tried every scenario I have that has a blue A.I. plan, to try and learn how to utilize the pathetic Syrian Army and after countless hours and missions have come to the conclusion that this game is a lame duck" between some of the best pearls of wisdom. Of course it's a great thing to be able to have this forum here for our write-ups, but you also might try afterwards to write any positive ideas of how the game could be improved within some feasible limits, not just launching a fierce attack on the game, the map makers and everyone involved around the project. I may wish that my car could jump over obstacles, but it's not just a reason to post in an opinion column of a newspaper that "they have made the lamest car in motor history", right? So, yup, I agree that the Syria has a crappy backwater army, but that's what they really have. Why then making games about the Middle East? Maybe because it has happened in reality (Irak) or it's a plausible setting for a modern war (Syria). I think the game models perfectly the asymmetric warfare of nowaday's conflicts and you can't expect something different without being unrealistic. And that's why many of us we like it. Yes, they could have made a game about a Soviet invasion of Western Europe but then that would be a completely different game of what you have on your hands. It's like comparing apples and oranges. Understanding this, you have to understand that in a modern asymmetric war the Western nations will never get chewed as you would like it. But in real life to get 2 KIA and 2 WIA on a patrol due to an IED is a "Red" tactical victory. To destroy an Abrams tank is by itself another victory for them. And they are still having heavy casualties. But because the cultural background, we can't afford to loose a single man abroad and they can do it. You are thinking as a Westerner when you want to win battles crushing the "Blue" forces, and of course, then you'll get dissapointed. You are expecting that the Syrian soldiers have the same training and equipment than the US/British, and definitely they do not. You can't expect that the Syrian militias are a kind of Navy SEALs, ambushing, kicking fast and hard and then dissapearing in the matter of seconds. In reality it's more likely that they'll be shooting without any precision at the limit of the enemy's weapons range, or even further away to avoid what you say: being mowed down in one and a half seconds. My piece of advice: take it easy with the Syrians. It possible to win battles with them, but to believe they can easily chew up the "Blue" forces is like believing Saddam words when he said all that stuff about the Mother of all Battles, blah, blah...