A different CMx2 "problem"

[dkchapuis]

I was reading the v. 1.21 wish-list thread and it made me want to discuss a different “problem” with the game. I consider myself a CMx1 "super-user" (does that need explanation?), but I have not been able to get immersed in CMx2. I have tried on three different occasions – as late as a few weeks ago on version 1.20, but instead of finishing a game and craving another… I feel like I had little effect on what happened, and I don’t really know what I could do different to improve.

To be fair, when I bought CMBO my initial experience was the similar: I played it for about a month yet couldn’t really get into the game. But I stumbled upon the classic Fionn AAR, and immediately I was hooked. That was 2001, and I played non-stop for 7 years (finally quit due to family reasons).

So the biggest “problem” I have with the game is I cannot get into like CMx1, and I really want to. I like the graphics, the 1-to-1 representation, the lighting, better realism … but something is missing for me. Now I’m sure that part of it is me trying to get up to speed on the game - perhaps all I need is another good AAR to show me how to play. But I don’t think that is all that is missing.

In CMx1, even at the beginning when I didn’t have a clue about the different armor types, I still felt like every 60 seconds I could analyze where my troops were in the battle and make an educated plan about how to win. But in CMSF I’m just clueless. “should I leave my troops shooting from the bushes, or would they be better behind that 1 tree???” “Should I just sit here in this building and engage the enemy from 200m, or is that a losing engagement?” In CMx1, one really had to be judicious about when to use firepower, when to reveal tanks, when to fire zooks/schreks. In CMx2, the best results I have had comes from just blasting the enemy with everything I can as soon as I see them.

I don’t really have ideas on how to fix this. One item that seems missing in CMx2 is in-game help items. Those were so helpful in learning how to play so that one felt like they could wisely effect the fate of their troops. I do understand the CMx2 tiles and FP are completely different, but that is a big loss from my point of view. Also, finding online opponents is much more difficult than it used to be with CMx1. Some help from BFC in that area could strengthen playing experience, because AI just doesn’t provide a fun playing experience.

I’m also curious as to how some of the die-hard CMx1 players were able to make the transition. Maybe that could help me.

[Thomm]

You could check out the video AARs in this thread:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89028

Best regards,

Thomm

[hcrof]

Try the battle 'king copper mines' (not the riots version), preferably as a PBEM. It has a very CMx1 feel as you creep around with your tanks. Seeing as the tanks mentioned are from 1955 they are not too different to what you would find in CMx1. Red v Red in general will feel more tactical than rolling through as blue.

The key to CMSF is that weapons are much longer ranged and more lethal than in CMx1. If you can be seen, you can be destroyed so you need to quickly gain a firepower advantage over your opponent - not difficult with american troops who can just blast thier way through but much more difficult as the Syrians. Real world tactics work in CMSF so reading field manuals etc will improve your play and one of the joys for me is the research and discovery I do around the game.

I think that you also need to lose the CMx1 mindset too. The games are superficially similar but try not to think 'CMx1 had this feature so I want it in CMSF'. As the game is so much more complex, you will never see those firepower % again for example - the game is too 'fuzzy' for that. If you approach CMSF as a 'new' experience you will gain more enjoyment for that.

Its a steep learning curve but all the more rewarding when you eventually get it!

[phil stanbridge]

I was in exactly the same boat. I tried two demos of SF before finally settling with 1.20 and taking the plunge. I have now purchased all the modules and am thoroughly enjoying the challenge, and it is an extreme challenge to me.

It's basically much harder, I believe, due to kill distances and advanced weapons technology as hcrof mentioned above. But fundamentally it is similar. You have to learn the new tactics to really enjoy this. But I'm enjoying it more than cmx1 I'm afraid to say, and now I am getting used to it, I'm slightly concerned that I will feel somewhat let down with Normandy.

I love the 1:1 but I do miss some things. I miss the LOS tool, and I miss the detailed kill stats. Plus a few other little things. But I have high hopes for Normandy and the forthcoming modules. It must be a great time to be BFC

[dkchapuis]

I have tried a few video AAR's and didnt find them too engaging.

And I do understand it is a completely different game, and the CMx1 FP ratings and exposure values arent relevant. But that doesnt mean in-game help, so that a player can better understand a units exposure (as an example) wouldnt be a valuable tool.

And I also recognize that tactics are completely different. But what is lacking - for me - is the ability to look at the map and objectives, develop a plan of action, and feel like I was able to lead my pixeltroops in a way that accomplishes something in a manner that doesnt feel like I am playing call of duty. And I dont really want to read real world manuals. Game helps, yes. Real world manuals, no.

So I dont think I take all the blame. I feel that the game is at least a little lacking in providing me - the user - information, and I hope BFC recognizes this and has some ideas to improve this.

[Wengart]

Opponents are pretty easy to find if you look in the right place. Such as http://worldatwar.eu/, they have a ladder system and a fairly decent player base for CM:SF. In fact we are currently in the middle of a tournament.

[sfhand]

I can relate to the OP's sentiments. I wasn't sure about how I felt about the game or why when I started playing it. The challenge of a new game system coupled with a new era of warfare often left me wondering what I was doing wrong. Plus, I played CMx1 almost exclusively as PBEM... my real affection for CMSF has developed while playing PBEM as well, but I do also enjoy the single player aspect of the game, it is a good way to understand the limitations of the game and the new (to me) units. I still have a long way to go in that regard.

[MeatEtr]

I didn't become, ahem, assimilated(Star Trek Borg anybody?) until about 1.10 myself. It's tough because first off, it's not our beloved WWII theatre, it's modern stuff which is a bit of a jolt. But then eventually a base thing for any wargamer comes into play, new toys to learn and play with. But something that CMSF still needs IMO and what the OP hinted at is a more detailed in-game stats info display box for each unit. Just like what the 'Enter" key was for CMx1

This transition would of been much easier if they stuck with WWII, but in the end I'm happy with it. Afterall, the best features and smoother launch comes in at Normandy. Then when the Eastern Front(mother of all fronts) finally starts to roll out, we can all expect absolute perfection, well closer to it anyway.

[sfhand]

Your mentioning the eastern front is interesting in that I had a similar reaction to CMBB that I had with CMSF. It wasn't completely new gameplay/mechanics but there were a lot of units I knew nothing about. I hesistate to say this because I'm certainly not a master, but, for me, it takes time to develop a mastery of the game on many different levels and in the beginning that time isn't necessarily enjoyable. That's why I can relate to the OP, especially when he mentions getting jazzed up by reading Fion Kelly's AAR. As I recall,Fion Kelly explained the reasoning behind his decisions in a way that was educational as well as entertaining. It gave me a place to start, with CMSF (I forget which patch "fixed" it for me) I felt as though I was wallowing in the game; I knew the mission but not how to get it done - I still feel that way frequently and am learning the hard way.

There is a thread in the tips and tactics/strategy sub-forum about a Community Strategy Guide that might make things a lot easier for those who have the reactions I've had. (and a big salute to hcrof and the others for their efforts) I should have mentioned it in my first post.

[Redwolf]

I recommend not beating your head against it. You will only spoil it more.

Myself, I decided to wait for CMx2:Normandy to try again, because I feared more exposure to SF might make me bail out and miss a potentially great game later.

%%

When it comes to details, I certainly feel the same thing that although the engine is supposed to do the right thing behind the scenes and you just move everything the same way a real commander would that really doesn't work out that way in practice. The knowledge of what cover provides what protection and what the placement of your squad means, exactly, needs to be taken into account. Specifically because all the individual soldiers in squad end up in places where real soldiers wouldn't, so I can just think like a real commander. I have to take game mechanics into account, and I found that to be a frustrating experience in SF.

CMx2 is much more complicated than CMx1 with it's point-shaped units and at the same time very few information about the engine mechanics and their relation to cover, concealment and spotting is available.

My hope is that this is fundamentally changes in CMx2:Normandy, namely because of the vegetation, and because of the different defensive positioning with more fortifications, FoW foxholes and all that concealed by vegetation.

Also, BFC's refusal to bump up Red's capabilities with some tougher units and some gear the Syrians could have bought years in the future (facing an American attack) leaves the gaming experience too much like a turkey shoot. This further increases my hope that the mostly even fight of Americans versus Germans in Normandy will make for a better gaming experience.

[Homo ferricus]

BFC's refusal to bump up Red's capabilities with some tougher units and some gear the Syrians could have bought years in the future (facing an American attack) leaves the gaming experience too much like a turkey shoot. This further increases my hope that the mostly even fight of Americans versus Germans in Normandy will make for a better gaming experience.

To echo what other people have said before, depending on how/what you play in the game, it can be far from a turkey shoot. I just left a small urban battle (In which I had about 2 Stryker infantry platoons, MGS PLT, a tank company plus company/battalion HQ attached assets and organic mortars). Ended up with 15 infantry KIA and 25 infantry WIA, with an immobilized Stryker, and two disabled Abrams (one immobile, one had it's main cannon completely destroyed). I was up against a mechanized Company, maybe 2 or so platoons of Syrian SF along with a few uncons. The reason that I specify that all my casualties were infantry is because while, for the most part, my armor and support vehicles took on the Syrian mechanized company with relative ease, I moved a platoon of infantry into town, where the only resistance was both Syrian SF platoons (actually it very well may have been a full company). The urban fighting got so damned bloody and frustrated that even when i called upon the many assets I had available to me, I was not able to take the town entirely after over an hour. I had to commit all of my infantry to that fight, along with many Strykers and a couple of tanks eventually. It was bleeding my forces so thoroughly that I thought I was going to have to start sending In FOs and JTACS and XOs and re-armed crews into the city to act as emergency provisional infantry!

I estimate that the rate of casualties during my urban battle was probably less than 2 Syrian casualties to every American one.

So, even with Abrams, even with Javelins to every squad, even with plenty of artillery support, that battle was hard fought by both sides and I ended up with a tactical victory.

The best way to get inspired, I've found, is to stick to a scenario and keep with it, despite that some can be boring and unattractive at the start, and still keep with it if a catastrophe happens. That way, the scenario grows on you and you start to feel more attached as you realize the story that is playing out and how you can affect it for the better.

[slug88]

Also, BFC's refusal to bump up Red's capabilities with some tougher units and some gear the Syrians could have bought years in the future (facing an American attack) leaves the gaming experience too much like a turkey shoot.

Huh? Then what do you call the T-90, and the BMP-3? As far as I know, those, along with the Kornet, are the very best weapons that would realistically be available to Syria. What do you have in mind that would eclipse those?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Huh? Then what do you call the T-90, and the BMP-3? As far as I know, those, along with the Kornet, are the very best weapons that would realistically be available to Syria. What do you have in mind that would eclipse those?

Phased plasma guns, I should think. Why can't the Syrians have those?

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Also, BFC's refusal to bump up Red's capabilities with some tougher units and some gear the Syrians could have bought years in the future (facing an American attack) leaves the gaming experience too much like a turkey shoot.

What refusal is that? T-90 and BMP-3 were terrific additions giving the Syrians a big boost in combat power. I'm hard pressed to think what they could have gotten that would've boosted Red combat power more.

*edit*

Slug88 beat me to it. That'll teach me to open up wiki in another tab whilst still typing a reply.

[MikeyD]

Well, what can you do? When has girlfriend number two (or seven) ever lived up to that initial thrill of 'becoming acquainted' with very first? You can only fall in love for the first time once.

The thing about struggling with the CMSF basegame. In my opinion the most satisfying of the 200+(?) standalone or campaign scenarios built for CMSF have come in the Marine and British modules. The British in particular aren't quite so über as the U.S., which makes for more balanced gameplay (and which translated into howls of pain by some players ). Two years extra scenario building practice does show.

And about CMSF being a turkey shoot. How many had to quit & restart a scenario three time over before finally shooting that turkey? But all they recall is that final 'easy win'

[Other Means]

I dunno. There's definitely some aspect of the combined arms game that would win CM1 being replaced by uber infantry in CM2. Even Red infantry are deadly when you compare to CM1.

I also think - try and stay awake Elmar - that not being able to shift-C your units size so you can see them from across the map and so gain a tactical gestalt about everything that is happening is the main thing missing.

It's too hard to gain an overall understanding.

You have to work very hard to get the information about whether you're playing the game well and modern weapons are too deadly to allow for any wriggle room so you end up feeling out of control - not really committed to the game as you would in CM1.

But then, I've ridden this hobby horse so long I've got saddle sores.

[Redwolf]

The distractions divert from the main point: if the T-90 doesn't do it and you feel that the game leaves you too uninformed to give what you think would be commanding in a realistic manner (and/or fun manner) then don't burn up your gaming energy with it. Wait for Normandy, reboot.

It's just a hobby. We didn't actually invade Syria and have to fight it out right now.

[Dietrich]

To all of you who complain about Red being relatively weak or about any other aspect of CMSF, I ask you this: Do you play on Iron difficulty? If not, try Iron and see how much of a turkey shoot it is.

It's a puzzling irony that some folks let out angstful cries of "argh!!!" after playing "Battle for Objective Pooh" or certain other tough v1.10-or-later scenarios yet at other times complain about Red being a push-over, even though BFC requisitioned certain weapons for Red that they either don't actually have or wouldn't have in the game's time-frame. And besides, on the one hand there are those who complain about Red being weak in spite of the T-90, BMP-3, AT-14, RPG-29, etc., and on the other hand there are those who question the validity of including the M32 MGL in the USMC rifle squad.

Am I supposed to interpret the fact that I don't see much in CMSF that can reasonably/realistically be improved (or should I say "improved") as evidence that I'm not a sufficiently critical wargamer or that I'm just a fanboy, or what?

the main point: if the T-90 doesn't do it and you feel that the game leaves you too uninformed to give what you think would be commanding in a realistic manner (and/or fun manner) then don't burn up your gaming energy with it. Wait for Normandy, reboot.

When I first started playing CMSF (circa v1.10), I didn't whine: "Ugh, this game is not as optimal as I could be, and I don't know what all these guns are -- that must mean the game sucks. I'll just go back to playing CMx1 till 'Normandy' comes out." No, I pored over Wikipedia and GlobalSecurity.org and actually read books, educating myself on modern weaponry and tactics and TOEs.

It's just a hobby. We didn't actually invade Syria and have to fight it out right now.

[sarcasm]Ohhhhhhh, now I get it.... Because CMSF is based on a non-historical premise, that makes it irrelevant to CMx1 fans and thus a needless delay before CM:N! [/sarcasm]

[Paper Tiger]

CMx2 is much more complicated than CMx1 with it's point-shaped units and at the same time very few information about the engine mechanics and their relation to cover, concealment and spotting is available.

Like real life eh? When you're looking for somewhere safe to park your touche in a firefight, real life commanders aren't told that this knoll over here offers 64% concealment and 24% cover while that carrot patch over there offers 86% concealment but only 5% cover. Very very gamey and maybe appropriate for a console game but not a wargame of this level of sophistication. No thank you. Please let's not have this feature.

A gaming experience too much like a turkey shoot? Well, of course, there were never any turkey shoots in your beloved WW2, were there? If a CMSF scenario is a turkey shoot, then it's a badly designed scenario and that's all there is to it. You're certainly more than intelligent enough to appreciate this, aren't you?

[phil stanbridge]

The British in particular aren't quite so über as the U.S., which makes for more balanced gameplay (and which translated into howls of pain by some players ).

That is soooo true Mr D. I didn't really have a clue about equipment and stuff in the modern day theatre and I can't believe how under-powered the British seem compared to the US Army and Marines. I just love all their toys! Is it really like that?

[Redwolf]

CMx2 is much more complicated than CMx1 with it's point-shaped units and at the same time very few information about the engine mechanics and their relation to cover, concealment and spotting is available.

Like real life eh? When you're looking for somewhere safe to park your touche in a firefight, real life commanders aren't told that this knoll over here offers 64% concealment and 24% cover while that carrot patch over there offers 86% concealment but only 5% cover.

Yeah but real soldiers have a sense of self-preservation. The individuals place themselves in relative safety within the parameters given by the squad's general positioning. CM:SF soldiers don't do that.

Since you can control only the squad position your only option to play a realistic game is to know more things about where the individuals you cannot directly control will end up for given varieties of squad placements and what the relative safety in those individual positions is.

This knowledge is not available and withheld based on the game's TacAI placement of individuals being "good enough", which it isn't.

Normandy with more vegetation will make this easier.

BTW, it goes without saying that these "believers" comments come from people who don't even know how to use the quote functionality on a forum.

[sfhand]

BTW, it goes without saying that these "believers" comments come from people who don't even know how to use the quote functionality on a forum.

It's really sad to see this topic devolve into this...

The OP was wondering if/how he can get into CMSF and what BF can do to make the game more exciting for him. Your advice - don't bother playing the game.

Since you've stopped playing the game without being able to enjoy it what makes you feel qualified to give anyone advice about things you know nothing about (how to enjoy the game)? And why resort to ad hominem (edit: especially if it goes without saying)?

[MikeyD]

I have noticed some people need to continually 'up the ante' in an effort to have more fun. Bigger maps, more armor, more artillery, more men, more complex landscape. "We need bigger toys!"

This seems, after a while, to become counter-productive. If the seven Abrams tanks unbalances the game then don't build your scenario with seven Abrams. Problem solved!

The last few scenarios I've been working on have tended to pare away the suplerfluous stuff. I locate an interesting spot on Google earth, build a reasonable approximation for a map without a particular battle in mind. I then have a company of infantry on each side fight for possession. Simple, fun, and realistic feeling. One thing I have noticed, if Red is beaten Red is considered over-weak. But if Red holds back Blue then its assumed the scenario designer 'cheated' to give Red an unfair advantage.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

BTW, it goes without saying that these "believers" comments come from people who don't even know how to use the quote functionality on a forum.

Hmm, I'm pretty sure Paper Tiger knows how to use the quote functionality. I'm pretty sure he's been using his current system for a while, which is at least as difficult to execute if not more so than the quote functionality.

Insulting people (especially falsely) doesn't help anyone. Please try to stay civil, even if you do passionately disagree.

[sonar]

On the issue of cover and concealment. Paper Tiger, said "real life commanders aren't told that this knoll over here offers 64% concealment and 24% cover while that carrot patch over there offers 86% concealment but only 5% cover." I agree with him but once they were in position, they would have a good appreceation of how much cover and concealment the terrain offered, so, I think something that showed up these stats, though only for your own troops and only those that were stationary, would be a good thing, cheers.