My first impression

[joeroma]

My impression is that it is identical to Combat Mission Shock Force.

Apart from the 3D models, from what we saw the animations have not changed.

I give advice to the developers of the game, change the animations! especially with regard to the soldiers on their knees or while running.

regards

[Pvt. Ryan]

Yeah, I want a refund!

[Nicdain]

change the animations

Although good animations can give to the game a better visual appearance, they are not fundamental for simulation purposes. Moreover, BF.C have not the budget to pay pixar artists to create movie-like animations. For this reason, we have to accept a compromise: a very good simulation with medium quality animations, which, BTW are the best animations ever seen in a wargame. I rather prefer this compromise than having an eye-candy game which has a flawed engine

[MikeyD]

Theoretically, while Snowball's been doing their own thing BFC's been continuing to refine the base game engine for NATO and Normandy. So there's no telling how many tweaks, alterations and fixes that you haven't seen in yet (or may never see) in CMSF have already been incorporated into the Afghanistan title. I can't imagine a Soviet airborne squad (or section or whatever they're called) in BMD-2s is going to play anything like 'identical' to Stryker Brigade. For one thing, '78-89 is pre M4 carbine!

[panzermartin]

If my eyes dont fool me I think I spotted a new animation for bolt rifles in some of the screenshots.

this:

[MikeyD]

Its a new bolt-action animation if you didn't purchase the Marine or Brit modules.

[panzermartin]

Its a new bolt-action animation if you didn't purchase the Marine or Brit modules.

You could well be right Are there bolt action weapons in the modules?

[Ryujin]

Yeah, the various sniper rifles.

[Lanzfeld]

Lets hope they fix the "spent casing ejecting before the bolt is cycled" graphics bug. Small but important.

[blow56]

My initial impression is ... why isn't this an add-on? It would be good to be able to do decent 2010 Afghan campaigns using this and the other modules. And we might get water tiles at last. This has been in development for long enough, so who made the decision not to integrate it right back at the start and why?

[Lanzfeld]

$$$

I dont blame them.

[gibsonm]

My initial impression is ... why isn't this an add-on? It would be good to be able to do decent 2010 Afghan campaigns using this and the other modules. And we might get water tiles at last. This has been in development for long enough, so who made the decision not to integrate it right back at the start and why?

Because its not being produced by Battlefront.

Snowball is a totally discrete entity and as I understand it they bought the rights to the CMx engine so you could have more choice.

For example if I as a Beta tester raise an issue with Battlefront re the earlier products or NATO or Normandy then we get a pretty rapid response.

If I raise something about Afghanistan then Steve, et al pass it on to Snowball but there's no certainty that it will be incorporated.

Currently you have two companies putting stuff out (so that basically Battlefront's NATO and Normandy games will come out at about the same time [very generally speaking] as Snowball's Afghanistan).

The alternative is Battlefront only making stuff with a linear production line of say NATO then Normandy then Afghanistan with a few months in between each and customers clamouring for details of when the next module is coming out and complaining / commenting that "Normandy should be before NATO", or "NATO should be before Afghanistan", or "Normandy should be before Afghanistan", or "Afghanistan should be before both", etc.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Even if it were being produced by BFC, it would still be a separate game. Afghanistan in the 80s has nothing to do with the CMSF.

[MikeyD]

The titles have always been planned ahead of time to get only so big and no bigger. This is going to happen in CM:Normandy too. I'm not sure how many modules are planned for the initial title but once they hit the change of seasons - and of terrain tiles and vehicle types - it'll be on to a the next title.

[Speedy]

Finally this is the game I wanted when Shock Force came out.

[Sequoia]

Finally this is the game I wanted when Shock Force came out.

Do you mean as far as features are concerned or subject matter?

[joeroma]

Back to the subject of the animations:

I disagree with those who say that the animations are not important, but enough to have a simulation model advanced.

The animations are essential.

If you want to create a war game, one must remember that war is not something abstract, but is made and fought by men.

Then recreate the movement animations and all that can realistically make the movement of soldiers, makes the game very realistic.

I would rather have a game with some inaccuracy in more than revised animations or management of the infantry too simplistic.

Some have told me that there is a difference between realism and immersive ..... no.

for me the same thing if it is fun when I play a game of war.

Sorry if my English is not perfect!

regards

[Speedy]

Do you mean as far as features are concerned or subject matter?

Subject matter - just find this the most interesting conflict of the last 30-40 years.

Probably as much as anything due to the fact there is so little info on it in the west.

edit - and a fictional war as a setting just doesn't interest me - other than perhaps nato v warsaw pact 70's-80's

[Drager]

I'm still enjoying my recent rediscovery of CMBB(played it originally when it released)... havent moved on to CMAK or the Shock Force versions yet. I'll second the thought of fictional wars not holding much interest... The whole NATO vs Soviet Pact forces fictional wars has never held much interest for me. Afghanastan does look interesting, but perhaps a bit limited in variety of troop types and equipment(especially for the Afghans and Mujahadeen).

As far as new releases, I'd personally really like to see a CM Vietnam. What possibilities and variety of men and equipment that would have. Ability to play the earliest French missions/campaigns, later Americans, SF, SEALs, Viet Cong regulars, VC sappers, VC guerillas, tunnels, claymores, CAS, helicopter Gunships, Helo Troop deployments, River Boats(PBRs, Stabs)... A wide variety of terrain, from heavy jungle to the Mekong Delta, as well as urban combat. Wouldnt have much in the heavy armor department, but it would be an infantryman and river rats dream.

[John Kettler]

Drager,

You just have to be patient. Later in the war, during Tet, you have RSVN M41s and M48s vs. NVA T-54s and PT-76s at Dong Ha.

http://ehistory.osu.edu/world/articles/ArticleView.cfm?AID=73.

Sure hope they add combat demolitions!

http://kbc3337design.tripod.com/ripley.htm

If you like things even more exciting, you can play An Loc as the RSVN, fighting off T-54/55s with LAW amidst 3000 round a day 130 mm bombardment.

http://www.anloc.org/

Earlier, there's this.

Lang Vei 1968

http://www.langvei.com/

Followed by Ben Het 1969

http://www.rjsmith.com/ben-het.html

Nice overview of armor use in the Vietnam War. (Layout needs work.)

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/vietnam/armor/

Should note that Vietnam was the combat debut of the AT-3 SAGGER, even though it got all the media attention during the Yom Kippur War the following year.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/9K11_Malyutka

Regards,

John Kettler

[MikeyD]

If We're fantasizing about a Vietnam title let's remember the war didn't stop with the Paris Peace Accords and U.S. pullout. The April '75 assault saw fierce tank fighting bewtween ARVN and North Vietnam. Masses of M48s vs T54s. That could be a whole campaign right there! There'd be no excuse for a Vietnam title that stopped short and didn't run through the fall of Saigon.

[Speedy]

Of course with the scope of individual cm x2 titles you would need about 15 games to cover the Vietnam war.

[MikeyD]

Vietnam would have the advantage of no dramatic change of seasons and not much by way of uniform changes over time. So theoretically it wouldn't have to be be split into seperate 'titles'. What would be logical places to chop it up into modules? Perhaps the Australians can get their own module. If by 'cover the Vietnam war' you mean recerate every firefight it might take 15 modules, but by firefight scenario #500 we might be a bit burned-out with the game.

[Clavicula_Nox]

Vietnam would have the advantage of no dramatic change of seasons and not much by way of uniform changes over time. So theoretically it wouldn't have to be be split into seperate 'titles'. What would be logical places to chop it up into modules? Perhaps the Australians can get their own module. If by 'cover the Vietnam war' you mean recerate every firefight it might take 15 modules, but by firefight scenario #500 we might be a bit burned-out with the game.

This is how I picture it

Title:

US Aircav/Leg/Airborne infantry(all pretty similar) + Mech Infantry vs NVA

Module 1:

CIDG + LRRP vs VietCong

Module 2:

ARVN + Marines

Module 3:

ANZAC

Module 4:

The rest

[Panzerfest]

Brown water navy module anyone?