joeroma Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 Yeah, I want a refund! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicdain Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 change the animationsAlthough 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 5, 2010 Share Posted February 5, 2010 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! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 If my eyes dont fool me I think I spotted a new animation for bolt rifles in some of the screenshots. this: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 6, 2010 Share Posted February 6, 2010 Its a new bolt-action animation if you didn't purchase the Marine or Brit modules. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzermartin Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryujin Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Yeah, the various sniper rifles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 Lets hope they fix the "spent casing ejecting before the bolt is cycled" graphics bug. Small but important. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blow56 Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 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? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lanzfeld Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 $$$ I dont blame them. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gibsonm Posted February 8, 2010 Share Posted February 8, 2010 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pvt. Ryan Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 9, 2010 Share Posted February 9, 2010 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted February 13, 2010 Share Posted February 13, 2010 Finally this is the game I wanted when Shock Force came out. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sequoia Posted February 14, 2010 Share Posted February 14, 2010 Finally this is the game I wanted when Shock Force came out. Do you mean as far as features are concerned or subject matter? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joeroma Posted February 15, 2010 Author Share Posted February 15, 2010 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted February 16, 2010 Share Posted February 16, 2010 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drager Posted February 22, 2010 Share Posted February 22, 2010 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 24, 2010 Share Posted February 24, 2010 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Speedy Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 Of course with the scope of individual cm x2 titles you would need about 15 games to cover the Vietnam war. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted February 26, 2010 Share Posted February 26, 2010 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. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 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 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Panzerfest Posted February 28, 2010 Share Posted February 28, 2010 Brown water navy module anyone? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.