CMSF unfinished?

[Joshua]

Here are some articles and videos about the July 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. If this war were to be made into a CM game the title might be Combat Mission: Shocked Force

All the assumptions of CMSF are that US forces would win in an invasion of Syria. The experiences of the July 2006 raises at least the possibility that Syria could plausibly win a conflict.

http://www.jpost.com/Home/Article.aspx?id=31957

http://conflictsforum.org/2006/how-hezbollah-defeated-israel-2/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-6UWGPfwJs

Reviewing documents and videos it is clear that CMSF doesn't accurately represent the real capabilities of weapons and tactics for the Opfor. For instance anyone can watch videos an see soldiers firing SPG 9s from their shoulders, but in CMSF it is not possible. Even in the documents for CMSF it is written that AT 7 and AT 13 missiles can also be fired from the shoulder, but in the game it is not possible. You can watch yourself in these videos and see AT 3 and AT 14 missiles being deployed by teams into firing positions. It takes 5 seconds, not 90 seconds. You can see partially that one AT 3 guidance module can be linked to multiple rockets so that an operator can fire 2,3 or 4 rockets without waiting for reloading.

Beyond this there are many many other issues that we could raise some affecting one faction, and others all of them.

There are a wide range of combat tactics and abilities that are not modeled CMSF, and you can watch videos on the net from various modern wars to see what these are. Some of these are so mundane it is a shock. For instance machine guns can only fire in bursts, and never fire in long continuous bursts, even though this feature was in previous CM titles. Seeing new weapons and modules added and new work being put into CM Normandy I am hugely dissappointed because I feel like CMSF has huge gaps and is not yet finished.

How many years has the game been out and I still cannot use the inventory menu to drop an item? Even something completely basic and ordinary is not completed. I tried a quick battle the other day and selected infantry for both sides, and one side got 50 humvees and no infantry. How many years has the game been out now and this feature, which is was a huge feature in previous CM titles, hardly works?

I like CMSF, and before adding even one new piece of equipment I would like to see existing equipment ironed out, various scenario features made to work, improvements in the AI at all levels, an actually functional inventory system, terrain that works better and all the other features that belong in the base game.

The bottom line is that CMSF is not polished to level befitting a developer of such abilities and previous achievements as Battlefront. CMSF has a huge potential for continued improvement, parallel to and hopefully preceding in priority additions to new equipment and new scenarios.

[phil stanbridge]

Interesting post. All I would say in the games' defense is that it is a work in progress in my eyes. It's a bit of a rough diamond in places granted, but it's definitely an improvement over previous games. I'm sure there are lots of features and things missing in the game, but in reality, these would probably take some of the appeal away from it - god can you imagine facing an enemy who would be able to fire hundreds of rockets at you ot once It wouldn't be much fun would it, and at the end of the day this is just a game, albeit one that tries to represent a sense of authenticity. It can't please everyone. Interesting comment about the machine gun rate of fire - I hadn't even noticed this myself. In reality these days, would a machine gun team constantly fire to suppress knowing they would expose their positions and run out of ammunition pretty quick? I've no idea. But it does make you think.

Reference the QB generator it's a steaming pile of pooh (pun intended). I have used it perhaps a couple of times. I'm sure the QB gen will be improved no end, especially in Normandy, and then in the next gen of Shock Force.

[Joshua]

I am not trying to knock CMSF anywhere, any game has gaps. The point here is that it has been several years, several modules, and now a brand new game and even the simple gaps haven't yet been filled. So the idea is to prompt battlefront to fill atleast a few holes before moving on to the next game.

For something like ATGM deploy times it is as simple as watching a video of the real thing in action, making an assessment, and deleting the number 90 and replacing it with something else.

For firing from the shoulder, the coding already exists. So for instance you can fire an M240 undeployed with less accuracy and deployed with more accuracy. I'm sure making SPG 9 and AT 13 fire undeployed with less accuracy wouldn't be a difficult fix. For SPG 9 you can watch the videos and see for yourself that it does happen and is possible, For AT 13 it is already included in the manual that it is possible, so the only step now is to acknowledge what we already know and update the game.

For machine guns, as I mentioned continuous fire was already in CMBB. The situation was if you were ~100m or less from the enemy then it is time to let 'er rip.

As I mentioned if you want to know how a PKM is used in combat, you can look up videos for yourself on youtube, liveleak, or maybe other places as well. The short version is that you can fire from the hip, you can fire while moving, you can blind fire, you can use 250 round belts, you can fire all 250 in one burst, a single guy can have a 250 round belt in the gun, another on his shoulder. In CMSF a two man team has 400 rounds, less than one guy can carry by himself, you can fire in only short bursts, and basically it is a much less flexible weapon with much less firepower.

Here is something simple. Stick your head up, fire your rpg duck, move to a new spot and repeat. This is the most basic tactic.

In CMSF if I set a guy in a trench with an RPG he will fire, then stay exposed until he is hit. Maybe he will start cowering if too many shots land near him. I know of no way to get a guy to shoot and scoot, even though this was a feature of vehicles as long ago as CMBB. Of course more advance tactics are go around the corner of a building, fire rpg, then go back around the corner. Go over the crest of a hill, fire, then go back. Forget advanced tactics, I can't even get a guy in a trench to fire and then duck.

The simple fix is a shoot and hide command for any unit. The next fix is to get the AI to do it. The next is a shoot and scoot command.

This is just the most basic ordinary tactic ever, pop out, fire your rpg, then run. Not only can the AI not do it, even the player can't do it in turn based mode, or in real time without excessive mico managing.

Anyone who is interested in war can go and study the July 2006 war, it is in my opinion the most important lesson for modern forces in the past 20 years. That experience shows that a military force can withstand 100,000 155mm artillery shells, thousands of precision guided bombs, and an outnumbering force of thousands of elite troops backed by modern armor and still win and still win while taking a parity in casualties.

That war shows that helicopters, even apaches can be shot down by shoulder fired missiles, and other experiences show they can even be shot down by machine guns.

Comparing that war and CMSF you can see that CMSF has a lot of potential, but right now is closer to the fantasy of Western generals than a simulation of modern warfare. The biggest problems are at the smallest levels, where even the most basic tactics of firing, and then repositioning are difficult or impossible to perform adequately.

[Jaws]

What you ask is a $100.000 simulation for the price of $25. I can tell you that most things you mention are not even present in a $100.000 simulation. You know why not?

Ask 100 ppl what they want to see in a combat simulation and you will get 100 different opinions. In the case of CMSF there are only one or two programmers who need to program it all. And then it is a simple matter of priorities. Not that some point you make are relevant but those few programmers were working on CMSF, CMA and CM:Normandy. You could say…. fix CMSF first then…. but believe… if those priorities would be made then war will start with the WW2 fans who are waiting for 5 years to a sequel of CM-1 series like CMBB/CMAK.

So I would say the glass is half full here and we should cherish what we have now cause there is no other product coming even close to CMSF atm.

[Thomm]

Joshua,

You present some good points along with evidence supporting them.

I like CMSF, and before adding even one new piece of equipment I would like to see existing equipment ironed out, various scenario features made to work, improvements in the AI at all levels, an actually functional inventory system, terrain that works better and all the other features that belong in the base game.

BFC has to make money. Improving the base game does not earn them money, but selling modules with new content does.

You outlined things that you dislike, and strongly so. I also can name plenty of items that make me want to pull my hair out (flavor object manipulation, no gun elevation limits on tanks, ...) and that are not going to be fixed (it seems), as trivial as they may appear to be (referring to the flavor objects here).

The way I perceive it, the programming capacity of BFC is strained to the maximum, basically at all times. They constantly have to make decisions where to take shortcuts and where not. Some of these decisions hurt you, some hurt me, some may hurt themselves.

It is something that we have to accept. Keys to causing changes are (1) being polite, (2) not getting emotional, (3) repeating (!!!). So keep up the good work!

Best regards,

Thomm

[Lethaface]

Joshua,

Good points and they were almost all covered before on this forum. So, your not alone

Setup Times: The setup times for ATGM's have already been nerfed, I believe for 1.21 orso. Steve did post quite some info about their presumptions and IIRC he had quite reliable sources for the data. And there is a difference between totally setting up an AT3 and moving a previously setup AT3 to another place (and unfold the tripod). The latter can be done in 5 seconds but i'm not so sure about the first.

Shoot & Scoot: The fire RPG / Jav / etc and then duck has been covered many times on the forum. Javelin soldiers for example will directly reload the weapon before doing anything else. Probably the shoot and scoot style RPG firing is rather difficult to implement in a correct manner, otherwise they would have done it some time ago.

ATGMs. Shoulder fire: I believe it is actually possible to fire an AT13 from the shoulder. I have done it from a balcony if I am correct. Since I prefer setting up positions I haven't tried it too much though. Shoot and scoot with ATGM's is possible though. Give a target command and a 30/45 sec pause following a waypoint somewhere else and the crew will try to fire a round and then run like hell.

Its not ideal, but at least a work around until a better solution gets implemented (hopefully somewhere in the future, perhaps cmsf2).

And by the way it is possible to win using Red forces, the most important thing is the mission design. Most designers favour the ´blue´ side and so Blue gets elite forces versus untrained weak armed red forces.

Now when you take a special forces platoon or airborne platoon, thats a whole different story. And AT14s are lethal for any tank in the game.

I actually still have an unfinished PBEM game of UK Outmanoeuvred TURBOCHARGED where I play as Red against Slug88. Using 2 AT-14's and 1 AT-7's I have knocked out most of his tanks. The T90's weren't that succesfull but I managed to save 1 and that one was wrecking havoc among his remaining IFV's. I damaged/ko'ed around 7 Challengers and 2 Abrams with 2 AT-14's and 1 AT-7.

So I think you made some good points and some are definitely worthy of implementing (and probably even BF.C agress), however until now other things had priority.

Well, ain't that a nice summary of life on earth? You have good reasons to want many things but in the end you just don't get them all

EDIT: My main point is that your grieves are valid and not unique, but perhaps you should address it a little more constructive / understanding for their positions. The tendency of your post is rather negative, which isn't necessary in my eyes. A lot of things were already improved since the game came out, apart from fixing the things that should obviously have worked from the start.. The only reason for our further grievances is that they made the rest of this game so addictive that we NEED those features really bad!

Something more constructive would for example be stating that you are willing to pay for a Module containing only engine improvements, without new content. I for one would pay for that!

[hoolaman]

Here are some articles and videos about the July 2006 war between Israel and Hezbollah. If this war were to be made into a CM game the title might be Combat Mission: Shocked Force

All the assumptions of CMSF are that US forces would win in an invasion of Syria. The experiences of the July 2006 raises at least the possibility that Syria could plausibly win a conflict.

If you read the manual you will know that the hezbollah war of 2006 was extremely influential in the thinking behind the game which was full ahead development at that time. Syria cannot win a conventional war against the entire western world. This of course doesn't mean that they couldn't cause some pain in localised engagements. If anything CMSF is biased toward Syria in the assumption that they could get any conventional force into a position to oppose the invasion. The fighters in 2006 were not a conventional army and while there are lessons to be learned, there would be big differences in the way the forces deployed too.

Shoot and scoot is pretty easy IMO, your assertion that it is not possible is incorrect. Troops should spot and aim at a target withing ten seconds. So give a 10 second pause, then a slow move and a hide order. Your guys will have ten seconds to aim and fire, then they will duck down and crawl and the hide order keeps them down. Sometimes they don't get the shot within ten seconds, but much longer and they are going to die anyway so ten is a good guide.

[Guest]

Joshua -

CMSF is a game. Of course it doesn't match reality exactly. Very few games do. As I recall, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare doesn't allow the player to use martial arts to incapacitate an enemy, when in fact most modern combat troops would be more than capable of doing so, and in the game it would probably be a good idea at times. Also, how sweet would it have been if you could? You know if Activision could have gotten that into the game it would have tickled them pink - but they didn't.

Why? Because it would have added another few thousand hours of animator and developer time (at least) for something that, while the opportunity may often come up and the ability may exist, is a corner case. It's simply not what happens *most* of the time, and therefore it's not a priority. Given that Call of Duty had a budget several hundred times larger than pretty much any real wargame on the market, I think that should be indicative. You're not going to get everything that's possible - for a game of any scope, that's just not realistic.

All of the changes you're talking about, simple or not (and I'd like to call for a moratorium on declaring things "easy" to do when you've got no idea, all right?) take time. Time is at a premium. BFC has a game to make, and it MUST have some features. Others are not so important, as obvious or seemingly fundamental as they might be. So while it would be fun, interesting, and very cool to have soldiers able to use a PKM in all of the ways it *can* be used (I'd love to see that!), if they did that they'd have to leave other things out. Things which you might discover are far more irksome in their absence than a smorgasbord of PKM usage scenarios.

And, as has been pointed out already, BFC is a business. It has to make money to make games. It can't do that by simply improving existing titles. Very few game companies make money from single ongoing titles, unless they're MMOs. They've spent a lot of time making CMSF into a great game. It's certainly not perfect, but even with huge budgets and vastly simplified gameplay covering far fewer scenarios... no game is.

[Jonny(FGM)]

For machine guns, as I mentioned continuous fire was already in CMBB. The situation was if you were ~100m or less from the enemy then it is time to let 'er rip.

I don't believe that to be correct.

[stikkypixie]

I don't believe that to be correct.

Bursts gets longer as the enemy is closer and suppression level is high in CMSF. Don't know about machine guns though.

[Jonny(FGM)]

Yes I had noticed that in CMSF, for area targetting at least.

The post i was quoting was referring to CMBB though

[stikkypixie]

Yes I had noticed that in CMSF, for area targetting at least.

The post i was quoting was referring to CMBB though

Ah ok, I misread

[MikeyD]

About America's 'overwhelming superiority' , There's several different directions to tackle that question from.

First is the design date of the scenario you're playing.

A big advantage of module scenarios is the designers are more experienced and daring. The maps tend to get bigger, the terrain is more real-world-like, The AI opponent is better thought out. A cake-walk over Syrian opponents in a 2007 basegame scenario can be bloody mayhem in a similar 2009 (soon 2010) module scenario.

Second: Playing to Syria's advantages makes for bad gameplay!

This is my own theory. People didn't buy the game to be stopped halfway across the map by a minefield or to endure a prolonged hvy artillery rocket barrage on top of their troops. And they don't like playing tanks versus Kornet ATGMs on open maps from 2000m+. So, quite unconscieously, scenario design tends towards what the player wants, and what the player wants happens to be what the U.S. is good at. I recall I started one scenario with an open road convoy ambush followed by an artillery rocket strike on the position. sound tactics, but I got an angry response from players!

3rd - Convenient memory lapses.

First time you play that scenario all your tanks are left burning. So you quit out before finishing, restart and target that pesky ATGM position, then complain afterward how easy the battle was to win. Don't say you've never done that. We're all frickin' Pattons after the third play-through.

[Erwin]

One advantage of being older is that I can't remember where the enemy was or consists of when I restart a scenario.

The only problem is that after 3 years I still seem to be playing the first couple scenarios.

[Barkhorn1x]

We're all frickin' Pattons after the third play-through.

Word!! ****************

[Lanzfeld]

Shoot and scoot is pretty easy IMO, your assertion that it is not possible is incorrect. Troops should spot and aim at a target withing ten seconds. So give a 10 second pause, then a slow move and a hide order. Your guys will have ten seconds to aim and fire, then they will duck down and crawl and the hide order keeps them down. Sometimes they don't get the shot within ten seconds, but much longer and they are going to die anyway so ten is a good guide.

I think the shoot and scoot the OP is talking about is in respect to RPG's. The way the game is now, the shooter always chooses to reload before ducking back into the cover of the trench. He always gets killled for this "stay and reload" mindset. Almost impossible to have a RPG guy stand, shoot, and get the hell outa there. This is what I would do. In this aspect...I agree with the OP. I have wanted this fixed......forever it seems.

Great game though.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I like how one member of the jav team takes off while the other sits there reloading.

[Vark]

Am I the only person who thinks the article referenced reeks of inference and bias? Casualty rates based on Hezbollah public funerals, Lebanese comments about "shooting rubber bullets at women and children and the resurrection of the AT-3 as a wonder weapon destroying MBT's. All of the above may be correct but where is the evidence for such claims, I was looking forward to an analytical piece, given the posts content, not inferred arguments, based on quotes gathered from secondary and much used quotes and 'sources'.

I do not intend to start an interminable IDF evil/IDF good 'debate' but the piece failed to address the real issues that caused the IDF's poor performance in 2006, factors that I doubt would be replicated by a US attacker (poor logistics, poor Opsec and the use of reserve troops etc). Perhaps if the CMSF scenarios featured thirsty and hungry National Guard soldiers with little or no FIBU training; walking into village ambushes, where their ROE precludes being able to flatten dug in forces then yes the results might be similar to SF's invasion scenario.

The summary of the Winograd report can be found here in this NYT report showing the systemic failings of the IDF.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/30/world/middleeast/31winograd-web.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

[Ron]

Am I the only person who thinks the article referenced reeks of inference and bias?

Nope, watched it and thought 'Wow, Hezbollah promotional video - and the screw turns'.

To the OP. I don't know, BFC is still the only game in town as far as I can see. Sure, it's a game and it isn't perfect, I have some pet peeves too, but if you can point me to another game that does more, hell even as much, I would like to know about it. Give BFC some credit, I'm sure they are doing what they can, where they can.

[Vark]

The second personal account is equally misleading as it refers to the only helicopter shot down in the conflict, infact the only Israeli helicopter ever downed by Hezbollah.

[Battlefront.com]

No game is ever "complete" in the eyes of its customers. Warcraft II, Panzer General, Space Invaders... you name the game and I'll name something that "needs" improving. With a simulation of a very expansive real world environment is even worse. If one is looking for perfection, one will never EVER find it in their lifetime. Even if they had $50,000,000 to invest like some of the big game companies do. It's simply impossible.

As Thomm said, we have to make decisions about what to spend our time on and what not to. On top of that, so much of the data out there is subject to argument, conditional constraints, or simple accuracy. Which means pretty much every bit of data we've ever put into a game is probably questionable to some degree. We do change things when we feel we can/should, but sometimes that isn't what the customer thinks and therefore we're going to have to just agree to disagree.

The notion that Syria could defeat the combined conventional forces of the West is unfounded. Based on historical study and track record of combat in the Middle East there's just no evidence to suggest that Syria would be able to do more than give the invaders a mild scratch or two. Or if it was really, really lucky... it may dish out a bloody nose. Once. But the end state is almost a certainty... Syria would cease to exist in its current political state.

Having said that, defeating the conventional forces of a country is Step 1. Step 2 is defeating opposition within the country. As Iraq and Afghanistan show, that can last for years and years. In fact, the occupying nations have lost more casualties and equipment in each of its years of occupation than it did during the initial invasion. Which simply goes to underscore the point that has been made over and over again since the insurgency in Iraq started... unconventional warfare, over time, is what can defeat a major power like the US or NATO as a whole.

Steve

[ChrisND]

No game is ever "complete" in the eyes of its customers.

I'd dare say that no game is ever "complete" to the developers either. I hear that it can be hard to decide when enough is enough, stop polishing and adding things, and release something.

[Battlefront.com]

Yup, you got that right. CM:Normandy has a ton of features in it that we wanted in CMBO but couldn't for one or (usually) more reasons. Shock Force has literally hundreds of improvements made to it, some people didn't even know they wanted until they played with them.

Steve

[theFightingSeabee]

But Steve, you guys never really stop, nor do you plan to for quite some time. Each "version" of the game is really just a base for the next one. These versions are just snapshots in time of the evolution of Combat Mission. Every few years, there's going to be a major overhaul of the engine, but it's going to be based on lessons learned and better technology. If your grandpa gave you a '32 roadster, but you put on some new tires, an engine, lights, guages, upholstery, fenders, windshield, and an electrical system you ordered from a hot rod magazine, you'd still have yourself a '32 Roadster. The game is still the best in it's class and getting better all the time.

[Lethaface]

If I may ask, is it 100% definite that no more patches/modules will be applied to CMSF after NATO?

Some years ago there were ideas about modules backporting new functionality but IIRC those ideas have ceased to exist.

I would surely be interested but I understand that only that won't make it happen