CM:N strategy , campaigns

[JonS]

I think the same could be said of lower teeth arms formations, squads and platoons.

I agree, except with the proviso that 'learning' at those very low levels is far more brittle, for two reasons.

Firstly; the entire platoon and squad is subjected to pretty much the same stresses and strains, and would therefore burnout at about the same rate. This becomes less and less true as you move up the food chain.

Secondly; the entire platoon and squad is subjected to casualty attrition at about the same rate, which becomes less and less true as you move up the food chain. Furthermore, losing an entire squad or even platoon in a single mass-casualty event (be it KIA, MIA, or PW) is reasonably common. But, again, this becomes less and less true as you move up the organisational food chain.

The outcome of that is, in my opinion, that corporate knowledge tends to become more robust and detailed at higher levels.

[c3k]

Of course, none of this even touches on the differences between nationalities. Units formed from cohesive pre-war communities, rotation policies, replacement training and nurturing, largest unit to which one feels loyalty, etc.

Ken

[YankeeDog]

*Watches worms crawling about on ground*

Yeah, I should have seen that coming.

Discussions of experience, and how it affects troop quality, have been done to death here. The basic point I was trying to make is that it's not linear, nor is it a universally upward path. A Green unit doesn't just go through x number of battles and magically become Regular, and then a x battles later, become Veteran. Combat experience can wreck a soldier psychologically as easily as it can turn a greenhorn into Sgt. Rock.

Whatever specific theory or study you subscribe to, there is no doubt that how "Crack" units become great fighting units is, in fact, extremely complex and largely beyond the scope of a game that only follows a fighting force for a few weeks, at most.

[JonS]

Well, I did the test with CMSF 1.21 . . . and I didn't get it to work; their experience didn't go up. Maybe I just did it wrong and someone else should take a look at it, I just threw the test together in 5 mins.

You should be able to manually edit the experience rating of troops for each battle after you've imported the Core Units File. But that's at the behest of the campaign designer, not something the game does based on any parameters, and certainly well outside the control of the players to affect.

[JonS]

Yeah, I should have seen that coming.

there is no doubt that how "Crack" units become great fighting units is, in fact, extremely complex and largely beyond the scope of a game that only follows a fighting force for a few weeks, at most.

Sorry YD. Yes, I agree with you in this.

[vincere]

Whatever specific theory or study you subscribe to, there is no doubt that how "Crack" units become great fighting units is, in fact, extremely complex and largely beyond the scope of a game that only follows a fighting force for a few weeks, at most.

Yeah, was just reflecting something similar. I have just picked up Black Hearts, and can't put it down. Into the 6th chapter and again another Iraq book is highlighting complexities in squad, platoon effectiveness. Also how circumstantional personalities affect combat effectiveness.

I have been making an assumption, possibly incorrect , that with CMN, with modules it will be possible to string a longer camaign together. If so it seems qute natural that some platoons should go from largely green/regular to regular/veteran.

I agree, except with the proviso that 'learning' at those very low levels is far more brittle, for two reasons.

Firstly; the entire platoon and squad is subjected to pretty much the same stresses and strains, and would therefore burnout at about the same rate. This becomes less and less true as you move up the food chain.

Secondly; the entire platoon and squad is subjected to casualty attrition at about the same rate, which becomes less and less true as you move up the food chain. Furthermore, losing an entire squad or even platoon in a single mass-casualty event (be it KIA, MIA, or PW) is reasonably common. But, again, this becomes less and less true as you move up the organisational food chain.

The outcome of that is, in my opinion, that corporate knowledge tends to become more robust and detailed at higher levels.

Good point. Perhaps a little reflected down the chain with Divisional training and SOPs.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

You should be able to manually edit the experience rating of troops for each battle after you've imported the Core Units File. But that's at the behest of the campaign designer, not something the game does based on any parameters, and certainly well outside the control of the players to affect.

Yeah, I tried that. It didn't work. My guess it that I botched something along the way, since I did it in a massive hurry.

[scottie]

I miss the statistics of old in CMBO/CMBB and CMAK with the kill count and who got what. I really miss that a lot actually. I found it quite helpful in a gamey type of way.

But to Scottie, SF is leaps and bounds above that. You really need to give it another go. It took me the best part of 3 years to get into it and now I wouldn't go back to the other games. Just waiting on NATO and then the biggie, Normandy to keep me quiet for a while. It does take quite a bit of practice to get it right, but when it falls into place, you realise it's a better game. I am still trying to get my mate in SF, but if it took me 3 years. Well, you get my point.

Theatre of War is a good laugh when you fancy ten minutes away from SF I've got 2 and 3 sitting here. Some of TOWs little features are quite nice, but they definitely do not fit in the scope of these games.

STATS yip, completely miss them too

When you say it takes a bit of practice, what takes practice ? maybe i a missing the concept but when i did play CM:SF (for a couple of months after first release) there just didnt appear to be much depth. Not enough options for me , felt like i needed more control. This is coming from someone that has loved BF products since CM:BO and understanding the depth BF put in to there products , sorry to say CM:SF put me of the brand for a bit .... hopefully CM:N will bring back that initial excitement. No offence intended BF , all about personal opinions and perception.

[phil stanbridge]

STATS yip, completely miss them too

When you say it takes a bit of practice, what takes practice ? maybe i a missing the concept but when i did play CM:SF (for a couple of months after first release) there just didnt appear to be much depth. Not enough options for me , felt like i needed more control. This is coming from someone that has loved BF products since CM:BO and understanding the depth BF put in to there products , sorry to say CM:SF put me of the brand for a bit .... hopefully CM:N will bring back that initial excitement. No offence intended BF , all about personal opinions and perception.

The more you immerse yourself in the game, the more realistic it becomes. This can be said about any game to a degree, but it works particularly well with SF. When I said practice, I simply meant practice makes perfect. SF is a difficult game on several layers. It took me the best part of 3 years to really absorb it and get into it. Now I find that I'm loving it more and more. Lots of things really help, like the 1:1 representation, and the new engine. Even the simplicity of adding mods. But the depth is there, you just need to give it a chance.

The initial problem for me was the bugs - there were lots. It also ran like a paraplegic dog on heat. Then there was the theatre which did nothing for me. For whatever reason I went back to it after a couple of years, and started to see the improvements. But I'm not kidding when I said years. There have been several patches along the way and it's now running more or less as you'd expect. I always remember SF being reviewed by a couple of gaming sites when it first came out. I wus gutted! If I recall correctly it was hung drawn and quartered. There was obviously a complete lack of understanding by the reviewers, but there were also the bugs to contend with. I bet if SF was reviewed today, with all the modules, it would do so much better. A game like this takes time to mature. Also I think it's more topical.

But I get what you say about the 'lack of control'. I think it's more the fact that modern weapons are somewhat automated compared to their counterparts in WWII. For example, the Challenger can one shot kill, almost every time, and there's very little input required from you the player. I understand that - but the challenges are still there. Weapons become 'smarter' and the game becomes harder. Have you ran into many ATGMs for example? They are a nightmare in SF. Really tricky little buggers, and there was nothing like in in WWII. So you need to 're-learn' the game to get the most out of it. The depth is there for sure. Try the campaigns over the single missions if you want immersion - as they offer so much more depth.

[vincere]

The more you immerse yourself in the game, the more realistic it becomes. This can be said about any game to a degree, but it works particularly well with SF. When I said practice, I simply meant practice makes perfect. SF is a difficult game on several layers. It took me the best part of 3 years to really absorb it and get into it. Now I find that I'm loving it more and more. Lots of things really help, like the 1:1 representation, and the new engine. Even the simplicity of adding mods. But the depth is there, you just need to give it a chance.

The initial problem for me was the bugs - there were lots. It also ran like a paraplegic dog on heat. Then there was the theatre which did nothing for me. For whatever reason I went back to it after a couple of years, and started to see the improvements. But I'm not kidding when I said years. There have been several patches along the way and it's now running more or less as you'd expect. I always remember SF being reviewed by a couple of gaming sites when it first came out. I wus gutted! If I recall correctly it was hung drawn and quartered. There was obviously a complete lack of understanding by the reviewers, but there were also the bugs to contend with. I bet if SF was reviewed today, with all the modules, it would do so much better. A game like this takes time to mature. Also I think it's more topical.

That's very similar to my experience except I was happy with the theatre. The main things getting me back in to SF were the improvements to how it plays; immersing and learning the game more.

[Battlefront.com]

The bane of any realistic game is a "reviewer" (player or supposedly professional writer) who doesn't understand the subject matter. We've had some truly abysmal reviews of some of our games over the years because the reviewer pretty clearly didn't understand what he was playing. In fact, one of the first reviews we got for one of our first games (not CMBO, which came later) was especially infuriating. The reviewer was so out of his depth that he slammed the game for not having features that were there and fully documented in the manual. Gah... 11 years later and that one still gets me mildly annoyed

Fortunately for us, reviewers don't have much impact on sales of niche games. We have an audience that is largely independent minded and doesn't want to be told what he or she (as the case rarely, but sometimes, is!) will like. With readily available demos and discussion areas, there's no practical reason why one should make a decision based on one or two other people's opinions.

The initial reviews of Shock Force were, of course, not all that great because of the bugs and because many were not well suited to reviewing the game in the first place. Later reviews have been decidedly more positive because of the improvements. Sales, however, have been going along quite nicely since the start and are still going very, very strong now even 3 years later. Which is good because this keeps us in business

Steve

[Michael Emrys]

Sales, however, have been going along quite nicely since the start and are still going very, very strong now even 3 years later.

And that, I would say, is almost entirely due to the fact that you guys didn't simply abandon it in its initial miserable state and wash your hands of it. Instead, you buckled down and did the work to pull it together. And for that you can honorably collect the rewards.

Michael

[Sequoia]

So at the end of a campaign, can it be revealed that our commanding officer is actually a hot babe and the amount of clothes she takes off will be dependent on how well we did in the fighting?

[Michael Emrys]

So at the end of a campaign, can it be revealed that our commanding officer is actually a hot babe and the amount of clothes she takes off will be dependent on how well we did in the fighting?

I guess the message that war is hell hasn't made it down to you yet?

Michael

[~Viajero]

I guess the message that war is hell hasn't made it down to you yet?

Michael

Not quite. "Hell", as put by someone of relevance "is other people". And that includes our deservedly hot babe commanding officer and the clothes she wears or lack thereof.