Vinnart Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Here is how my first CMSF PBEM went: It was a meeting engagment med infantry mix for both sides BLue VS Red. I got Platoons of Bradlys, 105mm strykers, 2 platoons infantry. He got just infantry. Our game last 4 turns till a "This sucks" was called, and half his army was in panic. The QB system was a bad call for CMSF, and I am SO glad this is back to create more balanced battles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted May 9, 2011 Author Share Posted May 9, 2011 That was my first, and learned to stick to senario maps which are much better for CMSF PBEM. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DocMcJansen Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Here is how my first CMSF PBEM went: It was a meeting engagment med infantry mix for both sides BLue VS Red. I got Platoons of Bradlys, 105mm strykers, 2 platoons infantry. He got just infantry. Our game last 4 turns till a "This sucks" was called, and half his army was in panic. The QB system was a bad call for CMSF, and I am SO glad this is back to create more balanced battles. Amen to that! Still don't know why they did it that way in CMSF 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Amen to that! Still don't know why they did it that way in CMSF To stop people picking 'unrealistic', 'gamey' force mixes like Panthers backed up with AA half-tracks only... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Other Means Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I think you're going to enjoy it 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MeatEtr Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Wow, I haven't posted on the main CMBN forums in a very long time. Time sure does fly by when your having fun! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 I'm just glad they did a nice middleground. A pure cherry-picked system would be horrible 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSpkr Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 . . .'unrealistic', 'gamey' force mixes like Panthers backed up with AA half-tracks only... You say that like it's a bad thing. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnsy Posted May 9, 2011 Share Posted May 9, 2011 Wow, I haven't posted on the main CMBN forums in a very long time. Time sure does fly by when your having fun! Fun my friend. That's not very nice. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vinnart Posted May 10, 2011 Author Share Posted May 10, 2011 To stop people picking 'unrealistic', 'gamey' force mixes like Panthers backed up with AA half-tracks only... I disagree that is any more gamery than a blue vs blue. Realisticly we hope blue would never go against blue, but that is in the game of CMSF. Why? Because it is fun, make things more interesting for playing a GAME. Now are blue vs blue being in the game making it any more unrealistic gameplay? NO!, because the game physics are based on realistic unit stats and act more realistic within the game environment. You see as long as the environment, unit hit damage, Line of sight ect... are based on realism it doesn't matter if unrealistic force match ups. If only real force match ups are what one prefes, one can set it up that way if they want, but don’t take away flexibility. "Gamey" are games that do not have realistic ballistics ecct.. For example if I had a bunch of guys take out a Tiger by throwing 20 frag grenades I would call that gamey. I really wish this community would understand that as long as the environment is realistic, then the game is realistic. The gameplay, the tactics, all that stays real and doesn't matter if you are fighting for a flag, or a box of Lucky Charms. You will still be using a realistic environment interaction, and your same realistic tactics to achieve the goal. Personally I prefer a point system that lets the player buy what ever he wants just as in Cmx1. What this creates is BALALNCE so situations do not occur as the story of how my first PBEM was a flop. I found this much more interesting, and I NEVER had a problem winning playing either as axis, or allies. I use to LOVE Panthers vs Hellcats set ups! I am just glad that BF is involved with feedback, and that although the intentions were to go ultra realistic with the QB in CMSF, it is just one of those cases where ultrarealism does not fit well into QB to make for balanced, fun gameplay. I know my opponant was having anything but fun having his army destroyed, and given nothing to counter it. If my opponent, or anyone would have been able to PICK BMPs to match my Bradly’s the game would not of ended in an agreed cease-fire. It is just one of those calls like when Coca Cola changed it’s recipe. No one liked it. When you have a winning formula change just may not be the right course. Battlefront you listened to your players wants, and your players appreciate it. I think we will all see how much better the QB will be in CMBN. Look forward to it! Long live CM so grogs can get their fix! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I honestly don't understand why people didn't play Red v Red more often with CMSF. Red v Red allowed me to play WW2 style battles, conventional forces clashing in the open, challenging MechInf/Armour v same battles on large open maps without one side having to skulk to get a win. (The NATO maps were particularly good for these types of battles) You could stand toe-to toe with your opponent and slug it out. Having said that, cherry picking is a must for WW2 and I'm glad we've got it back for the Normandy title. I'm more or less back to playing QBs and nothing else already. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
womble Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 You say that like it's a bad thing. Steve If I was saying it like it's a bad thing, I'd've left off the quotes. I giggle at outrageous firepower, same as the next messed-up kid 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottie Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 cant wait for the new cherry picker ether played a few CMSF QBs recently , annoying not being able to select your equipment. M A D N E S S to drop this feature in CMSF , what the heck were you thinking BF. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LJFHutch Posted May 10, 2011 Share Posted May 10, 2011 I disagree that is any more gamery than a blue vs blue. Realisticly we hope blue would never go against blue, but that is in the game of CMSF. Why? Because it is fun, make things more interesting for playing a GAME. Well just for argument's sake a Blue vs Blue scenario could represent a fictional war not covered by the game's scope, whereas sixy squads of javelin infantry is just silly 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.