CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

ravinhood -> CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 4:10:18 PM)

This Reviewer is one of the good ones I follow

Though I'm not a fan of this Shock FARCE game coming out I thought maybe some of you who are modern day warfare fanatics might like to read this. This game to me is just going to be silly. You can play Americans vs Americans, how silly is that. I like Whatif's games and all but they must make sense. Or you can play Syria vs Syria, but, you can't play Syria vs the Americans (except in multiplayer) now how silly is that??? I still can't figure out whjy Battlefront would go with this modern day module and hypothetical at that instead of making some Western or Eastern front WW2 version first. I'm not buying it even when it's less than $5. lol

It comes in two flavors. Real time RTS kiddy clickfest or the normal best way wego system of old. Well at least they didn't screw that up. I just wonder if they even improved the lame ai of the Combat Mission series from being so predictable and banzai attacking out of a fortified position when it's leading an only a few turns to go. That was my biggest pet peave of the CM series. The ai would do stupid stuff like that when it had a victory in hand only to lose it because of stupidity like that.

hehe I found this statement a little bold of him.
quote:

As anyone and their dictator granny can tell you, the US military can just about roll over 99/100 countries on this small earth.



Plodder -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 4:49:17 PM)

quote:

but, you can't play Syria vs the Americans (except in multiplayer) now how silly is that???


Yes you can.That's what the game is about.The single player campaign is you commanding a Stryker company in an invasion of Syria.



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 4:59:49 PM)

You can't play SYRIA side vs the Americans. I didn't say you couldn't play Americans vs Syria now did I? ;)

quote:

The campaigns can only be played from the American perspective


For those that can't comprehend what I said. ;)



Neilster -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 5:06:23 PM)

It doesn't sound right that you can't play the Syrians against the Americans but I guess we'll see.

Battlefront made a modern-warfare game because they wanted a change from WW2. The next games will be updates of the WW2 ones (Post D-Day Western Front, Eastern Front 41-45, North Africa and Italy 40-45) using the new engine and I'm really looking forward to those. Given their track record, this is likely to be an excellent game.

Cheers, Neilster



Plodder -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 5:08:07 PM)

You can create your own campaigns though.So there will no doubt be a Syrian Campaign not too soon after release [:)] You can even have two-player campaigns.



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 5:21:06 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

You can create your own campaigns though.So there will no doubt be a Syrian Campaign not too soon after release [:)] You can even have two-player campaigns.



Well at least that sounds promising for those that are going to buy into it. I'm going to wait on the stuff Neilster mentioned myself. I like a game with tactics, not press a button and watch the whole army explode on the other side of the map. It was a sad day when Albert Einstein and Goddard were born....hrmmmm I must find a way to go back in history. heeh What's funny is I need to find a way to make computers not advance so fast. So we could still be having wonderful conventional warfare like WW2 instead of press a button all dead. lol Don't see how that can be fun. Or the lop sidded way this hypothetical game is going to play. It's just silly to take 1/1000th of the power that is today and make a game out of it and call it FUN! LOL Sheer stupidity on Battlefronts part if you ask me and even if you don't ask me it's still stupidity. lol



Marc von Martial -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 5:28:53 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Battlefront made a modern-warfare game because they wanted a change from WW2.



That and a government contract [;)]



martxyz -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 5:50:39 PM)

Also, there was a feeling on the CM1 forums, some time ago at least (not looked recently) that CM:SF was just completely tasteless given the current situation in the region. Many were saying that they wouldn't buy it, just on those grounds, and they were real CM diehards! They just hoped that a WW2 version would follow soon.
Sorry - whatever your politics - it's in bad taste and insensitive to the feelings of pretty well everyone you can imagine.  [&:]



Kuokkanen -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 6:41:14 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I like a game with tactics, not press a button and watch the whole army explode on the other side of the map.

Tired for computer war games? Me too! Let's play some Axis & Allies... no, make it Classic BattleTech [:D]



cdbeck -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 6:47:03 PM)

Just to reiterate RH's point earlier to avoid confusion:
The release version does NOT ship with a Syrian campaign.
The release version DOES allow you to play Syria in Skirmish mode (vs. AI or human)

I'm not too worried about this, as a Syrian modded campaign will probably be forthcoming and in reality, a "campaign" for Syria is a little harder to imagine. With the unbalanced forces in the game, it seems to me that Syria's goal will be a battle-by-battle attempt to "lose best" so that NATO forces are mired down and recieve unacceptable losses. The game will ship with several stand-alone battles that allow the player to control Syria.

I'm curious though, why is this considered "bad taste?" Is Command & Conquer: Generals "bad taste" because there are Middle Eastern soldiers vs. Western ones? Should HPS's Soviet-Afghan War (similar type of warfare)? Seems to me that political concerns should be focused on the actual real-life conflict and not leveled against a realistic and plausible simulation of modern warfare. [8|] I mean, if one wants to get technical, it could be considered bad-taste that games allow a player to control Nazi Germany, all a matter of perspective.

Oh... and about that "whole army exploding on the other side of the map" comment. Play the aforementioned HPS game Squad Battles: Soviet-Afghan War. It REALLY isn't all that easy. Force does not always equal victory (something that modern history is not-so-subtly teaching us).

SoM



martxyz -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 7:39:02 PM)

Taste is, admittedly subjective, and dependant on what things you choose to compare. To me it's in bad taste. To you it's not in bad taste. It's an opinion.



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 7:48:32 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I like a game with tactics, not press a button and watch the whole army explode on the other side of the map.

Tired for computer war games? Me too! Let's play some Axis & Allies... no, make it Classic BattleTech [:D]


I LOVE CLASSIC Axis and Allies (nobody wants to play it anymore <sniff-wimper>, but, don't care for any Battle Tech games. Not into Robots and Transformers sort of game. Though I did like Anarchy Online for a time and that kind of sci-punk sort of play. Being an engineer was fun making pet robots to fight for me but not me in them. ;)



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 7:52:28 PM)

quote:

Oh... and about that "whole army exploding on the other side of the map" comment. Play the aforementioned HPS game Squad Battles: Soviet-Afghan War. It REALLY isn't all that easy. Force does not always equal victory (something that modern history is not-so-subtly teaching us).


That was then and what 30 years ago? This is now and American technology could blow Afganistan off the map. Therefore wargaming out modern era right now would be totally unfun. American Forces would wipe out the world if they wanted to. ;) Just press a button and you're all history. ;)



Bil H -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 8:05:23 PM)

This thread is pathetic, shows what an uninformed person can contribute... misrepresentation and rumor.

This quote is from Moon form the CMSF forum:

quote:

you can in fact create two player campaigns, and both sides can have their own set of core units which are tracked from battle to battle. So you can create a campaign that simulates e.g. a large operation in which the same force goes against an opponent force for several days.


Bil



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 8:12:34 PM)

Notice he said CREATE! That is not something that the game DOES FOR YOU OUT OF THE BOX. The campaigns in the box are American Campaigns only. Yeah if you want to mod and play with the editor you can CREATE that's not the same as having it already done for you out of the box.



Hertston -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 9:24:43 PM)

Fair point, as you say there's a big difference between what ships and what folks can do with it afterwards.

I'm giving this one a wide berth. Among other reasons (including e-licensing) I think the scenario stinks.. I'm just not interested in a US beats up on Arabs thing and as someone has said I think it's in pretty bad taste. I assume Marc is right about the government contract.. I just can't see any other reason for deviating so much from what most CM players actually wanted.



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 9:33:14 PM)

Money Herston it's always about money. It's not about us or what we want, it's just about money. Of course Marc Schwanbeck might say differently hehe. I think picking on Syria is in bad taste. I would have much preferred Iran or North Korea and/or China combined, someone we might be more likely to goto war with than little ole puny Syria. But, if they are after a government contract I guess it really doesn't matter as long as they get something out there. Lol I'd hate to think though that our modern day training comes from a Battlefront GAME. But, since it's pretty much a push button war these days it really doesn't matter. He who controls the skies wins the wars anyways this day and time. Planes and rockets and nukes thas all yah really need. ;)



cdbeck -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 10:05:43 PM)

Sigh... I guess I have to disagree...

'Cause all we need is ANOTHER squad based WWII game... [8|]

You know, there are other conflicts out there that are just as cool, if not cooler, than WWII. I for one applaud the choice to go modern. If I have to see more Panzers rolling over Russians, I think I may puke. Now, I might agree with RH, I think China would have been a better pick for an enemy. But Syria will do. Seems like there wasn't so much outcry of "bad taste" with the FPS game Battlefield 2, which I think is much more inflammatory as it allows players to experience 1st person action as NATO vs. Muslims, complete with Arabic taunts and voice over.

SoM



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/11/2007 10:53:36 PM)

I didn't get that game either Herston. ;) And my WW2 tastes haven't been fulfilled yet. I want more PACIFIC WAR land based games for WW2. Yeah I'm tired of Russo German warfare myself and I don't need another Normandy invasion. Don't really need anymore Africa Rommel vs the world either. But, I have one pacific wargame and that's Pacific War Squad Battles from HPS. I still doesn't have the wargame I'm looking for and that's like Avalon Hills Guadacanal land based game. I have Pacific General, but, for some reason on XP it's giving me hell after about 5 turns, hard lock crash...means a cold reboot. I don't like that happening. Works fine on 98, just don't understand why it's screwing up on XP. I think Matrixgames OWES us some Pacific Land based games other than Rising Sun Gold. haha I forgot I have that one also, but, it's still not Avalon Hills Guadacanal. ;) Just a good ole hex based turn based game with simple rules like AH made in the early 60's and all will be well and fine. Then they can make whatever the like. lol Like I count for a lot here. hahaha



Hertston -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 12:02:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

You know, there are other conflicts out there that are just as cool, if not cooler, than WWII.


I wouldn't argue with that. I would argue that a fictional US v. Syria certainly isn't one of them.



WITPgamer -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 3:47:57 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I would have much preferred Iran or North Korea and/or China combined, someone we might be more likely to goto war with than little ole puny Syria.



As previously noted here and in other threads your ignorance is rivaling that of a child, but it does go a long way to explaining why wargamers are constantly regurgitated the same tired old scene.

Ive been following CMSF for a few months now and although there are some areas I wish to see expanded overall it appears to be a very descent attempt to recreate modern combat. Being able to play red on red should allow us to recreate a huge amount of scenarios from Iraq/Iraq, Africa, Afghanastan to hypothetical Iran/North Korea. NO, these campaigns are not included out of the box, but considering the War in the Pacific campaign what buggy to the point of UNPLAYABILITY when I purchased it I think that this can be forgiven. If there were no scenario editor then there would be something to complain about.

With regards to it being out of taste some people need to take a step back and look at our hobby. There are many currently serving troops on the forums over there who have commented about their interest in the title, and if they arent upset by the content its sad that we would be. Any wargame can be said to be in bad taste if one looks for a reason.

Its has also been noted that the review you mention was largely copied from various press articles. If you want a descent preview try the one below.

http://www.wargamer.com/reviews/cmsf_preview/



cdbeck -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 4:37:49 AM)

Now, lets not demonize RH here, because he is not really being ignorant. I think it is ambitious to buy a game EXPECTING there to be mods like this. Who knows, mods may be years coming and may all be back in the line of WWII scenarios. All depends on the modding community. What RH is talking about is, from a release standpoint, he would not plunk down full price for a NATO vs. Syria only campaign (although I would remind all that, like the linked article stated, most CM games really don't have a "campaign" per se, rather they are a selection of several battles). This really is not ignorant, as one can't anticipate what the modders will do (I could care less about people creating African battles or East European battles, for instance). I would say (and this is what RH will do anyway [:D]), that one feeling the way he does should wait until the price lowers or modders start producing campaigns that draw you in.

Now, to be fair. I have CM:SF preordered. I don't feel it is impertenant nor a bad value. In fact, it was the modern units that drew me to the game. I always felt that the WWII CM were WAAAAY too slow (crawling tanks and weaponry that seems like rubber bullets). I think I will like that much more devestating modern weapons. Of course, I also like to play "twitch-fest, kiddie" RTS games... [;)]

SoM



dinsdale -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 4:45:01 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Now, lets not demonize RH here, because he is not really being ignorant. I think it is ambitious to buy a game EXPECTING there to be mods like this.


Have we really, truly reached the stage where being able to play more than one side is considered a Mod?

I always laughed when people said that companies would soon be selling empty boxes with cover art and tools to make a game. Looks like we're one step closer if the expectation level has sunk this low.



cdbeck -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 4:52:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
Have we really, truly reached the stage where being able to play more than one side is considered a Mod?


Sigh... [:-]

Again, you CAN play Syria. You can play as Syria vs. NATO. You can play as Syria vs. Syria. You can do this vs. the AI. You can do this vs. Humans. You just don't get a stand-alone, story driven campaign for them. According to the CM developers (mostly from the mouth of Moon), there will be the normal sized amount of CM scenarios that allow for both sides to be played.

Basically, if you were to apply your argument to the original CM: Barbarossa, you would have to say that you couldn't play as ANY side (German or Russian) as it didn't have a story-driven campaign for either side, just lots of stand-alone mission maps.

So no, I don't see this as sad or some comment on the gaming industry. I think that Battlefront avoided making a Syrian campaign precisely to AVOID accusations of "bad taste" and to be "politcally correct."

SoM



pad152 -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 5:29:56 AM)

I don't have an issue with Blue on Blue or Red on Red battles for training. I was looking for something closer to Steel Panthers, give us the units and maps them let us decide who is the good/bad guys. I wonder if the game is going to suffer from a lack of different unit types, we were so spoiled with the earlier Combat Mission games.

What I don't understand is
1. No Helio's (maps to small?)
2. Talk of Britian, German add on modules but no Israel, Iran, or Iraq? (I guess BattleFront can't get contracts from those countries [8|])
3. No civilians (warfare in the middleast isn't just with soldiers in pretty uniforms).
4. No Syrian campaign (why do I have to make my own)?

I'm not sure what to make of CM:Shock Force so I'll just wait for the demo!



cdbeck -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 7:22:06 AM)

They outlined why they did not include civilians in a blog entry (you can read this in the linked review above). Civvies would have upped the system requirements and basically been a developing nightmare. No real wargamer would be happy with "wandering" civvies like in the Command & Conquer series, or even the idiotic ones from X-COM style games, so a civilian AI would have to be developed. And because the unconventional warfare units would have to blend in with civilians, the game would also have to deal with the moral grey-area of killing non-combatants in the face on unconventional warfare...

As to the other nations, yeah, it would be nice to see more "coalition forces" represented.

SoM



dinsdale -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 7:37:34 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Basically, if you were to apply your argument to the original CM: Barbarossa, you would have to say that you couldn't play as ANY side (German or Russian) as it didn't have a story-driven campaign for either side, just lots of stand-alone mission maps.

Well not at all, that's a different game which isn't pimping campaign play as a selling point. What might be an apt comparison is the Close Combat series, where in this brave new world of getting fans to write your content for a pat on the back, would have had no German campaigns.

quote:


So no, I don't see this as sad or some comment on the gaming industry. I think that Battlefront avoided making a Syrian campaign precisely to AVOID accusations of "bad taste" and to be "politcally correct."

SoM

Huh? You'll have to further explain the politically correct arguement where there's a US campaign against Syria, but not vice versa. If you're going to blame political correctness, then why is there a game pitting the US against Syria at all.



cdbeck -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 7:56:40 AM)

Din, I just put 2 and 2 together. Earlier posts said the whole game was in "bad taste' considering the current political climate. I imagine that, with the majority of the market for the game in Western markets and in NATO countries (a.k.a. the United States and England), trying to create a story-driven campaign - where your CO would be asking you to motivate the Suicide Bombers to overcome the heathen for the jihad would be a really hard sell, especially in the US. If people are already on edge about the content, that sort of thing would be enough to really set people off (didn't stop EA with C&C:Generals though, but I digress). There are levels of tolerance and "political correctness." Maybe the developers felt the content was close to the line, but a palatable Syria campaign would just be too risky. I don't know. Go ask Moon over at the forums.

And everyone acts like Battlefront is trying to "pull the wool" over peoples' eyes about this lack of a Syrian campaign. It is openly stated, and I believe that there are TWO Nato campaigns to beef up the gameplay. And Syria is playable in skirmish, so it isn't as if the side does not exist. This really isn't all that odd of a developer choice. For example, Warhammer 40K: Dawn of War ONLY shipped with a Space Marine campaign, but allowed players to play Eldar, Chaos, and Orks on skirmish maps. The 1st expansion pack ONLY shipped with an Imperial Guard campaign. And you know what? Those games had tons of gameplay value and were dang good (for a "twitch-based kiddie RTS" [:D]).

SoM



WITPgamer -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 8:21:54 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

Now, lets not demonize RH here, because he is not really being ignorant. I think it is ambitious to buy a game EXPECTING there to be mods like this. Who knows, mods may be years coming and may all be back in the line of WWII scenarios. All depends on the modding community.


They are pretty much included right out of the box though, no need for a 'mod' as such. You have the tanks, APCs, missiles, troops map editor and the ability to make scenarios/campaigns, etc all in the box.

I guess that Im looking at CMSF as more of a Red vs Blue simulator, and Battlefront just chose to make the shipping scenario using Syria as a basis. The list of vehicles that Syria uses and their organisation is pretty much identical to your average Russian aid package from the 80's and earlier, with some of the deadly new anti tank missiles, rpgs and tank upgrades thrown in.

With regards to the ignorant comment that was in reference to Syrias military being 'puny', obviously showing no knowledge on the matter.



ravinhood -> RE: CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it? (7/12/2007 12:11:59 PM)

quote:

The President of Syria is commander in chief of the Syrian armed forces, comprising some 320,000 troops upon mobilization.


quote:





Main Battle Tanks
4,700 (2004 est.)










quote:


Syrian Army

[edit] Current Structure and Organization of the Syrian Army
  • 200,000 personnel plus 280,000 conscripts, total 480,000[1]
  • 3 Corps HQ (1st, 2nd, and 3rd)
  • 7 armoured divisions (apparently 1st, 3rd, 5th, 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th[2])
  • 3 understrength mechanised divisions (4th, 7th, and 10th)
  • 4 independent infantry brigades
  • 14th Special Forces Division with 3 SF regiments; ten independent regiments
  • 2 independent artillery brigades
  • 2 independent anti-tank brigades
  • Three Surface-to-surface missile brigades (each three battalions)(one brigade with FROG-7, one brigade with SS-21 Scarab, one brigade with Scud-B/C/D)
  • Two coastal defence missile brigades (one with 12 SS-C-1B Sepal launchers, one with 12 P-15 Termit launchers, alternative designation SS-C-3 'Styx'). Also they are strong rumors that Syria received C-802 systems and 100 missiles from Iran.
  • One border guard brigade
  • One Republican Guard division (one artillery regiment, one mechanised brigade, three armoured brigades)



Looks pretty puny to me when a couple of tactical nukes would wipe them out rather quickly. ;) Our Airforce would destroy all their battle tanks within the 1st week if not less. ;) Syria as I said is PUNY. Only one ignorant around here is you not realizing the HUGE power America has to destroy a country at will. ;) We've lost more men/boys to POLICING action than we ever lost during what was called a war. I thought in a war the enemy fought back. lol Iraq was obliterated during the war portion. lol

And just to show you how PUNY Syria is:

quote:


The Iran-Iraq War ended with Iraq fielding the world's 4th largest military, with more than 70 army divisions and over 700 aircraft within its air force[4]thanks to funding from the surrounding Gulf states and billions in loans and funding given or secured by the US State Department to support Iraq's war with Iran.[5][6] Losses during the invasion of Kuwait and the subsequent ejection of Iraqi forces from Kuwait by a United Nations coalition resulted in the reduction of Iraq's ground forces to 23 divisions and the air force to less than 300 aircraft. Military and economic sanctions prevent Iraq from rebuilding its military power. Iraq maintained a standing military of about 375,000 troops.
 


Now maybe you should go do your own research before you start calling someone ignorant B**!



Page: [1] 2 3 4 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1.46875