It looks like a warfilm!! (Video of CMSF game)

[wiggum2 31]

Oh TacOps! I've played the demo of some version, but really don't remember did it have such menu.

Now that you mentioned it... Heck i might just go ahead and buy it to see what it is like. I did like the demo :cool:

Yeah, i just started to play the demo a few days ago and i like it too. It is fun against the AI but must be great against a human opponent.

I think i will buy it soon, it is not that expensive (25$) for me because i pay with the mighty €.... :D

[OH-58-FL-Pilot 10]

I'm just NCO who used (note word 'used') to lead just a squad and cooperate with Junior officer in charge of platoon so i can't tell much about higher stuff, but based on what i know these kind of things gets harder when command level gets higher. Very much harder if proper SOPs and procedures are left out.

So it's interesting question indeed.

I always thought it just got more ridiculous. The further away from the ground you moved in the COC the less involved staff seemed to be. Making decisions that are already modified by the time they hit ground level. And even then squads are modifying the OP to fit their needs.

SOP is a basic and i mean very basic guideline. Procedure is always modified beyond initial orders as typically the higher up the COC you climb the more contempt you find for those on the ground.

[InFireBaptize 0]

the graphic looks ugly! any chance i can make them look better?

[dmakatra 1]

I just reinstalled the game. I bought it when it came out, but for some reason never really got into it. Does anybody know what role leaders above platoon level play, if any? I haven't really gotten very far yet, but to me they seem rather useless. What about the Company XO?

[Jok 0]

i guess the biggest problem is that people here started to think that CMSF is a "RTS" or got anything to do with "strategy".

it is a tactical game, and when you play it in RT it got still nothing to do with strategy. and to compare a tactical game with a large scale FPS, with some bolted on RTS options is simply idiotic.

i stoped playing BIS stuff after ARMA, it got simply to repetative. if i would play OFP today i would not miss anything from the newer BIS games as there is hardly anthing new. well, not true, the multiplayer worked reasonable in OFP, with ARMA and the games after that, it is a single large lag. thats "new" i suppose :D

[Second 0]

I just reinstalled the game. I bought it when it came out, but for some reason never really got into it. Does anybody know what role leaders above platoon level play, if any? I haven't really gotten very far yet, but to me they seem rather useless. What about the Company XO?

Short answer: Inherit position in command if HQ teams gets killed. And company command does have some effect, sharing information (Big help!) and improve performance of platoons (less big help).

Long answer: They serve as "information network nervepoints" Platoon sends reports to company commander and then Company HQ sends them to platoons and to batallion. They also provide additional combat perfomance boost (if they are enough skillfull compared to their men. Crack level squad might not much gain from Green HQ team). But if you have bunch green troops with ill motivation you wish to keep them under command all the time. Which is pretty much challenge with Syrian Militia troops and similar, if there's not radios but company has to lead it's platoons using loud voice and hand signals.

While leading unit (be it platoon, company, battalion) is having contact to it's subordinates he will give his effect on their perfomace in battle, more motivation, leadership and i don't know how experience modifier is being alerted (these are not visible to player however). But this is mainly job of platoon leader, but Company HQ might have some effects if platoon leader and platoon in general is bad.

Are they in contact or not is visible in lower left corner of screen. Red dot indicates does platoon leader have contact to company officer. Next to it there's bar where there can be picture of radio, mouth, eye, or gray device with green display (hightech gadget, you won't find Syrians having these and not all Blue either). This indicates which kind of contact they are having. Radios may not work, same with high-tech gadgets. Voice has limited range and so does visual contact to higher-ups.

Getting understandment how command network work and how to keep that up does take time, and is hard to describe. But if you are playing as Stryker troops you don't need much to worry about this as US taxpayers have invested billions of dollars so that US G.I can have his gadgets. They are handful of help and enable fresh player to pretty much ignore issues with CoC, it's still healthy to keep them close to their command. But it's not demanded.

One note:

Now due patching it has changed to more flexible way. If Platoon HQ gets killed some other unit from that platoon will inherit this status and work as link between it's men and high-ups. Same with XO team. If Co HQ gets killed, XO will inherit leading status and company can interact between platoons and battalion. Earlier on this link was broken for good, if i recall correctly.

But yet if forexmaple riflesquad is standing close to Company HQ but can't establish contact to it's platoon HQ that squad will drop off from command network. At start i used XO and Syrian command teams to work as messengers between platoons and company but it didnt' work like that.

Also XO teams are good to be used as medics, so squad can leave it's casualties behind and keep on doing what they do best: fighting. I like to organize medevac teams form everything which i think is useless for given situation. Command teams, bailed out crews, even HQ teams.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Second

[wiggum2 31]

the graphic looks ugly! any chance i can make them look better?

What ?

Find a other tactical wargame where you can command entire Battalions that looks better then CMSF...

If you have a weak PC and have to play on low settings the game looks ugly for sure, like every other game too.

Look at my Screenshots (all settings on max.)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1528759&postcount=62

i stoped playing BIS stuff after ARMA, it got simply to repetative. if i would play OFP today i would not miss anything from the newer BIS games as there is hardly anthing new. well, not true, the multiplayer worked reasonable in OFP, with ARMA and the games after that, it is a single large lag. thats "new" i suppose :D

I know what you mean !

I played OFP with all addons and switched now to ArmA2. My first impression was "its the same game with better graphics"...but i like it anyway.

There was more innovation from CMx1 to CMx2 in the gameplay then from OFP to ArmA2.

Hey and you call ArmA a "large scale FPS" (like me too)...many here call it a "war simulator" and think you can command your troops (with some mods or with High-Command Module) like in CMSF.

Edited January 5, 2010 by Wiggum

[olro 0]

I like where the thread is going.

I had one play by email game where I lost my marine XO to an ATGM. My whole company didnt have the move option for at least 4 minutes after that. All their morale was set to nervous.

Very cool to see such a feature. I suspect most fps players would find it "dumb" and "boring".

Edited January 5, 2010 by olro

[InFireBaptize 0]

What ?

Find a other tactical wargame where you can command entire Battalions that looks better then CMSF...

If you have a weak PC and have to play on low settings the game looks ugly for sure, like every other game too.

Look at my Screenshots (all settings on max.)

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1528759&postcount=62

i ran everything on max "see my sig.", still graphics were bad, the training doesn't show you how to do things but it asks you to do it.

[Jok 0]

I played OFP with all addons and switched now to ArmA2. My first impression was "its the same game with better graphics"...but i like it anyway.

i guess when i wouldnt had played OFP to death for myself i would still play ARMA/ARMA2 and what not. but after haveing a downtime with OFP and installing ARMA demo at the time it came out, i really had to see that its one and the same thing with prettier textures. that was not enough for me to keep me as paying player around.

Hey and you call ArmA a "large scale FPS" (like me too)...many here call it a "war simulator" and think you can command your troops (with some mods or with High-Command Module) like in CMSF.

lol :D i did not read the whole thread now, but OFP and the games after that...a "war simulator"? thats just worth a big LOL :D

i mean the game surely got something(after all i was and am a big OFP fan), and its way better then the other camp, the battlefield games that aim more for the fast paced action crowd, but to use the word simulator is not justified at all.

OFP/ARMA is full of balance and gamplay tweaks that take the game to someplace far away from being a simulator.

and on top of that, instead of fixing the broken and wrong stuff they simply shell out a new game after a year and think it will do.

the training doesn't show you how to do things but it asks you to do it.

wheres the problem? as i played the tutorial campain a long time ago, i didnt found any problems with it at all. i mean maybe you expect the wrong things there, CM games dont show you the red string to follow. when they tell you to take out the bunkers on the other end of the map you find a way to do it. thats part of the training. if they would tell you how to do it it would be half the fun :D

or you talk about a specific mission?

[Second 0]

but OFP and the games after that...a "war simulator"? thats just worth a big LOL :D

That is mostly blame of VBS and VBS2 as it has same engine as OFP and ArmA has. Problem is that most don't understand why it has been selected and what makes it different from ArmA... After all ArmA wasnt' selected as a training tool, but VBS2 was.

Then there's statements that VBS2 and ArmA aren't that different to play (from shooter's prespective). which i can't or wont' deny because it has been made by person who has played both. He says that he can get same playing experience by playing ArmA than he gets by playing VBS2. Which i'm not denying, because i think i know what makes VBS2 so special as i've been following how they seem to be using it... However in heads of less educated gamers this creates allkinds of chemical reactions which leads to conclusion like this: VBS2 is military simulator + ArmA2 plays like VBS2 = ArmA2 is [war, military, ultimate] simulator.

Then take common gamer approach that soldier are playing VBS2 all day long like gamers do play ArmA2. Bit of Evo, then Domination. Bit of singleplayer scenarios. And lunch break.

So here is your answer. :D

[olro 0]

Some are fascinated by the mere look of warfare, hence so many of the ARMA addon makers making blingbling addons that are just that, blingbling. It looks good and can be exciting. You feel like you are in the centre of things and what you do matters. The simulation aspect isnt really needed as it "looks and quacks like a duck, then it surely must be a duck".

Others will be captivated by the underlying mechanics of the warmachines, hence hardcore sims like Steel Beasts and Falcon 4.0.

These can be very dry and sterile after a while, as little time is spent on storylines and personal involvement. High learning curve and no active interest in how warmachines work kills this gaming type for many.

Then you have the operational grand scale games for the history buffs who see that logistics, diplomacy, weather, government type, etc are the main components of successfull warfare. Again, these can be very dry for many and you often feel that if you got involved in the tactical battles yourselves (they are done for you, not by you) , you could really make a difference. Youd also need an active imagination to envision the battles taking place. Reading books help.

CMSF is between the first and the second. Its the type of tactical gaming that involves some chain of command issues. Youd have to have some active interest in various military equipment and willing to accept that you are not the one firing the rifle or the main tank guns. Knowing that the game engine tries to simulate ballistics, suppression etc etc is satisfying for me. Lack of l33tz0r graphics and some will say there is too much micro management, kills it for many.

Why not be ALL of these at a hundred percent? Id say CPU cycles, cash, gaming markets and small development team.s

In comparison, film documentaries will never be as popular at the box office as the latest CGI flicks, even though docus are closer to reality. Fantasy looks better, has better tempo and follows predictable scriptable patters we generally like.

Now with wargaming, Im over the looks department. I need SOME to keep the suspension of disbelief, but im leaning more to the simulation/morale/suppression side.

The compromises will exist for a very long time......

Edited January 6, 2010 by olro

[wiggum2 31]

@ Second & olro

Very good and interesting posts !

For ArmA2 you can download so many units from so many different nations but what is the difference between them ?

I would say there is no real difference. I can download PLA Units, Bundeswehr Units ect. but i cant make a battle where i can see the differences in tactics, weapon systems or the firepower of a ordinary squad.

Maybe the PLA MBT will kill my Leopard 2 with one shot while the Leo need 5 to kill the Type 99 just because the both addons are from different persons which dont arrange each other.

Its more a blingbling thing.

The real simulations like Steel Beasts or Falcon 4 simulate very few weapon systems but very accurate.

CMSF maybe dont is as accurate as Steel Beasts in the simulation of tanks but it offers a greater view of the battlefield.

ArmA2 = large scale FPS (S is for Shooter, not Simulation !)

Falcon 4.0 = Simulation

CMSF = tactical wargame

You cant compare these games because they have different focuses, thats it.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Wiggum

[-Snafu- 78]

@ Second & olro

Very good and interesting posts !

For ArmA2 you can download so many units from so many different nations but what is the difference between them ?

I would say there is no real difference. I can download PLA Units, Bundeswehr Units ect. but i cant make a battle where i can see the differences in tactics, weapon systems or the firepower of a ordinary squad.

Maybe the PLA MBT will kill my Leopard 2 with one shot while the Leo need 5 to kill the Type 99 just because the both addons are from different persons which dont arrange each other.

Its more a blingbling thing.

The real simulations like Steel Beasts or Falcon 4 simulate very few weapon systems but very accurate.

CMSF maybe dont is as accurate as Steel Beasts in the simulation of tanks but it offers a greater view of the battlefield.

ArmA2 = large scale FPS (S is for Shooter, not Simulation !)

You missed out one of the key features.

The editor.

It can be used to create very realistic military scenarios but it can also be used to create extremely fun non-serious missions. You are really only limited by scripting knowledge and imagination. Plonking two squads down in the editor and then hitting preview will not give a realistic experience. The editor is easy to use but it's not that easy.

IIRC you can use FSM to have different tactics for different sides. In addition, the weapons and stuff handle differently so saying it is just "bling bling" is unfair. As most addon and mod makers don't cooperate; when you use two different mods together (BWMod and PLA) then the experience won't be "realistic" as both groups use different values for tanks, weapons, aircraft etc.

Furthermore, in Arma 2 you can have large combined arms operations. Have you played with a realistic coop squad? I have and it was one of the most awesome gaming experiences I've had. It was great to see an air strike being requested by the squad on the ground and then the human pilots bombing the position. Although annoying at the time it was also great experiencing comms problems, having people panic over the radio and requesting support and so on.

I think you need to give Arma 2 more credit.

Plus, VBS2 is used by military forces for a reason and I'm pretty sure it's not for R&R.

[wiggum2 31]

Ok, you can make a realistic mission with the ArmA2 editor for sure, but the game itself (the engine) cant give me such a realistic gaming experience.

Playing only with and against humans will make every game more "realistic" because you have eliminated the factor "dumb AI" that often ruins it all.

Just to simulate the M1 Abrams would be enough for a single game.

So calling ArmA2 a FPS is no offense against it or against BIS, it was intended to be a fun pc-game and no dry simulation of all these stuff with a 500 page manual. :D

And like i sayed:

You can't compare these games because they have different focuses.

Many (not you ;) ) will think that i dont like or understand ArmA2 because i say it is no simulator but that is not true.

Im just not that frivolously with the word "simulation".

Edited January 6, 2010 by Wiggum

[Second 0]

Btw Wiggum: TacOps4's SOP system is neat indeed. ;) Every game maker should include that box into their mission editor or command UI. Also CMSF should include that. Even when i hate micromanaging and getting new functions which i have to start using along with the old ones, this feature might cut need to think so much before hand about what might happen to my unit when i move it there. Makes also great to control lightly armored ATGM-units, trucks, APCs etc as i don't need to baby sit them so much.

Simulation aspect isn't total lunacy. Bit about it:

One guy who's part of day job consisted of seeking training tools formed following opinion. He played COD4 and MOH:Airborne. About MOH he said that it's controls are complex and he didn't feel like he handles it in 15 or so minutes (heck i've played it "bit" more and still don't handle them!). Not good for training soldiers. About COD he said that with few tweaks and added instructor and replay tools it would fit as training tool for infatnry. It's simple to learn, it has all the basic stuff which rifleman needs.

ArmA2 with right people and right attitude could do just the same stuff as VBS2 does in similar use. COD would fit into here also. So in that sense it is simulation, as it is able to replicate things soldiers are supposed to do.

I think Battlefronts one goal was to get forexample US army to use CMSF as tool for combined arms training. But to get US Army as (really big) customer fell to lack of Cooperation mode and replay possibility. Being small developement team they couldn't fit in those. So it basically is simulation, and it's ability to replicate things desired probably is sufficient.

I've used Bird Hunter 2003 to simulate shooting flying birds from various angles, speeds and distances before and during waterfowl season. It seemed to work. :D

VBS2 is about being flexible software which you can plug in various hardwares. That is the key-feature of it. You can project VBS2 into widescreen which troops and shooting with real rifles. You can make rooms and project VBS2 into walls of it to present some scenario then have soldiers finish that scenario using their own rifles and gear they would carry in such case (forexample hostage-rescue). You can do these is safe conditions where there is no need for live fire, it looks realistic enough and so on. Then you can have Blackhawk's cockpit which has VBS2 as software, which pilot and forexample doorgunner uses. Heck there's even stuff like drive vehicle into airplane stuff involved. Convoy training seems to include hardware hummers and all. It looks good which is big immersion maker. It has all wanted tools for training program. Probably good customer service which can fill needs of customer. That is they key feature of it. Not that you can play some basic infantry drill with it by keyboard and mouse, COD4 (with proper tools) or ArmA would do it. And would probably cost much less.

Mission editor can be used to do realistic scenarios... But when that mission is fired... Well let's just say that if i would expect armored company assault against defending mechinced company play like it would in CMSF i'd be pretty let down. And i say CMSF has it closer to reality than ArmA would. Then again if i expect that i can act like rifleman should in combat i would not be that let down. I can lean, i can crawl, i can sprint, i can shoot etc. Playing with headset with like 10 other guys we could replicate what is supposed to do in reality in similar situation as a squad. But we damn right wouldn't be playing Evo or Domination. But more likely some 5-15 minutes lasting scenario which are very limited, AI can be programmed to fit in well for that particular scenario as training target.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Second

[wiggum2 31]

I know there are flight simulations and tank simulations in the military. But that are other dimensions...

They spent 100.000 of $ for such simulators that have all the buttons and levers and i dont think it would be fun for us to "play" with them. :D

Then you have programms like TacOps used by the military for exercise large combined arms operations.

But i doubt that there are simulators for the infantery. In the german army we have the AGSHP for shooting exercise. Its something like a "shooting cinema"... i think you know what i mean.

But before i would spent money to let my soldiers play ArmA to learn small unit tactics i would sent them into the dirt to do some real training.

Edited January 6, 2010 by Wiggum

[dm 9]

They spent 100.000 of $ for such simulators that have all the buttons and levers and i dont think it would be fun for us to "play" with them.

Millions, actually. And yes, they are hella-fun.

[Heatseeker 0]

I remember when this came out, the demo failed to grab me because the performance was very bad and this type of gameplay isnt my cup of tea, i did admire the detail and depth though.

[Jok 0]

its quiet funny to see how primitive the oh so fancy militray simulators sometimes are :D

i know as a fact that ouer army uses the old steel beasts as a tank simulator.

heck i got steel beasts pro and was quiet proficient in it(but lost my friggin dongle), that makes me already superior in certain ways :D

[olro 0]

Latest part of the warfilm :P

[Second 0]

But before i would spent money to let my soldiers play ArmA to learn small unit tactics i would sent them into the dirt to do some real training.

It's multi-faced stuff really. Very basic infantry stuff doesn't need virtual training tools at least in my mind, it might even hurt the training as all that time is away from terrain. Besides actual stuff in terrain is more complex than virtual tools can show.

Virtual stuff does have few good things about them. They are safe in very complex situations such as CQB. Al as you said in marksmanship training they might be pretty smoking, low cost and accurate info on what went wrong form each shot.

They aren't only way. I believe USMC trains with paintball markers. I've used airsoft guns to do the same. And as long as safe regulations don't forbid that (they shoot something at someone else) they probably are just as good. Strong points in both ways. Marines have good thing going on as they quite clearly aren't limited in such pretty stupid regulation that you can't have anything physical shot at soldier, oh i pardon, marine.

Forexample we use blanks and maybe even Miles-kit (laser-receiver and transmitter worn over combat gear), and regulations dont' allow use of paintball or airsoft to be shot at living person (atleast last time i've heard). So also CQB has to be simulated with blanks ... But when safety regulations don't allow them to be shot at close ranges against living person but is required to shoot at sky: you have heavy blank adapter in point of barrel, which might get loose and start flying (i've been almost hit by one)... Which might cause rather ugly damage in receiving end. In reality one hardly ever follows that rule. Which makes me wonder which one is more dangerous to trainees. Paintball causing bruises (face protection would be required anyways) or blank adapter made of steel flying some 100 m/s! at his unprotected face... Military stupidity all the way.

[wiggum2 31]

I never heard about flying blank adapters before, at least with the G36.

[Second 0]

I never heard about flying blank adapters before, at least with the G36.

We have heavy lump of metal which gets attached to flash hinder with bolt. It's idea is to break wooden bullet into fine powder. There are changes that either screw will loose up (flies about 5-10 meters if shot at prone position), or worse case from what i've heard, bolt breaks when there lots of pressure and adapter can fly long distances.

Another bad thing is that one isn't supposed to shoot just one round but atleast two even more at target from such close distances... First comes adapter and then couple wooden bullets, or what ever is left of them.

Well they aren't flying all the time. It's more common to have rounds with real bullets getting mixed into blank rounds at least from what i've heard.

[4 IN 1 0]

Virtual training isnt mean to replace normal down to earth real world training, it never was, in most case they are used to prepare the ground troops for what they are going to face when deployed with a reasonable price along side with normal pre-deployment training AFAIK