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

[Aeneas2020 10]

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.

Every military sim, and i mean actually on a military base i have ever flown was amazing....you haven't lived until you crash an e3 sentry into a control tower (simulated of course).

[wiggum2 31]

I will post a quick AAR from the Scenario "Deathdealer Co, Ep. 1" by Apocal:

It's the second day of the invasion and Team DEATHDEALER, a mech-heavy company team, rushes to seize two objectives in the face of unknown Syrian forces.

The map is just desert with a village and some higher ground in the north, you start from the south. The objectives are to take the village and the higher ground (enemy OP).

And dont ask, i have much time because i have a broken leg and are caught infront of the PC. ;)

My simple battle plan:

I have my scouts already in position, they can overwatch the OP perfectly but dont spot something right now.

First i want to get BLUE PLATOON (M1A1HC SA) into good position to supress the enemys at the higher ground (trench line). Because of the great distance my tanks are not in a bad situation if the enemy opens fire with ATGM's, they will not be able to inflict serious damage to them because they face the front armor but a lucky shot is always possible.

After i ordered my tanks into position i ordered RED PLATOON (M2A3 IFV with ERA) forward, now its getting dangerous...

And then it happens, one of the M2A3 gets immobilized (no hostile fire !) in the deep sand, no way to get him out so RED PLATOON losses some of his firepower.

Now, 30min are over, BLUE and RED PLATOON are in position and i get a message, the 120mm mortars are ready, now the party starts...

WHITE PLATTON (M2A3 IFV with ERA) moves into assault position too. My Mortar FO communicates the target coordinates and soon spotting rounds hit the village and the trench line. After some corrections the fire for effect begins and airbursts hit the trench.

Now i start moving RED PLATOON forward, the M2A3's take position and the infantery disembarks and takes position on a hill overwatching the village...

Suddenly the silence is over, a enemy ATGM opens fire on "RED 4", the M2A3 carrying the Platoon HQ. The first hit kills the HQ and immobilize the IFV.

My infantery spots the ATGM and starts suppressing the enemy.

RED 4 pops smoke but gets hit again, now one of the crew in wounded too but they shot back.

I give them the order to disembark, it think i should save them.

The Situation:

While my infantery suppressed the ATGM i ordered "RED 3" into a good position and started shooting at them first with the 25mm Bushmaster and then with a TOW. After 5min it looked like i have killed them.

Now i have to speed up my attack. While relicts from RED PLATOON advanced to the village, WHITE PLATOON covered them from good overwatch positions. At the wall the infantry disembarked and quickly stormed the buildings. Now hostile forces started shooting at my man from the buildings north of my positions. But with all the firepower from the M2A3's they dont had a chance...

One M2A3 got hit by a RPG from only 50m away but dont take any damage from it (ERA).

The work of the 25mm Bushmasters:

After the resistance in the village was finaly broken i started to reorganize my troops for the assault of the OP, but it looks like the Syrians had enough,

because my 120mm mortar airbursts have wounded many of the soldiers in the trench.

They asked for a ceasefire, the battle is over.

My casualties:

3 KIA

4 WIA

1 M2A3 IFV lost

Syrian casualties:

24 KIA

22 WIA

7 MIA

Edited January 13, 2010 by Wiggum

[olro 0]

Wiggum, thanks for that cool AAR! Looking good.

[olro 0]

Here is a pretty sweet thread showing youtube films from all missions in the first campaign "Taskforce Thunder". All with commentary:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90433

[mr_centipede 31]

After playing Highway to the Reich from panther's game, I cant play this kind of game anymore... I'm so used to 'order my Bn or Coy commander to <insert task> and let him coordinate his subordinate to accomplish the task' that I find it tiring to micromanage individual squads... Or does CMSF manages that? because I wasnt able to/dont know how to in the demo

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

After playing Highway to the Reich from panther's game, I cant play this kind of game anymore... I'm so used to 'order my Bn or Coy commander to <insert task> and let him coordinate his subordinate to accomplish the task' that I find it tiring to micromanage individual squads... Or does CMSF manages that? because I wasnt able to/dont know how to in the demo

No, it isn't that kind of game.

[Second 0]

After playing Highway to the Reich from panther's game, I cant play this kind of game anymore... I'm so used to 'order my Bn or Coy commander to <insert task> and let him coordinate his subordinate to accomplish the task' that I find it tiring to micromanage individual squads... Or does CMSF manages that? because I wasnt able to/dont know how to in the demo

It really depends of battle, unit your commanding and at which phase the battle is. You can order large masses of units with just few mouse clicks or you have to pay close attention of squads and teams. Or you can just lay back and watch the fireworks. Usually all of this happens in one battle.

I don't like micromanaging my self so i have created my own way to deal with it. I try to move as big units as possible in such simple fashion as i like. if i have to start micromanaging on how squads move i can do that in easy fashion. Sometimes it works out smoothly. Sometimes not. Oh and i don't mind casualties as much as some seems to do, as my play style tends to generate them more... And besides i like to keep momentum high :D

Big deal for me is to play in WEGO-mode (turnbased). I give orders to my men just every minute in game time. That way i don't feel to be forced to micromanage my men almost every second of game time every time something happens. But it piles down to personal preferences.

Anyways CMSF is hard game to learn. Not just tactics which to use, but which orders to use to get desired results. This is very important in WEGO as player can't tell his men to halt and get into cover if he has given wrong kind of order.

[olro 0]

Ah, ze issue of ze micro-management....

Is this measured in the amount of mouse/keyboard clicks it takes to complete an objective or something?

Look, this is not C&C.

My preferred playing style is very comfortable; I get up in the morning, make some coffe, play a minute round and send it back to my opponent via email.

No waiting around for a bunch of people on a multiplayer server, no bad syncs, cheaters, bad scenario bugs/design/unrealistic features or low pings, no having to wait for a certain weekday to play my favorite game with a gaming community. No having to spend a large amount of time talking/guiding other players.

Id characterize all of the above as micro management, sure!

Get some perspective plhuuueese...

The amount of mouse /movement clicking I do when playing any fps is vastly more than what I do in CMSF. And I control a lot more units as well.

If you get caught up in realtime, sure, it can be stressfull. Some people insist of playing it this way though (stuck in their own ways?) and then complain about the micromanagement.

Simply play turn based - solved, OR pause (then plot movements) when playing solitaire. Its a non issue really.

Another thing; im a bit confused when people say they want things to go smoothly, as in no micro management. What do they really mean? Over the years Ive come to the conclusion that they expect their plans to have no flaws. They want no friction, no challenge!. Im amazed at the amount of players who complain about realistic real life issues that can happen to units in war. The shitty communication, misunderstandings, fratricide, I expect this and enjoy it!

Most people dont. Many are just whiners.

What they want is for their units to turn on a dime in a second or less or for their newly modded M4 too shoot straighter than a ruler in any conditions, they want to be super heroes! Well then you get the stress that comes with a certain playing style! You want to control battalions and have your cake and eat it too.

If you want very very little tactical control, go play the COTA, HTTR franchise. It can be a good thing :)

Edited January 20, 2010 by olro

[Jok 0]

i dont see what people have against micro management.

1. CMx2 games are no micromanagement hell like games as the Anno XXXX series. i like this games though, but people are put of at times by the micromanagement.

2. micromanagement is good. it keeps the game from being flat and simplistic. it adds depth, complexity and decisions for the player to make and execute. in short its a good thing.

3. if YOU dont like micromanagement, go FAR away from CMx1 or CMx2 games!!!

at the end of the day you can still lasso a large formation and send em around the map in C&C style. this works but there shouldnt be any enemy in sight when you do that :D

[lwlooz 0]

Hello,

with all due respect to the excellent boardgame simulation that CM is.

The lack of a chain of command and proper friendly AI and an awkward user interface is nothing to be ideologically defensive about.

Micro-Management has all to do with bad design and nothing to do with realistic simulations. I fail to see why people bring up C&C as an example to bolster their claims. C&C is micro-management hell. So is CM.

A good wargame in my opinion also needs to put you in the shoes of an actual commander. Giving orders to actual sub-commanders. Of course it is a good game that allows you to give orders to each fireteam in your battalion , but it is an very big limitation if you can't just give plans to your companies.

How the lack of that possiblity makes things more realistic is beyond me.

But trying to convey to traditional wargamers that computer simulations neither needs turn-based gaming, hexes or "I am god"-commander interfaces is quite pointless, so I don't want to change anyone in his ways.

But Battlefront sure could be a little more innovative in that area , no offence.

[wiggum2 31]

@ lwlooz:

Yes, you have a lot of Micro-Management in CMSF, but thats what i like.

You have nearly total control over your soldiers but if they go panic you lose control. If you call for a better "friendly AI", how far should this go ?

In the current version of the game tanks/vehicles will pop smoke and reverse if they get shot at. If infantry runs into big trouble they will run to cover...all without your help.

So, what you want if you say "better friendly AI" ?

The CM games always gave the player the control of every unit on the screen, thats what the game is about. If you want just to order company xy to attack hill xy and watch them do you should play other games.

And maybe i will never understand how ArmA players can call the CMSF user interface awkward...just look at the command menu of ArmA 1-2-5...

Ok, total different game but i think you know what i mean. ;)

[olro 0]

Yes, there has been a lot of changes in the AIs reaction to incoming fire in the latest patches.

They will often run away from suppressed buildings into better cover, pop smoke, toss grenades when convenient. Both vehicles and infantry.

AI that can plan their own attack on a certain position and get away with it, woha! Yes, Panther Games duz it very well indeed (the best) for its operational scope, still, on a 2d map with major abstractions to how its presented visually (NATO symbols and terrain values). Of course this demands less of your pc.

Doing this with individual units mano el mano 3d style, tracking each bullet and impact points...... well the closest I can think of is the Total War Series :)

Edited January 23, 2010 by olro

[Second 0]

i dont see what people have against micro management.

1. CMx2 games are no micromanagement hell like games as the Anno XXXX series. i like this games though, but people are put of at times by the micromanagement.

2. micromanagement is good. it keeps the game from being flat and simplistic. it adds depth, complexity and decisions for the player to make and execute. in short its a good thing.

3. if YOU dont like micromanagement, go FAR away from CMx1 or CMx2 games!!!

at the end of the day you can still lasso a large formation and send em around the map in C&C style. this works but there shouldnt be any enemy in sight when you do that :D

You don't see me perform well in Civilization or in Total war's strategy maps, but CMSF in company scale is much less demanding than those former ones when it comes to micromanagement, in battalion scale it can become close however. This in my mind is important. CMSF can be anything from platoon level to battalion.

True on depth which micromanagement creates. One has to basically handle all weapon systems at his disposal, all tactics involved into it. Using Stryker MGS as tank? Forget it. :rolleyes:

I use Lassoing alot even in combat situations. Ofcourse it's about judging suppression versus enemy capacity, usually ranges has to be over 100-200 meters and enemy under heavy fire (if i'm in mood to preserve my men). Most problem currently is that Platoon HQ teams, MG- and AT-teams (SMAW-team not included) don't use bounding overwatch as they don't have teams inside them. So it's is practically impossible to give whole Platoon/company assault as one unit. Man i'd love that feature! True, quick movement isn't bad choice if given in tight pattern (one or two tiles between waypoints).

Then again with experience placing individual orders for each squad and team in company isn't that time consuming process if player already knows what his company will do in given terrain. That if hotkeys are familiar and unit is familiar, player has formed understadnment how and what kind tactics to use, are familiar and terrain is enough easy to read.

Mostly in CMSF things are needed to be taken slowly when in combat, there's maybe 10-30% of troops which are moving while rest are providing flank security and overwatch/firesupport. So if you have company sized force there is actually just less than platoon which player needs to pay attention to. Ofcourse that is possible if timeline is luxorious, which it usually is.

Edited January 23, 2010 by Second

[kylania 568]

Seems there's a new game based on this engine out now:

http://kriegsimulation.blogspot.com/2010/09/combat-mission-afghanistan-released.html

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

CM:Afghanistan is a lot of fun and has a completely different feel to it. Gone are the days of uber ATGMs destroying hordes of armor single-handedly. Gone are the days of quick and laser accurate artillery and CAS. Etc. Alot of fun, I highly recommend it. 2 Campaigns (1980 - Soviet Motorized Company commander and 1985- Soviet Air Assault company commander) with 10 scenarios.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Played the new demo and it stills doesnt get me much more interested. Kinda game for people who likes it a bit slower and clearly laid out.

[GoOB 0]

I really liked the original CMSF, but at least the campaign always had too much going on at once - Too many things to administer, I still found it very entertaining, it was just a real challenge to do things properly and swiftly enough. Judging by the demo, Combat Mission : Afghanistan seems to be much more like my cup of tea - It still feels complex, but the scenarios presented seem to be more manageable. The mission involving the town and the mosque was very intense, and I managed very well to rapidly seize and secure the first two objectives with two platoons, with one platoon and a shilka to support from afar.

[Txheat 10]

Great game spent alot of hours on that, the editor ain't half bad and is as realistic if not more than ARMA. (don't ever ever see a T-55 beat a M1A1) I think its a good game for people who like hardcore RTTS games

[Tankbuster 1746]

Nah, Combat Mission Shock Force, you just cant beat that:D

Elite Combat Mission Shock Force.

[Barely-injured 0]

The NATO Module is up for pre-ordering now as well for CMSF.....for those of you who are interested.

CM: Afghanistan seems very interesting i will have to try out the demo and see for myself. But i appreciate any reviews from people who own both games and can say how they differ from each other.

[olro 0]

Love the new Afghanistan game.

There are rumours of some historical inaccuracies in the force compositions, like BMD2s replacing the more widely used BTRs.

Overall very happy with it. Most of the missions are very close to real actions; guarding convoys and taking out mujas before they escape encirclements.

Infantry is very surviveable in the rough terrain. That is my favourite feature of the whole game series.

[Herbal Influence 10]

Still this thread title is shocking misleading ... ;-)