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

[AndresCL 10]

As I hinted at in that post and clearly stated in the next post of mine.

Commanding a Coy sized force in ArmA is not done as well as in CMSF. Arma 2 was not designed for that, CMSF was.

Just like you can fly a helicopter in a relatively realistic fashion; it does not do it as well as a flight simulator does.

You can't compare as I have already said as they are two different of games and try to achieve different things.

Probably not commanding, but Human players can follow way more complex plans. Anyway, i was just saying that ArmA II has the capability to make a mission like the one that you were describing.

[Herbal Influence 10]

.... maybe you should leave the discussion?

Oh, sure I do. When I feel like that. From time to time I do.

And you can go on with your "like a film of war" and calling Arma2 "a half-made-game" and calling it as "complex like scissor-stone-paper game".

I will throw in some extreme herbals mixture to get through to your visionary world :eek:

[dmakatra 1]

He's not saying ArmA2 isn't a complex game - he's saying it's not a complex game in the RTS area. Which it is not. If you seriously think ArmA2 is even remotely as complex as CMSF when it comes to commanding company sized units I'd recommend you check your head.

Two different games in two different genres. Sure, you CAN cross over to CMSF's in ArmA2, but that is not where the strength of ArmA2 lies.

[olro 0]

Ok, the thread starter here again..

Misleading title, ill give you that :)

Ill tell you what does it for me with regards to CMSF. I know its not obvious to most and even if you knew it wouldnt tickle your fancy so to speak.

After reading quite a few non-fiction books and watching videos about war it struck me how resilient humans are in even harsh modern combat environments. I remember reading about vast russian forces trying to take out small bands of chechen fighters during the two recent chechen wars and US marines duking it out in Fallujah during the Iraq war.

Even after expending an enormous amount of ammunition of all kinds on some of the hideouts, trenches and buildings, there were on many occasions still survivors in there, willing to duke it out.

Humans hug the ground in numerous ways to avoid being shot. The innate instinct to preserve oneself is strong. CMSF, accidently or not, simulates this, even if only on an abstract level. In ARMA you very rarely see this. You never see AI getting themselves into small nooks & crannies in the terrain to preserve themselves. Partly because these terrain features isnt in the game, partly because AI is very confused in general.

For human players there is usually very little incentive to gain proper cover, usually because the next respawn is just around the corner. You can always roleplay this to a certain degree with blurred vision or loud noise drowning out everything else, but its never the same as *being suppressed*.

Artillery in ARMA is at this time kinda pointless. Consider this; why would you need to put two shells in the same spot(theoretically speaking)? One shell in the game would kill everyone in there (unless hitpoint are used). In real life you would fire those two shells because you factor in random events like the shrapnel missing its target(s) completely. More shells would increase the kill chance within the same spot, not only more shells to cover a larger area.

Lets say you put a few 155mm shells on suspected enemy positions. 155mm artillery shells generally have a lethal reach out to about 200m. In CMSF you could experience that one of your men in your squad could take a deadly shrapnel from within that range while the rest remains unharmed. There is some cool randomness in there. I think this is part of what Second meant when he said "paper, rock, scissor". With CMSF there is some randomness at least to the paper rock scissor :)

Ever wondered why you would need much ammo in ARMA? I have eventually figured it is for taking out as many enemy soldiers as you can as opposed to actually SUPPRESSING them. Fire & manouver. CMSF simulates this.

The mission design in ARMA usually dictates you should take out hordes of enemy in order to justify massive ammo loadouts, while in real life most rounds are used to keep the enemys heads down! Ive seen a thread where someone requests simulating barrel overheating... im all for getting closer to reality but this is one of many request that simply isnt needed yet as the factors involving them isnt properly implemented! (like suppression, fire & manouver, psychology, being pinned down, foxholes, trenches, bunkers..etc). In CMSF you could expend hundreds or thousands of rounds just to suppress suspected enemy positions.

Why would one bother to keep the front of a tank facing the enemy in hull down positions in ARMA? An rpg there would do as much good as it would in the rear. In CMSF an M1 is just about impervious to most weapons from the front. AND there is a difference between the upper part of the tank and the lower in terms of armour modelling. Being in defilade actually has value in CMSF. ARMA has hitpoints. CMSF simulates realistic armour modelling and throws in some random events there as well.

You can use Javelins to target infantry or even an area target. Havent seen/heard you can do that in ARMA.

So called TAC AI in CMSF can be pretty pretty stupid unless you script it well in the mission. But so can the ARMA AI. CMSF AI shines when it defends in urban built up areas. Infantry being shot at in buildings will from time to time retreat into nearby buildings to set up new ambushes. If you dont encircle or flank the village/town at some point you will have a very hard time.

In ARMA you can as a single soldier roam the battlefield totally alone. Now this is fair if you are a sniper or part of an elite unit. Generally speaking, in real life, being a grunt on your own as a opposed to being part of a squad, would or should have a psychological impact that says "preserve yourself!". Being in the presence of a squad leader/HQ unit would aid/help you in supressing thoughts of "Im gonna get captured soon" or "eff this, im going home" and actually make you take the fight to the enemy instead. ARMA, you can rambo quite effectively as you want, in CMSF, not so.

Again, two different games.

Oh, and you can play CMSF turn based if you wish so. Its not purely real time ( I hate calling it an RTS, its way to sloooow).

There are things that can be simulated in ARMA, like assymetric victory conditions, but this is inherent in CMSF from the ground up, and I love assymetric unbalanced wargaming, as there rarely is any balanced war in real life.

In the end all these little factors add up. No new bling bling Apache chopper addons ,M4 ACOG sights or general expansions would change the way we play this fps game. It would have to go deeper than that.

Alright thats the gist of it, without being too much of an anal wargame grognard :)

Edited December 23, 2009 by olro

[Aeneas2020 10]

olro never played the combat mission games but i just wanted to say it is nice to see someone respond to negative comments (warranted or not) with poise, grace and above all the bloody smarts and diction to create a reasoned response. I personally like to take games for what they are, having worked for many years in a gaming environment where the community was dedicated to realism to the point of actually threatening bodily harm I can see both sides of the arguement. However I just wanted to say i appreciate the points you made and i'd be interested to try the game myself and see what it's all about....now having said that let the flaming begin...

[Barely-injured 0]

The British Army is completely different and, in game, they are significantly harder to play with. The current patch version is 1.21 and I wouldn't compare it to 1.10, or any previous version.

Red has considerable AT assets that, if the scenario is well-made, can be used to murder a careless Blue player. There is no reason that -any- scenario should require "not much skill". Red is, obviously, quite a bit harder, and requires some real thought, but then, I have been led to believe that many BIS gamers like "realism". Must have been misinformed.

really no need to be sarcastic here I played that game from the beginning and I am fully aware what realism in those scenarios requires. Obviously balance is not what I am looking for, the game is not balanced and it is not supposed to be and that was always the case. However in the patches that I have tried lets say there were somethings that really went above and beyond the notion of superior force versus inferior force.

"officially stupid" mistakes I commit as a blue player did not really have that much of significant consequences, and where as a red player I could previously (say in 1.02) somewhat account for inferior training and equipment by outmaneuvering, ambushing and tactically outplaying my opponent not necessarily achieving victory but at least causing significant damage. in 1.10 It was hard to achieve any proper ambush with decent results even with superior numbers, equipment and stats ( I can even give you examples if you want ).

In any case having heard such good praise for the British expansion and since there is a new demo released i will give it a try and see what happens.

[[GLT] Legislator 59]

Hmm this game actually beates Dragon Rising ... hmmmm

[AndresCL 10]

Ok, the thread starter here again..

Misleading title, ill give you that :)

Ill tell you what does it for me with regards to CMSF. I know its not obvious to most and even if you knew it wouldnt tickle your fancy so to speak.

After reading quite a few non-fiction books and watching videos about war it struck me how resilient humans are in even harsh modern combat environments. I remember reading about vast russian forces trying to take out small bands of chechen fighters during the two recent chechen wars and US marines duking it out in Fallujah during the Iraq war.

Even after expending an enormous amount of ammunition of all kinds on some of the hideouts, trenches and buildings, there were on many occasions still survivors in there, willing to duke it out.

Humans hug the ground in numerous ways to avoid being shot. The innate instinct to preserve oneself is strong. CMSF, accidently or not, simulates this, even if only on an abstract level. In ARMA you very rarely see this. You never see AI getting themselves into small nooks & crannies in the terrain to preserve themselves. Partly because these terrain features isnt in the game, partly because AI is very confused in general.

For human players there is usually very little incentive to gain proper cover, usually because the next respawn is just around the corner. You can always roleplay this to a certain degree with blurred vision or loud noise drowning out everything else, but its never the same as *being suppressed*.

Artillery in ARMA is at this time kinda pointless. Consider this; why would you need to put two shells in the same spot(theoretically speaking)? One shell in the game would kill everyone in there (unless hitpoint are used). In real life you would fire those two shells because you factor in random events like the shrapnel missing its target(s) completely. More shells would increase the kill chance within the same spot, not only more shells to cover a larger area.

Lets say you put a few 155mm shells on suspected enemy positions. 155mm artillery shells generally have a lethal reach out to about 200m. In CMSF you could experience that one of your men in your squad could take a deadly shrapnel from within that range while the rest remains unharmed. There is some cool randomness in there. I think this is part of what Second meant when he said "paper, rock, scissor". With CMSF there is some randomness at least to the paper rock scissor :)

Ever wondered why you would need much ammo in ARMA? I have eventually figured it is for taking out as many enemy soldiers as you can as opposed to actually SUPPRESSING them. Fire & manouver. CMSF simulates this.

The mission design in ARMA usually dictates you should take out hordes of enemy in order to justify massive ammo loadouts, while in real life most rounds are used to keep the enemys heads down! Ive seen a thread where someone requests simulating barrel overheating... im all for getting closer to reality but this is one of many request that simply isnt needed yet as the factors involving them isnt properly implemented! (like suppression, fire & manouver, psychology, being pinned down, foxholes, trenches, bunkers..etc). In CMSF you could expend hundreds or thousands of rounds just to suppress suspected enemy positions.

Why would one bother to keep the front of a tank facing the enemy in hull down positions in ARMA? An rpg there would do as much good as it would in the rear. In CMSF an M1 is just about impervious to most weapons from the front. AND there is a difference between the upper part of the tank and the lower in terms of armour modelling. Being in defilade actually has value in CMSF. ARMA has hitpoints. CMSF simulates realistic armour modelling and throws in some random events there as well.

You can use Javelins to target infantry or even an area target. Havent seen/heard you can do that in ARMA.

So called TAC AI in CMSF can be pretty pretty stupid unless you script it well in the mission. But so can the ARMA AI. CMSF AI shines when it defends in urban built up areas. Infantry being shot at in buildings will from time to time retreat into nearby buildings to set up new ambushes. If you dont encircle or flank the village/town at some point you will have a very hard time.

In ARMA you can as a single soldier roam the battlefield totally alone. Now this is fair if you are a sniper or part of an elite unit. Generally speaking, in real life, being a grunt on your own as a opposed to being part of a squad, would or should have a psychological impact that says "preserve yourself!". Being in the presence of a squad leader/HQ unit would aid/help you in supressing thoughts of "Im gonna get captured soon" or "eff this, im going home" and actually make you take the fight to the enemy instead. ARMA, you can rambo quite effectively as you want, in CMSF, not so.

Again, two different games.

Oh, and you can play CMSF turn based if you wish so. Its not purely real time ( I hate calling it an RTS, its way to sloooow).

There are things that can be simulated in ARMA, like assymetric victory conditions, but this is inherent in CMSF from the ground up, and I love assymetric unbalanced wargaming, as there rarely is any balanced war in real life.

In the end all these little factors add up. No new bling bling Apache chopper addons ,M4 ACOG sights or general expansions would change the way we play this fps game. It would have to go deeper than that.

Alright thats the gist of it, without being too much of an anal wargame grognard :)

1.- Seems like you havent played no-respawn missions (or only one revive missions)

2.-Artillery does have dispersion, and no, it doesnt freaking kills everything and everyone, im sure you can load up the editor and test by yourself

3.- You can, with MMA (i didint properly aimed the soldier, but i think you get the picture)

4.- You can go rambo? What the hell? Ill tell you what, i tried to go rambo in the new campaign and i got my ass kicked so many times that i had to lower the difficulty and find new paths to reach the objective. Also, in the campaign you are alone and the atmosphere given by the mission creator success at "psychological warfare". Anyways, its all up to the mission editor.

5.- The way we play? Anyone can play the game the way they like (According to that logic, not even RPG modes would be allowed becuse "they arent realistic enough"

Edited December 23, 2009 by AndresCL

[Second 0]

"officially stupid" mistakes I commit as a blue player did not really have that much of significant consequences, and where as a red player I could previously (say in 1.02) somewhat account for inferior training and equipment by outmaneuvering, ambushing and tactically outplaying my opponent not necessarily achieving victory but at least causing significant damage. in 1.10 It was hard to achieve any proper ambush with decent results even with superior numbers, equipment and stats ( I can even give you examples if you want ).

Please do give example or two. I do understand that based on Vanilla CMSF that conclusion might not be very far off (CMSF would have needed light Blue infantry right from start!). And i happen to play patch 1.21 and really don't remember much how game played in 1.10. I was able to beat Blue side often, i remember that, but it sure required almost prefect plan and execution which didnt' happen enough often.

Current state in my opinion: If plan and execution is right Red side can cause very bad casualties (and even win battles) against Blue, while Blue will pay dearly for errors it made (i'm staring my own casualty reports in Marines campaign: i might have to call it quits before i'm able to finish it). This is very clear with Marines and similar light infantry forces. They lack muscle and protection Stryker and Mech units does have (Javelins, formidable vehicles, communication devices etc). Like i said CMSF would have been better and more equal if it would have had light infantry with possible trucks as transport right from start.

If you ask experienced Red players what Red needs to win symmetrical battle answer usually would be time, preparations and artillery. 35 minutes lasting quick battles aren't really doing favor for Red side... Even less in previous versions where heavy tubes might respond to calls of fire in 20+ minutes. It forces player to do hasty assaults against poorly known enemy force with ill support from arty, even greatly bigger numbers in Syrian side might not make up the problems it generates.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Second

[olro 0]

No ones playing ping pong anymore?

Anyways, starting to upload whats remaining of the battle:

[Barely-injured 0]

@ Second,

Well as I am away from my gaming machine for the holidays, which means I didn't even try arma 2 1.05 patch nor the ACE 2 updates yet((the horror)). I had some time to try out the 1.20 demo for British forces, and I think the game is much improved from before.

My problem was not with equipment but rather with red infantry sometimes acting weird. The examples that I am talking about happened to me in 1.10 too many times and in different scenarios to be considered a coincidence or to be blamed on poor unit attributes and qualities (the +1 and -1 states). I have a full fresh squad of red infantry (even republican guards) that is 9 guys hiding in the second floor of a building facing an open street, into the streets comes about 2-4 blue guys separated from their squad sometimes they are not even regular soldiers, but 2 crew members who just escaped from their vehicle. Now they walk into the middle of the street in the open and in perfect place for the red squad to ambush. The red squad un-hide, open up, impressive fireworks resulting in the blue guys unharmed and maybe one of them yellow. The blue guys go prone in the middle of the street (Arma 1's AI style) still under fire they aim, fire, and in the first volley 2-4 red guys drop dead and the rest go cowering only to be cut down by subsequent fire from the "ambushed" crew guys leaving about 2 guys hiding until somebody else finds them and finishes them off.

like I said this happened to me in many different scenarios two of which that I can think of are the official Al-huqaff engagement and a very nice user made mission called Hammer time. Don't get me wrong red troops should obviously preform worse than highly trained blue troops but that was a bit too much.

Anyways 1.20 demo looks promising and I might be reaching for my paypal account soon if only because I am curios about the potential for fictional blue on blue scenarios from different factions.

[wiggum2 31]

You cant compare CMSF to ArmA2 !

ArmA2 is all in all a FPS where you can fly and drive tanks around in something like a big sandbox.

CMSF is a combined arms wargame where you command platoons, companys and even Battalion sized forces.

If you want to be the guy who shoots his M4 then play ArmA2.

If you want to be the guy who leads a entire Battalion into combat...play CMSF.

You have to understand that CMSF do some abstract calculation in the background.

But for sure CMSF is much better in simulating combined arms warfare (or armor penetration, or artillery strikes / CAS, house to house fighting ect.) then ArmA2.

And i played both games a lot, trust me.

@ Herbal Influence

Do you really think the "PC GAMES" knows anything about weapons system, tactics ect. ??

Some Screenshots from me:

Edited December 29, 2009 by Wiggum

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

@ Second,

Well as I am away from my gaming machine for the holidays, which means I didn't even try arma 2 1.05 patch nor the ACE 2 updates yet((the horror)). I had some time to try out the 1.20 demo for British forces, and I think the game is much improved from before.

My problem was not with equipment but rather with red infantry sometimes acting weird. The examples that I am talking about happened to me in 1.10 too many times and in different scenarios to be considered a coincidence or to be blamed on poor unit attributes and qualities (the +1 and -1 states). I have a full fresh squad of red infantry (even republican guards) that is 9 guys hiding in the second floor of a building facing an open street, into the streets comes about 2-4 blue guys separated from their squad sometimes they are not even regular soldiers, but 2 crew members who just escaped from their vehicle. Now they walk into the middle of the street in the open and in perfect place for the red squad to ambush. The red squad un-hide, open up, impressive fireworks resulting in the blue guys unharmed and maybe one of them yellow. The blue guys go prone in the middle of the street (Arma 1's AI style) still under fire they aim, fire, and in the first volley 2-4 red guys drop dead and the rest go cowering only to be cut down by subsequent fire from the "ambushed" crew guys leaving about 2 guys hiding until somebody else finds them and finishes them off.

like I said this happened to me in many different scenarios two of which that I can think of are the official Al-huqaff engagement and a very nice user made mission called Hammer time. Don't get me wrong red troops should obviously preform worse than highly trained blue troops but that was a bit too much.

Anyways 1.20 demo looks promising and I might be reaching for my paypal account soon if only because I am curios about the potential for fictional blue on blue scenarios from different factions.

Yeah, I don't think that will happen anymore. I remember those days, too. I think the game, right now, has a good balance of lethality vs realism. The British module ships with a Blue v Blue scenario, but I can't remember what it is at the moment. It is very hard (Player is British vs Americans) and highlights the different capabilities of both forces. A very well-made scenario.

[dm 9]

Well this sure has to win a prize for most misleading thread title ever...

You cant compare CMSF to ArmA2 !

Whilst this is true,

ArmA2 is all in all a FPS where you can fly and drive tanks around in something like a big sandbox.

CMSF is a combined arms wargame where you command platoons, companys and even Battalion sized forces.

If you want to be the guy who shoots his M4 then play ArmA2.

If you want to be the guy who leads a entire Battalion into combat...play CMSF.

This is not quite so true. ArmA is capable of both, as CoC have proven with the Command Engine.

http://www.abload.de/img/snap0019fb5e.jpg

Its interesting to see that their Challenger 2 (and a few other vehicles) suffer from exactly the same technical inaccuracies as the UKF (and by inferrence, the VBS) models. I wonder where the CMSF artists are getting their reference material...

[wiggum2 31]

This is not quite so true. ArmA is capable of both, as CoC have proven with the Command Engine.

The point is that the OFP/ArmA engine was never designed to be used that way. I tried the high command mode in ArmA2 but it feels more like C&C to me.

[Barely-injured 0]

@ olro

Very nice videos. Is this scenario available with AI plans or is it purely H2H ?

By the way found your thread about those videos in the BFC forum :D it is not nice throwing dirt on us like that especially that the first couple of replies were obviously some bad apples :rolleyes:

[alext223 0]

Sure this has been said before, You cant compare CMSF to ArmA, both totally diffrent styles of games.

But CMSF does remind me alot of the golden oldie SSI Steel Panthers.

Good vids too.

[lwlooz 0]

Oh, dear me.

As much as I hate CM for its in my opinion horrible user interface and complete reliance on horrible horrible mircomanagment ,

as much as I respect the work that BIS has put into this engine over the last decade,

Arma does not even try to be a tactical wargame.

So even if CM:SF isn't a perfect wargame , you can't even begin to compare them.

As far as wargaming goes Arma2 offers very little tactical options, nor does the AI think and act much beyond the individual-level.

Despite walker's propaganda even with excellent command engines even platoon battles look awfully silly most of the time.

Depending on what BIS does maybe Arma12 will make CombatMission obsolete, but until then CM:SF is much better suited to wargaming that Arma2 is , sadly.

Noone would say: "Pff... crap graphics that SteelBeasts Pro , Arma2 can do the tanking bit just as well" , would one?

Great videos anyways og.

[OH-58-FL-Pilot 10]

What I love in this thread are the staunch individuals who have hard on's for only BIS games.

CMSF is indeed an excellent COC simulation.

BIS titles have major flaws, as does CMSF. Anybody who thinks either are perfect do not belong anywhere near real weaponry.

I mean really, look at the BIS flight model its a complete joke, look at rocks magically launching tanks into the air.

Nothing is perfect and each title offers its benefit depending on what you want to do.

Me, lots of neat situations you can come up with in the editors of ARMA and ARMA II. So it will always win hands down, but during downtime I still enjoy CMSF.

Edited January 2, 2010 by OH-58-FL-Pilot

[Blackhawk 0]

I really like Combat Mission Shock Force, especially with the Marine addon. You have to use your head and real world military tactics to defeat the enemy, and if you make one mistake, the whole mission could be ruined.

[Second 0]

I really like Combat Mission Shock Force, especially with the Marine addon. You have to use your head and real world military tactics to defeat the enemy, and if you make one mistake, the whole mission could be ruined.

Real world military tactics is interesting question. How "real world" they are? Not too close i'm sure. Because it's just game which can't go to details which real world sets, and by that it's leaves space for "abuse".

I'd dare to say that technical stuff (specs of weapon systems) is enough close to really consider it to be very complete simulation for those parts. They have tons of military experts in beta-team and community who really knows this stuff and developers does listen to them with open ears and are quite interested themselves about such stuff, their head designer is even participating into discussions on very active basis and one has to really know his stuff and prove his point of view to get it thru.

But in tactical scale it still leaves things to desire for "ultimate realism" sense... which ofcourse is plainly absurd to demand, but is interesting question. So. It's game after all and is supposed to be fun (fun for wargamer atleast). Main problem is that breaking CoC isn't that bad. Units do operate under borgish collective mind (=player or AI's plan). There's no "friction of war". Platoon leaders, squad leaders, team leaders does "know" what player (=company/batallion commander) wants of them even if their higher ups have died, radios are not working leader and subordinate can't establish visual or vocal contact with each of other etc.

CMSF does model COC and it's breakbility to very fine detail, but still when COC is broken for example in company-platoon level, platoons will carry on fullfilling stuff by players choosing, basically just their combat-efficency is being reduced. While in reality they would halt and start be asking from each of other "wtf we should do now?"... Sure they would send messengers (as for one option to do in such situation) on way to take contact, but that takes time and will slow things down a lot.

So generally i'd say that player doesn't need to think so stiffly than actual leader has to based on how to plan missions so that they are reliably executed under worst possible situation, when there's no high-tech (radios or other gadgets) or it doesn't work. In CMSF this generates lots of room for errors without much fear of back-fires. Plans doesn't need to be so robust (=tied to tried and tested structure which generates them to be more or less stiff and formal). Good example of this is small arms and how they don't cause friendly fire (everything bigger than rifle caliber does generate however). Players and game probably couldn't handle that so it has been left out. Storming building with one team while rest of platoon supports by fire forexample is much-much more easy and fast to organize than in reality it would. Another is use of smoke to cover own movement and doings. In reality smoke drifting in wrong direction can have really fatal results: manuvering unit goes blind, gets lost ending into minefiled, enemy killzone, units getting mixed and whole plan going bad etc. In CMSF they just don't see anythign (not able to spot and fire hostiles) but can move in thick smoke without fear of getting lost, mixed or anything. These are two which comes to mind straight away.

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.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Second

[wiggum2 31]

CMSF does model COC and it's breakbility to very fine detail, but still when COC is broken for example in company-platoon level, platoons will carry on fullfilling stuff by players choosing, basically just their combat-efficency is being reduced. While in reality they would halt and start be asking from each of other "wtf we should do now?"... Sure they would send messengers (as for one option to do in such situation) on way to take contact, but that takes time and will slow things down a lot.

The question is how you will represent this without making the player angry... ("why are my guys to stupid to do that"). You would need good working, and maybe adjustable, SOP's if units with broken C2 would no longer be in your controll.

[Second 0]

The question is how you will represent this without making the player angry... ("why are my guys to stupid to do that"). You would need good working, and maybe adjustable, SOP's if units with broken C2 would no longer be in your controll.

True, current system in my opinion is best solution. I already by now am on edge that game gets far too engaging for my attention and input.

That SOP system is interesting thing. I must admit i've usually skipped those discussions so i really don't have idea would it work and what has been said about it. :o

Are you familiar with Airborne Assault? I don't know what Battlefront has to do with it, but their name is on it's box and if i recall they had discussion board in their old forums about it (not anymore). It had pretty interesting system, where player just gave some order to some unit(s) and game sorted the rest based on order player gave to them (Use of fire, speed etc). It was freaking odd to just give orders and see then being carried on in way which i by myself could not have done (i tried it but casualty figures were ten times bigger and my assaults dried up far more often). I don't know how damned hard that would be to code in and how well it would work in 3D-game like CMSF. Probably too hard and not working at all :mad:

[wiggum2 31]

I know what game you mean.

TacOps 4 is a similar game with a good SOP system.

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=115&Itemid=165

You can set this for every unit:

Imagine you give your tank platoon the order to moves forward to point xy during the command-phase. Now during the combat-phase you cant influence the action...

Your tank platoon gets attacked on its way to point xy and now does what you told them in the SOP menu...pop smoke and reverse 200m or something.

[Second 0]

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: