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

[Second 0]

Here are two videos of a so called Play By Email game I have versus another opponent online.

Holy grap that bunker scene at start was great. I never have understood this idea of WEGO, i'm always high watching overall progress of battle and almost never take it to individual level which offers quite a astonishing moments.

Great looking battle, artillery and tanks pouring in some serious firepower!!! How large battle is it? I haven't played with Uncons much and usually over estimate their size way over. I'd guess there's couple companies, 200 guys. Any good?

Heck i'm playing just against computer and even at best it doesn't reach greatness of PvP.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Second

[olro 0]

@Second: The official bodycount number in that scenario is 436 men for the attackers vs 661 for the defenders.

The village you see is only the first objective. Its occupied by green troops. As you can see they give the attackers a bloody nose as they attempt to mop up their way to the mosque in there.

Once he starts to regroup my opponent has to continue further down the valley where he'll encounter much tougher opposition.

I love the assymetric victory condition settings where you can loose a lot more troops and hardware compared to the opponent and yet win the game,

You can have these massive PvP battles as long as you have some patience in regards to sending a mail or two, or two hundred :-P ... back & forth. It great and suits my lifestyle.

WEGO is great in that you can replay the best parts and get a detailed view of every action on a large battlefield. One seems to care more about ones pixeltruppen and I also seem to give alot more orders when playing in this mode.

Im still baffled at anyone believing this is an fps. Thats what some zoom will do for ya :-)

Here is another pbem I just did:

Edited December 17, 2009 by olro

[Colt45_GTO 10]

looks like a war game for bouncy balls. why do they look like they are all stood on each others heads?

[Whiskey_Tango 10]

its just an rts...if someone likes rts games i could see them easily loving that one, im not a big rts fan but i will try out the demo and see what its like some day when im bored

[Second 0]

@Second: The official bodycount number in that scenario is 436 men for the attackers vs 661 for the defenders.

Ooookaaay so my estimation was bit too less :D

I admit i'm company scale guy. Commanding battalion sized unit is way too much for my nerves and patience. I tend to send platoons into their deaths with out much thinking about it... And then i naturally forget them totally for few turns. :D

I've been using WEGO system after blue bar was "restored", didn't knew how much i missed it before it made it's way to CMSF. It's true that it gives alot more info which gets lost in flow of real time, but to me that has just functional value, who shot who, who died when and why. Which is shame really, as there's tons of great/fun/"emotional" moments which other people seem to be able to capture into videos and screenshots, but which i miss in my games as i'm mostly playing as bird in the sky.

[sparks50 0]

A question, how does the game handle wounded? That would be a big part of combat logistics.

Edited December 17, 2009 by sparks50

[olro 0]

There is so called "buddy aid" Seriously-wounded (red disc) soldiers who have not received buddy aid (i.e. disappeared) by the end of the game have a 25% chance of becoming KIA in the final tally. This is during campaign play.

Youll see ingame troops being medics to fallen troops by kneeling down near their body. These wounded troops are out of current battle.

[sanctuary 19]

In previous Combat Mission people stated that the AI was stupid in attack but good in defense, is it always the case or have they managed to improve the attacking AI ?

[Second 0]

In previous Combat Mission people stated that the AI was stupid in attack but good in defense, is it always the case or have they managed to improve the attacking AI ?

There's no StrategicAI, as there were in original Combat Mission (=CMx1)

In Original CMs that what you describe is somewhat a feature. Timeline of battles usually was so short that AI at was able to move it's men into concentration point and maybe even make one charge towards objective. Sometimes it wasnt' even able to do that. It was limited, but it had one strong side... It was totally autonomous thanks to it's stategicAI (AI which plans overall execution of battle and movement of troops).

In CMx2 heaviest responsibility is on mission maker. He is stategicAI so he makes plan or several different plans for battle which TacAI (tactical AI which leads individual squads and teams, their target selection etc) then follows. Game picks one random plan from list which scenario planner provides for it and executes that.

That has some pros and cons.

+Plans made by skillfull people are very vicious. AI placement is sometimes very smart, their fire (artillery) and movement (infantry) can be pretty skillful. In my mind CMx2 works well if AI is attacker.

-AI is unable to react to anything as it follows premade plan. It's reactions are just squad/team based (to open fire or to flee from terrain under fire). In defense system in CMx2 (in my mind) isn't as good as system in CMx1, where StrategicAI could atleast launch counter attacks at lost objectives, while in CMx2 it needs plan for that... And these kind of thing as hard to plan by scenario makers because player can do anything at anytime in anyway.

Hopefully triggers, from which there has been discussions, are implemented at some time... So that scenario makers can give some sort semi-autonomous reaction-behavior for AI.

Edited December 17, 2009 by Second

[sic-disaster 311]

As for the people say this is boring or anything:

It does a better job at armour penetration than ArmA does. Combat Mission always had a lot of stuff and calculations going on under the hood.

It always sounded very appealing to me, but i never could get into the gameplay, i just forget way to much.

But honestly, this game probably is more hardcore then ArmA 2. So get off your high horses.

[4 IN 1 0]

As for the people say this is boring or anything:

It does a better job at armour penetration than ArmA does. Combat Mission always had a lot of stuff and calculations going on under the hood.

It always sounded very appealing to me, but i never could get into the gameplay, i just forget way to much.

But honestly, this game probably is more hardcore then ArmA 2. So get off your high horses.

The problem is that the title of this thread isnt just what people expected(to tell you the truth, I just dont know what the title is doing with these video, would be better simply change title to something like "The intensive CMSF battle video i made last night"), you HAVE to expect people shouting at you when you are playing with title to attract people to watch your post, not that i am saying the people saying the game boring is right(which they are indeed very wrong by comparing apple to beef), but the fact that toe OP is just way too off to be even called sarcasm.

[AndresCL 10]

Seriously this would started way better wihout the "It looks like a warfilm". I was really excited with that but the moment i saw the map "quality" i didint knew what to think, if this was a bad joke or something like that. Then i realized this was serious.

Look, im not trying to be a total douchebag here, but im just saying the title is misleading most of the discussion. It does looks like a pretty realistic RTS with lot of calculations, accurate ballistic, great artillery support, but i would say it looks nothing like a warfilm, to be honest.

[Barely-injured 0]

wow the first couple of replies were rather weird. However That does not mean that I have such a positive opinion of the game right now.

It makes me sad to think about this game because back in the early days of release, despite the horrible bugs, performance and the LOS issues, the game mechanics themselves were very good and the game "when working" was very entertaining and tactical advantage actually meant something. With the latest patches the game stability is improved but the game mechanics were seriously flawed in my opinion. I couldn't be bothered to try the expansions.....

Edit: Nice video by the way are these modded sounds and tracers?

Edited December 21, 2009 by Barely-injured

[Herbal Influence 10]

You do realise it is not an FPS? So comparison to ArmA 2 is very silly to say the least.

It is an RTS but a realistic one, not like C&C. Maybe you should play the demo and look at the features before talking crap.

http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmsf/features.html

I play BIS games mostly as RTS.

As commander in warfares or ctis .... or other High-Command-missions ....

(Indeed this is one aspect I only now realized - thank you for that. I mean that it's a kind of RTS (real time strategy - mode) that's also enclosed in all BI games .... )

I didn't compare it to FPS - qualities of Arma2 at all.

So don't be that harsh to me if you aren't able to understand that.

You simply forgot to refer to the misleading threadtitle, did you?

Edited December 21, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[-Snafu- 78]

I play BIS games mostly as RTS.

As commander in warfares or ctis .... or other High-Command-missions ....

(Indeed this is one aspect I only now realized - thank you for that. I mean that it's a kind of RTS (real time strategy - mode) that's also enclosed in all BI games .... )

I know. No CTI or High Command in vanilla OFP though.

I didn't compare it to FPS - qualities of Arma2 at all.

So don't be that harsh to me if you aren't able to understand that.

Then why compare it at all especially when you haven't played it?

Let me give you a little example. In the CMSF Campaign (a hypothetical Coalition invasion of Syria) the second mission involves a Stryker Company (campaign revolves around the SBCT) taking a Syrian airfield. No conventional Syrian forces are there, just some SF and an unknown amount of irregulars.

There are 3 objectives, the Airbase HQ, the Barracks and the SF Command. All are to be taken as quickly as possible so the advance of the Task Force does not slow down.

I draw up a plan and execute it. I send 1st Platoon to secure the entrance to the Airbase and clear out the nearby buildings. Some casualties are taken in the process. I have them mount the Stryker carriers and move them quickly up to the Airbase HQ. I have the Strykers pop smoke and send in my boys to take the building. A fire fight breaks out and heavy casualties are taken - 1st Platoon is effectively out of the fight. I have two squads occupy the building and send the other to board a Stryker. As they exit the building and move across the road I move up 2nd Platoon to the entrance and then all of a sudden there is a massive explosion.

I check the area and one Stryker plus the squad I sent out are all dead. Taken out by a nearby truck which contained an IED. My jaw dropped. I lost an entire squad, Stryker and the initiative. My whole plan was now pointless. All due to my inexperience in using the Stryker units in urban operations (it is a skill).

I kept trying the mission and got better and better. I can now do building clearance properly, the assaulting infantry use grenades and so on to clear the rooms. Used the HQ as a base of fire and a place for my FO and sniper. I then do this with the barracks with 2nd Platoon and use 3rd Platoon for the last objective. Using all the lessons I had learned, especially speed, if you get bogged down in that mission you fail. I eventually completed that mission, which was pretty difficult, with 17 KIA, 32 wounded and 3 destroyed Strykers. The insurgents hide and ambush when appropriate.

You can do a lot of things in CMSF that you can not do in Arma 2 because it was not designed from the start to be a wargame like CMSF is. You can not compare the two games in any way shape or form.

You simply forgot to refer to the misleading threadtitle, did you?

No.

Edited December 21, 2009 by Snafu

[Herbal Influence 10]

Ok. I understand that it may be fascinating to you.

And thanx again for that I finally found the right term of the way I like to enjoy BIS games mostly: As a real time strategy game.

Seriously.

I got aware more and more that shoot & run is annoying me considering the amount of big vehicles and men you can use.

It explains to a big amount why I am 3rd-view addicted as you can see here. RTS it is absurd to play an RTS with egoshooterviewmode.

Something creeps up my mind .... weren't there RTS modes for OFP in 2001/2003 that were expressively called RTS?

But - I dunno how deep you are in BIS games - be assured that I have had a lot of hours lasting strategic exciting situations in mfcti/crcti, especially with BWMOD too.

Sure there was a kind of High Command in vanilla OFP - good to begin with - too: You could dirigate at least your own 11 units. But with mfcti (2002?) I was able to steer 15 x 12 Units? At least 7 x 12 ... dunno.

With High Command I can steer my units to a degree that leaves no wishes:

Go to xy,

do that (watch that direction, scan horizon, reammo, heal, lay down, heal others, open/close windows/doors, get up/down that ladder, etc. etc.)

Needles to say that you can do much more with scripting like changing the speed of moves etc.

I am sincerely lacking imagination what I do need more than that I can do in Arma2 to have a good Real Strategy Game.

The graphics are worse than in BIS games.

Sure the physics are worse too - but I can't be sure about that.

All I have is the video.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[Second 0]

Ok. I understand that it may be fascinating to you.

But be assured that I have had a lot of hours lasting strategic exciting situations in mfcti/crcti, especially with BWMOD too.

Sure there was a kind of High Command in vanilla OFP too: You could dirigate at least your own 11 units. But with mfcti (2002?) I was able to steer 15 x 12 Units? At least 7 x 12 ... dunno.

With High Command I can steer my units to a degree that leaves no wishes:

Go to xy,

do that (watch that direction, scan horizon, reammo, heal, lay down, heal others, open/close windows/doors, get up/down that ladder, etc. etc.)

Needles to say that you can do much more with scripting like changing the speed of moves etc.

I am sincerely lacking imagination what I do need more than that I can do in Arma2 to have a good Real Strategy Game.

You just don't understand it. First of all CMSF is NOT strategy game, it's wargame dedicated to represent pretty realistic tactical level combat.

ArmA is just half made game (=Compromise of different styles) in many areas, and comparing ArmA and CMSF in CMSF's field (tactical battles) gives same results: ArmA lacks complexity, it's like playing paper-rock-scissors.

What you haven't played you don't understand. And i'm not going to explain it's complexity compared to forexample ArmA to you.

The graphics are worse than in BIS games.

Sure the physics are worse too - but I can't be sure about that.

This sums it up pretty well why i don't want to make effort to explain it to you... But as Sanfu said commanding Styker unit (or Marine unit, or Heavy mech unit, or Syrian reserve infantry unit, or Syrian Mech inf unit, or Syrian Airborne unit, or some British unit) requires to gain skill in leading that kind of unit. When Marines were introduced to CMSF community started discussing how their were led to gain good results, how to use large Marine squad and it's rather insane firepower so that they perform well. Which are their strong points and which are their weak points. How they perform against different kind enemies.

In here most discussions would go about how they look like, crap or cool...

[Barely-injured 0]

... But as Sanfu said commanding Styker unit (or Marine unit, or Heavy mech unit, or Syrian reserve infantry unit, or Syrian Mech inf unit, or Syrian Airborne unit, or some British unit) requires to gain skill in leading that kind of unit. When Marines were introduced to CMSF community started discussing how their were led to gain good results, how to use large Marine squad and it's rather insane firepower so that they perform well. Which are their strong points and which are their weak points. How they perform against different kind enemies.

In here most discussions would go about how they look like, crap or cool...

Sadly I would agree with you if you had used the past tense. Last time I checked (the last patch before the marine expansion (1.10 ?) as well as the marines demo) Leading Most BLUEFOR units did not require much skill at all or lets say requires significantly less skill than how it used to be before, as for leading REDFOR units..... well you might as well forget it.

I wonder if anything changed with the British expansion......

[Clavicula_nox4817 0]

Sadly I would agree with you if you had used the past tense. Last time I checked (the last patch before the marine expansion (1.10 ?) as well as the marines demo) Leading Most BLUEFOR units did not require much skill at all or lets say requires significantly less skill than how it used to be before, as for leading REDFOR units..... well you might as well forget it.

I wonder if anything changed with the British expansion......

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.

[Herbal Influence 10]

You just don't understand it. First of all CMSF is NOT strategy game, it's wargame dedicated to represent pretty realistic tactical level combat.

ArmA is just half made game (=Compromise of different styles) in many areas, and comparing ArmA and CMSF in CMSF's field (tactical battles) gives same results: ArmA lacks complexity, it's like playing paper-rock-scissors.

What you haven't played you don't understand. And i'm not going to explain it's complexity compared to forexample ArmA to you.

So it is no RTS ??

I learned by one of the CMSF-fans here in this thread IT IS ... and say ArmA lacks complexity, is like paper-rock-scissors ... wow, strong words.

I will give it a try.

I like complex games.

EDIT:

No, I won't. As I said I don't even like the green rhombusses on the soldiers in Arma2 and it's so much worse in CMSF as I have seen here.

And by the way, pc-gamer also stated that it is "ein realistisches und im Großen und Ganzen gelungenes Spiel für (unerfahrene) Strategieliebhaber." (translation: a realistic and all in all well done game for (unexperienced) strategylovers."

And I think BIS games require much more than an unexperienced strategylover.

And, @Second, you really must not explain things to me if it's so hard for you.

If you are into such complex games it must be very annoying to you, to explain things to people who are only into paper-rock-scissor-BI games.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Herbal Influence

[Second 0]

Sadly I would agree with you if you had used the past tense. Last time I checked (the last patch before the marine expansion (1.10 ?) as well as the marines demo) Leading Most BLUEFOR units did not require much skill at all or lets say requires significantly less skill than how it used to be before, as for leading REDFOR units..... well you might as well forget it.

I wonder if anything changed with the British expansion......

Like Clavicula_nox4817 said game has moved forward and there's lots of changes. Deploy times for AT-weapons have gone down (finally :cool::), syrian arty is bit more responsive and not totally dependant of FOs while Blue arty's response time has been toned down. Artillery's effectivity has gone down (yeah earlier it was possible to wipe large open areas with few batteries) Mauling troops dead into one building or trench is much harder as they will evade heavy firepower easier, usuall case in MOUT is that troops storms empty building (opponents evaded suppressive fire) and receive fire from house behind it. + tons of other tweaks and fixes. I personally see CMSF much harder right now, getting thru same battles is more costly and requires much more thought.

Mostly easiness is in official Stryker campaign, havent' played campaign in while, but overall impressions from whole campaign was that scenario makers weren't totally up-to task on playing as Syrians or familiar with modern tactics and scenario editor. They could have offered much harder opposition. Marines started to show right direction, but first half of it there was just rather poor militia troops... After that it got harder when better troops were faced. Dunno about Brits (should get it) but overall it's seen as much harder campaign as previous two. Overall scenario makers (noth users and official) have started to gain grasp on how to design missions with tough opposition from Syrian troops.

Have tried some user-made campaigns like Forging Steel? That requires Marines module, but shows pretty well that Syrians can represent quite a headache.

Yet it doesn't take away the fact that mostly US and Western troops in general have better training (=regular well trained troops vs many times poorly trained irregulars) have better equipment (bodyarmors, communication devices, NVGs, Freaking Javelins!, vehicles), more responsive indirect fire. Heck typically Western organization have much more manpower than similar Syrian units. So there's many advantages favoring western troops.

Herbal Influence: You still haven't played the game. :D

Edited December 22, 2009 by Second

[NoRailgunner 0]

I tried the CMSF demo but somehow I didnt find it very appealing or fascinating. Perhaps they should implement more and better missions into next demo to show more features?

[-Snafu- 78]

Ok. I understand that it may be fascinating to you.

And thanx again for that I finally found the right term of the way I like to enjoy BIS games mostly: As a real time strategy game.

Seriously.

I got aware more and more that shoot & run is annoying me considering the amount of big vehicles and men you can use.

It explains to a big amount why I am 3rd-view addicted as you can see here. RTS it is absurd to play an RTS with egoshooterviewmode.

Something creeps up my mind .... weren't there RTS modes for OFP in 2001/2003 that were expressively called RTS?

But - I dunno how deep you are in BIS games - be assured that I have had a lot of hours lasting strategic exciting situations in mfcti/crcti, especially with BWMOD too.

Quite deep. I have been playing since 2001 and my join date as well as post count should have given you a clue.

Sure there was a kind of High Command in vanilla OFP - good to begin with - too: You could dirigate at least your own 11 units. But with mfcti (2002?) I was able to steer 15 x 12 Units? At least 7 x 12 ... dunno.

You mean splitting up into teams red, green etc.? That wasn't really HC, as you were commanding your own squad, and the CTI was user made.

With High Command I can steer my units to a degree that leaves no wishes:

Go to xy,

do that (watch that direction, scan horizon, reammo, heal, lay down, heal others, open/close windows/doors, get up/down that ladder, etc. etc.)

Needles to say that you can do much more with scripting like changing the speed of moves etc.

So? In CMSF you can do all those things (except open individual doors, they will open when required) plus more like have them pop smoke, storm a building etc.

I am sincerely lacking imagination what I do need more than that I can do in Arma2 to have a good Real Strategy Game.

More complicated morale system,, well researched TO&E, better armour penetration system,, better simulation of urban ops, each side has clear different strengths and weaknesses, order suppressing fire, can order a squad to clear a building etc.

How about that for starters?

As I explained before you can't compare them, Arma 2 was not designed to simulate company command. CMSF was not designed to do what Arma 2 does.

Furthermore, why do you try to analyse CMSF when you have not even played it? Herbal influence indeed.

The graphics are worse than in BIS games.

Sure the physics are worse too - but I can't be sure about that.

All I have is the video.

Oh dear! Graphics aren't everything which has to be one of the most things stated in this community, furthermore you can't compare it with BIS products as they are two different games. What part of that do you not understand? It is like comparing Falcon 4.0 to ArmA. Or Close Combat to ArmA. Which is silly.

So it is no RTS ??

I learned by one of the CMSF-fans here in this thread IT IS ... and say ArmA lacks complexity, is like paper-rock-scissors ... wow, strong words.

I will give it a try.

I like complex games.

A realistic RTS. Better than saying wargame, which is a term that that doesn't get used around here very often. TacOps, Close Combat, TOAW III are not very well known titles.

EDIT:

No, I won't. As I said I don't even like the green rhombusses on the soldiers in Arma2 and it's so much worse in CMSF as I have seen here.

Wow. One "unrealistic" feature you don't like. It is a game and not real life, there are many unrealistic features in Arma but I guess they don't count. It is impossible for any game to be 100% realistic.

The markers are useful for picking out your units which often get bungled together, especially in urban operations, they also identify which squad belongs to which platoon.

And by the way, pc-gamer also stated that it is "ein realistisches und im Großen und Ganzen gelungenes Spiel für (unerfahrene) Strategieliebhaber." (translation: a realistic and all in all well done game for (unexperienced) strategylovers."

And I think BIS games require much more than an unexperienced strategylover.

What do game reviewers know? Nothing, they just write their own opinions or what a publisher pays them to. Many beat down on Arma 2 (especially a German one IIRC) when it was released and did not "get" the game. I remember the reviewers were vehemently attacked when Arma 2 was released, but I guess they are OK now. Silly me.

As you are clearly not interested in the Combat Mission series and don't even want to try it out but are quite happy to point out "deficiencies" and how it can't be compared to a game it shouldn't be compared to; maybe you should leave the discussion?

Edited December 22, 2009 by Snafu

[AndresCL 10]

I know. No CTI or High Command in vanilla OFP though.

Then why compare it at all especially when you haven't played it?

Let me give you a little example. In the CMSF Campaign (a hypothetical Coalition invasion of Syria) the second mission involves a Stryker Company (campaign revolves around the SBCT) taking a Syrian airfield. No conventional Syrian forces are there, just some SF and an unknown amount of irregulars.

There are 3 objectives, the Airbase HQ, the Barracks and the SF Command. All are to be taken as quickly as possible so the advance of the Task Force does not slow down.

I draw up a plan and execute it. I send 1st Platoon to secure the entrance to the Airbase and clear out the nearby buildings. Some casualties are taken in the process. I have them mount the Stryker carriers and move them quickly up to the Airbase HQ. I have the Strykers pop smoke and send in my boys to take the building. A fire fight breaks out and heavy casualties are taken - 1st Platoon is effectively out of the fight. I have two squads occupy the building and send the other to board a Stryker. As they exit the building and move across the road I move up 2nd Platoon to the entrance and then all of a sudden there is a massive explosion.

I check the area and one Stryker plus the squad I sent out are all dead. Taken out by a nearby truck which contained an IED. My jaw dropped. I lost an entire squad, Stryker and the initiative. My whole plan was now pointless. All due to my inexperience in using the Stryker units in urban operations (it is a skill).

I kept trying the mission and got better and better. I can now do building clearance properly, the assaulting infantry use grenades and so on to clear the rooms. Used the HQ as a base of fire and a place for my FO and sniper. I then do this with the barracks with 2nd Platoon and use 3rd Platoon for the last objective. Using all the lessons I had learned, especially speed, if you get bogged down in that mission you fail. I eventually completed that mission, which was pretty difficult, with 17 KIA, 32 wounded and 3 destroyed Strykers. The insurgents hide and ambush when appropriate.

You can do a lot of things in CMSF that you can not do in Arma 2 because it was not designed from the start to be a wargame like CMSF is. You can not compare the two games in any way shape or form.

No.

All of that can be done in ArmA2, of course, in a FP perspective

[-Snafu- 78]

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.

Edited December 22, 2009 by Snafu