Cm:sf

[mangus2000]

Now I know some people will probably want me banned from the site for posting this, but i thought it my public duty as a CM mod
Battlefront.com News > Blogfront - Downtown blues
The link takes you to the CM:SF Blog site with some new screen shots of the game.

Still looks a long way from finished:nuts:

 

[KG_Cloghaun]

Well, they've come along way in soldier modelling since CMAK, I'll give them that.

Anyway, looks cute, but not my brand of whiskey. I'll be in the bar across the street when they get the WW2 version done.

Thanks for sharing, Mangus. Much appreciated.

 

[Nemesis Lead]

I am looking forward to this game! I am probably the only one, but OK!:laugh:

The fact that it is real time will be great. It will seperate those who have good combat instincts and tactical awareness from those who take 3 hours to do a single PBEM turn.

For better or for worse, you guys may see a lot less of me!:devious:

 

[liuzg150181]

Hope it doesnt end up like 'Duke Nukem Forever'.......

 

[KG_Cloghaun]

@Nemesis Lead

I hope you like it. Something for everyone. One of the things that is very appealing about CM right now to most is that it's turn based & PBEM. Not to mention the fact that many of us are older & have families & can't sit in front of a monitor for marathon stretches of real-time combat.

It will seperate those who have good combat instincts and tactical awareness

Real-time wargames are definitely a whole different ball of wax. My background in real time was the Close Combat series of games before I started playing Combat Mission. It does require a different mindset, one that not all are suited for. By the same token, I've seen great real time players never successfully make the transition to turn based strategy & fall flat on their face. Good combat instinct & tactical awareness are traits inherent to both gaming types the person playing them has the ability to learn.

those who take 3 hours to do a single PBEM turn

Good Lord!Who do you know that takes 3 hours to do a PBEM turn?! Then again, it couldv'e been one of Kerry's damn monster tournament scenarios, in which case, they should get a free pass in my book. :laugh:

 

[mangus2000]

I must admit i will buy the game when it comes out. But wether i play for long os still to be deciced.
I have bought loads of games but come back to CM like no other i've had!

I thought we all knew that Nem took (on average!) about 3 hours taking his turns, Thats why he beats everyone. Some would call it Anal but i just think it's dedication

 

[Nemesis Lead]

I thought we all knew that Nem took (on average!) about 3 hours taking his turns, Thats why he beats everyone. Some would call it Anal but i just think it's dedication

Bah--I spend about 5 minutes on each PBEM turn (although honestly set ups can take hours). Ask anyone who has played me.:laugh: They will tell you I crank through the files pretty doggone fast.

Anal....nah. Try SMART. :devious:

FYI, it was Walpurgis Nacht (winner of all the ROW tourneys) who once told me he took 3 hours to do PBEM turns in the ROW tourneys. He and I have only played TCP/IP and I can tell you he is damned slow there! Damned slow, but good!

 

[mangus2000]

Bah--I spend about 5 minutes on each PBEM turn (although honestly set ups can take hours).

Tell me about it!
You spend hours and then the other side does the thing you thought they wouldn't
Get's me every time!!!

 

[Lurker]

The fact that it is real time will be great. It will seperate those who have good combat instincts and tactical awareness from those who take 3 hours to do a single PBEM turn.

I'm sometimes slow in returning a file. It depends on the situation in the game and how much effort it needs. But then I've always approached CM the way I do with chess - with deep analysis. I'm not too concerned if I take 5 minutes or an hour.

As to real time, correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that like Command and Conquer or Age of Empires? In that case it seems more a matter of how fast one can point and click and remember where everything is.

I agree with KG_Cloughan in that I don't think I'll sit in front of my PC for long stretches (hours?) playing a real time game. I much prefer PBEM.

 

[Taktik]

There is a big difference between RTS and turn-based games. I can tell you I've played hundreds of hours of RTS with a group of RL friends. AOE I & II, Age of Mythology, Age of Titans, All the games in the Total War series, Warhammer 40k and the xpacks. And of course the CC series 1 through 5.

I agree with NL that there is a different dimension of tactical "skill" involved with RT. You need to understand the flow of events quicker, analyze what is taking place on the fly and adapt, judge where your actions are needed most, etc.

Then again, RT tactics are far more simplified. There simply isn't enough time once the action starts to do anything too elaborate. Battles can be brutish, ungainly and lack artistry. A simple example is "click and drag" this group to go attack the enemy group. Also, there is a dimension of physical skill needed to know your hot-keys and economize your efforts clicking, scrolling and such.

You also miss out on great drama and heroic efforts during frantic RT battles. These games now are so beautiful, but there is no time to stop and smell the roses other than watching a saved game, which most RTS's have. Even though it is long in the tooth, I still love to lock on a tank at zoom 1 and pan around as it rolls across the ground and engages an enemy. With turn-based you can savor and enjoy the action from each and every vantage point. With RT, that is not possible if you want to ever win a game

I very much enjoy RT games as well as turn-based. For me, the disinterest with SF is the genre. Without getting into a politcal debate, I am turned off with the whole Mid-east thing as this point Even exculding whats going on these days there, I am a WWII geek. And if not WWII then sci-fi or fantasy. I too will wait for a WWII version. Maybe play TOW when it comes out as well.

 

[Nemesis Lead]

Taktik is dead on in his "pros and cons" view of RTS games. To use Lurker's analogy, CM is "chess" whereas CMSF will be "speed chess." Both are great testers of skill, but RTS games have that special something that tests your ability to analyse the situation and make decisions quickly. I like this better even though it means that it will be MUCH easier to lose a game in CMSF than CMAK.

I think a lot of people have a bad view of RTS games because of all the games that involve "base building" and that totally differ from reality (unrealisticly short attack ranges, resource gathering, hit points, etc). CMSF will not be like this.

My big concern about CMSF is not the genre. It is that the game will be based on assymertic warfare. I wonder if, in multiplay, there will be a lot of gamey things that can be done to capitalize on the assymetric environment.

I also think that CMSF will have to be scaled at the company level or lower. I don't think you can command battalions in real time when your subordinates (i.e., captains and lieutenants) are AI controlled idiots. Otherwise, the games will (as Taktik said) turn into "highlight units and fling them at the enemy."

 

[KG_Cloghaun]

I think everyone here is well aware of the differences between RTS games & turn-based games.

NL's original statement was that by changing the game to an RTS one, it will seperate those who have good combat instincts and tactical awareness. That implied to me that a good RTS war gamer is better than a turn based war gamer & I completely disagree. Different yes. Completely different. It's just wargamers with preferences. I highly doubt the ASL crowd is going to shy away from "Close Combat - Cross of Iron", because their afraid of getting their butts kicked-lol. Talk about wargamers with good combat instincts and tactical awareness..

Anyway, I think I understand what you are both trying to say. It's symantics at this point. We'll just have to wait & see. Hopefully they'll give us RT & PBEM options down the line at some point so we can start bitching about something else, lol.

I also think that CMSF will have to be scaled at the company level or lower.

No need to speculate. Your answer to this question and any others you have are at Battlefront forum. Yes, the game is being scaled back.

 

[mangus2000]

My big concern about CMSF is not the genre. It is that the game will be based on assymertic warfare. I wonder if, in multiplay, there will be a lot of gamey things that can be done to capitalize on the assymetric environment.

I would have thought to fight Asymectrically in RL you have to be very "Gamey" to coin a phrase!
This might be the making of some very interesting missions for the game if the use of Civillians as cover, Car Bombs & IEDs etc are allowed.
I know it would be in very bad taste under the current circumstances but if they are making a Modern Warfare Sim these would be essential elements. You very rarely see a toe to toe between modern armies nowadays!

 

[Nemesis Lead]

NL's original statement was that by changing the game to an RTS one, it will seperate those who have good combat instincts and tactical awareness. That implied to me that a good RTS war gamer is better than a turn based war gamer & I completely disagree.

That is not what I am saying at all. I am saying that an RTS presents more of a challenge. In a PBEM, it is much easier to choose the correct course of action if you can watch a turn 5 times, plot your waypoints with precision, and even open the scenario editor to do a combat test or to look at the stats on an enemy unit!

Nothing is implied that a good RTS war gamer is better than a turn based war gamer. It is like saying a chess player is better or worse than a speed chess player. They are simply different.

In an RTS, combat instincts and tactical awareness are more highly stressed. In a turn based game, precision and timing might be more stressed.

@Mangus

As far as conventional wars....one could always create a game that pitted the US vs China or North Korea. However, I am hoping for a game that models the US attacking Great Britain. It would be very cool to roll my M1 Tanks and Bradley IFVs through rabble-manned barricades and into Trafalgar Square! :devious:

The game would be called "Payback for Burning Down our Capitol in 1812!" In the expansion pack, the US could attack Canada!

 

[mangus2000]

@Mangus
However, I am hoping for a game that models the US attacking Great Britain. It would be very cool to roll my M1 Tanks and Bradley IFVs through rabble-manned barricades and into Trafalgar Square! :devious:

The game would be called "Payback for Burning Down our Capitol in 1812!" In the expansion pack, the US could attack Canada!

I'm sure our Challenger 2s, Warrior AFVs and all the other kit we have would give you a good run for your money.
We would obviously have to ask you to fly most of the stuff back here for us first:upset:
As for Canda! just Nuke em! It would be far cheaper:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

 

[Nemesis Lead]

As for Canda! just Nuke em! It would be far cheaper:laugh: :laugh: :laugh:

No can do--Vaporizing the Canucks would introduce all kinds of vile pathogens into the atmosphere. Have you ever actually stood in the presence of a Canadian? They don't exactly smell very nice, a combination of stale Molson beer, Seal Fur, Bob Horton's Coffee, and cheap perfume from Quebec to cover it all up. It would be like scattering particles of plutonium into the atmosphere (only much worse).

Ergo....nuking Canada would be an environmental catastrophe! Better to round them up and put them in hockey rinks. This is a win-win situation. The Canadians will be very happy and the rest of the world would be too.

 

[Palantir]

Great thread Dan & a good discussion gentlemen!

This looks like more of a "Call of Duty" clone than modern CM setting to me.

For myself, I'm just not a fan of RTS for "wargames" on anything but an indivdual scale, but thats just me.

 

[TacCovert4]

While I'm always interested in a new wargame, especially one that covers eras relatively untouched (WWII has been done to death, at least the ETO), I'm a bit skeptical about another RTS. If I read correctly, there will be the ability to go strictly CM TBS (traditional CM) with this game. The TBS system used by CM is really the only reason that I play. If I prefered graphics or anything else, I (obviously) wouldn't play CM, who's graphics are roughly 4 years behind. However, I always felt that having orders turns followed by simultaneous resolution where you have 0 input and anything and everything can go wrong made up for the God mode vision that you have of your own lines. In an RTS you can do these almost pretty manuevers and split second timing because you can see literally everything at once. But war isn't like that normally.

So I may try CMSF out, but it will not be the mainstay that CMAK is, when I get a chance to game.

On another note: If Battlefront already had virtually all of the needed models, and a successful WWII genre, where most games typically fall into a one upmanship of the preceding company's game, why did they go modern. And where in the Heck is my Combat Mission: Pacific? All the pitched and bloody battles there and they choose to go Hajis versus US? Wow, sometimes you'd almost think they were smoking something.

 

[KG_Cloghaun]

That is not what I am saying at all.

My apologies. Missunderstood you then. Nice talking to you for the first time though-

You know, isn't "Theatre of War" basically going to be pretty close to an RTS version of CM? Or are they in totally different ballparks?

 

[Lurker]

Nothing is implied that a good RTS war gamer is better than a turn based war gamer. It is like saying a chess player is better or worse than a speed chess player. They are simply different.

In an RTS, combat instincts and tactical awareness are more highly stressed. In a turn based game, precision and timing might be more stressed.

I'll toss in two more cents.
As to chess, I would say that speed chess is not as good as normal chess. Speed chess is sloppy chess and mistakes are more easily missed in them. Granted the ability to think very fast is a vital element, but also important is what opening you can force on your opponent and if you know it by heart or not at all. A good part of speed chess is knowing the opening and recognizing patterns, tactical and other. It's not uncommon to make a series of moves rapidly with very little thought behind it because of this. That being said, speed chess is also quite a bit of fun anyway. You get to play many games in the time it takes to do one slow game.

By comparison, you get to play many PBEM games simultaneously but can only play one RTS at a time and then hope you can find an opponent that can fit your time slot.

As Taktik pointed out, much is a question of repetition and knowledge of the hot-keys and tactical patterns. How quick one may be able to think tactic-wise may have little to do with a person's motor controls of moving his hands rapidly enough with pointing and clicking and hot-key memorizing. It's not all pure skill in tactical awareness and instinct.

Last night I played CC zero hour (never finished the Chinese mission) and my hand movement couldn't come close to my perception of what needed to be done and what I wanted to do, and was my biggest impediment. If anything, RTS is as much arcade action as tactical skill.

IMHO.