CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it?

[ravinhood]

I wonder if this editor the game comes with will have the power that modders can change the power of the weapons and tanks and things to make it simular to WW2 statistics? If that is the case then it might not be such a bad deal afterall. Someone can make us a WW2 mod and we can be happy while those that want to play hypothetical American vs the Syria can do that also. If I see someone can do that I might buy it, but, as it stands now I'm pretty sure the demo will do just fine in letting me see how it plays vs the old CM series. I'm really more interested in if the AI has been tweaked or not than anything else. If it's the same old ai from CM1 then it's not going to be something I'll be interested in even after they get to the WW2 stuff.

[Kuokkanen]

This is now and American technology could blow Afganistan off the map. Therefore wargaming out modern era right now would be totally unfun. American Forces would wipe out the world if they wanted to. Just press a button and you're all history.

Well... lol. How that other saying goes again...

The enemy can't press your button once you have disabled his arm

And if it would be that easy, why USA don't do it against Irak?

[mjk428]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

And if it would be that easy, why USA don't do it against Irak?

This should be pretty easy to figure out. The goal isn't destruction. If the US wanted to destroy Iraq, it could pretty easily. Just as it could any other country on the planet. As true as that may be it's also largely irrelevant. The chances that the US would want to destroy any country, even those controlled by our enemies, is almost zero. Unless/until we get nuked.

It's fairly plausible that the US might be involved in a conflict with Syria on a limited scale. Just as this game depicts. If the thought of this offends anyone, it's their right to be offended. It's also the right of the game maker to create something offensive. It doesn't offend me though and I'll be looking at the reviews to see if it's worth getting.

[cdbeck]

Destructive force issue aside... I guess I just don't see the brew-ha-ha over the game's content. I think Judge Dredd put the point very eloquently and I won't repeat what he said. Mart certainly has a right to his(?) opinion anf it is indeed valid.
 
However, I think with games, movies, TV shows (entertainment genres), one has to make the disconnect between reality and simulation. Why are lots of recent movie bad guys people who are middle eastern or similar background (just like during the cold war era they were East Germans and Russians)? Is that bad taste? How is playing the Axis in a World War II game any more "tolerant" or "good taste" than CM:SF and its content? Although 50 years has made the Axis look like cartoon bad-guys, they were very real and their political ideology is alive and operating in some parts of the world. Mart cited that a game developed today should "be for everyone" (a point which I actually disagree on, as capitalism is based upon appealing to a target market - I for one do not get excited about Barbie's Pony Princess type games, nor do I need to), however some World War II games are considered "offensive" by former Axis countries (if it has a swastika in it, then the game cannot be sold in Germany, among other places).
 
Oh well, to each his own. Funny enough, I (as an American) am actually vehemently opposed to the war in Iraq. But I am still buying CM:SF. Go figure... [:'(]
 
SoM

[martxyz]

This is all very confusing. Anyway, I just adore Barbie's Pony Princess!

Trouble is that everybody has a sort of valid point, and also complex views on the whole thing. BUT I promise I won't try to convince anybone to go Barbie if they hate CM:SF - I'm keeping Barbie to myself. Damn - sexist! I can't win. [X(]

[dinsdale]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen
And if it would be that easy, why USA don't do it against Irak?

For many of the same reasons that the Soviet Union didn't do it against Finland in 1945. Political.

People are mixing up issues and intertwining political goals/restraints versus military force. There's little sense denying the overwelming military force posed by the US as it posesses tactical and strategic nuclear weapons in it's arsenal. So once you get past that point, move to the next one: in a conventional war the disparity between weapons platforms in a US/Syria war would make the Gulf Wars look like a slog.

Modelling that type of force disparity in a tactical game and keeping a scenario interesting enough to play requires the not the suspension, but removal of reality, or focus on a non-conventional war. Is Rourke's Drift with M16's really going to be interesting after 15 other variations of it?

------------------------

ORIGINAL Son Of Montfort
...
Maybe the developers felt the content was close to the line, but a palatable Syria campaign would just be too risky. I don't know. Go ask Moon over at the forums.

Maybe you're right. It just seems bizarre to me. IMHO there is a trend to reduce content and rely on the modding community to turn tools into a game. Reading some comments from developers in different Matrix fora and elsewhere, talking about "the community" creating content for games with hardly any on release probably coloured my opinon on the matter.

I guess I just don't see the brew-ha-ha over the game's content

For some reason it makes me uncomfortable. I can't explain rationally why. In gameplay terms, I don't believe there has been a conflict interesting and balanced enough to model after The Iran-Iraq war. IMHO, the more ideal setting is 1970's WP V NATO. Just before the current generation MBTs were introduced, and while technology was balanced enough to make a game workable without 10:1 force differentials.

In terms of comfort, I dunno, I have no problem plotting German bombers to decimate London in BoB, but I find the notion of creating a hypothetical war in the middle east to be tasteless. But then I found the idea of Jarhead and Blackhawk Down to be tasteless too. Just my infation-adjusted 2c

[LiberalEuro]

ORIGINAL: Mart
Wargaming, at it's best, should be for everyone, regardless of where they live, or their race or religion.

Huh?!?!?
No, games are made for the market. Game publishers make games they hope will be bought, so they can make money. They make games based on what they think will sell. Battlefront's market is the US/Canada and Europe. They don't give a hoot if it sells in the MidEast. (they don't actually buy games, software or movies in the ME, it is all pirated)
[quote[This is all very confusing[/quote]
You are truley confused. What is the difference between a hypothetical modern game and playing as the Germans on the Eastern front. How many millions of civillians did the Germans kill? What about playing as the Persians vs Romans? How many slaves are you commanding?

Maybe the modern setting is just a little too close for comfort for you? You see a Stryker burning on TV your little soft heart doesn't want to see it burn in a game?

If there is a moderator around, perhaps it's time to come and stomp on this thread please.

What? Why?
Don't mind ravinhoods comments, he's just trying to piss people off (it always works)
If it's because CM:SF is a Battlefront game?
I read somewhere that Matrix might pick up distro rights later, so we'll all be singing it's praises then.

[ravinhood]

Don't mind ravinhoods comments, he's just trying to piss people off (it always works)

 
I am not, you take that back or I'll sue. Isn't that defamation of character or something? Can't I sue? lol
You guys really take things too seriously especially Judge Dredd. What does it really matter if Syria is puny or not or if America can whip everyone's butt in the world right now of if a game depicts America whipping the butt of puny little syria? You can't cover up facts no matter how much you'd like to believe that America could be easily whipped. So, I brag about it, big deal. Why do you let things bother you so much? Hell, I don't give squat what someone says to me, this is all in fun to me anyway I don't take any of this silly online forum conversations that seriously (except when Erik or David or Marc speaks ). I'm just here to have fun. If you can't have fun here, well, maybe you shouldn't come here. But, I certainly don't intend to 'piss' anyone off, you let yourself get piissed off I don't do it. If you can't control your own emotions and anger that's not my fault, it's something you yourself need to get some help with or control. Too much politics and too much political correctness, my gawd don't we deal with that enough in everyday life? lol Me saying America can whip puny countries butts is no different to me than saying the Dallas Cowboys can whip all the NFL teams butts easily this year. It still has to be proven, therefore it's only an opinion...geesh.

[LiberalEuro]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
is no different to me than saying the Dallas Cowboys can whip all the NFL teams butts easily this year.

Oh Heck No!!
It's on now!!

[ravinhood]

Oh come on man the only reason the Cowboys didn't win it all last year is because Romo Fumbled that field goal try. He won't be as nervous this year. The Cowboys are back again.

[cdbeck]

ORIGINAL: dinsdale
IMHO, the more ideal setting is 1970's WP V NATO.

Now that I can totally agree with! I would have rather seen a cold-war-turned-hot game than NATO vs Syria. Although an earlier poster rightly said that most of Syria's hardware is leftover WP hardware.

Of course, I told Vic over on the Advanced Tactics forum that I would have rather AT been a cold-war-turned-hot game than ANOTHER WWII game. However, both games, CM:SF and AT will be modded to accomodate.

I understand your point about the current trend to rely on modders. I don't think that this is due to lazy developers as much as it is to very dedicated fan-base that is computer savvy, willing, and detail oriented enough to produce high quality mods (just look at the Napoleonic mods for the Total War series). Modding has become the new wave, allowing the fan-base to improve upon a stock game (I can't even play stock Space Empires V, as the Balance Mod is so superior). I actually think it is a good thing, although I don't like developers saying, as you pointed out, "We are not including this campaign because we want modders to make it."

SoM

[WITPgamer]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
You guys really take things too seriously especially Judge Dredd. What does it really matter if Syria is puny or not or if America can whip everyone's butt in the world right now of if a game depicts America whipping the butt of puny little syria? You can't cover up facts no matter how much you'd like to believe that America could be easily whipped.

Your in luck, Im up to my 3rd beer so will take this conversation a little further

The reality of the matter is that the US military is currently overstretched because it wasn’t designed for its current mission. Machines are starting to wear out and need to be replaced at a rate that cannot be maintained due to the fact that their are being constantly used, something they were not designed for as its as no 'action' was expected to last this long. The army is struggling to meet its recruitment goals because on average 100 soldiers are being killed every month by IED's. Even if they pull out this year the military will take years to fully recover its readiness, and if the US military was seriously needed today for another action, that would be very bad news.

All this isn’t relevant at a tactical level though. If a modern military could simply erase its opponent off of the map at the push of a button, do you not think that Israel would have done so against Hezbollah. And dont think that they didn’t try, there are satellite photos showing entire city blocks leveled. At a tactical level, an ill equipped and ill trained opponent whom is very willing to fight can still deal a devastating blow against a modern military because modern weapons are simple and powerful. Hezbollah’s most powerful weapon was the Kornet, along with a healthy does of modern RPG warheads, which was able to defeat even the Merkava Mk4 on the battlefield. Ill give you two guesses whom supplied the weapon to Hezbollah, too.

It should be remembered that Iraq is not a good example of modern warfare. Its army didn’t want to fight and have been withering under sanctions for a decade. The insurgents still left in Iraq today are the dangerous ones as they have the will to take the fight to whomever they consider the enemy. We can unfortunately see what they can do with the very few resources they have when we watch the news each night. And yes, if we must go there, of course the US can wipe any country off of the map with nukes, just as Russian and China could also. If that wasn’t done in Vietnam, Korea or even Afghanistan by the Russians I think we can say its a safe bet that that wont happen soon though.

From what Ive read your main quibble is that the game in question isn’t set in WW2. I understand that, I would have liked that too. I am willing to try something new though and welcome a change, and I think you should consider it too. Apologises as I know Ive sounded harsh (see, beer is a good thing!), but its frustrating seeing someone trash one of the VERY few companies left out there still trying to advance the genre beyond where it basically died a decade ago. If your truly interested in wargaming, you should be doing the opposite and encouraging people to give it a shot, not discouraging them.

[WITPgamer]

The game is not just bad taste - it's sick!

Mart, my neighbor escaped as a child from the death camps at the end of WW2, he still has the tattoos still to prove it. Ive never asked, but what do you think he would say if I asked him his thoughts on people playing a WW2 based game for enjoyment? WW2 was the most horrific conflict in human history, 25 million people died, an entire race was massacred on a massive scale, Chinese civilians were used at chemical test dummies and Russian troops were used as bridging equipment, yet we are allowed to enjoy a game based on that conflict becuase a mere 50 years has passed?

I truly do not wish to dismiss your opinions, I do believe they are valid and I know people that share the same thoughts about wargaming in general beleive it or not. I do think that we need to draw a line at wargaming or not though, not dissect the the genre at a certain date in history. Wargaming, at least for me, is about a tactical challenge given the assets I have in a particular scenario, much like chess. War on the other hand, is horrific, and should be treated with the utmost respect. If I wasn’t going to wargame because of that fact though I would also find it hard to eat my daily meals as I know they could keep a child in Africa alive for another week.

[martxyz]

Yeah - all the points you make are very true. As I mentioned, I wonder if this wargaming palaver (well -  land based anyway) is really for me. I can get a bit impulsive and I do rememember once taking a whole pile of Eastern Front games and books down to the charity shop as I wondered what the hell I was doing with them. This included some fairly expensive Stalingrad books, and Erickson's two-book epic on the whole campaign. Doesn't take much film footage of death camps and senseless slaughter to make you think (oh- and throw up!). I also disposed of a bunch of other stuff. Kept all the naval stuff though. I must have a metal fetish - goes great with the barbie Doll [;)]
It's pretty obvious from the contributions on the thread that, despite my initial reactions, people are very thoughful on this stuff, and that's something I appreciate at Matrix.

[JudgeDredd]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood
I am not, you take that back or I'll sue. Isn't that defamation of character or something? Can't I sue? lol

No you can't. Only if it's a lie and, well we all know, eh?

You guys really take things too seriously especially Judge Dredd. What does it really matter if Syria is puny or not or if America can whip everyone's butt in the world right now of if a game depicts America whipping the butt of puny little syria?

You misinterpreted my post, ravinhood. I wasn't offended or insulted by your post. I just thought it was arrogant considering the state of world affairs. And that's what I posted.

Clearly I shouldn't have bothered, because, as always, my post was either inadvertently or deliberately twisted to suit you furthering your post count

[Neilster]

War in any era is clearly extremely nasty but it's also very interesting. For me, being able to recreate military actions and to try my hand as a commander adds a layer of fascination to its study. Another interesting aspect of wargaming is immersion. To use an example, armies of millions with tens of thousands of armoured vehicles, huge naval fleets and vast swarms of aircraft locked in a desperate, no quarter struggle for the future of our planet is not something we see now but in WW2 wargames I can lose myself in this world, at every level from supreme commander to rifleman.

Driven a tank or flown an F-22 Raptor lately? No? Well you can simulate it pretty well with computer wargaming. I could go on and on but I'm sure you get the picture.

Cheers, Neilster

[WITPgamer]

ORIGINAL: Mart

Yeah - all the points you make are very true. As I mentioned, I wonder if this wargaming palaver (well -  land based anyway) is really for me.

Mart, dont get too radical there. From my point of view if you enjoy wargaming as a hobby treat it for what it really is, a glorified game of chess. Yes wargames are infinitely more complex and use real work situations as part of their basis, but when you boil it down they are very similar and we are basically playing for the same reasons as any other game, for a challenge whilst having a bit of fun in the process.

If we take gaming too seriously then anything from War in the Pacific to Battlefield 2 should be scratched off the list as most games are based around our more intense life experiences!

[martxyz]

ORIGINAL: WITPgamer

as most games are based around our more intense life experiences!

My most intense life experiences have been around sex and that really is frightening! [X(]

But thanks for the encouragement. It is appreciated.

Cheers

Martin

[cdbeck]

ORIGINAL: Mart
My most intense life experiences have been around sex and that really is frightening! [X(]

Well... there are plenty of games out there about that too. Just not on this forum... [:D]

SoM

[mikul82]

For me, all politics/ethics aside, I'm simply not interested enough in the subject matter to spend the money CMSF.  I have too many games as it is that I haven't even gotten around to delving into yet, so blowing money on one that I probably won't play as more than a novelty just doesn't interest me.  I do have and love all of the previous CM games, and highly second the idea of more Pacfic theater wargames!