CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it?

[GreyFox]

Ah hmm yes so I see. Thought it meant (that pathetic exuce for a war) "Enduring Freedom" since there was also talk of Iraqis and all that. That and I skim read.

But you're still fairly wrong since there were battles such as Stalingrad in which there were catastrophic civilian losses.

Oh, and many frontline German troops had no problem helping einstazgruppen - in fact the commander of 6th Army before Paullus (was it Riecheneu or something?) ordered that they were to help the einsatzgruppen wherever possible there's one instance where two German soldiers (Whermacht, not SS) found a young Russian woman with her infant. Both grabbed a leg of the child and pulled hard as they could, then had some fun with the girl. That's just one example amongst many.

I'm not saying all German soldiers acted like this, nor even the majority - but many did and as Helmut Schmidt put it "If the Russians do half of what we did in Russia there won't be a Germany left".

[Mobius]

We have rules of engagement (ROE) now to reduce civilian casualties. We are not talking about rules where they 'ride them down like grass' of the Bravehart or Blitzkrieg times.

1. Tactically civilians, if you include them, are a soft cover. If they aren't shown then incoming fire would erupt from an empty square. You may not identify them as enemy combatant but they can identified you. So your men could die in a hail of bullets from empty streets.
2. There are go-areas in Iraq. Units can not return fire to some mosques and minarets. Is this feature going to be represented? If so is the structure going to be shown or empty checkered areas going to be in their place? If they are shown will guns refuse fire when aimed at them?

[cdbeck]

ORIGINAL: Oleg Mastruko
EF gave us bazillions of (relatively) good clean military fights without a civilian to be seen anywhere near the combat.

It could be argued that most of the Russian army was "civilian." [:D]

I'll agree that it is more difficult to module modern ROE with the CM:SF system. However, I still don't see the poor taste argument when compared to other conflicts. How did the German occupation of France differ greatly from Modern ME wars? They had, as Oleg put it, a quick glorious part and then a "dirty" occupational part with bombs and "terrorists." It is an unfair historical perspective. When a modern ME person uses an IED, Technical, or grabs a leftover AK-47, he is called a terrorist or a citizen combatant, when a WWII French or Russian does it, he is called (with a different connotation) a "partisan." [;)] So tell me again, how is this different from WWII?

In fact, with arguing that the Nazis killed civilians without worrying about world opinion strengthens my point that WWII games are more poor taste than CM:SF, as they WOULD allow you to target civilians if modeled in the game (at least playing Germany or Russia).

SoM

[ravinhood]

Well maybe wargames need to take a lesson from Grand Theft Auto. The series that has sold in the 100's of thousands of copies that portrays beating to death or shooting to death, young women, old women, women of stature and wealth, young men, old men, men of stature and wealth. White men, black men, hispanics, italians, asians cops, FBI agents, even military. I don't hear many complain of bad taste of that series that gets anywhere except that what's his name lawyer that everyone laughs at. Personally I think it would be neat to have civilians in wargames. Especially those like BF1942. I enjoy the GTA series, great for relaxing and relieving any frustrations without any real humans getting harmed. Let's face it playlike killing is fun, playing wargames of mass killing is fun. Must be, we all play them without a 2nd thought really of what they represent other than to us a challenging game. But, the killing was there and is represented, but, because there is no blood or smell of death we have become immune to actually what war really is. Death & Destruction before freedom and/or control.

[cdbeck]

Not to be pedantic, but RH, most of America thinks GTA is in "bad taste." Jack Thompson isn't the only one who rails against it. Notably, Hilary Clinton, Joe Lieberman, and tons of parent action groups. So, I think you may be understating the outcry against the game.

But I will agree with your point. If a person is a responsible adult, who understands the content and accepts it, then violent games can be ok. I find wargames educational, training tactics and strategy while learning about past events. To be brutally honest, I think there is some fundamental human imperative towards competitive violent actions. Football (both types), boxing, hockey, fencing, are all "civilized" war actions that lessen the killing but keep the violence, leadership skills, strategy, and group competition. Tribes have fought over everything, love, money, power, land, food, insults, you name it. If simulating war in a game keeps that human drive lessened by giving an outlet for our competitive violent inner-beast, then more power to it.

Seriously, a Red vs Blue combat sim like CM:SF is nowhere near GTA in bad taste (cop killing, national guard slaying) nor is it some FPS where one tries to kill Muslim or Western leaders (both exist). It is a combat sim following military parameters, using modern weapons and tactics, loosely based on a current military action.

SoM

[JudgeDredd]

I think GTA is very much in bad taste along with Postal which I mentioned earlier.

With that said, I wonder what a psychiatrist would make of me....refusing to play games like Postal and GTA on "moral" grounds, and yet willing to play HoI2 where the ultimate goal could be world domination!!!

But, on the other hand I was brought up to believe that hitting women was not a done thing. I can genuinely sit here and say that I could not play a game where you get to hit a woman. I am being serious here by the way....it's totally bizarre, but that's it. I was always taught to respect the police. So playing a game where you can kill policemen? Not on my radar.

I'm trying to think of a game that I've ever played where either of those is possible....and I honestly cannot. If anyone can help me, I'd like to see if I ever deviated from that path.

There are some things people can detach from and others cannot...like exactly what Mart says in his second post in this thread...

Taste is, admittedly subjective, and dependent on what things you choose to compare. To me it's in bad taste. To you it's not in bad taste. It's an opinion.

Totally subjective. He has a problem with game. I don't. I have a problem with GTA, ravinhood doesn't.

I guess it takes all sorts.

Oh, and don't go shouting (sore head) but I'm not suggesting people listen to my pov. I don't like and would not touch games like GTA and Postal and games of their ilk. But I do not think people should be following my example.

I also don't believe in God...I don't expect religion to fade away anytime soon.

[Neilster]

I also don't believe in God...I don't expect religion to fade away anytime soon.

Which God? Yaweh? Mithras? Mazda? Vishnu? Zeus? Odin? I don't blame you. There are so many of them, it's impossible to keep up. Or none. [:D]

Cheers, Neilster

[cdbeck]

Ssshhh... Neilster! Mithras is a mystery! [;)]

SoM

[Awac835]

What a load of bullshit getting tossed around in this thread, now let me add to it.

If some people find certain games distasteful then they should simply play different games or none at all. What makes CM:SF any worse then so many other games? Is it becouse the US have forces in iraq? if so, grow up. Apparently many dont seem to have a problem playing WW2 games where millions of people literatly got slaughtered.
I understand if people have different sentiments and you shouldnt stick the needle to em. But if they cant handle a game like CM:SF becouse of the iraq war, then they should look the other way since its only a game.
I doubt anyone playing wargames think that war is fun or that killing is fun. But it still remains that war fascinates us or else we wouldnt be playing them.

*edited out my comment on Ravinhood and his stupid remarks on US destructive potentiel since it seems he was joking.

About the whole scenario i dont really see any trouble with it. Its about the "invasion of Syria" not the "occupation of Syria".

[Mobius]

quartertothree review

Here’s one for the game of the year list: Combat Mission: Shock Force is, at this point, a shoo-in for Most Disappointing Game of 2007. Battlefront’s presentation of modern combat is a serious letdown, partly for its design, but largely for the state of its release.

The design is still built around the original Combat Mission’s World War II era warfare. I’m not convinced that this is a good level to present modern combat with the Saggers and Javelins that make warfare an ‘if I can see you, you’re dead’ affair. Firstly, the speed at which armored vehicles are destroyed is a whole other kettle of fish from jockeying for an angle on the side of a tank peering out from the edge of a hedgerow. But in order to present a challenge here, the limiting factor tends to be the number of available HEAT rounds balanced against enemy armor, an equation that will be contrived at best. In modern combat, unprotected armor dies fast unless you’ve taken steps to protect it, steps that usually occur outside the scope of these scenarios and are therefore relegated to abstractions or scenario designer choices. A half-hour or hour-long slice of time has to be carefully and conspicuously jury-rigged so that it’s not a foregone conclusion.....

more grist.

[Neilster]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

quartertothree review

Here’s one for the game of the year list: Combat Mission: Shock Force is, at this point, a shoo-in for Most Disappointing Game of 2007. Battlefront’s presentation of modern combat is a serious letdown, partly for its design, but largely for the state of its release.

The design is still built around the original Combat Mission’s World War II era warfare. I’m not convinced that this is a good level to present modern combat with the Saggers and Javelins that make warfare an ‘if I can see you, you’re dead’ affair. Firstly, the speed at which armored vehicles are destroyed is a whole other kettle of fish from jockeying for an angle on the side of a tank peering out from the edge of a hedgerow. But in order to present a challenge here, the limiting factor tends to be the number of available HEAT rounds balanced against enemy armor, an equation that will be contrived at best. In modern combat, unprotected armor dies fast unless you’ve taken steps to protect it, steps that usually occur outside the scope of these scenarios and are therefore relegated to abstractions or scenario designer choices. A half-hour or hour-long slice of time has to be carefully and conspicuously jury-rigged so that it’s not a foregone conclusion.....

more grist.

Jeez. It gets smashed. Hopefully they'll be stung into getting things right for the new WW2 ones. I don't care much about this Syrian malarkey anyhoo.

Cheers, Neilster

[Neilster]

It seems strange that the 2 reviews I've seen have been in such wild disagreement.

No random maps is a major downer. I hope the next iteration has them, as the random battles with tailor-able settings is one of the best features of the current Combat Mission series. Replayability city!

Cheers, Neilster

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It seems strange that the 2 reviews I've seen have been in such wild disagreement.

The second review seemed to say the guy who wrote the 8 of 8 review also wrote up some of the CM:SF scenarios.

[Plodder]

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It seems strange that the 2 reviews I've seen have been in such wild disagreement.

The second review seemed to say the guy who wrote the 8 of 8 review also wrote up some of the CM:SF scenarios.

Yes, he did. Post from Rune, the head scenario designer of CMSF:

Panzer76

Helps if you know what you are talking about. James Allen did NOT work in the beta. When he got the game to preview, he tested the scenario editor, and liked it so much he created a bunch of scenarios.

I looked at them, rejected some, fixed a bunch of others, and made a lot into quick battles.

I asked James if he minded, and he said I could use them or he could release them after the game was out.

I have always believed in if it is good, then then more scenarios on the cd the better. Since I have done this since CMBB, [Wild Bill was the Lead scenario maker for CMBO, I job I took over with CMBB] I think it has worked pretty good, even though I put in things like To the Volga.

So, bottom line, when he got the full release to review, he finally saw I did pick some. Added AI plans and flavor objects, but he did a good job on the basics.

Rune

[Mobius]

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

ORIGINAL: Mobius

ORIGINAL: Neilster
It seems strange that the 2 reviews I've seen have been in such wild disagreement.

The second review seemed to say the guy who wrote the 8 of 8 review also wrote up some of the CM:SF scenarios.

Yes, he did. Post from Rune, the head scenario designer of CMSF:

I got the feeling the first review was not just a list of features like a designers/developer might put out but an opinion piece, a review, of the game. Shouldn't he have mentioned that straight away? Shouldn't reviews be left to somewhat unbiased third parties?

[LiberalEuro]

From reading the Battlefront forums: it seems that Paradox sent v1.0 to reviewers up to 5 weeks ago without Battlefront's knowledge. In the meantime the game had been extensively tested and most if not all issues were fixed and new functions were implemented into v1.01.

Battlefront says they will release v1.01 for download on July 27th, anyone getting a physical copy (ex: v1.0 from Paradox) should immediately upgrade to v1.01 as BFC consider v1.01 the official release.

It seems BFC is not happy with the reviews, understandably so, but hope that a very good fan response to v1.01 will more than make up for a bad review.

Also they "know" that the demo will blow people away and insist people give the demo a try before forming opinions based solely on reviews or forum posts. BFC also say they understand that CM:SF may not be for everyone and may even turn off the old CM crowd but hope that the old timers give the demo a chance or at least stick around for the CM:x2 WW2 future offering.

Interesting approach and sheds some light on different philosophy between these two companies.

edit: was going to post link to the discussion at the BFC forum, but don't know if that's allowed here.

[Chad Harrison]

I thought I would drop in here and add my two bits to this ongoing thread.
 
I was posting and active on Battlefront.com's forums long before I came here. I had not even heard of Matrx Games until Panther Games made the move from BFC to Matrix as their publisher. I was beta testing for them at the time, so I came on over too. Glad I did too. Thats how I discovered WitP Anyways, the point is I have been playing CM since the CMBO demo.
 
When I first downloaded the CMBO demo, I played for 5 minutes, turned it off and deleted it. I was sure that it was garbage, especially graphically, and never thought about it again. A few months later, a good friend of mine mentioned it and how much fun he was having playing it. I decided to give it another whirl. When I slowed down and actually started to look deeper into the game (there was not tutorial back then either [:)]) I was blown away by the game. For the next five or six years, I actively played CM:BO, BB, and AK, almost exclusively through PBEM. Being a long time Squad Leader and Advanced Squad Leader player, the CM series was the perfect fit for me.
 
When they announced that the first real CM2 would be modern, I was very disappointed. I have no interest in modern combat as a game (personal taste really, the whole 'eggshells with hammers' doesnt appeal to me as much as WWII armoured/infantry combat). That being said, the more I read about what they were trying to cover, what would be included, the enhanced graphical features and additions that improved on CM, and that PBEM would be supported, the idea of modern combat grew on me. Now at this point, the day before release, I am just as excited to recieve CM:SF as I was to recieve CM:BO.
 
Being a long time CM player, the one thing I can gurantee you is that the CM series is not for everyone. I also read the Quartertothree review and boy, he sure did not like it. Thats just fine. If there is one thing I have learned about games it is to not listen to one bad review (or one good review for the matter) and make your decision based on that. This is especially true if he was playing on a older version of the game; ie. not the version that is being released tomorrow. From talking to the other, original 'old timers' on BFC forums who are beta testing/designing CMSF, and who have been playing the CM series as long as I have, I know I will personally enjoy it. I preordered it the day it was available for preorder.
 
As for the balancing in the game, I think of it like WitP. If you play as Japan, unless your Pauk or PzB, defeat is coming your way. The challenge is to keep your head above water as long as possible and inflict as much damage as possible on the Allies. 'Winning' as Japan in WitP means that you delayed the Allies advance more than it was historically and you inflicted more damage than was historically. In CMSF, Syria's forces are going to be hard pressed. But, much like Japan in WitP, you just try to bleed the enemy as much as possible. From reading the forums, and how each team has different objectives, the scenario designers will be able to give a much better balance to the game outside of just points for kills.
 
Anyways, Ill quit rambling on. My point is simple: CM is not for everyone. Some will walk away swearing its the worst game they have ever played. Others will swear its the best game (myself included). Demo's are great to find out for free what you think. Just dont make the same mistake that I did and only play for five minutes. Much like WitP, CM true beauty shines not in the first five minutes [:D]
 
If your not sure, wait for the game to actually be released, download the demo, read more than one review and decide for yourself.
 
If you do end up playing, drop me a line and well get a PBEM game going [:)]
 
Chad

[pad152]

I liked TOW but also hope Shock Force is better, a lot better!

[ravinhood]

Now at this point, the day before release, I am just as excited to recieve CM:SF as I was to recieve CM:BO.

That's too bad really. Maybe you should go see a doctor about your delusions that CM:SF will be better than any of the other CM games. You should get M2TW instead and play on vh/vh or vh/h you'll have a much  more enjoyable game take it from me.

Also, I find it funny that some people say "Get the Demo then you'll see how great it is!" lol then you have the other crowd that says: "You can't get anything out of a demo it doesn't offer enough". lol

Socalled Professional reviews I laugh at "most of them" as well. The only thing professional about them is english grammar and punctuation. After that it's all opinion, no better than the next person on here or any other forum. Of course we all have our reviewers that we like and say things we want said about particular games. Like Tom Chick, I'm in total agreement with him. You see Chick reviewed the game with a critical passion. He saw something, in fact he saw a lot of things that he didn't agree with or like and didn't sugarcoat them for the sake of anyone or anything. I like that in a reviewer. On the other hand Dave is the sugarcoater. A beta tester I believe. Happy to be a beta tester and well I don't give much credit to beta tester reviews because of bias and wanting to beta test again someday for that company. lol You don't bite the hand that feeds you sotospeak.

If I were reviewing CM:SF it wouldn't have so much to do with what Chick said as it would the hypothetical portion of it. How can it be modern warfare if there is no history? It's more like SCI-FI warfare. Totally a WHATIF game out of the box. And then of course we are back to that "bad taste" of a choice of battle areas. Why didn't they use Iraq or Afgan.? We've been at war there, there's a history, but, of course it would be lop sidded as hell wouldn't it? lol In a hypothetical of US vs Syria one can make believe that it would be a battle of eqaulity. But, we all know as I have said. The US would roll thru Syria just like they did Iraq and Afganhastan. I'm not kidding this time. I guess on a battle per battle basis some can believe into that sort of thinking. But, an overall picture in my mind just shows the US plowing thru Syria like a farmer thru corn. Not something I'd want or enjoy playing.

I also have more respect for Tom Chick than I do Steve from Battlefront. Did any of you read his rebuttal? He came out firing with both pistols, might just have well called Tom Chick an ignorant moron and then has the gaul to say many of the posters and reviewers act like children or teenagers. If anything Steve is the one who acts like a child and a lot more times than just now. That's where I can give Matrixgames kudos for how they respond to others posts, even reviews they don't agree with. They don't act like children or teenagers in their responses. Well maybe Marc Schwanbeck every once in awhile lol (just kidding Marcy)

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: LiberalEuro
Interesting approach and sheds some light on different philosophy between these two companies.

In what way? Paradox are in the business of selling games in boxes and the review copies that went out have the same code as is that now starting to appear on people's doorsteps. People want to read reviews as close as possible to the release date, so in sending copies out early Paradox were really only catering to public demand. If BF didn't want it released in that fashion they shouldn't have signed off the gold version to Paradox to burn onto retail disks, so I have no sympathy at all. That said, I hope 1.01 addresses the major concerns and the game goes from strength to strength; although I have no interest in SF strong sales will hopefully ensure future 'CM2' games come along that offer something more inspiring in the way of a setting.