CM:SF PREVIEW DID you see it?

[ravinhood]

This Reviewer is one of the good ones I follow

Though I'm not a fan of this Shock FARCE game coming out I thought maybe some of you who are modern day warfare fanatics might like to read this. This game to me is just going to be silly. You can play Americans vs Americans, how silly is that. I like Whatif's games and all but they must make sense. Or you can play Syria vs Syria, but, you can't play Syria vs the Americans (except in multiplayer) now how silly is that??? I still can't figure out whjy Battlefront would go with this modern day module and hypothetical at that instead of making some Western or Eastern front WW2 version first. I'm not buying it even when it's less than $5. lol

It comes in two flavors. Real time RTS kiddy clickfest or the normal best way wego system of old. Well at least they didn't screw that up. I just wonder if they even improved the lame ai of the Combat Mission series from being so predictable and banzai attacking out of a fortified position when it's leading an only a few turns to go. That was my biggest pet peave of the CM series. The ai would do stupid stuff like that when it had a victory in hand only to lose it because of stupidity like that.

hehe I found this statement a little bold of him.

As anyone and their dictator granny can tell you, the US military can just about roll over 99/100 countries on this small earth.

[Plodder]

but, you can't play Syria vs the Americans (except in multiplayer) now how silly is that???

Yes you can.That's what the game is about.The single player campaign is you commanding a Stryker company in an invasion of Syria.

[ravinhood]

You can't play SYRIA side vs the Americans. I didn't say you couldn't play Americans vs Syria now did I?

The campaigns can only be played from the American perspective

For those that can't comprehend what I said.

[Neilster]

It doesn't sound right that you can't play the Syrians against the Americans but I guess we'll see.

Battlefront made a modern-warfare game because they wanted a change from WW2. The next games will be updates of the WW2 ones (Post D-Day Western Front, Eastern Front 41-45, North Africa and Italy 40-45) using the new engine and I'm really looking forward to those. Given their track record, this is likely to be an excellent game.

Cheers, Neilster

[Plodder]

You can create your own campaigns though.So there will no doubt be a Syrian Campaign not too soon after release [:)] You can even have two-player campaigns.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: The Plodder

You can create your own campaigns though.So there will no doubt be a Syrian Campaign not too soon after release [:)] You can even have two-player campaigns.

Well at least that sounds promising for those that are going to buy into it. I'm going to wait on the stuff Neilster mentioned myself. I like a game with tactics, not press a button and watch the whole army explode on the other side of the map. It was a sad day when Albert Einstein and Goddard were born....hrmmmm I must find a way to go back in history. heeh What's funny is I need to find a way to make computers not advance so fast. So we could still be having wonderful conventional warfare like WW2 instead of press a button all dead. lol Don't see how that can be fun. Or the lop sidded way this hypothetical game is going to play. It's just silly to take 1/1000th of the power that is today and make a game out of it and call it FUN! LOL Sheer stupidity on Battlefronts part if you ask me and even if you don't ask me it's still stupidity. lol

[Marc von Martial]

ORIGINAL: Neilster

Battlefront made a modern-warfare game because they wanted a change from WW2.

That and a government contract [;)]

[martxyz]

Also, there was a feeling on the CM1 forums, some time ago at least (not looked recently) that CM:SF was just completely tasteless given the current situation in the region. Many were saying that they wouldn't buy it, just on those grounds, and they were real CM diehards! They just hoped that a WW2 version would follow soon.
Sorry - whatever your politics - it's in bad taste and insensitive to the feelings of pretty well everyone you can imagine.  [&:]

[Kuokkanen]

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I like a game with tactics, not press a button and watch the whole army explode on the other side of the map.

Tired for computer war games? Me too! Let's play some Axis & Allies... no, make it Classic BattleTech [:D]

[cdbeck]

Just to reiterate RH's point earlier to avoid confusion:
The release version does NOT ship with a Syrian campaign.
The release version DOES allow you to play Syria in Skirmish mode (vs. AI or human)

I'm not too worried about this, as a Syrian modded campaign will probably be forthcoming and in reality, a "campaign" for Syria is a little harder to imagine. With the unbalanced forces in the game, it seems to me that Syria's goal will be a battle-by-battle attempt to "lose best" so that NATO forces are mired down and recieve unacceptable losses. The game will ship with several stand-alone battles that allow the player to control Syria.

I'm curious though, why is this considered "bad taste?" Is Command & Conquer: Generals "bad taste" because there are Middle Eastern soldiers vs. Western ones? Should HPS's Soviet-Afghan War (similar type of warfare)? Seems to me that political concerns should be focused on the actual real-life conflict and not leveled against a realistic and plausible simulation of modern warfare. [8|] I mean, if one wants to get technical, it could be considered bad-taste that games allow a player to control Nazi Germany, all a matter of perspective.

Oh... and about that "whole army exploding on the other side of the map" comment. Play the aforementioned HPS game Squad Battles: Soviet-Afghan War. It REALLY isn't all that easy. Force does not always equal victory (something that modern history is not-so-subtly teaching us).

SoM

[martxyz]

Taste is, admittedly subjective, and dependant 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.

[ravinhood]

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

ORIGINAL: ravinhood

I like a game with tactics, not press a button and watch the whole army explode on the other side of the map.

Tired for computer war games? Me too! Let's play some Axis & Allies... no, make it Classic BattleTech [:D]

I LOVE CLASSIC Axis and Allies (nobody wants to play it anymore <sniff-wimper>, but, don't care for any Battle Tech games. Not into Robots and Transformers sort of game. Though I did like Anarchy Online for a time and that kind of sci-punk sort of play. Being an engineer was fun making pet robots to fight for me but not me in them.

[ravinhood]

Oh... and about that "whole army exploding on the other side of the map" comment. Play the aforementioned HPS game Squad Battles: Soviet-Afghan War. It REALLY isn't all that easy. Force does not always equal victory (something that modern history is not-so-subtly teaching us).

&nbsp;
That was then and what 30 years ago? 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.

[Bil H]

This thread is pathetic, shows what an uninformed person can contribute...&nbsp;misrepresentation and rumor.
&nbsp;
This quote is from Moon form the CMSF forum:
&nbsp;

you can in fact create two player campaigns, and both sides can have their own set of core units which are tracked from battle to battle. So you can create a campaign that simulates e.g. a large operation in which the same force goes against an opponent force for several days.

&nbsp;
Bil

[ravinhood]

Notice he said CREATE! That is not something that the game DOES FOR YOU OUT OF THE BOX. The campaigns in the box are American Campaigns only. Yeah if you want to mod and play with the editor you can CREATE that's not the same as having it already done for you out of the box.

[Hertston]

Fair point, as you say there's a big difference between what ships and what folks can do with it afterwards.

I'm giving this one a wide berth. Among other reasons (including e-licensing) I think the scenario stinks.. I'm just not interested in a US beats up on Arabs thing and as someone has said I think it's in pretty bad taste. I assume Marc is right about the government contract.. I just can't see any other reason for deviating so much from what most CM players actually wanted.

[ravinhood]

Money Herston it's always about money. It's not about us or what we want, it's just about money. Of course Marc Schwanbeck might say differently hehe. I think picking on Syria is in bad taste. I would have much preferred Iran or North Korea and/or China combined,&nbsp;someone we might be more likely to goto war with than little ole puny Syria. But, if they are after a government contract I guess it really doesn't matter as long as they get something out there. Lol I'd hate to think though that our modern day training comes from a Battlefront GAME. But, since it's pretty much a push button war these days it really doesn't matter. He who controls the skies wins the wars anyways this day and time. Planes and rockets and nukes thas all yah really need.

[cdbeck]

Sigh... I guess I have to disagree...
&nbsp;
'Cause all we need is ANOTHER squad based WWII game... [8|]
&nbsp;
You know, there are other conflicts out there that are just as cool, if not cooler, than WWII. I for one applaud the choice to go modern. If I have to see more Panzers rolling over Russians, I think I may puke. Now, I might agree with RH, I think China would have been a better pick for an enemy. But Syria will do. Seems like there wasn't so much outcry of "bad taste" with the FPS game Battlefield 2, which I think is much more inflammatory as it allows players to experience 1st person action as NATO vs. Muslims, complete with Arabic taunts and voice over.
&nbsp;
SoM

[ravinhood]

I didn't get that game either Herston. And my WW2 tastes haven't been fulfilled yet. I want more PACIFIC WAR land based games for WW2. Yeah I'm tired of Russo German warfare myself and I don't need another Normandy invasion. Don't really need anymore Africa Rommel vs the world either. But, I have one pacific wargame and that's Pacific War Squad Battles from HPS. I still doesn't have the wargame I'm looking for and that's like Avalon Hills Guadacanal land based game. I have Pacific General, but, for some reason on XP it's giving me hell after about 5 turns, hard lock crash...means a cold reboot. I don't like that happening. Works fine on 98, just don't understand why it's screwing up on XP. I think Matrixgames OWES us some Pacific Land based games other than Rising Sun Gold. haha I forgot I have that one also, but, it's still not Avalon Hills Guadacanal. Just a good ole hex based turn based game with simple rules like AH made in the early 60's and all will be well and fine. Then they can make whatever the like. lol Like I count for a lot here. hahaha

[Hertston]

ORIGINAL: Son_of_Montfort

You know, there are other conflicts out there that are just as cool, if not cooler, than WWII.

I wouldn't argue with that. I would argue that a fictional US v. Syria certainly isn't one of them.