Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Combat Mission: Shock Force Recon

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Geordie View Post
    I'm a big CM fan. Its still the first game I boot up and play on a regular basis. The thing that has me hooked on it is the tactical scale of the game, sure its getting a wee bit dated but it has everything you could want in a 3D ww2 Sim. The beauty of it, if you own just CMAK and BB is that you can fight the whole war in Europe from start to finish. you can also fight as any of the Allies or Axis forces.

    This I think is the whole appeal of it, no 2 battles are the same and the effort that BF put into this is clearly shown in the continued fan base.

    The new game, while it does not grab my interest period wise should be a leap forward both graphically and mechanically over the old system.

    However, it appears that it will lose depth (Company vs battalion sized actions etc). I can live with this, but the disappointment of the Module system underlies the improvements. The 1st WW2 game will undoubtedly be US Vs Germans in Normandy. It may be good for a while, but the longevity might just not be there as one tires of fighting the same troops over the same terrain with the same equipment. From a selfish UK standpoint, there probably will be a long wait until any UK troops appear in a Module, which I can understand as the biggest market will be the US. It just seems to me that a new Module may arrive every six months or so and I will have to buy it to eventually get the whole war in the ETO. I can imagine the nightmare of arranging games, have you got Module X, no, how about Y etc etc.

    So while I'm not disappointed about the premise of a new engine I am a wee bit disaffected by the Module system.
    Well said. I couldnt agree with you more.
    http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/d...200pixwide.jpg

    Kampfgruppe - A Wargaming Clan Since 1998

    NorbertSnyderJr.com

    Comment


    • #17
      I would also prefer to have wider scope with less detail instead of the other way round. But marketing prevails.

      Comment


      • #18
        I'm on the other side of the fence. I think WWII has been done to death. Granted, there are some theaters that don't get as much attention as others, but I do think it's time we gave WWII a breather (with both strategy games and FPS's) and concentrate on some other wars.

        There really aren't any games (that I know of) that allow the level of tactical decision making in a modern setting, like this game is going to provide.

        I'm going to be in the store on July 27th to buy this one.
        Rumors of my demise have been greatly exaggerated... again...

        Comment


        • #19
          Please post your opinions of CMSF after you play the game. I'm interested in the title but not in the setting. However, if the game receives positive reviews all around I may pick it up.
          All your ACG posts are belong to us!

          Comment


          • #20
            In the debate between WWII setting vs Modern-era CMx2, has anyone thought of the ol' pot-boiler phenomenon? That BF may be doing the Modern Era to ride the coat-tails of the current carnage in the Middle East? It may be a bit crass to bring it up, but doing a tactical Modern-Era game is certainly on-topic right now.......

            While I LOVE CM:BB (and even CM:BO), I kind of fall into the "enough already" camp on WWII scenarios. As Gordie mentioned, if you own CM:AK and CM:BB, you can pretty much game all of WWII Europe.

            As far as CM: Pacific goes, it seems to me that most of the battles during the various island-hopping campaigns were pretty much brute-force frontal assaults against static positions. There will be exceptions, of course, and I don't want to detract from what our Marines and Soldiers accomplished, but how many times can you game storming the pillboxes at Tarawa, for example? And how is that different (from a gaming perspective, anyway) from storming the pillboxes on Iwo Jima? Just my humble 2 cents.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by jthomas View Post
              In the debate between WWII setting vs Modern-era CMx2, has anyone thought of the ol' pot-boiler phenomenon? That BF may be doing the Modern Era to ride the coat-tails of the current carnage in the Middle East? It may be a bit crass to bring it up, but doing a tactical Modern-Era game is certainly on-topic right now.......

              I would agree with you on that. But, i personally dont mind the modern setting, but it could have taken place in a different part of the world maybe.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by jayedub7423 View Post
                I would agree with you on that. But, i personally dont mind the modern setting, but it could have taken place in a different part of the world maybe.
                Actually, I've read on the Battlefront site that the reason they went modern on this one is because they spent the last 10 years doing WW2 games and they wanted to work on something different so they wouldn't burn out.
                Our forefathers died to give us freedom, not free stuff.

                I write books about zombies as E.E. Isherwood. Check me out at ZombieBooks.net.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Brian, it's certainly true that they said that shortly after announcing the subject of the first game using the CM x 2 engine. However, I am less than certain that this is full story or even an accurate depiction of it.

                  From a business perspective (which is what Battlefront is after all), it would be easier and faster for them to crank out a WW2 game--probably in the desert, as that terrain would be the least demanding. In addition their loyal fan base is already in love with WW2, which more than one war game developer has called the Holy Grail period for the subject. In addition, the Battlefront explanation does nothing to explain why they selected the specific subject that will be CMSF. I have had my ear to the ground and my eye on the net for a very long time. I have detected no primary, secondary or even tertiary interest among war gamers in the subject matter that was chosen, even when looking only to the area of modern conflicts. In contrast significant interest was expressed for the first game to use the CM x 2 engine to cover a great many other subjects. These ranged from the Napoleonic Wars, the US Civil War, WW I, WW II--ETO & Pacific, Korea, NATO vs. Warsaw Pact in various period from the 1950's to the 1980's, just to name a handful.

                  CM fans or war gaming fans in general expressed essentially no interest in the subject chosen to launch CM x 2. Thus, the leading explanations to explain why a near future asymmetrical hypo-war between the US and Syria in the desert appear to be one or more of the following:

                  1. Battlefront's selection was driven by hopes of landing a military contract or two.

                  2. Battlefront chose the subject because they believed it would be most attractive for FPS fans that are not normally purchasers of traditional war games and were not customers of the CM x 1 games.

                  3. Battlefront has hired the FMC marketing team that brought us the Edsel in 1958. [A point that is arguably supported by the less than successful and/or problematic releases that have dogged them with regard to most titles that they have released on behalf of third party game developers.]
                  Last edited by KG_Jag; 24 Jul 07, 22:54.
                  Kampfgruppe Vice Kommandir
                  http://www.kampfgruppe.us

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Two more CMSF Videos Released

                    As D-Day for the release of CMSF and CM x 2 with it, Battlefront has released two new videos to promote the upcoming game. One video follows close behind a platoon of mechanized US infantry as they attack an entrenched Syrian force, while the other shows a US Javelin missile team attempting to hold of an armored Syrian assault.

                    Link to them here:

                    http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmsf/videos.html
                    Kampfgruppe Vice Kommandir
                    http://www.kampfgruppe.us

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      I was involved in the discussion on the bf forum and one of the important arguments that was put forward by the development team was that they wanted to do something fresh. In the discussion at that time they said it would be a hypothical war which was set in present day in the near east, probably putting an american/un? peace keeping force against syrians in the lebanon.

                      I was intrigued why they did not choose any of the other possible scenarios like the israeli-arab wars or for that matter a war between nato and the warsaw pact, but the discussion was cut short.

                      I can imagine the development team feeling about doing yet again another ww II game, but I wondered why exact this scenario, when there where so many others to choose from? Besides the more hypothetical you become the more strange the game would "feel". I couldn't image how the syrians would be able to withstand an us force?

                      I have no idea if in the mean time the scenario has changed. I was more interested in their histwar, les grognards and the cmbb campaign manager. The latter seems to have disappeared however.

                      I liked the cm series, especially the first(no idea why btw). While it was a good series it had it's flaws which became more pronounced when used in multi player scenarios.
                      Last edited by owen36; 25 Jul 07, 14:35.
                      Dearest of all my Friends(Vlad in max payne 2)

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Two reviews posted online.

                        Scored very poorly (could be driver/patch issues):
                        http://www.quartertothree.com/


                        Scored very highly:
                        http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/0...ce-review.html
                        All your ACG posts are belong to us!

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by owen36 View Post
                          I was involved in the discussion on the bf forum and one of the important arguments that was put forward by the development team was that they wanted to do something fresh. In the discussion at that time they said it would be a hypothical war which was set in present day in the near east, probably putting an american/un? peace keeping force against syrians in the lebanon.

                          I was intrigued why they did not choose any of the other possible scenarios like the israeli-arab wars or for that matter a war between nato and the warsaw pact, but the discussion was cut short.

                          I can imagine the development team feeling about doing yet again another ww II game, but I wondered why exact this scenario, when there where so many others to choose from? Besides the more hypothetical you become the more strange the game would "feel". I couldn't image how the syrians would be able to withstand an us force?

                          I have no idea if in the mean time the scenario has changed. I was more interested in their histwar, les grognards and the cmbb campaign manager. The latter seems to have disappeared however.

                          I liked the cm series, especially the first(no idea why btw). While it was a good series it had it's flaws which became more pronounced when used in multi player scenarios.
                          CMBO definately had its flaws, but CMBB & CMAK are fine games, especialy multiplayer.

                          Belive you me, if BF thought they could rake in the cash and get a military contract with a new WWII game, thats what they would be making.
                          http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/d...200pixwide.jpg

                          Kampfgruppe - A Wargaming Clan Since 1998

                          NorbertSnyderJr.com

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by Patrocles View Post
                            Two reviews posted online.

                            Scored very poorly (could be driver/patch issues):
                            http://www.quartertothree.com/


                            Scored very highly:
                            http://jaguarusf.blogspot.com/2007/0...ce-review.html
                            The first [poor] review is by the well known reviewer Tom Chick.

                            The second [good] review is by, according to Chick and his own admission, a scenario designer for CMSF.
                            Last edited by KG_Jag; 26 Jul 07, 02:47.
                            Kampfgruppe Vice Kommandir
                            http://www.kampfgruppe.us

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              CM:SF - from a scenario designer perspective

                              Hi,

                              I was amoung those that preordered CMBO for a decade ago and I am a big fan of CM's gamingsystem.

                              After reading Tom's review and Battlefront's comments on that I have no worries what so ever. The best thing to do is to leave Battlefront's forum for a while and let things calm down a bit.

                              The only thing that worries me is how to get mentally involved in that battleground to a degree that justify good scenario designs. A Brigade size (5000 troops) "shockforce" attacking Syrian soil are facing 200.000 well trained troops, 1600xT-72, 2600xAFV supported with alot of arty and the risk of chemical deployment? How can that become mobbing up terrorist camps? Ok I may over-emphasis a little but you get the picture. So maybe it is not an attackforce afterall but more likely a peacekeeping force trying to stabilize the region after "the big battle" presumedly won by NATO??

                              Beside that I can not think of it as an isolated battlegound. Syria could easily draw Israel into the conflict which again like a domino effect could draw Jordan into the conflict as well.

                              However taking into consideration the timescale of the CM series it really doesn't matter. You can easily justify the first few days of a conflict before starting to worry about the big picture or presumedly the last few weeks after.

                              As anyone else I am looking forward to CM:SF but at the same time I hope Battlefront will think about moving their battleground closer to Camp Casey next time.
                              Best regards
                              Malm


                              I like the quiet moments before the storm

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X