Combat Mission: Shock Force

On Sun, 09 Oct 2005 01:27:30 GMT, Epi Watkins <epicat1212.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>I don't think there's anything wrong with modern.

Nothing wrong with modern *at all*, in fact I'd like to see all
sorts of "pseudo-modern" situations in wargames more often, from
post-WW2 stuff like Korea to Vietnam to WP vs NATO in Fulda Gap 75 to
semi-SF future hypothetic US-China conflict or something.

But IMO this setting, as outlined in previous posts, is
ridicolous. Nor historic, nor challenging, terribly one sided,
hypothetic to the point of being ridicolous. Utterly disappointing on
so many levels...

Quote: "Leading this liberation is a coalition of mostly NATO
states, with a strong contingent of Arab/Muslim states involved
directly in the immediate and long term rebuilding of the nation."

ROFL!

So you have NATO, US, coalition, the kitchen sink, even a
"strong contingent" of "Arab/Muslim states" vs .... who?? Ta-daaam...
the mighty Syrians )

Fair fight no doubt. And highly believable scenario. Not.

O.

> But IMO this setting, as outlined in previous posts, is
> ridicolous. Nor historic, nor challenging, terribly one sided,
> hypothetic to the point of being ridicolous. Utterly disappointing on
> so many levels...

I agree. The setting they chose is more than a little on the ridiculous
side.

Epi

"Epi Watkins" <epicat1212 DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.1db2431153bf72e9989683@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > But IMO this setting, as outlined in previous posts, is
> > ridicolous. Nor historic, nor challenging, terribly one sided,
> > hypothetic to the point of being ridicolous. Utterly disappointing on
> > so many levels...
>
> I agree. The setting they chose is more than a little on the ridiculous
> side.
>
> Epi

they are going for the kid crowd, kids don't want a challenge , they just
want to commit mayhem. fun is just wasting the baddies by the hectare.
and it can't be any more unrealistic than the original.

In article <wZqdnWjNEddVBdXeRVn-qA.RemoveThis@comcast.com>, roh.RemoveThis@comcast.net says...
>
> "Epi Watkins" <epicat1212.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.1db2431153bf72e9989683@news.east.earthlink.net...
> > > But IMO this setting, as outlined in previous posts, is
> > > ridicolous. Nor historic, nor challenging, terribly one sided,
> > > hypothetic to the point of being ridicolous. Utterly disappointing on
> > > so many levels...
> >
> > I agree. The setting they chose is more than a little on the ridiculous
> > side.
> >
> > Epi
>
> they are going for the kid crowd, kids don't want a challenge , they just
> want to commit mayhem. fun is just wasting the baddies by the hectare.
> and it can't be any more unrealistic than the original.

It seems to me that they are more worried about being PC. If you'll
notice, one side isn't the US, but NATO and other middle eastern
countries.

There also seems to be a difference where you can't just fight any
battle. Instead, you lead some kind of force through several. I guess
they listened to people complaining about the lack of a dynamic
campaign. I don't think I like this. Might be fun.

In article <MPG.1db267e2d4f7dba0989684.DeleteThis@news.east.earthlink.net>,
epicat1212.DeleteThis@hotmail.com says...

> > they are going for the kid crowd, kids don't want a challenge , they just
> > want to commit mayhem. fun is just wasting the baddies by the hectare.
> > and it can't be any more unrealistic than the original.
>
> It seems to me that they are more worried about being PC. If you'll
> notice, one side isn't the US, but NATO and other middle eastern
> countries.
>
> There also seems to be a difference where you can't just fight any
> battle. Instead, you lead some kind of force through several. I guess
> they listened to people complaining about the lack of a dynamic
> campaign. I don't think I like this. Might be fun.

It seems to be they were simply aiming for the widest possible OOB
choices, and having "Generic Towelheads" as one side and "UN Coalition"
as the other seems like a pretty good pick.

I've already placed this one in the "Sure Buy" category.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative
reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, Bush has no chance of
winning a third term."
- James Lileks

On Sun, 9 Oct 2005 00:12:53 -0400, "ray o'hara" <roh.RemoveThis@comcast.net>
wrote:

> they are going for the kid crowd, kids don't want a challenge , they just
>want to commit mayhem. fun is just wasting the baddies by the hectare.
> and it can't be any more unrealistic than the original.
>

You guys seem to be talking out of your asses. I seriously doubt that
they're making a game where there is absolutely no challenge.

You guys read a blurb and suddenly you're all experts about the
subtleties of the gameplay. Take a breather and wait for the game
before blasting it.


--
Alex
atheist #2007

Well, I feel that, no matter what the disappointment is, one should always
start with the rationale given by the developer, and I found this passage
interesting:

"The second reason is that we are making a very far ranging game engine. In
order to do this we need to have a design framework that is inherently setup
to handle the most complex setting we can think of. By doing modern warfare
we are forced to think about stuff like extensive communications networks,
complex armored vehicle defenses, asymmetrical warfare, urban warfare, small
combined arms teams, missile systems, on-the-fly targeting paths, and tons
more. If we did WWII first we'd have to basically design two games
simultaneously to ensure we covered all our bases. Therefore, by doing
modern we killed two birds with one stone".

Which makes sense. Remember that they are doing Modern *and* WWII, and the
specific setting for the modern game doesn't say anything about the
possibility to build more authentic scenarios via the editor - and/or the
ability to add a modern OOB 1950-2000 via mods or expansion packs.

So, one can avoid the SciFi game if he wishes - but actually I'm more
interested in the realism of the *engine* than in the setting.

Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> Well, I feel that, no matter what the disappointment is, one should always
> start with the rationale given by the developer, and I found this passage
> interesting:
>
> "The second reason is that we are making a very far ranging game engine. In
> order to do this we need to have a design framework that is inherently setup
> to handle the most complex setting we can think of. By doing modern warfare
> we are forced to think about stuff like extensive communications networks,
> complex armored vehicle defenses, asymmetrical warfare, urban warfare, small
> combined arms teams, missile systems, on-the-fly targeting paths, and tons
> more. If we did WWII first we'd have to basically design two games
> simultaneously to ensure we covered all our bases. Therefore, by doing
> modern we killed two birds with one stone".
>
> Which makes sense. Remember that they are doing Modern *and* WWII, and the
> specific setting for the modern game doesn't say anything about the
> possibility to build more authentic scenarios via the editor - and/or the
> ability to add a modern OOB 1950-2000 via mods or expansion packs.
>
> So, one can avoid the SciFi game if he wishes - but actually I'm more
> interested in the realism of the *engine* than in the setting.
>
>

Also remember that people are always banging on about innovative in
wargaming so what did people want just CM:1-3 with a new graphics engine
or an attempt to make a jump from the standard fare to something new -
as CM itself did when it was released.

As long as the scenarios/campaign is balanced and I don't see why this
wouldn't be the case, it should be a good game.

"Vincenzo Beretta" <reckall.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8d62f.20087$133.11245@tornado.fastwebnet.it...
> Well, I feel that, no matter what the disappointment is, one should always
> start with the rationale given by the developer, and I found this passage
> interesting:
>
> "The second reason is that we are making a very far ranging game engine.
In
> order to do this we need to have a design framework that is inherently
setup
> to handle the most complex setting we can think of. By doing modern
warfare
> we are forced to think about stuff like extensive communications networks,
> complex armored vehicle defenses, asymmetrical warfare, urban warfare,
small
> combined arms teams, missile systems, on-the-fly targeting paths, and tons
> more. If we did WWII first we'd have to basically design two games
> simultaneously to ensure we covered all our bases. Therefore, by doing
> modern we killed two birds with one stone".
>
> Which makes sense. Remember that they are doing Modern *and* WWII, and the
> specific setting for the modern game doesn't say anything about the
> possibility to build more authentic scenarios via the editor - and/or the
> ability to add a modern OOB 1950-2000 via mods or expansion packs.
>
> So, one can avoid the SciFi game if he wishes - but actually I'm more
> interested in the realism of the *engine* than in the setting.
>


That's another thing I'm worried about; the same engine for different
time periods. Usually doesn't work to well, but we'll see I guess.

"JAB" <nochance.RemoveThis@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:xd72f.8795$qR5.4319@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> > Well, I feel that, no matter what the disappointment is, one should
always
> > start with the rationale given by the developer, and I found this
passage
> > interesting:
> >
> > "The second reason is that we are making a very far ranging game engine.
In
> > order to do this we need to have a design framework that is inherently
setup
> > to handle the most complex setting we can think of. By doing modern
warfare
> > we are forced to think about stuff like extensive communications
networks,
> > complex armored vehicle defenses, asymmetrical warfare, urban warfare,
small
> > combined arms teams, missile systems, on-the-fly targeting paths, and
tons
> > more. If we did WWII first we'd have to basically design two games
> > simultaneously to ensure we covered all our bases. Therefore, by doing
> > modern we killed two birds with one stone".
> >
> > Which makes sense. Remember that they are doing Modern *and* WWII, and
the
> > specific setting for the modern game doesn't say anything about the
> > possibility to build more authentic scenarios via the editor - and/or
the
> > ability to add a modern OOB 1950-2000 via mods or expansion packs.
> >
> > So, one can avoid the SciFi game if he wishes - but actually I'm more
> > interested in the realism of the *engine* than in the setting.
> >
> >
>
> Also remember that people are always banging on about innovative in
> wargaming so what did people want just CM:1-3 with a new graphics engine
> or an attempt to make a jump from the standard fare to something new -
> as CM itself did when it was released.
>
> As long as the scenarios/campaign is balanced and I don't see why this
> wouldn't be the case, it should be a good game.


If they're balanced, it'll be a surprise; in reality they sure wouldn't
be. In other words, if they're balanced, it may turn into a Total Air War
type scenario where you have third world countries with endless supplies of
Class A weapons systems..........yeah, that's realistic <sarcasm>.

In article <iw92f.49$me7.691@eagle.america.net>, jp.RemoveThis@nicetry.com says...

> If they're balanced, it'll be a surprise; in reality they sure wouldn't
> be. In other words, if they're balanced, it may turn into a Total Air War
> type scenario where you have third world countries with endless supplies of
> Class A weapons systems..........yeah, that's realistic <sarcasm>.

If they keep the focus of the game small - company-sized actions - it's
fairly easy to avoid gamekilling balance issues. Only if they succumb
to the trend towards populating the system with "huge" style scenarios
will it start to look ridiculous that the US side doesn't simply call in
the F-18s and rip up the enemy.

Of course, if the scenario lists of CM, CMBB, and CMAK is anything to go
by, "huge," "big," and "medium" scenarios will far outnumber "small" and
"tiny" ones.

--
Giftzwerg
***
"The wailing! The gnashing! The rending of garments! If the conservative
reaction to Harriet Miers is any indication, Bush has no chance of
winning a third term."
- James Lileks

JP wrote:
> "JAB" <nochance.RemoveThis@nohope.com> wrote in message
> news:xd72f.8795$qR5.4319@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
>
>>Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
>>
>>>Well, I feel that, no matter what the disappointment is, one should
>
> always
>
>>>start with the rationale given by the developer, and I found this
>
> passage
>
>>>interesting:
>>>
>>>"The second reason is that we are making a very far ranging game engine.
>
> In
>
>>>order to do this we need to have a design framework that is inherently
>
> setup
>
>>>to handle the most complex setting we can think of. By doing modern
>
> warfare
>
>>>we are forced to think about stuff like extensive communications
>
> networks,
>
>>>complex armored vehicle defenses, asymmetrical warfare, urban warfare,
>
> small
>
>>>combined arms teams, missile systems, on-the-fly targeting paths, and
>
> tons
>
>>>more. If we did WWII first we'd have to basically design two games
>>>simultaneously to ensure we covered all our bases. Therefore, by doing
>>>modern we killed two birds with one stone".
>>>
>>>Which makes sense. Remember that they are doing Modern *and* WWII, and
>
> the
>
>>>specific setting for the modern game doesn't say anything about the
>>>possibility to build more authentic scenarios via the editor - and/or
>
> the
>
>>>ability to add a modern OOB 1950-2000 via mods or expansion packs.
>>>
>>>So, one can avoid the SciFi game if he wishes - but actually I'm more
>>>interested in the realism of the *engine* than in the setting.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Also remember that people are always banging on about innovative in
>>wargaming so what did people want just CM:1-3 with a new graphics engine
>>or an attempt to make a jump from the standard fare to something new -
>>as CM itself did when it was released.
>>
>>As long as the scenarios/campaign is balanced and I don't see why this
>>wouldn't be the case, it should be a good game.
>
>
>
> If they're balanced, it'll be a surprise; in reality they sure wouldn't
> be. In other words, if they're balanced, it may turn into a Total Air War
> type scenario where you have third world countries with endless supplies of
> Class A weapons systems..........yeah, that's realistic <sarcasm>.
>

We would it be a surprise when part of the post stated:

"Rest assured that CM:SF is not an unchallenging "turkey shoot" for the
US player. We'd not be making a modern game if we felt an unrealistic
turkey shooter was the best we could do."

You seem to have deceided that the game is going to be rubbish without
really knowing much about it. I'm going to keep an open mind.

"JAB" <nochance.TakeThisOut@nohope.com> wrote in message
news:kQ92f.11364$Nv6.4763@newsfe6-win.ntli.net...
> JP wrote:
> > "JAB" <nochance.TakeThisOut@nohope.com> wrote in message
> > news:xd72f.8795$qR5.4319@newsfe5-gui.ntli.net...
> >
> >>Vincenzo Beretta wrote:
> >>
> >>>Well, I feel that, no matter what the disappointment is, one should
> >
> > always
> >
> >>>start with the rationale given by the developer, and I found this
> >
> > passage
> >
> >>>interesting:
> >>>
> >>>"The second reason is that we are making a very far ranging game
engine.
> >
> > In
> >
> >>>order to do this we need to have a design framework that is inherently
> >
> > setup
> >
> >>>to handle the most complex setting we can think of. By doing modern
> >
> > warfare
> >
> >>>we are forced to think about stuff like extensive communications
> >
> > networks,
> >
> >>>complex armored vehicle defenses, asymmetrical warfare, urban warfare,
> >
> > small
> >
> >>>combined arms teams, missile systems, on-the-fly targeting paths, and
> >
> > tons
> >
> >>>more. If we did WWII first we'd have to basically design two games
> >>>simultaneously to ensure we covered all our bases. Therefore, by doing
> >>>modern we killed two birds with one stone".
> >>>
> >>>Which makes sense. Remember that they are doing Modern *and* WWII, and
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>specific setting for the modern game doesn't say anything about the
> >>>possibility to build more authentic scenarios via the editor - and/or
> >
> > the
> >
> >>>ability to add a modern OOB 1950-2000 via mods or expansion packs.
> >>>
> >>>So, one can avoid the SciFi game if he wishes - but actually I'm more
> >>>interested in the realism of the *engine* than in the setting.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>Also remember that people are always banging on about innovative in
> >>wargaming so what did people want just CM:1-3 with a new graphics engine
> >>or an attempt to make a jump from the standard fare to something new -
> >>as CM itself did when it was released.
> >>
> >>As long as the scenarios/campaign is balanced and I don't see why this
> >>wouldn't be the case, it should be a good game.
> >
> >
> >
> > If they're balanced, it'll be a surprise; in reality they sure
wouldn't
> > be. In other words, if they're balanced, it may turn into a Total Air
War
> > type scenario where you have third world countries with endless supplies
of
> > Class A weapons systems..........yeah, that's realistic <sarcasm>.
> >
>
> We would it be a surprise when part of the post stated:
>
> "Rest assured that CM:SF is not an unchallenging "turkey shoot" for the
> US player. We'd not be making a modern game if we felt an unrealistic
> turkey shooter was the best we could do."
>
> You seem to have deceided that the game is going to be rubbish without
> really knowing much about it. I'm going to keep an open mind.
>


Lol, so ? It's called an opinion, and the last I looked, it's still not
against any law. If that bothers you, I couldn't care less. And the quote
you posted doesn't change that either; just another sign of an unrealistic
balancing going to take place, for gameplay sake.

If it's a good game, I'll get it, so calm your concern over my opinion
<wink>

p.s. I think its safe to say you know no more about the game than I, eh ?
Or would you care to enlighten the group with any knowledge of the game that
you alone are privy to ?