NATO expansion module for Combat Mission

[GaryOwen]

I was wondering whether anyone who may have tried this yet would be willing to share their impressions.

[Lovetank]

Im on the german campaign now and are on three PBEMs from it.

The marders with their 20mm and milans are absolute killers against infantry. There is so much HE being spitted out it will suppress anything. Only second to the shilka (which is also included) in taking down building walls.

Heres a link to the battlefront forum for 1st impressions:

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=93542

[Richie61]

I bought it the day it came out! I love it. BF has really improved SF since it's first days:biggrin:

The M1's destroy the T-72's like paper tanks!:bangin: Add the Challenger and Leopard II and it's game on:biggrin:

Just hope we get a European bundle with Russia troops so we could fight WWIII someday :gun:

Course when SF-Normandy is released and I will be a pig in chit :ANI_DI:

[CalAB]

Actually it's not to bad. The modual brings the game version to 1.3 and it runs fairly smooth. It's nice with the addition of all the new nations. I've been enjoying blowing stuff up as Canada.

[enigma6584]

The game has been vastly improved from initial release. New features have been added with this module and variety has now arrived. The maps now provided with game are just beautiful... and have gotten slightly bigger.

Frankly with your enjoyment and skill in map making and scenario design...I believe you would find the map editor and scenario editor quite to your liking. If you've got a creative mind, those tools are fantastic.

[GaryOwen]

I've downloaded the new demo and played the NATO scenario through twice so far. I don't think that anything has necessarily changed with the map editor itself. Although I will agree that the map for the demo scenario I played today (draw distance caused rendering issues notwithstanding) is certainly a noticeable improvement over the maps for the scenarios initially released with the base game.

[Koen]

Frankly with your enjoyment and skill in map making and scenario design...I believe you would find the map editor and scenario editor quite to your liking. If you've got a creative mind, those tools are fantastic.

Out of curiosity, how would you compare it to the SB mission editor ?

I guess more infantry-centred, I mean more options for handling infantry in the editor ?

THX, K

[enigma6584]

Out of curiosity, how would you compare it to the SB mission editor ?

I guess more infantry-centred, I mean more options for handling infantry in the editor ?

THX, K

With CMSF modules, I would say the game is more infantry centric with vehicles in support of those infantry forces. With SB, I've always view the sim as vehicle centric with infantry as a sideshow and in support of the vehicle experience.

The editor in the CMSF series is actually several editors working as one. You have the map editor and then the scenario editor. You can create fantastic maps (within constraints...like fewer choices of trees, dirt, grasses and other vegetation.) While, in SB, the map editor is much more in depth for environmental considerations. Still, you are only working with a map editor which is supposed to only give you options for making maps of the Syrian geography.

The urban combat maps are superb in this game. Check out the link provided. A gentleman is creating a Ramadi map for use in a campaign he is creating and it just shines.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92372

Another link below is to a thread by some guys who are creating a Syrian Defense based campaign. They show you here the maps they are creating for the battles.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=91485

With regards to scenario editor. It is very flexible in terms of creating combat groups from TO&E for several armies. The highest organization you can purchase from is at the Battalian level down to individual platoons. You can mix and match to a certain degree with respect to your needs. Very flexible and a lot to choose from.

[Koen]

THx for the info.

The urban combat maps are superb in this game. Check out the link provided. A gentleman is creating a Ramadi map for use in a campaign he is creating and it just shines.

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92372

1000 manhours to create a map of some 1500 m on 500 m ...

Well he must have enjoyed it, "we're doing the things that we want to".

Looks to me that SB has an advance now with Terrastan + also the much larger possible size of the SB-maps.

But surely CSMF will have its advantages as well.

Rgds, K

[enigma6584]

You cannot compare the two. They are completely different games focussing on different experiences for the player. One (SB) is a military grade tank gunner simulation. The other (CMSF) is a board wargame...put on the computer, enhanced with 3D figures and vehicles.

[Gibsonm]

You cannot compare the two. They are completely different games focussing on different experiences for the player. One (SB) is a military grade tank gunner simulation. The other (CMSF) is a board wargame...put on the computer, enhanced with 3D figures and vehicles.

Well I'd suggest that SB Pro and SB Pro PE are far more than just a "tank gunner simulation".

As a member of the CM:SF family (CMSF, USMC, UK, NATO, Afghanistan and now Normandy) beta test team I can say both have strenghts and weaknesses or different specialisations (depending on your point of view).

SB Pro / SB Pro PE is certainly closer to the simulation end of the Simulation <-> Game spectrum with CM:SF closer to the middle (but still well on the simulation side).

I'd say the graphics on CM:SF are more "realistic" in terms of weapons effects (buildings can be rubbled during the course of the game, etc.

But it currently doesn't have water (rivers, lakes, etc.) due to its Syrian context. Normandy will address this (and in due course snow, etc.) and these in turn will be included when the modern period is revisited.

Also despite being arguably prettier / more detailed, terrain in CM:SF its a lot smaller. Maximum map size in CM:SF is about 2,500m x 2,500m compared to SB Pro's 120Km x 120Km or thereabouts.

CM:SF also provides the "WEGO" option so you can review what happens to each unit during the course of a turn (in case you miss something).

SB Pro / SB Pro PE however offers other things like crewable vehicles, AAR, and in SB Pro the Instructor Host mode.

Personally I'm happy to have both.

Edited November 2, 2010 by Gibsonm

[enigma6584]

Personally I'm happy to have both.

Same here.

[andym]

What are the system requirements for CM:SF?

[Gibsonm]

From here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?page=shop.cart&func=cartAdd&product_id=248&option=com_virtuemart&Itemid=26

System Requirements MINIMUM:

•Operating System: Windows XP

•Processor: Pentium IV 1.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor

•Video Card: GeForce 5200 or Radeon 9200

•(32 Megabyte VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution) in OpenGL

•Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card

•System Memory: 256 Megabytes RAM

•Hard Drive Space: 1.5 Gigabyte

•Other Requirements: CD Drive (not needed for download version)

System Requirements SUGGESTED:

•Operating System: Windows 7

•Processor: Pentium IV 2.8 GHz or equivalent speed AMD processor or better

•Video Card: GeForce 6800 or Radeon x850

•(256 Megabyte VRAM or better and must support 1024x768 or higher resolution) in OpenGL

•Sound Card: DirectX 9 compatible Sound Card

•System Memory: 1 Gigabyte or more RAM

•Hard Drive Space: 1.5 Gigabyte

•Other Requirements: CD Drive (not needed for download version)

Just remeber that NATO is a CM:SF module and requires that you already have (or buy at the same time) the baseline CM:SF product.

However if you don't want to use the USMC or UK modules, you don't have to buy them as well (but of course then you wont have access to Warrior, CR2, etc.}.

There is of course a downloadable 6 scenario demo (which gives you access to 4 US Vs Syrian engagements, 1 UK Vs Syrian and 1 x German Vs Syrian) too so you can get a feel for it before you spend your $.

From here:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=42&Itemid=428

[Ssnake]

It is not my intent to bash Battlefront for CMSF. But in my opinion they needlessly gave away many of the things that I dearly liked in the original WW2 series of the game and added little to make up for it. Combined with the much longer range of modern weapon systems the result isn't satisfactory for me.

I played CMBO for about 18 months straight on an almost daily basis (skipped Barbarossa, later bought CMAK in the hope of reviving the spirit with a number of detail improvements, but I guess I had just played it "to death").

Anyway, the strengthes of the original CM series were the combination of fuzzy logic and near-unlimited usage of CPU cycles for pretty sophisticated AI decision-making which allowed for battalion level scenarios that allowed proper maneuver action. With CMSF they opted for real-time orientation which limited the number of available CPU cycles for decision-making, and also put a limit on what the user interface lets the player handle, resulting in a downscale from battalion level to company level. You can't fast-forward boring movement to contact phases either. And above all, the open terrain maps simply are way, way too small to allow for proper maneuver. Even with the biggest maps, discounting for eventual dead space, everything is in range for a 120mm gun system even if it is located at the rear edge of the map.

Okay, was it designed for urban combat then?

Maybe, but where then is the sophisticated city design?

We still have most buildings like they used to be in the WW2 series. Well, I can probably live with internal walls not being rendered, but I would have loved to see sewage systems modelled (which allow for concealed movement of forces), the electricity grid, or water supply pipelines, and the ability to deny a certain building electrical power if you controlled the grid etc.

Unfortunately, there's nothing of that sort. No industrialized zones, docks, factories. Neither do we see dedicated Afghanistan maps, or at least something resembling it beyond a generally arid landscape. Instead, the latest installments are a lapse back into Cold War settings.

I'm just frustrated about the waste of potential there. It could have been a really super turn-based urban combat simulation but they managed to make the worst possible combination of bad moves to drag a great heritage into mediocrity. But that's just my personal opinion. They probably had good reasons for what they did, I just happen to disagree with their decisions because I hoped to see something entirely different.

[Gibsonm]

I don't have a vested interest in either and am happy to say I have both.

Just a couple of points though.

1. You can maintain the WEGO (i.e. non real time) option if you want and that would let you "fast-forward boring movement to contact phases".

However WEGO currently isn't supported for LAN (TCP/IP) play so you could say its somewhat crippled.

2. Its not meant to be focused on urban Ops, its just that about 90% of the scenario designers seem to want to replicate what they saw nightly on the TV (US Infantry kicking in doors) when the scenarios were being created.

There are some good non urban scenarios but then the map size limitation kicks in (a well sited MBT, Bradley or AT14 Kornet can dominate the entire map).

The AI is getting better - I commend to you the upcoming 1.31 patch (which I understand can be applied to all versions).

Can't really go much further without compromising the NDA I signed.

An Aside:

Nils (and the other moderators),

I really appreciate the openness of this forum. Others ban even the mention of another product even vaguely in the same market, here (whilst I'm sure there are limits) open discussion is welcomed.

[Ssnake]

Limits are defined by the forum rules - no trolling, flaming, or blatant advertisement. Beyond that - hey, we're grown-ups, so let's be relaxed about it. SB Pro isn't the center of the world, just a (hopefully important) club in your golf bag of simulations. Even if there was a competing product that wasn't complementary to SB Pro in its functionality but pretty much a pure "me too" rip-off, I'm confident that you would recognize it as such. And if it is better than what we're doing, I want to know all about it.

[Gibsonm]

Well for what its worth the 1.31 patch is now out.

Hopefully including this URL doesn't breach the "no blatant advertising" limitation:

http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1727&Itemid=378

More than happy to delete all the words after "out" above if required.

[Ssnake]

Blatant advertisement would be coming from someone who, say, never participated in any other discussion and would exclusively discuss someone else's product. Blatant advertisement is to praise only, or to refuse criticism. Blatant is when it has no class and if it's just plain bad in style, like a door man of a strip club ("Hey you there, you gotta see this! What do you mean, 'not interested?' Are you gay or what?").

I have a hard time imagining anything of that sort coming from you.