Combat Mission: Shock Force

[DaveDash]

While the game definately has problems, It is not worthy of the blasting some have given it here. Mind you, I started playing 1.04.

 

I do have a few beefs with the game that stifle the fun factor:

 

1. Vehicles in WEGO seem to sit around blindly after an RPG/ATGM has fired if it was fired from a reverse slope position. Even when issued target commands, they do not return fire. This makes assaulting a dug in defender with ATGM's and RPGs an effort in frustration. It wouldn't be too bad save for point 2.

 

2. Bradleys and Stryker crew and squad survivability seem to be very poor. I think most RPGs should 'knock out' Strykers etc instead of destroying them and wasting most of the squad inside. Correct me if I'm wrong here but I don't remember too many reports from Iraq of entire squads being wiped out when their Stryker was hit by an RPG, let alone an IED. Do those RPG wires around the Strykers even do anything? And Bradleys are considerably more heavily armoured. The U.S. in real life tends to design its vehicles with survivability in mind, whereas Strykers and even Bradleys in game are infantry death traps.

 

The frustration is you can't advance your infantry without cover, and the cover is usually filled with the enemy. So in order to get there you need to move your vehicles up so infantry doesn't have to cross open ground, which result in them being destroyed by super accurate RPGs, losing most of your men, while the other vehicles sit around with their thumbs up their ass eating lunch and one RPG guy leasurly takes out your entire Styker company.

 

Infantry combat is much improved in 1.04, and with CAREFUL use of waypoints and surpression you can usually get most of your infantry to survive. I find its keeping my vehicles alive thats the problem, even with very CAREFUL advances.

Edited November 28, 2007 by DaveDash

[Ssnake]

Well, it can be pretty frustrating to play from the Syrian side, too - if that's of any consolation to you. I still haven't figured out why infantry sometimes can pass through the walls of adjacent buildings, and sometimes not, which leads to pretty unpredictable routes at times. I've recently had a Stryker shoot one of my Technicals to pieces that was parked behind a wall and impossible to see (unless they have 1950s X-Ray goggles), and I found the scoring in that particular scenario a bit irritating to say the least (wipe out an entire Stryker platoon, hold one of two objectives and prevent BluFor from capturing the other, inflicting more than 40 BluFor casualties while sacrificing fewer than 20 martyrs, and it's a "stalemate"? Gimme a break). Granted, that's really a minor niggle. I do come back to it on occasion, but the reduced scope and the omission of noncombatants as well as those design decisions for the worse in comparison to previous titles deny me to have the same amount of fun that I had with, say, CMBO. CMAK probably was the most mature version of the whole series (but still I had more fun with CMBO).

 

I don't know. I had some hopes that CMSF could be a ground breaking MOUT simulation with forced entry, breaching walls, complicated RoE and whatnot - being that it wasn't a real-time application, so there was a potential to use a "brute force approach" to deal with the many details. I guess that in all fairness I should still give it due credit for being "not too bad", but that's not really inspiring positive excitement, is it?

[DaveDash]

Well while that would be nice, I had no such expectation. Mind you, I didn't follow any hype etc.

It has its issues and not really ground breaking, since it follows the same old formula as CMBO, but it's one step in the right direction to an accurate modern infantry combat wargame. Considering the game is programmed by one guy I'm actually relatively impressed.

 

No doubt many irritations with the game will be fixed with the Marine addon. They tried something new - now it's time to fix it and show the real potential of the engine.

 

And take note I am writing this post after being extremely frustrated at one reverse slope Syrian ATGM destroying 4 bradleys in 60 seconds, without so much a flicker of area surpression from my 'elite' U.S. forces.

[Ssnake]

I wasn't following any hype or coverage about CMSF at all, I just hoped that they would adapt the engine better to the requirements of a contemporary environment. What frustrates me is that where they changed fundamental things, it wasn't a change for the better (Example: The switch from turn-based to real-time calculations; computers have become faster, but all gains in computing power since the original release of CMBO are negated by the requirement to calculate results on the fly. In order to maintain the real-time requirement they scaled down the tactical size of battles from battalion/company to company/platoon). Where they kept old fundamental things, they're a millstone that are a liability (Example: Houses got more that two stories now, but they're still just boxes that get stacked on top of each other, and inner compartmentalization isn't shown). There's still no decent LOS tool, and units move around as stupid as ever.

With the emphasis on urban environments it would have been nice to see a model for electricity grids, a water and sewage pipeline network, or noncombatants and complex ROEs. None of all this. So I see a lot of potential that is lying waste, and that's a shame because it could be so much better.

[DaveDash]

I wasn't following any hype or coverage about CMSF at all, I just hoped that they would adapt the engine better to the requirements of a contemporary environment. What frustrates me is that where they changed fundamental things, it wasn't a change for the better (Example: The switch from turn-based to real-time calculations; computers have become faster, but all gains in computing power since the original release of CMBO are negated by the requirement to calculate results on the fly. In order to maintain the real-time requirement they scaled down the tactical size of battles from battalion/company to company/platoon). Where they kept old fundamental things, they're a millstone that are a liability (Example: Houses got more that two stories now, but they're still just boxes that get stacked on top of each other, and inner compartmentalization isn't shown). There's still no decent LOS tool, and units move around as stupid as ever.

With the emphasis on urban environments it would have been nice to see a model for electricity grids, a water and sewage pipeline network, or noncombatants and complex ROEs. None of all this. So I see a lot of potential that is lying waste, and that's a shame because it could be so much better.

 

I definately feel the switch to RT was a bad move, but I suspect they did it for a few reasons (capture more of an RTS market, and to make up for a poor TacAI in a very fast and lethal modern enviroment by allowing players more control). I'm not sure how well the game would handle what you are suggesting though, and it seems like an extreme amount of work for one guy to program all that in.

 

One of the major issues they should have addressed was LOS of indivdual units now they have moved to 1:1. Los still seems calculated the old way from a units centre of mass, but detection is based on individual men spotted. Thus a unit can have a couple of men exposed around a corner who will get shot to bits by a defender and not react at all, or a unit in a reverse slope position can tear apart an attacker with no TacAi surpression. It would have been better for them to impliment a system for your units similar to other games where your individual units 'sticky' to cover when you move the cusor nearby, instead of haphazardly splayed everywhere. I expect them to improve this part of the game dramatically though in the Marine Expansion, or upcoming patches, or I will myself join the 'dissapointed' club. If you set aside high expectations however it is still a very enjoyable Modern Warfare game. Yes with some frustrations, but even big titles like Rome Total War with millions of dollars and a team of developers came out far worse originally than CM:SF.

Edited November 29, 2007 by DaveDash

[Sardaukar]

Yep, it's not bad game at all, still having 1.04 PBEM going (since 1.05 saves are incompatible.. ) It just do not give me feeling what I felt when I got CMBO/CMBB/CMAK.

 

I just cannot really like it..it's good game..but it lacks something...there is no "magic" like in CM1-series.

[Ssnake]

So you would say its comparable to Close Combat? I love that series but I've been staying away from this game because of all the bad rap its gotten from CM fans an I enjoyed the old turn based predecessors as well.

Well, you can play it both turn-based and real-time. Turn-based ... well, it's not what it used to be because it actually is like real-time, except that you have an unlimited pause every minute to give new orders while the computer continues to calculate on the fly. It used to be that the computer would calculate the entire next minute before showing the results, so you could fast forward if nothing happened. No longer.

[Ssnake]

As far as the "classic" Combat Mission titles are concerned, my recommendation would be CM Afrika Korps. It should be dirt cheap by now, has all the improvements of game mechanics since the first two titles, but more diverse terrain and scenarios since it also covers the campaign in Sicily and Italy, not just Northern Africa as the title suggests.

 

 

In principle CMSF was a good idea because I was always hoping for a contemporary wargame with all the qualities of the CM series. Unfortunately some design decisions were made that - IMO - make the game mechanics worse, not better. But that's, after all, whining on a pretty high level since the CM series is among the finest titles ever released for Battalion level tactics and below (well, Company level and below for CMSF).

[Michael Dorosh]

Patch 1.06 has been released. The view on the forum seems to be pretty favourable, and I must admit the enemy AI now seem to put up a pretty good fight. Even surrounded they were unfazed and took a nasty toll of my strykers. Reportedly Sniper units are also very useful now.

 

Anyone looking to pick this up, it is in the clearance bin at amazon.com and EB Games for 8 dollars.

[Allan W]

1.08 is very good indeed. Infantry fights against the AI are a lot more challenging.

 

Incidentally, the US Marine corp addon pack is coming out soon, which may be why they are dropping the price.

 

Except for the disappearing AT weapon bug that occurs when you try to equip your troops with a Javelin or extra AT-4 that were stored in a vehicle...

[Harold Jones]

Games only get one launch, if it is badly handled or full of bugs they tend to slide into obscurity no matter how well they are patched up later. This is especially true with games that are aimed at a very small niche in the market.

[Michael Dorosh]

Incidentally, the US Marine corp addon pack is coming out soon, which may be why they are dropping the price.

 

It can't be the reason for the drop in price. Retail outlets like EB Games or Amazon won't be selling the USMC expansion - it will be available only direct from BFC. BFC is still charging full price for the basic game, by the way - 45 dollars for the basic and 60 for the deluxe version, which includes mousepad and map.

Edited May 12, 2008 by Michael Dorosh

[Sikkiyn]

Games only get one launch, if it is badly handled or full of bugs they tend to slide into obscurity no matter how well they are patched up later. This is especially true with games that are aimed at a very small niche in the market.

 

I don't know BiS is still pushing ArmA; because nothing yet exist to replace it.

Perhaps BiS will finally take the bankruptcy deep6 many on TS have been crying for once OFP2 arrives; if only it lives up to the hype?

[Lampshade111]

I picked up the game awhile ago. Put it down for a few months due to the bugs but now I am playing again. I still have to restart my computer before playing it or it crashes after a few minutes. I get a bunch of bugs nobody else seems to have.

 

Anybody know if the M1128 Stryker MGS in that game can take out a T-72M1 with Kontakt-5 armor? There is one down a long road and I can either pop smoke, have the Stryker go around the corner, and try to kill it or have one of my infantry squads run back to get a Javelin launcher.

 

When they said armor I was expecting some lousy T-55s or something.

[Ssnake]

While my replies haven't been as favorable about it as I wished I could have written them with honesty, I'd like to second Stuart's verdict: It definitely is worth a lot more than the bargain bin price at Amazon suggests. While I still think that some changes from previous Combat Mission versions weren't for the better, that still doesn't mean that CMSF is a crap game. Among all wargames that are reasonably realistic, that feature contemporary equipment, and that are at the tactical scale, CMSF definitely is in the top ten, very likely belongs to the top five. If you absolutely have to trash it, do so only after actually testing it. Chances are, you will like it despite negative initial expectations.

[Sardaukar]

True that.

 

CMSF was horrible game even when patched to 1.04. Now in version 1.08 it is actually very good. Sadly the bad start gave it lasting "fame" that is difficult to overcome. BFC attitude towards old hardcore CM supporters didn't help much either...

[Michael Dorosh]

Among all wargames that are reasonably realistic, that feature contemporary equipment, and that are at the tactical scale,

 

What, you mean both of them?

 

You forgot to add in "squad-based, company-level" to make a completely accurate comparison possible.

 

What other titles could possibly be in your "top ten"? Putting aside first person shooters (as immersive as OFP is, those contact grenades and first person viewpoint rule it out of the same category in my opinion), what else qualifies in the parameters suggested? I'm genuinely curious.

 

That's like saying Armies of Oblivion is a smashing boardgame portrayal of Second World War Romanian armour and deserves to be in the top ten of all the tactical Romanian armour games ever published. Isn't it? Damn me with faint praise...

 

If you absolutely have to trash it, do so only after actually testing it. Chances are, you will like it despite negative initial expectations.

 

I would second the motion of giving it a fair test. I was on the scenario design/beta test team. Did about 15% of the TF Thunder scenarios, and Meeting at High Altitude is mine also. They still make me pay full price at Tim Horton's if I want to buy an Earl Grey and a donut. But I'm not here to trash the game. I am curious if your praise is for the armour aspects of the game, or for the whole deal. On the whole, I think the armour stuff was handled better (perhaps with the exception of pathfinding in the initial release, as well as the lack of a find hull-down feature as in the earlier game) than the infantry game, which is needlessly weighed down by extraneous detail. That's a whole other topic not germaine to this forum I suspect.

 

As a tank enthusiast, what about the game do you feel they captured better than other games? Aside from general stuff like look-and-feel - I mean the 3D models are great, and the crew animations are at least adequate, etc. I can see where fighting tanks has improved - I loved the "death clock" feature introduced in the first CM games, sort of like the Unconfirmed Kill in ASL where you don't know if the enemy tank is knocked out or not - very realistic, as is the fact it takes time for the crew to bail out. I wish they would have extended that kind of fidelity to infantry modelling - but the engine is still young. (I'm leaving aside discussion of game interface, the campaign model, etc. as being beside the point.)

 

Most of the discussion I've seen has revolved around criticism of the infantry modelling or else highly technical aspects of the armour, but the lack of discussion on general armour topics would lead me to conclude that tank buffs are generally happy with it, as you seem to be?

Edited May 13, 2008 by Michael Dorosh

[Sardaukar]

is it worth getting now as of this build?

 

I'd say definitely yes. Works very well after patch 1.08.

[Ssnake]

What, you mean both of them?

 

You forgot to add in "squad-based, company-level" to make a completely accurate comparison possible.

Well, I wouldn't narrow it down that much or else comparisons become meaningless. About no single product aside from money is 100% comparable to other products of the same category - every manufacturer of goods or provider of services attempts to distinguish itself from competitors to avoid direct comparison. Companies justify their profit margin through micro monopolies.

 

So, I would go so far to include all games that include some sort of a map view or overview mode that serves as a command interface as well, which is at battalion level or below, and which offers at least equipment post 1985 or so. At that point we get a bigger range though I would concede that if we're really talking about a contemporary operational environment the selection is much, much smaller even though many of the weapon systems involved would also be found in a 1985 setting.

Consequently, I would not rule out Flashpoint/ArmA/VBS, especially not since the command level of CMSF has been reduced from battalion level to company level (in comparison to previous CM titles). It would also include Steel Beasts Pro (ahem), and a number of titles from Matrix and other wargame developers. If you're asking for specific titles a quick look at The Wargamer's review section suggests World in Conflict, Air Assault Task Force[*]Brigade Combat Team Commander and TacOps (these two arguably may fall out of the list since they are beyond battalion level in their scope), Armored Task Force (a spin-off of BCT), Falklands 1982 (OK, I said "post 1985" myself, and it's not even out yet). Then there's America's Army and Decisive Action.

 

Admittedly, not all of these titles will fit the bill especially if you want to keep a rather narrow selection - but it's not as if CMSF has been cast into a void.

 

 

As a tank enthusiast, what about the game do you feel they captured better than other games?

 

Actually, I think that this is where CMSF is mediocre at best. Not so much because the computer control logic (aka artificial behavior) lacks sophistication. It is about adequate. It's just that the engine clearly was designed for WW2 originally, and doesn't seem to handle maps well that exceed a few (single digit) kilometers in size. OK, so it's a bit of a pet peeve of mine, and I may be biased because SB Pro does it better (well, it should... it's been designed from the start for modern, armor centric tactical combat simulation). But map creation alone becomes a pain, let alone the associated performance issues. If you keep the map sized in the "comfort zone" of the engine, they hardly exceed the range of a 120mm smoothbore gun which almost eliminates the maneuver aspect as long as there is a LOS to the target. And if reinforcements arrive, they're often immediately within direct fire range - so they get killed seconds after their arrival or you find your own forces in a sudden knife fight with that T-72 company that just teleported into your sector because there was no neighbor to stop or delay their advance and because of the map size limits you could neither set up flank security.

So, we need to remove armor units from the equation before it becomes somewhat bearable again - Strykers, BMPs, maybe even a few older T-55s, provided that there aren't too many Javelins in play.

 

CMSF shines in urban and closed terrain at company level and below. What I had hoped for were more detailed buildings and noncombatants roaming the streets. Sadly, they're not there (yet). A turn based engine could have utilized a lot of raw computing power like the original CM titles did. Instead Battlefront chose to take the real-time path, forfeiting the chance to use more sophisticated algorithms for the units. Which is a shame IMO (not that I don't understand the business logic behind it).

 

So, I for one am not discussing the armor aspects of it because I'm happy but because I've given up as far as tactical maneuver is concerned. But that isn't a killer - there are, after all, simulations that handle this aspect well, so it would've been a duplication of efforts in some respect. It still is the best wargame there is for asymmetric contemporary combat in urbanized terrain. And that's a lot, even if it might have been even better if they had kept the turn based mode with full computing power and then a bit more detail for the cities.

[Ssnake]

personally play it in realtime, so I can comment on how people are finding it, playing it ala CM1 in WEGO.

Well, it's exactly like in real-time except that you get unlimited pauses every minute to plot orders and that you can review the last minute. Combat resolution will be processed in real-time, irrespective of the turn-based mode. Which means that you can't fast-forward through dull periods like you could in old CM titles. A nuisance, not more - the real issue is the underutilization of available computing power.

[Michael Dorosh]

Consequently, I would not rule out Flashpoint/ArmA/VBS, especially not since the command level of CMSF has been reduced from battalion level to company level (in comparison to previous CM titles).

 

The earlier CM titles never were battalion level. They may have had battalion HQ units - but so does CMSF. If you're talking about map size, I understand that the maps in CMSF are smaller, but that has nothing to do with the scale of the simulation. CM has never modelled realistic communication, command, control functions over and above the company level. Even at the company level, about the only useful thing a company HQ unit could do would be to spot for mortars, collect unused platoon support weapons like LATWs and light MTRs as necessary, and rally sulkers from the platoons that routed away from the platoon HQs. The single battalion HQ unit had no special functions beyond what the company HQs were doing.

[Ssnake]

The earlier CM titles never were battalion level. They may have had battalion HQ units - but so does CMSF. If you're talking about map size, I understand that the maps in CMSF are smaller, but that has nothing to do with the scale of the simulation. CM has never modelled realistic communication, command, control functions over and above the company level. Even at the company level, about the only useful thing a company HQ unit could do would be to spot for mortars, collect unused platoon support weapons like LATWs and light MTRs as necessary, and rally sulkers from the platoons that routed away from the platoon HQs. The single battalion HQ unit had no special functions beyond what the company HQs were doing.

 

...but you could at least have several companies in battalion strength on the map without overcrowding it, even if CM1 didn't model everything in that context (primarily logistics and communications come to mind - what else was sorely missing?). Let's not forget that battalions in WW2 had smaller assigned battlespaces. So, all in all I think that is justified to call CM1 titles "battalion level capable", which CMSF doesn't seem to be.

Edited May 15, 2008 by Ssnake