I do like CM:SF. I also think that it is the most realistic game in its class. You’ll probably ignore that realistic is a relative term rather than an absolute because that would detract from your apparent hobby of chasing it around the internet making disparaging remarks about it. Presumably because it’s something that you cannot do, but I am no psychoanalyst.

Tei and JC
This A* algorithm sounds interesting, but how do you define nodes or routes?(that’s where the terrain fidelity is liable to cause problems) How does it account for the situations where you can “bull through” compared to when a different route would be more sensible.

* Considering that this is what most scenarios are designed around.

Thank you for your comment.

The A* algorithm has been around for like a decade. Hard to believe that the “increased terrain fidelity” of CMx2 makes it “prohibitively expensive” to implement.

But if BF cannot do it, nobody can. ;)

Cheers,

A*, the classic pathfinding algorithm, lets you implement that. Adding “costs” to a node, so the mob will chose a different route. The more teammates death, the more expensive that route.

Well, you get the idea. From the comments I’ve been reading from actual soldiers, none of the in-game battle practices are anything like real. House clearing is one of the big ones that is phony – any FIBUA manual I’ve ever seen (or whatever it is called now) talks about starting from the top floor and working down. You blow holes in walls and go through them rather than using doors. You assault rooms in pairs, not entire squads. None of this is in the game. It’s all homogenized – again, you can have fun with it, but every army does things differently, and if the point is to make money off the different flavours, how do you do that if the only functional differences are different clothes and funny talking voices in the sound files?

The infantry-centric game you mention is as dull as dishwater because there are no details in it, and it is unrealistic to boot.

Tanks don’t render the infantry battle moot, they render the infantry battle a colossal yawner which is why few bother to play them.

Wow. Who wants to play “weekend training exercise” with me via PBEM? Is that one step up from “Deer Hunter” and “Boy Scout Jamboree”, or two?

One last thing, Josh mesmo, CM:SF depicts a modern war between NATO and Syria, and associated indigenous fighters. Not the “three block war” or counter insurgency operations.

Don’t read my comments about the three block war as confusion about what CM:SF does. Read them again; I said that modern militaries train for a variety of missions. I in no way meant to imply that CM:SF is capable of depicting those missions. It clearly is not, even with the cute little “unconventionals” in their designer jeans and ski masks.

Also, JC, a module is the equivalent an expansions, and expansions usually include a new race, and a new campaign. It is rare for an expansion to bring about a radical change in gameplay or environment.

Additionally, if anyone finds the Syrians lacking you can play Syrian Vs. Syrian battles, and Blue v. Blue battles.

One last thing, Josh mesmo, CM:SF depicts a modern war between NATO and Syria, and associated indigenous fighters. Not the “three block war” or counter insurgency operations.

Where there are tanks, these always dominate, from WW1 to the present day. Expecting otherwise is silly. If you want infantry, play an infantry game.
******************************************
This isn’t remotely true. Armored divisions made up perhaps 10 percent of the total strength of any of the armies in World War II, and with the increased cost per unit for AFVs, tanks are about as rare today, particularly with the types of missions that first world armies are being employed in (counter-insurgency, “three block war”, etc.) So your argument is that CM:SF is accurately depicting modern warfare by showing only tanks, it is only doing about 10 percent of its job.

But we know that it isn’t because battlefront itself is selling the game based on its depiction of infantry. CM:SF IS an infantry game – it’s about the Stryker brigades, always has been. The draw was supposed to be the 1:1 rep of the soldiers, not the tank vs. tank combat. If the game was supposed to be tank vs. tank action, they would have picked better matchups than M1A2 Abrams vs. 1970s Red Army surplus. The front cover of the box shows GIs advancing with purpose with their Strykers in support. CM:SF IS an infantry game. Just because you use it as a tank simulator doesn’t mean that is what it was intended as. In fact, it pretty much supports the notion that, in fact, the game fails in its intended purpose.

Tanks and Armour look good, feel solid, move well and fight well and although armour and penetration values are guessed at, you feel as if BF has gotten them about right and thats half the battle in convincing me of reality. The other graphocs, while not being state of the art, are a great leap forwards as the desert looks good and buildings feel more solid.

The downside for me then is the infantry. We have what I like to call a representative 1-1 representation of an actual 1-1. You can see them all, but they arent where the PC sees them all. This coupled with the fact that the infantry dont actually behave like real infantry kind of spoils the realism. Infantry dont run around in little bunched up groups and their officers dont only have the ‘Hunt, Move, Quick’ commands to give them. Infantry use formations and Infantry have their own IA (Immediate Action) drills for certain situations.

Dont get me wrong, SF is a step in the right direction of realism, but until 1-1 representation arrives for real and each soldier is tracked in space and can carry out some basic actions, then what came before is always better, that is squad abstraction.

In sum. If you want to run around as the mighty West blowing the crap out of a 1970’s Army then this is the game for you. If you want a tactical challenge of pitting 2 evenly matched forces together then try CM-1 games.

However, the game is enjoyable and I would definitely recomment anyone trying the demo, or even buying the original SF which comes at about $5 these days and for that price is definitely worth it.

But seriously, as someone who’s been playing occassionally since the game’s release, it’s a load of fun, and an absolute can’t-miss if your a military/warfare case. If you are, MAKE SURE to at least make an inquiry. For me, and I think most people whether they’ll consciously agree or not, the investment has been more than worth it. And I haven’t even tried playing a human yet! it’s hard to find the kind of realism-bent folks that it takes to really get into this game.