Combat Mission Shock Force

Started by JudgeDredd, November 06, 2015, 05:37:45 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1
User actions

JudgeDredd

November 06, 2015, 05:37:45 PM
One of my fav games and my fav of the series.

However - I, whilst I generally win my missions, always fail a mission on Friendly Casualties. Trouble is - I think they might want 0 casualties in order to pass that parameter, because (as an example) in my latest game, I had

  • 142 troops OK
  • 8 men killed
  • 6 men wounded
  • 5 men missing
  • 6 armoured vehicles lost (Scimitars and Bradleys)
It just seems really harsh, given the number of troops safe compared to killed/wounded/lost. And it's always the case. No matter how low the casualties are, I have never, to my recollection, passed that parameter.

I still love this game though.
Alba gu' brath

IronX

#1
November 06, 2015, 06:49:56 PM
It is a great game. I think I prefer Black Sea somewhat more, but the range of participants in CMSF is hard to beat.

jomni

#2
November 06, 2015, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 06, 2015, 05:37:45 PM
One of my fav games and my fav of the series.

However - I, whilst I generally win my missions, always fail a mission on Friendly Casualties. Trouble is - I think they might want 0 casualties in order to pass that parameter, because (as an example) in my latest game, I had

  • 142 troops OK
  • 8 men killed
  • 6 men wounded
  • 5 men missing
  • 6 armoured vehicles lost (Scimitars and Bradleys)
It just seems really harsh, given the number of troops safe compared to killed/wounded/lost. And it's always the case. No matter how low the casualties are, I have never, to my recollection, passed that parameter.

I still love this game though.

Maybe you lost too many  vehicles. Not men.

JudgeDredd

#3
November 06, 2015, 07:02:02 PM
Quote from: IronX on November 06, 2015, 06:49:56 PM
It is a great game. I think I prefer Black Sea somewhat more, but the range of participants in CMSF is hard to beat.
It is my fav mainly because of the variety. NATO (Dutch, German), British, Marines. I love the Brits DLC for it.
Alba gu' brath

JudgeDredd

#4
November 06, 2015, 07:08:32 PM
Quote from: jomni on November 06, 2015, 06:53:57 PM
Quote from: JudgeDredd on November 06, 2015, 05:37:45 PM
One of my fav games and my fav of the series.

However - I, whilst I generally win my missions, always fail a mission on Friendly Casualties. Trouble is - I think they might want 0 casualties in order to pass that parameter, because (as an example) in my latest game, I had

  • 142 troops OK
  • 8 men killed
  • 6 men wounded
  • 5 men missing
  • 6 armoured vehicles lost (Scimitars and Bradleys)
It just seems really harsh, given the number of troops safe compared to killed/wounded/lost. And it's always the case. No matter how low the casualties are, I have never, to my recollection, passed that parameter.

I still love this game though.

Maybe you lost too many  vehicles. Not men.
Possibly - that was maybe a quarter (or slightly less) of my AFVs.

Still seemed harsh with only 13% losses. 8 men killed is pretty damn good considering you're going into a anti-armour rich environment with troops and AFVs (no tanks).

Just seems harsh given the figures.
Alba gu' brath

Yskonyn

#5
November 07, 2015, 09:17:07 AM
Well, war is harsh. And people want to live and the military don't want to keep lobbying for more funds time and again after Gen. JD lost 25% of his assigned vehicles and 13% of his assigned men every time. :D
"Pilots do not get paid for what they do daily, but they get paid for what they are capable of doing.
However, if pilots would need to do daily what they are capable of doing, nobody would dare to fly anymore."

JudgeDredd

#6
November 07, 2015, 09:32:11 AM
lol. I guess.

But in game terms, those losses are damn low. It just made me wonder...what exactly is the game looking for with regard to that particular victory parameter.
Alba gu' brath

Boggit

#7
November 07, 2015, 07:27:09 PM
Was that from a QB or a scenario? Normally my casualties are pretty low in QB (playing on elite level), but if I can engage at range my firepower as non Red is usually pretty hefty, allowing me to suppress and kill comparatively easily. Unfortunately your vehicle loss are high, so maybe that factored into the result you had? Just guessing tough, as your actual losses do seem on the low side as you say. Another thing I wonder - if you are playing QB, is the size of the battle and whether that makes your casualties more victory point sensitive?
The most shocking fact about war is that its victims and its instruments are individual human beings, and that these individual beings are condemned by the monstrous conventions of politics to murder or be murdered in quarrels not their own. Aldous Huxley

Foul Temptress! (Mirth replying to Gus) ;)

On a good day, our legislature has the prestige of a drunk urinating on a wall at 4am and getting most of it on his shoe. On a good day  ::) Steelgrave

It's kind of silly to investigate whether or not a Clinton is lying. That's sort of like investigating why the sky is blue. Banzai_Cat

Elvis

#8
November 07, 2015, 08:32:41 PM
The scenario designer can set the acceptable losses as part of the scenario. It's been a long time since I've played but I remember them being as low as 10% and 15%. Now that I'm typing this I can't for the life of me remember how it's set with QBs. I suppose that it's built into map.

JudgeDredd

#9
November 08, 2015, 03:12:31 AM
lol - vehicle losses are high. Bradleys Warriors and Scimitars - even with their Bar/Slat and Applique armour - are like magnets to RPGs.

It was the 2nd mission in the Brits Module Campaign
Alba gu' brath
Print
Go Up Pages1
User actions