Here's the problem-
I am ready to immerse myself in land warfare, but I'm having difficulty in finding the right game to invest the time in to learn properly.
I suppose I'm not sure what exactly I want. I think I want to play something like Steel Beasts, which I have. But in a way SB is sort of limiting in that it lacks any sort of air support. Also, it is very complicated to get into. I want to boot it up, take control of a Leopard defending Fulda Gap, and not have to worry about much else buy my own tank. Yet, I can't seem to find that mission; they all seem to be higher in command or designed for multiplayer.
So I picked up Combined Arms for DCS. In a way I like this a bit more than Steel Beasts because controlling the vehicles is much easier. However, it is really beer and pretzels- maybe almost too beer and pretzels- and the tactical AI isn't too good.
Maybe ARMA 2 is the right call. In many ways it should be because it has everything I want in it, it's less hardcore than SB with more options like infantry to play. But I'll be doggoned if I can figure out the control interface for ARMA2. It simply confounds me. I can't figure out how to command the tank, switch to the position I need, switch to an outside view and then back in, and forget about controlling a platoon...
Ultimately, I need to focus on one game, probably, and just try to get good at that one game. But I can't figure out which one is going to be THE ONE.
And, to make things worse, I'm not even sure that a "sim" is what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm looking for a more traditional wargame?
I have Flashpoint Germany, but no matter how hard I try I can't seem to get into it. It's fairly easy, but I get really bored, seems there's little room for maneuver warfare in it.
So then maybe I need to go more RTS. I enjoy Wargame:EE somewhat, but the RTS aspect of it turns me off when things get too hectic and it's not very realistically tactical. Also, the UI frustrates me; setting up a skirmish is not intuitive.
I bought Operation Star, thinking it would scratch the itch but an hour into the game I just gave up on trying to understand the UI. I couldn't seem to get out of training/tutorial mode no matter what I did.
Now I'm downloading Combat Mission: Shock Force. I'm hoping this at least scratches my wargamey itch, even though it won't scratch my sim itch...if that's what I have.
This should be a fairly easy thing to fix, but I'm struggling to figure which game has the features I want so that I can sit down, invest the time, and get good at it so that I can start enjoying myself.
Decisive Campaigns? Combat Mission? Red Dorkestra 1/2? Iron Front? I can't remember what you like these days..
How about panzer elite? Recall this was a decent realistic WW2 tank sim
http://www.gog.com/gamecard/panzer_elite_se
Toonces,
Can you elaborate on your statement on the original FPG? We are working hard on a new release with a new game engine and we can use any feedback of the original game to help the new one. What do you think makes it so easy to play that it gets boring? Also what are you looking for with Maneuver Warfare? FPG did do some things well but it also had a number of items that made fighting a bit "flat". The maps, though pretty, did not lend themselves well to determining LOS or elevation. A number of folks did not like the high level of infantry abstraction (gone in the new game btw). Hopefully, the new game will be more of the classic wargame you are looking for (no droids). 8)
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 10, 2013, 06:50:33 AM
Toonces,
Can you elaborate on your statement on the original FPG? We are working hard on a new release with a new game engine and we can use any feedback of the original game to help the new one. What do you think makes it so easy to play that it gets boring? Also what are you looking for with Maneuver Warfare? FPG did do some things well but it also had a number of items that made fighting a bit "flat". The maps, though pretty, did not lend themselves well to determining LOS or elevation. A number of folks did not like the high level of infantry abstraction (gone in the new game btw). Hopefully, the new game will be more of the classic wargame you are looking for (no droids). 8)
Yes, the infantry abstraction MURDERED this game for me from day one. Glad to hear this is gone in the new game. I presume this means infantry units will have their own unit counters on the map and will be able to interact with other types of units, ie. helo and mechanized/motorized transport...
In the first game, the abstraction was a real shame because some of the other features were revolutionary, ie. Electronic Warfare concepts such as emissions detection and the handling of chemical warfare.
Toonces...the trouble I'm having in making recommendations is that your tastes seem to be all over the place. Do you want an FPS? A TBS? An RTS? Something tactical? Strategic? Operational? All of the above? None of the above? You've mentioned some fabulous titles that you seem to be struggling with and it may be that you are not enjoying the because they simply are not the style or type of game you are itching for. Let me know. Help me help you, brother...
Quote from: Toonces on April 09, 2013, 11:32:44 PM
Here's the problem-
I am ready to immerse myself in land warfare, but I'm having difficulty in finding the right game to invest the time in to learn properly.
Maybe ARMA 2 is the right call. In many ways it should be because it has everything I want in it, it's less hardcore than SB with more options like infantry to play. But I'll be doggoned if I can figure out the control interface for ARMA2. It simply confounds me. I can't figure out how to command the tank, switch to the position I need, switch to an outside view and then back in, and forget about controlling a platoon...
Ultimately, I need to focus on one game, probably, and just try to get good at that one game. But I can't figure out which one is going to be THE ONE.
And, to make things worse, I'm not even sure that a "sim" is what I'm looking for. Maybe I'm looking for a more traditional wargame?
I have Flashpoint Germany, but no matter how hard I try I can't seem to get into it. It's fairly easy, but I get really bored, seems there's little room for maneuver warfare in it.
So then maybe I need to go more RTS. I enjoy Wargame:EE somewhat, but the RTS aspect of it turns me off when things get too hectic and it's not very realistically tactical. Also, the UI frustrates me; setting up a skirmish is not intuitive.
I bought Operation Star, thinking it would scratch the itch but an hour into the game I just gave up on trying to understand the UI. I couldn't seem to get out of training/tutorial mode no matter what I did.
Now I'm downloading Combat Mission: Shock Force. I'm hoping this at least scratches my wargamey itch, even though it won't scratch my sim itch...if that's what I have.
This should be a fairly easy thing to fix, but I'm struggling to figure which game has the features I want so that I can sit down, invest the time, and get good at it so that I can start enjoying myself.
My only experience is with CMSF, which I think was a fine game, and the ARMAs. For the ARMAs I'm irrationally fond of the ARMAs. They have a reputation for being realistic, but they are at their best in portraying just plain nutty events on islands and in ARMAIII (which is in Alpha and you can buy it on steam) you can swim under water -- not really a major aspect of land warfare.
CMSF -- I played this quite a bit quite a while ago. I think it is a better representation of modern war than ARMA, but the ARMAs are more fun.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 10, 2013, 08:24:01 AM
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 10, 2013, 06:50:33 AM
Toonces,
Can you elaborate on your statement on the original FPG? We are working hard on a new release with a new game engine and we can use any feedback of the original game to help the new one. What do you think makes it so easy to play that it gets boring? Also what are you looking for with Maneuver Warfare? FPG did do some things well but it also had a number of items that made fighting a bit "flat". The maps, though pretty, did not lend themselves well to determining LOS or elevation. A number of folks did not like the high level of infantry abstraction (gone in the new game btw). Hopefully, the new game will be more of the classic wargame you are looking for (no droids). 8)
Yes, the infantry abstraction MURDERED this game for me from day one. Glad to hear this is gone in the new game. I presume this means infantry units will have their own unit counters on the map and will be able to interact with other types of units, ie. helo and mechanized/motorized transport...
In the first game, the abstraction was a real shame because some of the other features were revolutionary, ie. Electronic Warfare concepts such as emissions detection and the handling of chemical warfare.
Please could someone explain "infantry abstraction" for me.
Quote from: Ashcloud on April 10, 2013, 11:49:17 AM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 10, 2013, 08:24:01 AM
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 10, 2013, 06:50:33 AM
Toonces,
Can you elaborate on your statement on the original FPG? We are working hard on a new release with a new game engine and we can use any feedback of the original game to help the new one. What do you think makes it so easy to play that it gets boring? Also what are you looking for with Maneuver Warfare? FPG did do some things well but it also had a number of items that made fighting a bit "flat". The maps, though pretty, did not lend themselves well to determining LOS or elevation. A number of folks did not like the high level of infantry abstraction (gone in the new game btw). Hopefully, the new game will be more of the classic wargame you are looking for (no droids). 8)
Yes, the infantry abstraction MURDERED this game for me from day one. Glad to hear this is gone in the new game. I presume this means infantry units will have their own unit counters on the map and will be able to interact with other types of units, ie. helo and mechanized/motorized transport...
In the first game, the abstraction was a real shame because some of the other features were revolutionary, ie. Electronic Warfare concepts such as emissions detection and the handling of chemical warfare.
Please could someone explain "infantry abstraction" for me.
There are no infantry unit counters in FPG. Rather, they are "abstracted" as part of other units. In other words, the offensive and defensive strengths of IFVs factor in attached infantry units without actually representing them as separate entities on the map.
You know Toonces I think you just threw that out there and went surfing.
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 10, 2013, 08:27:35 AM
Toonces...the trouble I'm having in making recommendations is that your tastes seem to be all over the place. Do you want an FPS? A TBS? An RTS? Something tactical? Strategic? Operational? All of the above? None of the above? You've mentioned some fabulous titles that you seem to be struggling with and it may be that you are not enjoying the because they simply are not the style or type of game you are itching for. Let me know. Help me help you, brother...
I think this is the root of my problem- my tastes are all over the place and, frankly, I don't really know what it is I want to play.
I'm not really looking for a new game. I have a ton of games. I'm trying to figure out which game I already own is "worth it" in the sense that I'm going to sit down and really invest the time to figure out how to play it right.
I think of all the games I mentioned, ARMA2 is probably the closest to what I want to play. What I think I'm looking for is an infantry/armor sim that is lighter than SB:Pro, but is still heavy enough for me to simulate interesting stuff in a meaningful way. Like I said, I waffle between ARMA2, SB, and DCS:CA because at the end of the day, when I finally have the game figured out, I want the pay off to be worth it. ARMA2 just plain confuses me, though. I can't figure out the control scheme, and it doesn't have a quick mission builder like DCS:CA has so the investment to get playing is higher. I've used that website to create missions but I've had poor luck creating a mission that is any sort of fun.
On the other hand, if I can figure out ARMA2 then that opens up Iron Front as well, and IF could be an up and comer.
When I first booted up Brothers in Arms I thought "yes, finally, this is what I've been looking for!" Small units, a very, very intuitive interface, and I didn't feel overwhelmed by the scope of the game. However, in working through the first couple of missions in the Road to Hill 30 campaign, it feels incredibly scripted and linear. I don't feel like I have any room for thought and every mission (so far) seems to be- get a squaddie to lay down suppressing fire, while I run around the barrel/hedge/wall and kill the bad guy. Maybe it gets better later on, and I haven't tried the skirmish mode yet.
I guess I'll simplify my question a bit and ask, of Steel Beasts Pro, Combined Arms, and ARMA2, which would you recommend sitting down to get good at and why?
I'm really liking Combat Mission Shock Force, but damn I wish I could drill down and drive one of those vehicles!
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 10, 2013, 06:50:33 AM
Toonces,
Can you elaborate on your statement on the original FPG? We are working hard on a new release with a new game engine and we can use any feedback of the original game to help the new one. What do you think makes it so easy to play that it gets boring? Also what are you looking for with Maneuver Warfare? FPG did do some things well but it also had a number of items that made fighting a bit "flat". The maps, though pretty, did not lend themselves well to determining LOS or elevation. A number of folks did not like the high level of infantry abstraction (gone in the new game btw). Hopefully, the new game will be more of the classic wargame you are looking for (no droids). 8)
This is going to be hard for me to answer meaningfully, but I'll try my best.
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi263.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fii123%2Ftoonces3%2Ffpg1_zps9c5a616f.jpg&hash=5184f22b2e93b7025d4913d9e87c65cea4d22e9d)
(I tried to crop that down, but I gave up on Paint...)
This is turn 17 of the BAOR scenario 1. I'm basically an hour into this game and I think the only maneuvering I've done (playing NATO) is to move that one recon unit down the highway towards my lines while my armor units blast every WP unit that shows it self across the river. Looking at the scenario map there, I'm not really sure what kind of "maneuver" warfare I can even conduct. I'm hamstrung behind the river and on the city without any really meaningful movement choices that I can see. Maybe 30 turns futher in it gets more interesting...I don't know.
The handful of times I've played the game it always seems to bog down to this. Also, the turns take a REALLY long time. I just booted FPG back up to take the screenshot and now I see there's an option to change the delay speed. I really need to tighten that up because the back and forth firing between units just seems to take forever (I have it set to 0.6 seconds).
It's not a bad game and it's not too simple at all...it's just not any fun (in my opinion). Maybe it's just the nature of the scenario.
I've played the game several times now, and I've tried a few different missions.
I have FPG as well and I think what prevents me from playing it more often is that the maps and grids make your options seem a little simplistic. There is less tactical thought than you would get for something where you have to take more terrain features into account (hedgerows, different levels of forrestation, suburb, isolated house etc). I think the level of granularity is lacking for this game where it stops at least for me being a tactical exercise where I am trying to decide how best to combine arms, position units, recon etc to instead it being almost more of a card game and just place my counter and fire at anything it sees.
My wish would be to have something like Command Ops set in 1980's Germany (I keep hearing rumors that someday Panther games will do this) but alas nothing ever seems to come about.
Con
Well said, Con. I agree with that assessment.
I forgot to mention that I also have Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising and Red River, if it makes a difference. I haven't tried either of them yet.
have you thought of trying Tac Ops?
(https://www.grogheads.com/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.battlefront.com%2Fproducts%2Ftacops4%2Fimages%2FTacOps%2520v4%2520%2520screen%25201.gif&hash=5a3d3fd72e474a6d3698d33dbf4177f5c80c6ba4)
being a squid you'll have to get a box of grid squares. but after that it should be all sunshine and boobies.
Quote from: Con on April 10, 2013, 09:12:41 PM
I have FPG as well and I think what prevents me from playing it more often is that the maps and grids make your options seem a little simplistic. There is less tactical thought than you would get for something where you have to take more terrain features into account (hedgerows, different levels of forrestation, suburb, isolated house etc). I think the level of granularity is lacking for this game where it stops at least for me being a tactical exercise where I am trying to decide how best to combine arms, position units, recon etc to instead it being almost more of a card game and just place my counter and fire at anything it sees.
My wish would be to have something like Command Ops set in 1980's Germany (I keep hearing rumors that someday Panther games will do this) but alas nothing ever seems to come about.
Con
You guys should try the Cold War mod for JTCS at theblitz.org (it is a stand alone game at http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=247). The official Modern Wars for JTCS is still not out yet but we live and hope...
Quote from: Toonces on April 10, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
Quote from: Jarhead0331 on April 10, 2013, 08:27:35 AM
Toonces...the trouble I'm having in making recommendations is that your tastes seem to be all over the place. Do you want an FPS? A TBS? An RTS? Something tactical? Strategic? Operational? All of the above? None of the above? You've mentioned some fabulous titles that you seem to be struggling with and it may be that you are not enjoying the because they simply are not the style or type of game you are itching for. Let me know. Help me help you, brother...
I think this is the root of my problem- my tastes are all over the place and, frankly, I don't really know what it is I want to play.
I'm not really looking for a new game. I have a ton of games. I'm trying to figure out which game I already own is "worth it" in the sense that I'm going to sit down and really invest the time to figure out how to play it right.
I think of all the games I mentioned, ARMA2 is probably the closest to what I want to play. What I think I'm looking for is an infantry/armor sim that is lighter than SB:Pro, but is still heavy enough for me to simulate interesting stuff in a meaningful way. Like I said, I waffle between ARMA2, SB, and DCS:CA because at the end of the day, when I finally have the game figured out, I want the pay off to be worth it. ARMA2 just plain confuses me, though. I can't figure out the control scheme, and it doesn't have a quick mission builder like DCS:CA has so the investment to get playing is higher. I've used that website to create missions but I've had poor luck creating a mission that is any sort of fun.
On the other hand, if I can figure out ARMA2 then that opens up Iron Front as well, and IF could be an up and comer.
When I first booted up Brothers in Arms I thought "yes, finally, this is what I've been looking for!" Small units, a very, very intuitive interface, and I didn't feel overwhelmed by the scope of the game. However, in working through the first couple of missions in the Road to Hill 30 campaign, it feels incredibly scripted and linear. I don't feel like I have any room for thought and every mission (so far) seems to be- get a squaddie to lay down suppressing fire, while I run around the barrel/hedge/wall and kill the bad guy. Maybe it gets better later on, and I haven't tried the skirmish mode yet.
I guess I'll simplify my question a bit and ask, of Steel Beasts Pro, Combined Arms, and ARMA2, which would you recommend sitting down to get good at and why?
I'm really liking Combat Mission Shock Force, but damn I wish I could drill down and drive one of those vehicles!
CMSF is a fantastic game - but I know what you mean - as have thought it myself. Honestly - if you want to convert your CMSF experience into a "sim" experience then Steel Beasts is the way to do it. Its hard and complex but will reward the effort.
Quote from: Toonces on April 10, 2013, 08:46:50 PM
I'm really liking Combat Mission Shock Force, but damn I wish I could drill down and drive one of those vehicles!
...at least you can move the camera to a 'kind of over-the-shoulder' view, and switch it to fix-follow the unit.
(in CMBN2.0: preset-view-angle "2", slightly adjust with arrow-key 'up' and a little zoom-in with 'x' is as close to open hatch as it gets. When the vehicle is not moving and you dont have to leech the cam to the vehicle, the cam can be positioned better... use the arrow keys to look around and x to 'use binoculars', when the cam is fixed, other cam-controls will end the fix-view)
wouldn't a tank commander not also ride in the turret-hatch and only give orders to his driver with a designated spot in the landscape and a target commands to the gunner, including also zones to scan for targets?
Toonces, as a flight simmer i bet you have Track-IR :) you may like to do some experiments...
(my experimental setup worked...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9UiYPB-QjH0 jump to 1:15
...damn i have to reawaken this project, now with the CM 2.0 engine update ...and the soon to come warmovie-shader in the update wich will come with the next italy-module in a few weeks)
Quote from: MikeGER on April 11, 2013, 04:57:15 AMwouldn't a tank commander not also ride in the turret-hatch and only give orders to his driver with a designated spot in the landscape and a target commands to the gunner, including also zones to scan for targets?
The driver has a very minimal view of what's around him, and takes most of him commands from the TC up in the turret. His vision blocks are good enough to keep him on the road, or to guide off another vehicle in open terrain. But other than that, there's a lot of instruction coming from the turret. The gunner is the next man on the totem pole after the TC. Drivers/loaders are the lower enlisted guys in the crew.
Quote from: Toonces on April 10, 2013, 09:42:52 PM
I forgot to mention that I also have Operation Flashpoint: Dragon Rising and Red River, if it makes a difference. I haven't tried either of them yet.
Try them...they are great under-rated games. They are not as complex as ARMA II, and the world is not quite as dynamic, but it has better pacing and the action is very intense.
Quote from: Ashcloud on April 11, 2013, 01:15:26 AM
You guys should try the Cold War mod for JTCS at theblitz.org (it is a stand alone game at http://www.theblitz.org/message_boards/forumdisplay.php?fid=247). The official Modern Wars for JTCS is still not out yet but we live and hope...
I forgot all about that being "in development". I suppose it's still going?
I've not really been interested in anything from Matrix lately, other than picking up the AGEOD game
Birth Of Rome there. But this Campaign Series set in a post-WW2/modern period, and the Mark Walker tabletop-ish game, have been a couple I've looked forward to. If they ever get finished! Has there been news or is it all hushed?
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3303655&mpage=1&key=�
Teaser screens of Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm over on the Matrix site.
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 11, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3303655&mpage=1&key=�
Teaser screens of Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm over on the Matrix site.
Looks good - nice to see the hexes ... How big do the maps get ?
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 11, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3303655&mpage=1&key=�
Teaser screens of Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm over on the Matrix site.
Looks awesome! Release date?
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 11, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3303655&mpage=1&key=�
Teaser screens of Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm over on the Matrix site.
Capn, why is this gem hidden deep down in the Flashpoint forum and not has its own sub-forum in [Coming Soon and In Development] ?
THX for the head up :)
FWIW and IMHO,
AMRA and SBProPE are two different animals. SB makes very few concessions towards "playability" (ie: changing real-world parameters to provide balanced or convenient play) which makes it arguably hi-fi...which isn't for everyone. For example, the most recent upgrade changed TOW missile operations for the Bradley. No longer can you just go hull-down, acquire, fire and track; now you have to stop, ensure you are on a flat area (check a bubble level), raise the TOW missile launcher, then fire. If you then move on and forget to lower the missile rack, you will likely cause serious damage to the component. Also, driving quickly through a forest can cause vehicle damage (I have sometimes lost radio...but other times I have damaged the laser range finder), and if your TC is unbuttoned and you have a high-speed collision with a rock, etc, he may be injured.
IMHO, SB does NOT play that well from a "strategic map" POV. Although some gamers will play an entire game by issuing orders on the command map, I personally find that you really need to "jump in" to units to determine cover, LOS, etc. SB sometimes is a game of meters. One meter too close to the edge of bluff and you are dead; one meter back and you can spot targets, call arty, etc. Similarily, doing "shoot and scoot" tactics requires first-person action-station play. One mission I often play has you defend a couple of mountain passes with two AFV and a bunch of M988 HMMWV with .50 cal HMGs. If you don't play the HMMWV's in FPS view, they basically end up acting as road-flares.
Of course, SB does have it's flaws. The graphics aren't great, and there are some "geological" flaws wrt roads across or along hills, rivers and ditches. I once won an engagement because two entire platoons of soviet tanks got stuck behind a tank that couldn't negotiate a bridge, which caused some of the others to drive into a riverbed where they were basically helpless. On the other hand, IMHO there simply is no other game out there that even remotely addresses the complexity and lethality of modern armored warfare.
sabot up!
Jack Nastyface
Quote from: MikeGER on April 11, 2013, 11:46:06 AM
Quote from: Capn Darwin on April 11, 2013, 10:30:51 AM
http://www.matrixgames.com/forums/tm.asp?m=3303655&mpage=1&key=�
Teaser screens of Flashpoint Campaigns Red Storm over on the Matrix site.
Capn, why is this gem hidden deep down in the Flashpoint forum and not has its own sub-forum in [Coming Soon and In Development] ?
THX for the head up :)
That looks really good, Capn.
I don't know if you are recruiting testers still, but if you are I'd be happy to participate. I'm sure I'm going to buy FPC:RS so I have high hopes that it fills that WWIII board wargame niche I'm longing for.
@Jack-
I appreciate your discussion on SB. That sounds like just a bit more detail than I'm looking for right now. I'm more of a Thirdwire land combat guy right now I think.
I spent some time with ARMA2 last night playing the Vietnam: The Experience mod and I am starting to get the hang of the infantry controls a bit more. I think I"m going to pick ARMA2 and try to figure it out on the FPS front.
CM:SF for the RTS experience.
And...well the board wargame experience is still vacant, but that's ok for now.
Now the replies:
@ Toonces - Yes we will be looking for a few testers soon to help with final beta and PBEM++. I'll keep you in mind.
@ MikeGER - I wish I knew. We have been prodding Erik to get us in there since the holidays. Everyone is busy and I know they have a number of projects ahead of us in the queue and only so many resources. Drop a line over there and say you are looking for the forum, but don't see it the Coming Soon section. ;D
@Jarhead - I'll with the famous when it is done. Hopefully Junish. Everyone working on the game has day jobs, family and other obligations which have already pushed the date back a couple times. We also have to work into the Matrix schedule with their documents and artwork folks and as stated above we are down in the queue a bit. As soon as I have a better idea I will definitely post here and get Longblade in on the game and interview us and such so we can drum up support.
@Zulu1966 - Right now all maps are 15km x 20km (about 1200 hexes total with about 5000-6000 data values per map). The engine can handle larger and as soon as we get into release mode we will look into practical limits on size.
Thanks for the questions and interest! 8)
Quote from: Toonces on April 11, 2013, 01:47:09 PM
CM:SF for the RTS experience.
You can also play it TBS which plays out differently too.
I spent a good portion of today playing with the mission builder in DCS Combined Arms and Planned Assault for ARMA2.
It is very interesting how the two games play differently. DCS is easier to get into, and browsing the AI is really fun during a mission. However, ARMA2 definitely gives a more visceral feel of combat, and has more fidelity IMO. I feel like I'm better engaged in the ground war in ARMA2. Yet, DCS feels more 3D with a far more fluid air war to complement the ground war. I need to experiment more with the ARMA2 air AI to get a better feel of the differences.
I hate to start a new thread for a simple question, so hopefully somebody will read it in here.
In ARMA2, how do I command a 3-man TOW team, of which I am the commander, to deploy and engage with their TOW missiles?
It seems -2 is carrying the tripod and -3 is carrying the weapon, but I can't figure out how to get them to deploy it. Telling them to engage with the weapons still cased on their backs isn't working.
At this point I'm essentially talking to myself probably, but just in case....
I'm continuing to really enjoy ARMA 2, especially now that I'm starting to get the hang of the UI. The AI in it does leave some room for improvement, though. I'm still not positive that it's exactly what I'm looking for. Combining it with Planned Assault has been allowing me to create some really quick, fun gameplay, but I don't know that I'm really playing up to "sim" standards.
At any rate, I'm now strongly considering going ahead with getting my Steel Beasts patched up and starting to give that a serious study. It's going to take a bit of an investment in money and time, as my version is prior to the 2.5 upgrade.
I was looking for some ARMA 3 videos tonight and came across this Steel Beasts video that got me very fired up to get back into Steel Beasts. Frankly, this is the kind of gameplay I've been looking for. Really meaty, consuming action with a lot of interesting decisions to be made. I have a really fun Planned Assault mission like this in ARMA 2, but it is a much smaller scale. I set it up with some TOW teams and a few Bradleys vs a Russian Motorized Infantry battalion with some an attached T-72 platoon and it starts out with a pretty vigorous artillery barrage on the BLUFOR area.
Anyway, here's the video. It is easily the best Steel Beasts video I've seen, and very much worth taking the time to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvC9TyTpOEk
Toonces, can you tell a bit more about DCS Combined Arms, please.
I am on the fence about getting it, (could be handy when the Huey get released too)
I am not so interested in its first-person tank-duel combat sim aspect, but more controlling the AirLand Battle war (drifting over into Full-spectrum dominance.... with recon and sensors?) from the map as a commander in the HQ-tent, maybe jump in as JTAC once a while, or get on a plane too...
How is the AI vs AI, while i am not at the map interacting ....and i've read in a forum (cant find the link atm) LOS is handled kind of strange, esp in woods?
-bump -
DCS CA anybody ? got experiences with it as a "(pauseable real time) strategy game"
(where u can jump into FP to help your progress in the war ...as pilot or as a JTAC, but don't necessarily have to...)
Hey Mike,
I haven't spent a TON of time with CA, so take this with some grain of salt.
My impression of CA is that it has potential, but it's not really fully fleshed out just yet. I've only played it in single player skirmish mode where I use the included mission builder templates to create a fast mission with one side on offense and one side on defense. The builder will plop a template on there with objectives for the ground vehicles, and an assortment of ground vehicles based on the size and difficulty of the template you selected. For example, if you select easy difficulty the enemy might have T-55s and if you select hard you'll get T-80s and T-90s. The mission builder is very powerful and I'm just scratching the surface here. It works like the quick skirmishes in Total War, sort of.
In order for ground vehicles to be controllable, the mission builder has to check the box to allow a "ground commander" for the side. So if you go into MP and the mission doesn't have that flagged you won't be able to control GVs.
So far I've found the GV AI to be fairly brain dead. You have many options for setting formations and engagement criteria, and against another person in ground commander mode you could have a nice wargame skirmish. However, in SP I haven't found that the AI is very smart with changing formations, coordinating attacks, etc. It seems to just motor on towards the objective and engage as set in the builder. If you go into to 3D mode, you can clean house in an M1A1 or T-80 fairly easily. I haven't figured out how to control AI team mates in 3D yet.
From what I understand, JTAC only works with human players; you can't JTAC an AI jet onto a target.
Overall I see a ton of potential for CA and I'm enthusiastic to get into it more simply because there is so much you could do with it if you're creative and choose to take the time to learn the mission builder and build things. As the air side gets more and more fleshed out, things could get very interesting. With 50 players on each side this would be the only sim you'd ever need to play again.
Toonces, thanks for the insight :)
i will watch/browse the DCS forums further how the enhancement of the upcoming DCS patch will give more flesh to the Airl-Land war-sim.
there are improvement to scripting, and new triggers announced. and vehicles will go back on planed task (autopilot-key) when the user jumps back from FP into the command role... also a better control of directing your air assets as a GC (more options to set for them at a waypoints)
looks like the CA single player user has to make a more detailed battle plan, with lots of waypoint-tasks defined for the OPFOR, he wants to fight later, when designing a mission to compensate for an overall coordinating OPFOR AI.
knowin me;) ...there will be some impulsive buy in the near future :)
Quote from: Toonces on April 21, 2013, 03:31:10 AM
At this point I'm essentially talking to myself probably, but just in case....
I'm continuing to really enjoy ARMA 2, especially now that I'm starting to get the hang of the UI. The AI in it does leave some room for improvement, though. I'm still not positive that it's exactly what I'm looking for. Combining it with Planned Assault has been allowing me to create some really quick, fun gameplay, but I don't know that I'm really playing up to "sim" standards.
At any rate, I'm now strongly considering going ahead with getting my Steel Beasts patched up and starting to give that a serious study. It's going to take a bit of an investment in money and time, as my version is prior to the 2.5 upgrade.
I was looking for some ARMA 3 videos tonight and came across this Steel Beasts video that got me very fired up to get back into Steel Beasts. Frankly, this is the kind of gameplay I've been looking for. Really meaty, consuming action with a lot of interesting decisions to be made. I have a really fun Planned Assault mission like this in ARMA 2, but it is a much smaller scale. I set it up with some TOW teams and a few Bradleys vs a Russian Motorized Infantry battalion with some an attached T-72 platoon and it starts out with a pretty vigorous artillery barrage on the BLUFOR area.
Anyway, here's the video. It is easily the best Steel Beasts video I've seen, and very much worth taking the time to watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvC9TyTpOEk
Steel beast video looked great....really wish they didn't use that crazy dongle protection and so expensive....otherwise I would likely have pulled the trigger by now. Although I could swallow the price, just not sure how good I would be at this game to justify it.
Grim-
Right now Steel Beasts is on sale for $75. Still a lot of money, but that's about 1/3+ off of the usual $125.
There's a big update due out this summer. I think that the big update will not be free, but I don't know what the price point is yet. I just bought the 2.6 update the other day for $25 which brings my investment in this sim to $150 so far.
Yes, it's a lot of money. However, if you're into this sort of thing, it really is reasonable if you're going to play it. If it's going to sit on your HD unused...well, you know what I mean.
Quote from: Toonces on April 25, 2013, 12:38:08 AM
Grim-
Right now Steel Beasts is on sale for $75. Still a lot of money, but that's about 1/3+ off of the usual $125.
There's a big update due out this summer. I think that the big update will not be free, but I don't know what the price point is yet. I just bought the 2.6 update the other day for $25 which brings my investment in this sim to $150 so far.
Yes, it's a lot of money. However, if you're into this sort of thing, it really is reasonable if you're going to play it. If it's going to sit on your HD unused...well, you know what I mean.
Ho-ry Crap! And a DRM dongle?!
Insanity!
This is going to go off-topic pretty quick, but since it's my thread I guess that's ok.
In my opinion, the price of simulations in general has been a complete steal for decades. I'm writing something up now and it brought me back to my first flight sim purchase for the Atari 800, SubLogic's Flight Simulator, in about 1983 or so, which I bought for $50. I still remember the price because I bought it with my own money and that is a LOT of money for a 12 year old.
Now then, I've been browsing the DCS forum on SimHQ lately and I see people absolutely bitching about the price of DCS Huey, or the fact that in order to fly back seat in the T-2 both users will have to own a copy of DCS: T-2. Insane. I bought DCS: A-10 for $5 on Steam, and DCS: World with the Su-25 is FREE, yet folks are griping about the buy-in to the DCS series when a) you can play it for free with a pretty cool jet, online and multiplayer and have lots of fun, and b) the price of buy-in for the modules is less than my little cessna simulator from 1983.
We have completely lost sight of price/value here.
Steel Beasts is expensive, no doubt. But consider that you're getting a simulation that is essentially military grade. This is real-deal stuff. I have a $1500 dollar computer, $300 in controllers, a $500 monitor, and a $1000 cockpit, and I'm suddenly going to nickle and dime on the games I play?
No way.
Just think about it for a bit.
My only complaint with DCS right now is the DRM, although it seems to be more lenient than other online activation-based ones.
The creators can charge whatever they want for Steel Beast Pro. I don't think they're gonna garner many extra retail sales of it at their current pricepoint, especially with that DRM dongle you gotta plug in to play. Simply because there is more than enough gaming to be had for far less. If I was running out of titles to play, and became desperate for something new, then perhaps I'd be tempted. Even then, however, the annoying DRM would rule it out for me. But there are more games out there, and even just sims specifically, than most of us have time for so why should I bother with a high-priced sim with an overly annoying & insulting DRM scheme? I place value on not having such hassles, too.
Quote from: Toonces on April 25, 2013, 12:38:08 AM
Grim-
Right now Steel Beasts is on sale for $75. Still a lot of money, but that's about 1/3+ off of the usual $125.
There's a big update due out this summer. I think that the big update will not be free, but I don't know what the price point is yet. I just bought the 2.6 update the other day for $25 which brings my investment in this sim to $150 so far.
Yes, it's a lot of money. However, if you're into this sort of thing, it really is reasonable if you're going to play it. If it's going to sit on your HD unused...well, you know what I mean.
I think I can get over the price since I have bought games that cost more than $75 before, assuming I feel I would actually enjoy it and it wouldn't be too hardcore for me. But I am not a big fan of a hardware device being needed to play the game itself, seems a bit extreme. Sure you could say that other devices are needed for games such as controllers and maybe you can justify it by it being a symbol of having to have a cd in the drive to play the game, but it does cut into my habit of impulse buying and playing right away. What I do find strange if I understand correctly, when you buy the game it is actually a download and then you have to wait until the device is delivered to actually play. If you want a cd you seem to have to pay extra. If I have to wait until something is delivered, why is the game a download and not delivered by default on cd? You can get a cd, but cost extra.