Jump to content

exsonic01

Members
  • Content Count

    411
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

exsonic01 last won the day on May 26 2018

exsonic01 had the most liked content!

About exsonic01

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:
    Somewhere middle of the dusty valley CA
  • Interests
    Chemistry, Tanks, and Games

Recent Profile Visitors

1,604 profile views
  1. Thanks to share, fair enough, it seems Taiwan has good enough amount of palm trees. Maybe some far-south islands of Japan would have too. But I would still argue these cannot be a "Fareast Asia" or "Northeast Asia" which covers Korea, Japan, and Northern China. It would be better to be described as "Southeast Asia".
  2. I'm not claiming "CM must depict all those features shown in videos". But there are some parts, like SIGINT/ELINT/counter battery/ and etc..., which can be depicted inside the current CM time / length scale frame. Plus, I really wish next CMBS series with increased scale and I truly believe CMx2 engine (and upgraded engine in the future) has an ability to depict larger scale battles with more toys and more features. This part is my wish, but I think CMx2 engine has huge potential to become a game of depicting larger scale battle with "modern" technologies, which would includes some or little part of "multi-domain battles". It is not just ECM thing. CMx2 already modeled drones. Info-sharing and datalink is modeled. So, it would be relatively easier to model ELINT / SIGINT description with some assumption and simplifications: something like in form of "in-situ updated information from higher formation signal / intelligence company", you could depict "unknown radiation/signal source" icon on the map with some frequency and RNG-based algorithms. EW setting can play some here, by increasing the time to take share info, or decrease the accuracy of estimated position of "signal" icons. Offmap counter battery is something not easy to model, but it is not something impossible to do. Based on these factors, I think CM engine would be the perfect one to depict such futuristic modern warfare in the future. One core thing I wish is larger scale: this is something I (and some others) truly believe what is really required in CMBS. Description of DPICM and FASCAM is essential in modern combat of combined arms, as it is already shown how they can influence on armored battle during Donbass campaign. Small size of maps can be a problem with those cluster munitions, because cluster munitions might cover too wide area. Not only that, if the infiltration of SF/light infantry and ELINT / SIGINT information are depicted, small map size will make game a bit too easy. On top of those, most of maps of CMBS has no room to maneuver and flank and circumvent. I'm not sure why you are so reluctant to increase the scale of combat. If that is related with performance and optimization issue, then OK I understand. But if you have plan to develop any future CM engine, then please consider to make one with bigger scale battle. With the increased scale, all those features will make this really great.
  3. https://www.tradoc.army.mil/Portals/14/Documents/MDB_Evolutionfor21st (1).pdf After years and years of COIN-oriented operations, US armed forces are trying to increase their full-scale war readiness in a way to develop and prepare their forces and structures based on "multi-domain battle" doctrine. These are far future plan concepts, but as far as I know, US army is slowly but steadily trying to change their forces to meet new demands from new doctrine. I hope these contents hopefully convince devs to prepare next modules of CMBS with more features of "modern" battle field with wider map. Frankly, I think CMx2 engine has much more advantage then other games to depict such features, as CMBS and CMSF2 showed good description of info-sharing, battle field data-link, and unique detection/observation mechanism. On top of those, - Better description of artillery fire power including FASCAM/DPICM and counter battery. - ELINT / SIGINT description - Wider maps - Description of SF/light infantry infiltration etc etc... Those will show a glimpse of such futuristic modern warfare in larger scale in CMx2 engine. Well, if game engine limitation prohibits such upgrades then there's nothing we could do about it. However, if something like these are nicely modeled and described in CMx2 engine, then that will looks like easier, ground-war version of CMO / CMANO, and that will make all wargame grognards fully excited!!
  4. This is Vietnam, isn't it? Palm tree, rice field, tree house... As a person who has relatives in Korea and China, I can tell those are not Far East Asia (Northern China, Korea and Japan). Those are typical of South East Asian terrain and structures like Vietnam. Maybe you could claim as Guam or Taiwan, and I think Guam would be fine. But even Taiwan does not have that much amount of palm tree as far as I know.
  5. So is that mod a So is this a Vietnam war mod? Because I don't see any Far-east Asian nation units or terrains. It looks like... Vietnam with Abrams tank? Could you introduce us more?
  6. Do you have any detail about this battle? Kinda curious how combat flowed. And indeed, this is another example of how "small forces can maneuver and fight in huge map with many assets"
  7. Good point, level of micro would be burden, and that is one of the reason why I brought AI issue. But if some controls are automated, then it would still be possible and reasonably enjoyable for turn based game IMO. Well, I just used concept of OMG for easy explanation, nothing more. +1 to this comment. Also what I wish to add is, not only the larger maps, but also other idea should followed. Like advanced / automated AI, ELINT/SIGINT, more artillery munitions and counter battery, light infantry and SF infiltration, etc...
  8. OK, so it is just estimation based on btvt sources, not Thai army official or something, right? Still, thanks to let me know. I don't know about Nizh and Duplet's true capability. Tanknet or sturgeonhouse (there is a sturgeonhouse link about Nizh discussion in earlier replies of this post) still disputes towards this armor. But at least I also kinda agree, based on international armored vehicle conference presentation, looks like current CMBS UA tank's ERA might need some buffs.
  9. I understand. I understand too big maps might bring frame rate and performance issue, and big maps will take huge time to make, and there might be a limit of game engine and computational burden which might be related with performance issue. And indeed, you are right. Phase of game will become slow, on-foot infantry will take forever to cross the map. As a person who do a coding as a part of career, I do understand all those headaches. But still, I think for "modern" battle, we need bigger size. If 10km x 10km is too large, maybe some optimization effort would be needed. Or, how about fix the map size with formation size? Like: 2.5km x 2.5km or very small map for battle of forces of equal less then a company 5km x 5km or small map for battle of forces of equal less then a battalion 7.5km x 7.5km or medium map for battle of forces of equal less then a regiment 10km x 10km or large / huge map for battle of forces more than a regiment. If the computational resources & performance / optimization would be the issue, then OK, there is nothing I can do. But I'm not worrying too much about "slow battle" for modern battle because: 1) Drones and advanced spotting sensors. (And one of the reason why it would be great to see GSR in this game in the future) 2) Proper scenario design, guide players and AI to use more mechanized / motorized maneuver over on-foot marching. But "smaller" games would still be able to cover such close combat of on-foot soldiers. Plus, that is why I think it would be great to depict modern battle if CM engine could introduce: 1) Heliborne air-assauit infantry 2) Infiltrated recons / light infantry / SF operators, hunting or searching for enemy high value targets. Put light infantry and SF more stamina and movement speed. SF? Oh yes they can participate in the "conventional" operation, this just depends on tier of SFs. 3) On top of current simplified EW description, ELINT & SIGINT operations can boost the game phase and would make more interesting "modern" game. And they are realistic of course. 4) Description of FASCAM and ICMs and counter battery. Those will help to bring faster phase of the game for "modern battle" even with bigger maps. But I indeed agree that AI and performance issue would be a trouble. But PBEM players would enjoy regardless of AI. Maneuver is not fighting, of course, but it is one of the way to achieve better position and terrain advantage to repel enemy forces. Small maps of current CMBS with drones and exceptionally good optics / thermals force players to engage in very limited position, not that much option or flanking route to escape and circumvent kill zone. Plus, CM does not brings muti spectrum blocking smokes. I know Russians didn't had them in 2015, but both US and Russian probably have them now. I'm not sure if large urban area would be great environment to show modern battle of combined arms. But I can tell you, some larger field maps will definitely better for "modern" clash of combined arms, anything larger than battalion size. https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a216492.pdf This is cold war material, but I'm just introducing for example. Depends on preparation readiness of NATO, the width of front boundary for Russian forces line can vary very widely. Yeah, narrow front is possible for regiment size, but wide front is possible too.
  10. Any source about this data? Title of document?
  11. Got it, thanks, I will be careful to separate Russians and pro-Russians. But any source about this info: pro-Russian separatist artillery and mortars?
  12. I found the source myself. https://www.janes.com/images/assets/111/80111/The_Czar_of_battle_Russian_artillery_use_in_Ukraine_portends_advances.pdf Report from Janes mentioned But it also mentioned So it was work of both SoF recon + SIGINT operation.
  13. Well, in real-life Donbass campaign, Russians were mostly based on BTGs rather than brigades or division operations. But this is because of unique political motivation which I don't even need to mention. However, in CMBS, the game hypothetically suggested what if scenario of full-scale attack of Russians to UA. In this case, I think regiments, brigades and divisions are major part of any Russian OMG (Operational Maneuvering Group). But there will be small-formation and small-group skirmishes of course. So, I wish if future CMBS module provide a larger map, like at least 10km x 10km or more, to properly describe at least regiment size combats. I think it is not enough but I also think CMx2 game engine would not be easy to depict anything larger.
  14. Good, we all wish next module of CMBS or any modern CM series would nicely cover modern battle.
  15. Figure 4 of the report I linked also describes about potential weapons capabilities of Russian BTG during Donbass campaign. One or two Rocket arty company, and one or two tube arty company. BM21, BM27, BM30, and 9A52-4 as rocket, and 2S19 (direct and indirect) and 2S1 as tube. It coincides with your comment of "higher level". And yeah I agree "typical BTG" of Russians are not that arty-heavy, but "Russian BTG during donbass conflict" looks like particularly reinforced artillery capability. My guess is probably Russians and pro-Russians increased / reinforced their artillery capability in the middle of Donbass campaign. I guess this is because of terrain? Not much cover, flat terrain makes them rely on artillery. Or, they may wanted to reduce the burden to leave evidence of direct Russian intervention. In the PDF I linked, page 10, "Reconnaissance-Strike Model and the Russian Artillery Mindset" is written. Report mentioned the drone technology + typical Russian doctrine of firepower favor, saying "It must be noted that Russian action during the Donbas campaign parallels the historic Russian approach to the employment of rocket and artillery fire" Do you have a source for this part, where cell phone use of UA soldiers helped SIGINT operation during Donbass which caused artillery casualty?
×
×
  • Create New...