Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Buzz

CM: Shock Force 2 Wish List

Recommended Posts

Multi processor support is very unlikely. BFC has said in the past that performance gains would not be large enough to justify it.

A 64-bit Windows version would be very welcome.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Calling for air support was a problem I had with the basic module (don't know if it was fixed later). Too often, I would request air support that would result in friendly troops being engaged in the line of the firing unit.

This is unrealistic given modern request for CAS procedures. One of the request lines is a direction of attack. Pilots want to be sure they fire parallel to friendly troops, not intersecting. Easy fix is that CAS requests are always linear targets (indicating direction of attack).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am sure this has been discussed since CMBO days but since we are wishing for enhancements from Moon, Steve, Phil and the BFC I will mention it again.

A Record / Playback ability allowing the entire scenario to be viewed from any unit's perspective. Think "ScreenFlow" for CMSF2!

CMSF MAC has 64bit support. I have checked Activity Monitor when playing and I get maybe 1.4 GB of Real and @ the same of Virtual Memory used. I have many any more GBs of memory available if the game could use it. Having no computer programing training I don't know if loading more into the GBs of memory sitting idle would help or not. Seems like it would.

CAS usually works OK in hitting moving targets. I have had some wild friendly fire incidents where I am clearly out of the fire zone and get destroyed anyway. It happens IRL but not nearly as often as say VN. I know from a US Vet. friend who got wild friendly fire and really, really messed up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

RE: CMSF2 regional setting.... found this note of interest if it is fact?

I need to learn more about the area and conditions.

Russia is trying to destabilize Ukraine.

Moscow’s main aim is to wrest the Crimean Peninsula from Kiev’s control. A majority of the Crimea’s inhabitants are ethnic Russians. More importantly, the Russian Black Sea Fleet is based in Sevastopol. Under a 1997 agreement between the two countries, the Russian navy is scheduled to leave by 2017. Ukrainian President Viktor Yushchenko refuses to extend the lease - rightly fearing Moscow plans to stay on indefinitely and eventually annex the entire Crimea. Russian officials have already said they will not abandon the base at Sevastopol and that Kiev’s maritime laws do not apply to them.

Moreover, Russia has been distributing thousands of Russian passports to supporters in the Crimea. The plan is to replicate what was done in South Ossetia and Abkhazia: Create a pretext to send in Russian “peacekeepers” to protect supposedly endangered Russian “citizens.”

But Ukraine is not Georgia; it is a large, militarily powerful country with long memories of Russian domination. Any attempt at partition by Moscow would be met by fierce resistance. It would spark a bloody Russo-Ukrainian war. This would inevitably drag in Poland and the Baltic States - all of which are members of NATO. Mr. Putin’s bellicose nationalism threatens to ignite a European conflagration.

The battle over Ukraine is more than a regional test of wills. It is a clash over the future of Europe - and of Russia’s role in it.

Moon was correct!

CM: Shock Force 2. Our return to modern warfare is long overdue! Given how close Shock Force 1 was at predicting a conventional conflict in Syria, we're a little nervous about choosing a topic this time around. Especially because we've chosen to simulate a full spectrum conventional conflict between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine. This gives players a rich tactical environment to explore with the most advanced militaries the world has ever seen. Having said that, we hope the politicians aren't insane enough to try it for real...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ground to air fires would be a big bonus for me personally. Russia, unlike Syria when CMSF was set, has some of the best tactical and operation AAA in the world. I would like to see them play a bigger part.

It could be worked by having like a target command which puts them on AA overwatch for a radius. So they just concentrate on scanning the sky and that and not targeting ground units, until this mode is switched off or another target command is given.

This could then effect aircraft, for example they come on station, the AAA acquires its target after a short period then fires some cannon or a missile, then the aircraft either immediately goes off station and the FAC has to call it in again, or the plane is destroyed depending upon the skill level of the aircraft as chosen in the unit selection screen either in QB or in the mission being made.

I also fully condone UAVs being requestable as air support, you can use it when you want but it only has a certain time allowed on station. It then provides real time "intel" markers like if you have intel at the start of the mission for you for a period of time after called in. This way one could gain better intel at the start of a mission if used then, or use it later on to try and locate enemy reinforcements. Adds more flexibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) Multiple points of LOS generation from vehicles. This one is major because currently LOS comes from only from the center of vehicles now, resulting in ATGM vehicles and recon vehicles with mast-mounted sensors being nothing but cannon and ATGM fodder in CMSF1. Until this is fixed there will be a large number of modern systems that will be broken in the simulation.

2.) Larger maps. It would be nice to be able to have more room to maneuver around the maximum ranges of some modern weapons systems.

3.) A return of Unconventional forces. These were some of my favorites to play with in CMSF1 because they could represent any number of insurgent or militia groups anywhere in the world. I hope CMSF2 has some selection of unconventional forces even if they show up later in a pack. It would be especially cool if we have the option to give them some "Blue" equipment as well as "Red."

4.) Surface to air combat (already confirmed to be included in CMx2 v3.0, at least at a basic level).

5.) Damage modeling for vehicles.

6.) Real-time intelligence gathering from aircraft including UAVs. This could be in the form of aircraft having some form of LOS in the game and communicating that information through the Command and Control system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Apocal, some early Soviet NOD's actually burned out if subject to too much white light, don't know about more modern varieties.

Most first generation night vision had that failing. A few of them got around it, only to accidentally blind their operators. Oops.

Modern night vision either blanks out or has automatic gain control (AGC) circuits to prevent burnout.

Calling for air support was a problem I had with the basic module (don't know if it was fixed later). Too often, I would request air support that would result in friendly troops being engaged in the line of the firing unit.

This is unrealistic given modern request for CAS procedures. One of the request lines is a direction of attack. Pilots want to be sure they fire parallel to friendly troops, not intersecting. Easy fix is that CAS requests are always linear targets (indicating direction of attack).

In high (air) threat environments, you don't specify a direction of attack (especially not over comms), the aircraft chooses it's own and varies it with every run to avoid AAA/SAMs. At least theoretically anyway, we haven't done CAS with a credible ground-fire threat since Vietnam or Korea.

Another part of the reason you see so much friendly fire with CAS in CMSF is that air is called down much closer than is typical in real fights. Real air staffs and FACs can (and sometimes do) make fairly draconian demands of ground troops who want to bring down heavy firepower; stuff like "all troops must be behind phase line Colorado, with PL COLORADO being 800 meters from the target." It also comes much, much faster than in real life, where you might wait a half hour from initial call to putting warheads on foreheads.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In high (air) threat environments, you don't specify a direction of attack (especially not over comms), the aircraft chooses it's own and varies it with every run to avoid AAA/SAMs. At least theoretically anyway, we haven't done CAS with a credible ground-fire threat since Vietnam or Korea.

IMHO, the problem is primarily with the fact that (a) in CMSF it's not easy to tell exactly what ordnance an air asset is carrying and (B) the game does not allow you to exactly specify ordnance to be used for a given mission. You specifiy "Light", "Medium" or "Heavy", but you can't specify "20mm cannon", "Hellfire missile", etc.

This creates significant problems if the airframe (Such as an AH-64) is carrying Hydra-70s. A Hydra salvo can spread out along a line 500m or more along the direction of attack, which is a much larger error probable than nearly all of the other ordnance available for Blue.

If it's realistic that I can't specify the direction of attack due to the tactical situation, that's fine. But then I sure as hell don't want to use unguided rockets anywhere within a half click of friendlies. If the game would just tell me that this is what's going to be used, so I can confirm or scrub the mission, as appropriate, then I'm good.

EDIT to note: Though any issues how to Hydra-70 strikes should work in-game may become moot if CMSF2 is set in the near future, rather than the recent past. Just looked it up and after many years in limbo, the APKWS-II (a laser-guided "smart" upgrade to the Hydra 70) has already seen over 100 combat launches in Afghanistan and is rapidly approaching full deployment. Once the APKWS-II system is widely available, I really doubt the unguided Hydra-70 will see much use anymore. The APKWS-II is actually fairly cheap as guided weapons systems go, can be launched from existing Hydra-70 launch mounts, and is specifically designed to be able to be retrofitted onto existing Hydra 70 motor & warhead stock.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

+1 for this as well. ATGM vehicles with telescopic masts are currently death traps: "1.) Multiple points of LOS generation from vehicles. This one is major because currently LOS comes from only from the center of vehicles now, resulting in ATGM vehicles and recon vehicles with mast-mounted sensors being nothing but cannon and ATGM fodder in CMSF1. Until this is fixed there will be a large number of modern systems that will be broken in the simulation."

Also, I understood (from documentaries on Iraq etc) that ground controllers do give a direction of attack for air, and friendlies pop smoke to show positons etc.

Re political realities in the region for Russia attacking Ukraine and dragging NATO is very low probability due to economics. There is massive western investment in Russia (raise your hand if you own products like LETRX) and Russia has massive exports (and imports) from NATO nations as well. This new reality more than anything bodes well for resolutions other than widespread war... (localized, limited is always a possibility of course).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another part of the reason you see so much friendly fire with CAS in CMSF is that air is called down much closer than is typical in real fights. Real air staffs and FACs can (and sometimes do) make fairly draconian demands of ground troops who want to bring down heavy firepower; stuff like "all troops must be behind phase line Colorado, with PL COLORADO being 800 meters from the target." It also comes much, much faster than in real life, where you might wait a half hour from initial call to putting warheads on foreheads.

The short distance from observer to target requires even more accuracy and target processing time. A bad direction of attack is not realistic (though it is possible). It would require errors from both the observer and the pilot (that is required to know the location of all friendly troops). Support coming much, much faster depends on the mission. In a troops in contact (TIC), yeah, it might take 15-30min. For a deliberate attack with dedicated assets in a holding patter, support time could be a few minutes away. I would definitely like to designate heavy or light. It would be nice to tell an Apache to strafe a rooftop or use a hellfire to bring the building down.

Ground to air would be interesting, but we'd have to make some equipment assumptions for US mechanized forces. Bradley Linebackers are no longer in the inventory, and most Avengers are in the National Guard. Do tactical level forces only get dismount Stinger teams? Air guard planning range is 4km which would cover most maps if the shooter is in the open.

For stuff that might be a bridge too far, the ability to conduct a combined arms breach would be excellent. M1s with tank plows followed by a firing MCLIC would be a cool sight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the air threat environment descriptions.

The CMSF2 "Wish List" seems to fancy UAVs and more precise air assets control. "Ground to air would be interesting...." Yes indeed! Maybe CMSF2 Engineers will get unmanned ground combat vehicles to disarm roadside bombs?I suspect BFC will comment political realities in the region as they seem to have a pretty good sense of where to place the simulation in relation to the real world:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

friendly fire does happen, this will not be removed, if only to keep players from calling down air strikes right next to their troops. :)

nice list, keep the suggestions coming.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
friendly fire does happen, this will not be removed, if only to keep players from calling down air strikes right next to their troops. :)

No argument there. Accidents can and should happen.

I think what I'm trying to express is that I think it's frustrating and probably unrealistic that in a TIC situation, the player can't specify between PGMs and "dumb" ordnance; you just have to guess based on airframe and "load type", and hope that a "Heavy" strike means something like a JDAM or Maverick, rather than a Hydra-70 salvo.

If I order a PGM strike of some sort, I can accept that every so often s strike will go awry, possibly even hitting nearby friendlies if they are within danger close distance of the target. This is part of the fog and uncertainty of war.

But I find it very hard to believe that when ground commander calls for CAS, he gets no input or even information on whether the provided support is going to be a precision missile strike or unguided rockets sprayed all over the box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think what I'm trying to express is that I think it's frustrating and probably unrealistic that in a TIC situation, the player can't specify between PGMs and "dumb" ordnance; you just have to guess based on airframe and "load type", and hope that a "Heavy" strike means something like a JDAM or Maverick, rather than a Hydra-70 salvo.

If I order a PGM strike of some sort, I can accept that every so often s strike will go awry, possibly even hitting nearby friendlies if they are within danger close distance of the target. This is part of the fog and uncertainty of war.

But I find it very hard to believe that when ground commander calls for CAS, he gets no input or even information on whether the provided support is going to be a precision missile strike or unguided rockets sprayed all over the box.

Calling in an airstrike Kilgore style:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No argument there. Accidents can and should happen.

I think what I'm trying to express is that I think it's frustrating and probably unrealistic that in a TIC situation, the player can't specify between PGMs and "dumb" ordnance; you just have to guess based on airframe and "load type", and hope that a "Heavy" strike means something like a JDAM or Maverick, rather than a Hydra-70 salvo.

If I order a PGM strike of some sort, I can accept that every so often s strike will go awry, possibly even hitting nearby friendlies if they are within danger close distance of the target. This is part of the fog and uncertainty of war.

But I find it very hard to believe that when ground commander calls for CAS, he gets no input or even information on whether the provided support is going to be a precision missile strike or unguided rockets sprayed all over the box.

Ah yes, I see your point. There have been discussions along those lines in the past, but nothing was done in CMSF.

As I recall, all dumb bombs were removed at one point in CMSF since AFAIR they are no longer commonly used by U.S. forces in CAS. I am pretty sure all bombs on the Blue side are now PGMs. Not sure about Helos or the Red Air though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am pretty sure all bombs on the Blue side are now PGMs. Not sure about Helos or the Red Air though.

As noted above, major exception to the "Blue CAS = PGM" rule are the Hydra-70 rockets, which are most definitely not PGMs, and also always fire as a full salvo, so you get a large number of rockets sprayed along the axis of attack all at once. Very dangerous to any friendlies who happen to be anywhere along said axis. And since you have absolutely no control over the axis of attack... well, let's just say I'd actually prefer it if my AH-64s and AH-1s weren't carrying the Hydras *at all*. Even if you have the time to pull back to a safe distance, many maps don't include enough maneuver room to do so. Whenever I use helo support, I always cross my fingers and hope I remember the correct support options combo that will ensure the helo does *not* use the Hydras...

I suppose gun support CAS from stuff like the AH-64 30mm chain gun is also technically "dumb", but in practice gun runs are nearly as accurate as the laser-guided/GPS stuff, so in practical effect, this is a "smart" ordnance.

As also mentioned, since the U.S. military and also other NATO nations are now in the process of deploying a PGM upgrade to the 70mm rocket family, this specific instance may no longer be relevant in CMSF2. But it could crop up again in any case where there's an airframe carrying both "smart" and "dumb" munitions.

And even if CAS options are PGMs and guns only, I think it would be a good idea to change the UI so that you can see exactly which type of ordnance is available, rather than just "light", "medium" and "heavy", and having to guess from there. In CMSF right now, depending on airframe and loadout, "heavy" can mean a Hellfire missile, or it can mean a 2000-lb. JDAM. While these two systems have similar CEP ratings, there is a BIG difference in the danger close distance!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A B-52 dropping bombs 300 yards qualifies as "Danger Close" & "Raining Dirt" IMO. I love the smell of Victory:)

"And even if CAS options are PGMs and guns only, I think it would be a good idea to change the UI so that you can see exactly which type of ordnance is available, rather than just "light", "medium" and "heavy", and having to guess from there.In CMSF right now, depending on airframe and loadout, "heavy" can mean a Hellfire missile, or it can mean a 2000-lb. JDAM. While these two systems have similar CEP ratings, there is a BIG difference in the danger close distance!"

UI change for type of ordinance would be needed for the UAVs ordnance as well...:)

2000 pound JDAM drop - "We were told to pull back 800 meters, but desided to only go 300. Front row seats."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another vote for irregular/"milita" type forces. While I like a good MTB slugfest as much as the next guy, my favorite scenarios are small-unit, infantry focused. I think the "3:10 to Yuma" scenario is a great example. Directly modeling Special Forces OB's would be nice too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I need to update the itemized CMSF2 Wish List just in case we missed something like particle beam weapons;)

No, I really hope folks are enjoying the wish chatter for CMSF2. Some good suggestions for our return to modern warfare.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...