Jump to content

CM: Shock Force 2 Wish List


Recommended Posts

Don´t know if it could be possible, but I´d love to see the introduction of warships for coastal bombardments and amphibious landing operations support.

You usually wouldn't "see" any warship support -- due to the danger of sea-skimming missiles launched from shore, sea mines and very stealthy DE submarines (which are much harder to detect in shallow littoral waters) doctrine is for large warships to support amphibious landings from over-the-horizon.

On the CM scale, Naval support is much more likely to come in the form of ship-based air support -- Harriers (Soon to be F-35s) and AH-1W Cobras, in case of the USMC. TLAM support is technically possible, but probably not very likely at the CM scale -- the TLAMs are more likely to be used to strike high-value targets deeper inland.

Gun support is not the preferred form of Naval fire support these days, but it is possible, and the US Navy is actually looking to strengthen its hand in this area so in the not so distant future with some new ship and gun designs. Regardless, in CM terms, it would simply be a support option on the off-map artillery menu, not an on-map item.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 389
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Thanks Phil,

See guys BF really is looking at our Wish List.

Keep feeding our "First Second Programmer" with items / tweaks we want even though Phil is "frankly busy as heck as it is":D

I think Phil will be driving the takette around the Dumo square before the GL after party:D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

IIRC Shock Force 1 has broadband obscurant smoke. Is this the same is IR blocking? I know that the Stryker vehicles in CMSF have IR blocking smoke, but I don't remember what else does.

Most U.S. military smoke has been broadband (including IR blocking) for quite a while not. IIRC, there has in some cases been a move back to "plain" smoke in the anti-insurgent fights in Iraq in Afghanistan, because the insurgents generally do not usually have much in the way of IR/Night vision equipment. So in the COIN environment, non-IR smoke allows US forces equipped with IR equipment to see through it, but not the enemy.

But the US Military definitely has multi-spectral smoke available for the vehicle launched smoke poppers these days, if they choose to use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AI is that rarest of development projects - patently useful AND fun to work on / design - but it also takes an enormous amount of time to get it right. CM is a pretty complex game. Even a basic dynamic AI for it would require a lot of work and time to make it good enough to be worth the effort of doing it in the first place. Kind of a Catch-22.

That doesn't mean it won't happen, just that there are things that'll be a higher priority because they're more economical time-wise and still provide a lot of value. We've only got two programmers, and frankly we're busy as heck as it is. :)

I´m sure about that, but it can be positive in a long-term. Classic games tend to have a powerful AI. :) Not to mention the process of resurrection of old BF games...

As artillery selections, you mean?

Exactly! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A couple of ideas:

1-Campaigns for two human players.

IIRC, 2-human player campaigns are technically possible in terms of game-engine capability now in CMBN/CMFI, but this feature is not included with the game because the powers that be have concluded that it would be extremely difficult to construct a campaign that can be played by 2 human players which would be likely to play out in a way that would be interesting and fun for both players after the first couple of battles.

Basically, having two human players doubles the campaign design level of difficulty. Considering how much skill and and how much time it takes to make an interesting campaign now, even if this feature were enabled I don't know that many designers would take on the challenge.

Personally, I can see some potential in very short, simple campaigns comprised of less than a half dozen scenarios, really representing an extended battle lasting a day or so rather than the multi-day affairs that are typical of most of the publish CM campaigns to date. Then again, given the longer scenario length times and larger maps that CMBN/FI allow, you could equally argue that these types of engagements would often be better represented by a single longer scenario with multiple reinforcement waves, rather than separate scenarios in a campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

YankeeDog... Personally, I can see some potential in very short, simple campaigns comprised of less than a half dozen scenarios, really representing an extended battle lasting a day or so...

This is more to my time commitment capability and personal preference.

It seems some serious players that have the time would enjoy multi person mega games and if I had the time and someone spent a lot of time constructing one, it could be fun.

I was wondering about the CMSF-2 Editor and what enhanced features specific to "... a full spectrum conventional conflict between NATO and Russia in the Ukraine...." Having ..." a rich tactical environment to explore with the most advanced militaries the world has ever seen...." there should be some significant Editor enhancements.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Since air support was brought up, It'll be interesting if Battlefront includes the F-22. If you can't use them in a war against Russia when would you use them? :)

Excellent point Sequoia :D

Maybe Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)?

The French seem to have managed w/o F-22s so... ?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Excellent point Sequoia :D

Maybe Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM)?

The French seem to have managed w/o F-22s so... ?

I think you have a misunderstanding of the F-22's role in the USAF's current inventory. Primary purpose of the F-22 is to attain total air supremacy, especially against any enemy that might have 4 - 4.5th generation jet fighters -- F-15s, MiG-29s and the like.

As a secondary mission, the F-22 can be used in the ground attack role, especially in the early stages of taking down an integrated air defense system. The actual ground strikes are more likely to be assigned to assets like B-2s, TLAMs etc. -- even in this type of operation, the F-22s are more likely to fly CAP to guard against any enemy air counterattack. But in some situations the F-22 might take part in ground strikes against assets like air defense radar systems, airfields, SAM sites, C2 facilities, etc.

But its extremely unlikely the F-22 will be used anytime in the near future for the kind of CAS mission you see in CM -- the USAF just has too few F-22s, and they are too valuable an asset to squander on a mission that can just as easily be carried out by other airframes. The F-22s would be flying high cover over the CAS mission assets, and/or possibly operating deep strike missions to suppress long-range AA response. But they would not be the ones dropping pickles in buckets.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks YankeeDog.

You obviously know more detail about modern technology. Thanks for you clarification and detail. I was just joking about using the the F-22 vs. Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb.... "they would not be the ones dropping pickles in buckets." :)

My fault for not making my F-22 vs. AQIM comment clear.

I do hope F-22s are included in CMSF-2.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Faster movement on roads. I´ve noticed curves slow down a lot the speed of vehicles. Perhaps a new special order to travel by roads is required (it could also avoid traffic jams).

The tedious corner plotting is not too much in a tiny urban scenario. Make the same urban scenario HUGE and it gets time consuming.To be fair... "avoid traffic jams" hot key would be another AI calculation that serious grogs may not desire.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As YankeeDog said, the F-22 would doubtlessly be used in a war against Russia such as that that will be depicted in CMSF2, but in an air superiority and suppression of air defense role. The effect of the F-22's presence in a CM scenario is that we even get to see air support in the first place. :)

Even though we probably wouldn't see them used directly in a CM scenario, I think F-22's are especially likely to be used in such a war as this to provide overwatch for CAS assets. The U.S. doctrine of systematically wiping out a country's entire air force and air defense network with precision strikes before moving in on the ground I don't think would work against Russia because Russia is not only vast, but it would for sure escalate to nuclear weapons before allowing its air force to be completely wiped out. I know I would. Let the enemy have air superiority and you might as well concede the war, at least the conventional part. I suppose you could transition to an insurgency after losing the conventional war but that's a doubtful alternative.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I´m sure about that, but it can be positive in a long-term. Classic games tend to have a powerful AI. :)

Well, I'd say that's arguable, but then you and I probably have very different definitions of what "powerful" means to us. :)

A couple of ideas:

1-Campaigns for two human players.

2-Email games for up to four human players (2 vs 2/2 vs 1)

#1... the ability already exists, it's just hard to do properly.

#2... That would be neat.

An automatic option in order to search for cover (instead of the shortest path) between two waypoints.

This already exists. Depending on orders, threat situation, etc., your units will attempt to follow a "safe" path to their destination. That's obviously something that's rather difficult to generalize in an environment like CM's, but it does exist. Send your units up a wooded lane, especially under fire, and you may find that many of them will gravitate towards the better cover and concealment of the trees.

If you want to prioritize finding hard cover along a route that fits your own assessment of the threat situation, of course, that's something that's probably best done by you, with some assistance from the AI here and there. Pathfinding and AI can only do so much.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia has sufficient countermeasures to stop the US wiping out its Air defences. Russia has a strong air defence network today. In the time frame this game will be set Russia will possess its latest generation of air defences BUK-M2, PAK-FA jet, and S-500 series.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This already exists. Depending on orders, threat situation, etc., your units will attempt to follow a "safe" path to their destination. That's obviously something that's rather difficult to generalize in an environment like CM's, but it does exist. Send your units up a wooded lane, especially under fire, and you may find that many of them will gravitate towards the better cover and concealment of the trees.

If you want to prioritize finding hard cover along a route that fits your own assessment of the threat situation, of course, that's something that's probably best done by you, with some assistance from the AI here and there. Pathfinding and AI can only do so much.

It does exist when you are under fire, but what about when you need to approach carefully to a distant enemy? You must to do it manually. My wish is to make these routes automatically before you´re detected. Panzer Command Ostfront uses this order creating instantly waypoints to reach an objetive. I can tell you it´s extremely handy and confortable, specially when you have loads of troops (no micromanagement).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I woul'd like to see like Buzz a conventional conflic like NATO and Warschau Pact we can perhaps see tank's and vehicle like M48 Patton, Chiftain, Centurion, Marder, Leopard all T'54 55 62 familly UDSSR and the new 72 tank's Bmp Bmd Btr and all tanks and vehicle's from Nato and WP in 80 year and many many more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 Bigger battlefields preferably 8000 or 12000 meters allowing for large scale tank battles

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that, myself, except it would require a LOT of concessions, though. Goodbye hi-rez terrain tiles, goodbye multiple building types, fancy trees, high rez vehicles and cast shadows. The game giveth and the game taketh away. People would have to reconcile themselves to a significant change in gameplay scale to be able to play on a 12km map.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would you want 8 - 12km maps?! I mean I like big maps but 8-12km - effective engagement range of Abrams main gun is just over 3km. Given battlefield conditions etc etc I could see that dropping to around 2km - then you have ground folds etc (terrain not being flat) so that would reduce it further. As MikeyD says it would be a totally different game. Maybe not even 3d but 2d.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Russia has sufficient countermeasures to stop the US wiping out its Air defences. Russia has a strong air defence network today. In the time frame this game will be set Russia will possess its latest generation of air defences BUK-M2, PAK-FA jet, and S-500 series.

I assume the game will have the Russians as the strategic attackers as attacking into Russia would be unwinable. Would all these air defenses be available for a Russian attack into the Ukraine for instance?

Link to comment
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
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
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.


×
×
  • Create New...