Jump to content
gnarly

BF's Line in the Sand (or, things you'll likely never see in CM)

Recommended Posts

Distracting myself from a large defensive setup against @Artemis258, and was pondering the gameplay/environmental items that will be unlikely to ever appear in a CM simulation, due to scale, potential for abuse, etc.

  • Civilians
  • Melee/knife combat
  • Biological/chemical/tactical nuclear weapons
  • Building/grass/forest fires
  • Air-to-air warfare (?)

 

What other potentially combat-influencing things are not implemented, and likely never will?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A real upgrade, CMx3, must include realistic building destruction and fires. The rest of above has less importance IMHO in portraying of tactical situations that is the scope of CM games. Civilians can be simulated now with RoE limitations. Melee combat is the 0.1% of the combat engangements of modern war, maybe more in ww2. Chemical warfare artillery can be an easy add to the engine, but is a rarity in tactical situations too. Priorities IMHO are bigger maps ( and optimization) and realistic destruction.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks @luigim & @Wickybut you miss the point. These aren't necessarily requests or wants, but rather things that's are simply unlikely to see the light of day, for various reasons (including as you say, rarity, scale or BF simply saying no).

 

I guess my point is, we get so immersed in the simulation, that after while you almost forget certain un-modelled real-world factors/dynamics.

 

Changeable weather I can eventually see happening.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, gnarly said:
  • Civilians
  • Melee/knife combat
  • Biological/chemical/tactical nuclear weapons
  • Building/grass/forest fires
  • Air-to-air warfare (?)

I think that civilians can and will be introduced at some point. As you say, they were often a  hindrance and concern for troops engaged in combat.

I feel confident that environmental fires will be introduced whenever the kinks can be worked out.

The rest are really off the scale for CM. Knife fighting is irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction might be relevant at an operational scale, but not at a tactical scale. As SPI once said of one of their WW III tactical games, "If you want to depict the effect of tactical nuclear weapons, just squirt lighter fluid all over the map and throw down a match." In CM you can create the effect by simply turning off your computer.

As far as A2A goes, that is simply another game, not CM. CM is a ground game and is only concerned with airpower to the extent that it directly effects the ground game. A2A, if included at all, would only be a simple mechanism for limiting the ability of one side to intervene in the ground game depending how much the other side is able to commit to counter air. I would not be surprised if most players diddled with it a few times and then never visited it again.

Michael 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dropping Real Time.  For me, the addition of Real Time must have significant influence on acceptable amount of computation going on under the hood, in order to allow playable frame rates.  One wonders how much more computation would be available if the game was WEGO only.  Would it, for example, allow a more dynamic tactical layer for the AI ie an AI commander of sorts, who could react to events on the battlefield.

Edited by Jock Tamson

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Self-selected tactical geniuses in remote HQs, watching real-time video feeds from UAVs and helmet cams, who then jump into the comms chain and order specific actions to occur.

C'mon, we all know it happens IRL.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Real danger and the results onto ones mind.

Guess that the concern for ones (subordinates) health is the biggest factor in how military operations are commanded in RL versus in CM.

Edited by Lethaface

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

More detailed expression = more immersive environment = more realistic game = possibly more sales. 

1) model the fix.wings and rot.wings flyby when strike. 

2) Small chances for "flying turret" for vehicles when destroyed. This happens rare for modern tanks, but still it happens. Dramatic boom boom is always great :) 

3) Blood / gore expression (optional). Well, this could be debatable but this will make the game more.... realistic in some sense. But I also think that this is not that much essential. Just blood expressions would be enough maybe. 

4) More detail modeling of shells(tanks/artillery) and missiles when flying. Right now, shells flying like the Star Wars laser blaster. 

5) More realistic building collapse / debris? But this is already mentioned above. 

How about FASCAM and ICM shells? 

Edited by exsonic01

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Michael Emrys said:

I think that civilians can and will be introduced at some point. As you say, they were often a  hindrance and concern for troops engaged in combat.

I feel confident that environmental fires will be introduced whenever the kinks can be worked out.

The rest are really off the scale for CM. Knife fighting is irrelevant. Weapons of mass destruction might be relevant at an operational scale, but not at a tactical scale. As SPI once said of one of their WW III tactical games, "If you want to depict the effect of tactical nuclear weapons, just squirt lighter fluid all over the map and throw down a match." In CM you can create the effect by simply turning off your computer.

As far as A2A goes, that is simply another game, not CM. CM is a ground game and is only concerned with airpower to the extent that it directly effects the ground game. A2A, if included at all, would only be a simple mechanism for limiting the ability of one side to intervene in the ground game depending how much the other side is able to commit to counter air. I would not be surprised if most players diddled with it a few times and then never visited it again.

Michael 

 

I could see potential usage for an option for CBRN scenarios, such as operations in the wake of a tactical nuclear strike or CBRN strike. As when enabled units have the PPE "skins" enabled (simlar to how they have night vision goggles and camo faces at night) and that everyone is slowed by the extra exertion, C2 is worse because of signal outages, etc. Both NATO and Russia train for combat operations under these environments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, gnarly said:

Distracting myself from a large defensive setup against @Artemis258, and was pondering the gameplay/environmental items that will be unlikely to ever appear in a CM simulation, due to scale, potential for abuse, etc.

  • Civilians
  • Melee/knife combat
  • Biological/chemical/tactical nuclear weapons
  • Building/grass/forest fires
  • Air-to-air warfare (?)

 

What other potentially combat-influencing things are not implemented, and likely never will?

 

 

Civilians per se will likely never be in, but in CMSF you can (and folks have) simulated scenarios using spies. 

The only other item you cited that I think might actually show up at some time is fire. All depends if BF figures out a way to do so that doesn't become totally gamey and doesn't kill frame rates. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah I can see more dynamic weather effects kicking in; changing weather and spreading fire aren't too far gone from environemntal degredation and building destruction. Its more a 'when' than a 'if.' I'd like to see continued HE do more than collapse buildings however, and cause house-fires, I'd see that sooner than fire spreading through a wheatfield if I had my way.

Air-to-Air will likely never happen, and I also doubt we will ever see physical models for fixed or rotary wing aircraft - they make no sense even on the large 16km^2 maps to have 'on the board.'

I'm also doubting we will ever see an operational layer again. Finally, I think we won't ever see vehicle fortifications, and that will remain for the map-makers to get clever with.

Edited by Rinaldi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Jock Tamson said:

Dropping Real Time.  For me, the addition of Real Time must have significant influence on acceptable amount of computation going on under the hood, in order to allow playable frame rates.  One wonders how much more computation would be available if the game was WEGO only.  Would it, for example, allow a more dynamic tactical layer for the AI ie an AI commander of sorts, who could react to events on the battlefield.

That'd suck for me since I only play in 'real time'. Now if you excuse me, I'll go into hiding due to my blasphemous choice of gameplay style. 

Edited by ParanoidMoron

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, ParanoidMoron said:

That'd suck for me since I only play in 'real time'. Now if you excuse me, I'll go into hiding due to my blasphemous choice of gameplay style. 

Steve plays real time so you needn't worry ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Move units around on the operational level for the single player campaigns. Similar to how it works in Wargame: Red Dragon campaigns:

WargameRDtxtscr_004-large.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by JUAN DEAG

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.


×
×
  • Create New...