Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)
5 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

What would be a likely frontage given to reinforced company sized unit in modern combat and in what terrain? Any examples from current wars or military doctrine?

Reinforced company of what?

 

Also - there is no doctrine that dictates frontage. The old Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) manual did have that data for enemy forces, but it is very much dictated by terrain.

 

Real units normally just use a template, rather than precise, set distances.

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I was looking for ballpark numbers and hopefully some examples. I have firsthand experience only with Finnish army mechanized forces (CV9030, 2A4). Because of the Finnish terrain movement is constrained to roads (at least in the places FDF plans on fighting). A company might have just one road surrounded by heavy woods on which to advance and have another company trailing it ready move through and relieve the forward company. Max engagement ranges would be no more than 300m and only in the direction of the road. Width of the engagement would be the immediate surroundings of the road. This of course is a extreme case example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

I was looking for ballpark numbers and hopefully some examples. I have firsthand experience only with Finnish army mechanized forces (CV9030, 2A4). Because of the Finnish terrain movement is constrained to roads (at least in the places FDF plans on fighting). A company might have just one road surrounded by heavy woods on which to advance and have another company trailing it ready move through and relieve the forward company. Max engagement ranges would be no more than 300m and only in the direction of the road. Width of the engagement would be the immediate surroundings of the road. This of course is a extreme case example.

Were you recently in the field with some USMC?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Were you recently in the field with some USMC?

No I was not. I am no longer in the service, but I am very familiar with yearly main exercise of the Finnish mechanized forces in "deserts" of Niinisalo. You yanks brought some M1A1s with you this year.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

No I was not. I am no longer in the service, but I am very familiar with yearly main exercise of the Finnish mechanized forces in "deserts" of Niinisalo. You yanks brought some M1A1s with you this year.

We did bring some toys for your Leo's to shoot at. They made good targets,  according to the Leo company commander.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

I'm not demanding upper-tactical or lower operational maneuver. Modern engagements just normally occurre across larger areas than depicted in game due to better acquisition systems and weapons.

Depending on circumstances. Iraq is not the same as Ukraine in terrain for example so yes it can happen at longer ranges, but it isn’t necessarily true it always will. (I noted your profile and am not about to get into a losing discussion about what folks train for for example. I know my limits :D ).   

However as a broad brush statement I think it is a very slanted view in terms of types of engagements. For example I have been doing some testing of the CMSF scenario USMC circle the wagons. It is a relatively small map, urban terrain and a gem of a scenario. Engagement ranges are the width of a street frequently. Combat in Iraq for the vast majority of engagements was not armor vs armor at 4km and up. Nor has combat in Ukraine. 

Can it be? Certainly I expect many of the NTC training scenarios may involve longer range engagements (though that is purely a guess on my part).

all that is pointless though. As Steve noted the engine that provides the basis of what we like in our tactical sim is getting stretched the greater the map size.  Sure we could give up the engine for bigger maps, but then what would be the point?  We’d have big maps and we’d be complaining about how crappy the actual play was.  

In regard to your response to my earlier post I think you misunderstood.  When I said we were pushing the envelope I meant the capabilities of the engine not the engagement ranges for an M1. CM is a tactical game that shines in the small to medium battle range.  Folks who have pushed for much much bigger maps and larger forces (i’m Looking at you Ian with your 20,000 point battle) are really straining the games ability to process an enormous amount of data. 

Edited by sburke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, sburke said:

In regard to your response to my earlier post I think you misunderstood.  When I said we were pushing the envelope I meant the capabilities of the engine not the engagement ranges for an M1

Ok. I misunderstood, and I agree with that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

We did bring some toys for your Leo's to shoot at. They made good targets,  according to the Leo company commander.

If I may inquire, How did you became knowledgeable of this globally rather small adventure in the Scandinavian wilderness?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Apocalypse 31 said:

Ok. I misunderstood, and I agree with that.

No problem. For what it is worth I do agree with some of your sentiments. As much as I know I have been tagged as a “fanboi” there are things I don’t particularly like in certain implementations. For example drones. Interestingly conceptually but problematic for me as to how it is done. Air support in general.  I could list a couple more, but the point is no I am not going to say CM is unblemished. I just adapt as frankly there isn’t anything else that even comes close for me.  

And I frankly love CMSF2.  While I like CMBS a lot, it is the beginning of a curve where technology is altering combat just a bit much for me. I guess the same way some folks feel about CMSF who are hardcore WW2 players. CMSF for me is still a grunt’s battle. Insurgents can still take out an M1 (probably better than in real life statistically speaking) and tanks are not doing instant auto response to ATGMs. 

You are disappoimted as you hoped CMSF2 would somehow advance the engine beyond current 4.0 issues. I was just happy to see CMSF2 start sharing 4.0 issues and not be forever stuck in the 2007 version of CM2   Just a different starting point. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, sburke said:

Folks who have pushed for much much bigger maps and larger forces (i’m Looking at you Ian with your 20,000 point battle) are really straining the games ability to process an enormous amount of data. 

Yeah even then that map was 2km by 2km - which back then was big. That was Engine v1. Now we can have even bigger maps and that defiantly pushes the limits of the game engine - @c3k and I hit them - cannot remember the size of that map but we had a lot of forces.

I have a "Huge" QB going now but that is only a 2.5km by 1.5km map. I also have a game of korsun2017 on the go - that is pretty big. A mechanized battalion + attacking on a 3.6km by 3.6km map.

As amazing as that 20 000 point battle was Engine 4 can handle bigger (and so can my new PC). Don't for get that part. My original PC was struggling at times with frame rates in the teens on that 2x2 map. My new PC is doing better than that 3.6x3.6 map.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, sburke said:

And I frankly love CMSF2.  

I am liking it a lot more than I thought I would. But my main concern stills stand - First class armies against third or fourth class armies can lead to some very lopsided fights.

 

3 minutes ago, sburke said:

While I like CMBS a lot, it is the beginning of a curve where technology is altering combat just a bit much for me.

Yeah, I can understand that. At this point I still rank CMBS above CMSF2 just because you can get a better fight out of a battle between a couple of first class armies.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Artkin said:

Steve, 

Is CMx2 able to support larger maps? I can't get Radzy-Award to load which is 5.5 x 5.5 km. I as well am hoping for news, plans, or even wild somewhat feasable speculation on (engine?) improvements so we can see larger maps. 

Art

I don’t seem to be able to do those dimensions. Best I could get was 5.5 x 3.3. I’ll play around a bit. Even if I can though, opening a scenario with a map that size may be a completely different issue. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

If I may inquire, How did you became knowledgeable of this globally rather small adventure in the Scandinavian wilderness?

I play online with two FI officers - one MECH and one Tank. Both very talented, very intelligent. Trying to convince them to apply for the US Army Staff College. Both of which would do extremely well there, and would be a good addition / balance to the foreign officers that attend. 

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Rinaldi said:

in this thread: Geriatrics chomp on obvious bait.

Hey I resent that ! 😎

this thread did look like it had calmed down so whatever you might think of previous posts tossing in troll comments now isn’t going to make things any better. (This isn’t specific for you Rinaldi, but I did have to respond to the geriatrics comment, get off my damn lawn hippy)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sburke said:

As much as I know I have been tagged as a “fanboi” there are things I don’t particularly like in certain implementations.

I am really grateful that your responses have been courteous and informative. My initial post is obviously a strong sentiment. Some see it as 'trolling', but I've been a player since CMAK, I'm passionate about gaming and the CM line, and the Shock Force series touches on a personal interest of mine. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, sburke said:

I don’t seem to be able to do those dimensions. Best I could get was 5.5 x 3.3. I’ll play around a bit. Even if I can though, opening a scenario with a map that size may be a completely different issue. 

I think as you start getting over 5k on one length(x), the size of the second (y) is reduced significantly. I can manage a 5 x 5 km but nothing over it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK that was fun. Instead of trading witty banter here I went and made a big map with a v4 engine editor. Mine is 2560m by 6960. :D It is totally flat - just cause I want maximum mayhem.

Then I put a battalion of M1s and two battalions of T90s on it. That's right three battalions of tanks slugging it out at engagement ranges that start at 6800m. After about 30s everyone saw everyone and the T90s started launching ATGMs - a lot of ATGMs. No burning M1s but they started loosing their systems and becoming immobilized. So I gave all the M1s fast move orders to close the distance to under 4000m. Only 7 tanks made it close to that far. I stopped to write this with only three running M1s. There are a lot of burning T90s and a few burning M1s/

Crazy!

Is that big enough?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Hahaha of course not. That's only 17.8 sq km! I can manage 25 at the largest I think. 

Try that with Khrizantemas next time. The extra 25mm diameter should give the kick needed. :D

Edit - LOL I bumped it further to 8000 x 2256 which is the absolute max in the editor. It works for me. This is ridiculous...

P.S. Can we get Ambush 8000m AI commands in the editor now? My mission seems a little incomplete. :lol:

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Artkin said:

I think as you start getting over 5k on one length(x), the size of the second (y) is reduced significantly. I can manage a 5 x 5 km but nothing over it.

Is there more than 1 version of Radzy Award (CMRT right)?  I can open but it is only 2.7 x 2.3 km (says version 1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 minutes ago, sburke said:

Is there more than 1 version of Radzy Award (CMRT right)?  I can open but it is only 2.7 x 2.3 km (says version 1)

I apologize, the map in question is actually Rad Full 5.6 x 5.6 Radzy Award is a section of the larger map. I had confused the two since I just started cracking it open. It's unfortunately very flat North East.  

Edited by Artkin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, IanL said:

Is that big enough

It's not. That's a bowling alley with no room for maneuver. 

 

The attached photo is what a typical Steel Beasts scenario map looks like, with a (red) overlayed 4x4 km CM map area.

That is an example of the space required for a modern Combat Team (MBT & IFV) to maneuver. 

 

Edit: this is not a CM vs SB dig, just an example using another game that uses modern armor.

OlzAjSn.jpg

Edited by Apocalypse 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×