Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

aka_tom_w

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    8,130

  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Posts posted by aka_tom_w

    Shock Force Dedicated Website

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by gibsonm:

    Development schedule:

    Web site (tick)

    Demo version (TBA - hopefully soon?)

    Production version (TBA)

    I could be wrong but don't they have to build the playable demo after the final gold release is sent off to duplication and production?

    so...

    I would guess there won't be a playable demo until maybe late March (optimistic) to April or maybe even May or June (in the worst case scenario).

    But hey.... I am only guessing smile.gif

    -tom w

    0

    Civilian Taxis and Sedans in the game: Anybody else pick up on this:

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    The promo web site is BRILLIANT :D , thanks, I drank it up like morning coffee this morning. I was thrilled to wake up to it.

    now.... from the list on new web site:

    Civilian and Unconventional Threat Vehicles

    Pickup (Technical, variously armed)

    Pickup (Transport)

    Taxi

    Sedan (with and without Improvised Explosive Devices)

    OK, so everybody knows there are no civilians, but it looks like there will be civi vehicles: "Sedan (with and without Improvised Explosive Devices)".

    Now correct me if I am wrong, but I don't recall a thread discussing the possibility that civilian vehicles would be modeled such that there may be parked cars (sedan) and LOTS of them and one of them may or may not have a IED in it. So does this mean there will be civilian traffic or just parked cars??

    Does this mean the Syrian player can move decoy sedans around, (like simulating civilian traffic) that are not carrying IED's and move other civilian vechilces around the road system that could be carrying IED's? (Taxi's or Pick-ups?)

    Or are they all only parked?

    wondering?

    (have we ever had any clarification on this in the past bones offered up here?)

    -tom w

    0

    New Syrian TO&E thread

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    "4. are able to leave the area with full unit cohesion and having lost only one prisoner."

    Will Durant? the downed Black Hawk Pilot? ( somehow that hardly counts as a lost prisoner in the context of ground unit cohesion as he was a pilot, smile.gif AND they got him back in prisoner swap right? )

    Did they not have to give ALL their high value prisoners back to get Durant free? (Just a question.)

    -tom w

    Originally posted by Sgt.Joch:

    "Black Hawk Down" is actually a very good example of what the U.S. forces can accomplish.

    You have well trained, well equipped light infantry force, which:

    1.accomplishes their primary mission of capturing high value prisoners;

    2.are capable of switching mid mission to secure new objectives (i.e. the crash sites);

    3.advance and operate in a hostile urban environment where they are outnumbered 10-20 to 1, with no armor or artillery support (although light armor shows up late in the battle), and only helicopters as air support, yet achieve kill ratios of 50 to 1; and

    4. are able to leave the area with full unit cohesion and having lost only one prisoner.

    If a german Kampfgruppe commander had done the same thing on the eastern front in WW2, he would have been flown to Berlin to receive the Iron Cross personally from Adolf Hitler.

    0

    screenshots

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Can anyone help Mr. Bean

    I know my way around this web site fairly well (At least I like to think so), but I can't find the latest screen shots anywhere.

    Where are the very latest set of screen shots Steve posted and why are they so hard to find?

    (At least Mr. Bean could not find them easily and he is interested, because I presume he has never seen them.)

    -tom w

    0

    CM:SF Bone: Its official PBEM is IN!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    But so far no word on file size.

    (but since we all claimed (unanimously) that we don't care about file size, I am only posting this question because I am JUST curious.

    How big is the file size?

    Small skirmish? (a hand full of units on each side)

    Medium sized engagement? (regular every day garden variety scenario)

    Large scale battle with as many units as possible in the game?

    (i.e. The BIG One, "Crossing the Volga" was a BIG One!) :D

    any estimates?

    Thanks for the GREAT news!

    -tom w

    And never forget, "For every action there is always and equal and opposite overreaction!" ;)

    0

    Lack of News is Frustrating!

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

    Good idea, but I thought I'd settle for making the most understated announcement I could possibly think of. Every action has an equal and opposite reaction tongue.gif

    Steve

    no no no

    In my world:

    "For every action there is an equal an opposite overreaction."

    I live and work with women (young and mature). (I would like to say more but I know there are women who read these threads.)

    -tom w

    0

    the future War Robot's in Harpers

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 1

    Posted

    I have not seen this yet but:

    2007-02_350.jpg

    I thought it might be of interest here.

    There does not appear to be an online web page for the article, so I guess they want you to buy the magazine.

    link here:

    Harper's Online link, but no actual article.

    read up :D

    Blog entry and interesting review here, posted 11:10 AM Feb 5 2007

    Blog review of Harper's robot article

    Two articles caught my interest. The first, by Edward Luttwak of the Center for Strategic and International Studies, on counterinsurgency, and the other by freelance writer Steve Featherstone, on "the coming robot army".

    The counterinsurgency article was more interesting, so I'll deal with it second. Featherstone's piece on robots describes in scary detail the operation of the next generation of remote-control military equipment.

    There are already unmanned drones of all kinds, but the next generation has more power: robots that can climb walls, coordinate with other camera-carrying, intelligence-gathering robots to create a complete picture of the battlefield. The robots are part of a "kill chain" that will enable the US military (which is the only one I think could afford such things) to inflict more casualties and do more damage with reduced casualties. The generation of robots after this one will be able to make decisions and operate quite independently of remote control.

    Featherstone extrapolates ethical issues that I don't think are the right ones. He raises a hypothetical: suppose a drone, following orders, kills a family in the home of an insurgent. Who is responsible? I don't think this is such a complex issue: it has never been the case that soldiers who commit war crimes are solely culpable. It has always been the case that militaries (and bureaucracies) are organized specifically to diffuse responsibility away from individuals. So people who make the decision to go to war are culpable just as soldiers are. And to the degree that a society is democratic, we're all culpable to the degree that we have the power to change a policy and don't.

    What I wonder though is whether the robotification of the army has limits. Does the complexity and expense of the organization of an army that uses robots heavily create vulnerabilities? Is such an organization good at some things and not others? And, leading into Luttwak's article, given that no military can stand against the US military and we're talking about an army that will be fighting relatively defenceless populations, what are the effects of using such an army on a population?

    Luttwak's argument is as follows. Counterinsurgency is a political and not a military problem and so the astounding and increasing firepower the US brings to bear in Iraq (or Afghanistan), and its ability to kill without taking casualties (which the US population is sensitive to) becomes irrelevant in the face of insurgents who will hide among the population, passively protected by the population, rather than fight against vastly superior firepower. Why does the population support insurgents, Luttwak asks? Because the insurgents are willing to out-terrorize the occupier. Cooperation with the occupier is punished with terrible reprisals. The political solution to this, used by the Romans, the Ottomans, the Nazis, is to be willing to out-terrorize the insurgents. Some high profile massacres will do the job, but the US, because of principled opposition to massacres, won't do so. The only thing that might help the US if it is unwilling to out-terrorize, is to be willing to govern. But since the US wants to leave governance to the locals, its counterinsurgency program is doomed.

    Interesting observations, and the blog entry goes on to point out issues and problems.

    I posted it because I found it was a blog entry with reference to the robot army, but it was also a review of the counter insurgency piece. I am not sure I can comment on the main point.

    -tom w

    [ February 05, 2007, 09:22 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

    0
×
×
  • Create New...