aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
agreed
I suspect it might have to be a NEW title
Perhaps there third title release after WWII ETO CMx2 #2 release.
My understanding of the "module" concept is that they mostly just offer us new units, like for instance US Marines in CM:SF with the SAME game engine just new units and maybe new terrain "tiles" or new land forms of some kind or something.
I would humbly suggest the ’73 Arab Israelis war would need to be released as a new title after the CMx2 game engine was tweaked once again for that period, has it is truly NOT a modern high tech, all digital battle like the future scenario in Syria 2007 of CM:SF
(but thats just my opinion)
thanks
-tom w
[ October 18, 2005, 07:29 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I would like them to try to pull that off. A small team of US special forces in DEEP trouble, cut off ( and completely out of player control). Perhaps some really good stuff like this will show up in the second title release for WWII ETO which would also be very welcome!For example, I can foresee a rescue scenario where a Company team is sent in to locate and extricate a friendly cut off element, where the cut off unit is under AI control, at least until linked up with other friendly forces.thanks
-tom w
-
Thats a LOT to think about.
I am of the opinion that might be sort of hard to simulate in the game, BUT I sure hope they try to pull it off so something like that "might" happen in the game. Units getting lost in the woods in the dark would be an added bonus but if EVERYBODY has GPS technology the whole "getting lost" thing goes RIGHT out the window.
That friendly fire summary was very enlightening.
Thanks
-tom w
-
That is probably one of THE all time BEST suggestion I have heard on this board.Originally posted by MikeyD:What BFC should do is leverage their Combat Mission brand, place themselves in the paths of people who imagine themselves to be the 'kind of person' who could appreciate a serious boutique tactical military sim. Y'see, its the opposite of traditional advertising. Instead of saying "This product is GREAT" they should say "We're a serious game house. It takes a particular kind of person to appreciate us. Do YOU have what it takes?" BFC's already got some mileage out of the brand. Games as diverse as Drop Team to Down in Flames want to associate themselves with CM integrity.
This man KNOWS of what he speaks.
We shall call him the community Marketing Grog!
carry on
-tom w
-
There you have it. A ROSTER!We can do plenty of stuff to mess with the US Player's "perfect" Situational Awareness potential. I don't want to get into details yet, but not being able to utilize support assets, units not being registered with Blue Force Tracker, poor quality enemy intel being passed along the network, etc. All sorts of things can be done to realistically make things less than perfect for the US player.
Steve
Yes?
-tom w
-
Yup thats that BEST one so far.Originally posted by RMC:Combat Mission: Durka Durka Durka
It gets my vote.
I am Still LAUGHING!!!
ROTFLMAO
If anyone here has not seen "Team America" rent it and get together with your best male buddies (hint: most women don't find this stuff too funny) and break out the alcohol!
And be prepared to LAUGH YOUR ASS off! Durka Durka Durka!!!
(the uncut simulated puppet sex scene is truly a masterpiece of cinemagraphic x-rated excellence!)
he he
-tom w
-
Combat Mission Syrian Liberation
CM:SL
dunno
"Shock Force" is fine with me
-tom w
-
That sounds like a huge breakthrough or the potential to be a fairly MAJOR bone. But its hard to tell exactly what you are telling us.
Is this really big news or just another comment about how the game code is coming along?
-tom w
No, the opposite. Intermediate terrain will be a factor now thanks to several nights of late night coding by Charles. He as sure he couldn't do it and keep the hardware requirements low enough, but he found some 'trick' to get a realistic result without killing the hardware.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Does this mean that we will retain the "feature" from CM1 where a tank in motion could be hit while it was out of LOS because it was in LOS when the "hit" was calculated?
What I was talking about, specifically, is that if a missile is fire and forget or a controller that is "unmolsted" (in the case of Human guided), the missile will find and strike it's target regardless of a player's direction of the unit itself. I suppose there are some limited circumstances where the player might be able to trick avoid a missile hit, but these are so few and specialized that I don't think there will be problems with this. It also depends on some other stuff we might do/not do
Steve </font>
-
There you have it!
from the same article:
hmmmmBut other officials, who say they got their information in the field or by talking to Special Operations commanders, say that as American efforts to cut off the flow of fighters have intensified, the operations have spilled over the border - sometimes by accident, sometimes by design.Some current and former officials add that the United States military is considering plans to conduct special operations inside Syria, using small covert teams for cross-border intelligence gathering.
The broadening military effort along the border has intensified as the Iraqi constitutional referendum scheduled for Saturday approaches, and as frustration mounts in the Bush administration and among senior American commanders over their inability to prevent foreign radical Islamists from engaging in suicide bombings and other deadly terrorist acts inside Iraq.
Increasingly, officials say, Syria is to the Iraq war what Cambodia was in the Vietnam War: a sanctuary for fighters, money and supplies to flow over the border and, ultimately, a place for a shadow struggle.
Covert military operations are among the most closely held of secrets, and planning for them is extremely delicate politically as well, so none of those who discussed the subject would allow themselves to be identified. They included military officers, civilian officials and people who are otherwise actively involved in military operations or have close ties to Special Operations forces.
In the summer firefight, several Syrian soldiers were killed, leading to a protest from the Syrian government to the United States Embassy in Damascus, according to American and Syrian officials.
-tom w
</font>Originally posted by fytinghellfish:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> WASHINGTON, Oct. 14 - A series of clashes in the last year between American and Syrian troops, including a prolonged firefight this summer that killed several Syrians, has raised the prospect that cross-border military operations may become a dangerous new front in the Iraq war, according to current and former military and government officials.
The firefight, between Army Rangers and Syrian troops along the border with Iraq, was the most serious of the conflicts with President Bashar al-Assad's forces, according to American and Syrian officials.
-
yes
that makes sense
ATGMs should be used like AT-Guns. Even if you can penetrate a target frontally, you should fire against the flank of the target when possible (less armour, worse visibility from inside the vehicle)
[ October 16, 2005, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
With this weapon system ALONE the Syrian's will be very dangerous. It looks like they are newer more modern and less likely to fail in combat then anything else. Which speaks to what some else said about the game, forget the range, "if you can see it you can kill it".
interesting
-tom w
Originally posted by Peter Cairns:Oh and there is this one too.
http://warfare.ru/?linkid=1664&catid=261ℑ=437
AT-14 / 9K135 Kornet
Discuss Email
Video Additional
Competitors:
FGM-148 Javelin Compare
Launcher weight, kg 26
Thermal sight weight, kg 11
Guidance system semiautomatic laser beam riding
Missile weight (with container), kg 29
Warhead types tandem hollow-charge, HE
Firing range, m 100 ... 5,500 (100 ... 3,500 m at night)
Missile calibre, mm 152
Missile length, mm 1,200
Cyclic rate of fire rds/min 1 ... 2
Operating temperature range, °C -20 ... +60
The KORNET-E ATGM system is intended to destroy modern and future tanks protected with explosive reactive armour, hardened point targets (i.e., hull-down tanks, pillboxes, fortifications) and small-size targets, as well as structures and troops in the open.
The key features of the KORNET-E ATGM system are semi-automatic laser beam guidance system and thermal imaging sight for night operation. The launcher unit is easy to carry and mount in different types of vehicles owing to its small dimensions, light weight, and simplicity in disassembling. Modular design and small-size of its guidance system allow this weapon to be used on various vehicles.
The system stands out owing to its high immunity to jamming of laser beam guidance channel in combat operations. A thermal sight is provided to fire at night. The system can be used in various climatic conditions and geographic regions, in high mountainous areas and over a water surface. The effective tandem hollow-charge warhead is capable to engage existing and future tanks at any angles of approach. The HE warhead with thermobaric effect can effectively destroy various fortifications, missile launchers, and soft-skinned targets. The system does not require tests during its storage and employment.
Peter.
-
Does this mean that we will retain the "feature" from CM1 where a tank in motion could be hit while it was out of LOS because it was in LOS when the "hit" was calculated? </font>Originally posted by Panzer76:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
The missile, if it is supposed to hit, will hit.
Steve
-
Now you should be working with Maxis!re: the issues surrounding the inclusion of civilians. Which is one reason why the DoD is so interested in simulations with civilians in them... they don't exist in any meaningful way that I know of. I met with a couple different groups of people making DoD simulations and they're still trying to figure out how to do it. We might beat them to the punch,The makers of Sim City thats what you "should" be doing
I can see it now CMx2 Release title #3
SimCity Meets CM:SF
Just use EVERYTHING about the SimCity game engine, add some sand and the appropriate apparel and throw in all the data and models for AFV's and soldiers and you should be set.
Hell, at some point in SimCity they give you the option of adding a Military Base for extra funding to your City. But those military bases are SO Politically Correct and so CIVILIZED and cute they are disgusting. BFC could do the military aspect of the game for them IT WOULD BE HUGE!
Yeah Thats the Ticket Shotgun wedding BFC and Maxis!
NOW Maxis does know how to model Sim Civilians you have to give them THAT!
he he he
-tom w
-
OKOriginally posted by junk2drive:Tom think of this story.
The current secular regime cooperates with the US and pulls back from its borders. It gives the UN/US permission to seek and destroy radical groups along those borders. The radicals decide to occupy the major cities and overthrow the government. THe US/UN assists the current government in removing these undesirables.
Are the US/UN going to bomb friendly cities first? No.
I guess that is as good a "story" as any....
Thanks
-tom w
-
So the question is how can this whole "what if" game/battle/title work if you don't simulate 2-3 weeks worth of US bombing and cruise missile strikes? Surely in a real what if scenario the Syrians would feel the power of the US bombs and cruise missiles leading up to the "walk over" by US ground forces.Er.. no. First of all, the Syrian Army wouldn't be messing with suicide bombs. So not including them has nothing to do with anything. Since this is the only thing we are not including, I don't know what else you can be thinking of that will be missing. In fact, the Syrians will have a lot of stuff that the opening phase of OIF didn't have to deal with.Steve
BUT to make a "good" game the Syrian's what have to have something left to do battle with.
oh well ... I guess somehow that may all be abstracted "or something". :confused:
-tom w
however If US going to attack Syria, they use bombing campaign from air against "keys" targets for a week or two then ground force go in. Ummmmm...Also I am sure spy recon may already do often even with CIA help as US may already knew where all stuff are to attack to destroy to make US ground force easier go in. I am sure that in 2007 US force may have more advanced UMV flying stealth drones in tiny size to give US ground force all seeing eyes. I wonder if CMSF have spy drone? -
wow
Words fail me :eek:
maybe I will just let the Signature line speak for its self.....
-tom w
-
register me as JUST another disappointed Mac gamer!
And about CM:SF may I just say they have not commited to releasing that on the Mac simultaneously with the PC release.
Did someone already say "Jumped the Shark"??
I would suggest the BFC glory days of the simultaneous MAC/PC release of truly great wargames is over.
AND and....
supposedly its all Apple's fault. (with their new upcoming intel processors and the questions around how that will all turn out)
-tom w
-
its nothing, I am JUST a dissappointed MAC guy
-tom w
-
Remember Steve said "Consider it Considered"....
This suggestion might be as good as it gets...
quote:
Other Means
Member
Member # 11780
posted September 15, 2005 12:07 PM
Steve, can I reiterate my suggestion, which is abstracted enough to be do-able (IMHO and ready to be corrected) while enough to add the WIA/POW dynamic people seem to want?
State 1) When a soldier is wounded, they become immobile & broken. They are still targetable etc but cannot be moved or controlled by the player.
They are in this state for X time, say 3 mins. If they are still within command radius after this they become an "evac'ed" icon and are treated as recovered.
Recovered will mean they have Z chance of death vs WIA in the AAR/next battle.
State 2) If after X time they are outside of command radius but within Y distance of enemies, they become captured and are treated as now, i.e. able to move to the enemies rear. Or possibly change them to a captured icon.
State 3) If after X time they are out of command radius but are not within Y of enemies, they are treated as recovered, i.e. turn to an "evac'ed" icon, but now have a much greater chance of death vs recovery in the AAR/next battle.
ISTM that that will simulate as closely as possible the correct behaviour without over complicating it. This does not take into account the possible state where a WIA and solider are trying to occupy the same space, but I was thinking the live soldier would automatically displace the wounded in the terrain feature.
Can I add that when the WIA becomes captured by the enemy, the player still sees only the evac icon, thereby keeping FOW for hidden enemies. In the AAR the evac icon will show "captured".
-Other Means
Reply:
-----------------
Battlefront.com
Administrator
Member # 42
posted September 15, 2005 04:34 PM
It's not a heated argument from my side. You just have to keep clear that new possibilities exist but so do limitations. Hardware, programming, art, other design issues, etc. all have to be taken into consideration. So in theory what you are picturing is possible, it just isn't practical. That's all. Tons of things are not practical though possible, and perhaps even desirable, so don't feel bad
And to make sure I was understood... the abstracted suggestion by Other Means is being considered. No telling what kinds of problems Charles will discover with it
Steve
-
AbsolutelyOriginally posted by Cpl Steiner:aka_tom_w,
Thanks for your input.
As you say, Battefront are the ultimate arbiters of what goes in the game, and appear at this stage to have ruled out what I suggest. However, I am sure they are open-minded enough to change their opinions if a suggestion makes it past their critical eye of what is feasible in the new game. I don't suggest for a moment that I have the answer, but I respectfully reserve my right to make suggestions until the game is finished.
-tom w
-
Hi Cpl Steiner
I don't disagree with your desire to make this work right or your suggestions.
I was just trying to point out that Steve has already "ruled out" the possibility that players will be able to order units or men or squads OR teams to Move or evac or re-locate the wounded with in the scope of what they plan to do in this game.
If you are not prepared to live with that statement then feel free to continue to suggest alternatives or other options like your last suggestion.
But I think we will in fact see some form of highly abstracted way of dealing with the MIA in the game....
I too, hope it is as realistic as they can possibly make it!
thanks
-tom w
Why is this so hard to code? Lets look at it logically. What steps do they need to implement?Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by aka_tom_w:
I could be wrong but I just don't think this is doable unless we are all prepared to wait another 18- 24 MONTHS for the game.
As it is now I don't we will see the game before next March or April. How much longer do we want to wait for them to get this WIA thing "right" ?
1. The ability to remove a man and substitute him with a casualty marker over another man's head. Forget animation and stuff. Lets just keep it simple for now. The casualty isn't even designated as WIA at this stage, he's just a poor sod who got hit. He could be wounded or dead, but as has been pointed out already, he is still an evac priority.
2. The ability to downgrade a man's firepower and mobility, and possibly the unit as a whole's morale, due to the presence of the casualty marker over the guys head.
3. The ability to transfer casualty markers and/or men between adjacent units in the orders phase.
My point would be that it would add a lot to the game, especially considering the setting, and so should be worth a small delay. </font>
-
I could be wrong but I just don't think this is doable unless we are all prepared to wait another 18- 24 MONTHS for the game.My ideal solution would be as follows. Each US unit in the game (which we know will be about fire-team sized rather than a full squad) will only number about 4 or 5 men, so it is easily possible for an entire unit to be out of action because of 1 or more casualties, either killed or wounded. To simulate this, I would suggest that any casualty must be carried, dragged, or otherwise taken care of by a "buddy". It doesn't need a lot of animation. You could just remove the wounded man and put a medic marker over the buddy to show that he is responsible for a casualty. Once so designated, his mobility and firepower are severely restricted. This will inevitably slow down the rest of the unit, so their combat effectiveness as a whole will now be much reduced. It is now quite realisic to say their main responsibility is to get out of the line of fire for the rest of the battle. The player should move the unit to a suitable safe place and keep it there, if necessary moving the unit to suitable transport if the mission is to exit the map.
To avoid too much attrition, adjacent units should be able to swap a wounded man for a healthy man from the other unit, thereby concentrating the wounded in fewer units. After a battle you might end up with half your units at the rear with wounded markers associated with them, but that's how war is these days.
In a truly horrific incident in which a whole team became casualties, the map would show the location of these casualties and it would be possible for them to be captured by the enemy. To prevent this, the US player would be able to move a healthy team to the area and pick up the casualties, marking which man was responsible for each casualty. You might even have to use a couple of teams to do this if there were many casualties.
The ability to exchange wounded between units would now mean you could have follow on units to replace losses and take responsibility for the evacuation of casualties. They wouldn't necessarily be designated as medic units, but would have a dual medic and replacement role simply by the nature of their use. Now it would be worth while keeping part of your company in reserve.
The changes I suggest would not force you to evac wounded but it would give a strong incentive due to the debilitating effects casualties would have on firepower, mobility, and probably unit morale as well.
And, far from being boring, as many have suggested, I think this aspect of the game might be as interesting as the actual fighting. I accept that I may be in the minority in voicing this opinion, but others may feel the same way, especially when one considers that we will now have a true dynamic campaign system in the game to make us worry about the fate of our soldiers.
As it is now I don't we will see the game before next March or April. How much longer do we want to wait for them to get this WIA thing "right" ?
-tom w
-
Hey Pander
Just see my signature line to see "what kind of a person" I am.
-tom w
-
Pandur I have to tell you that is one of THE most blatently offensive posts I have ever read on this board.
I would humbly request you censure your self and edit that post before someone else does if for you.
If you catch my drift!
:mad:
-tom w
Blue Force Tracker
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
oh OK
the Blue Force Tracker sounded like a fancy Roster for the player to me
(I have never really seen the need for a Roster anyway, so either way its all good!)
Thanks
-tom w