aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
FAR more complex indeed!
-tom w
-
I am guessing they have thought of that.It is highly unrealistic that a squad gets 3 wounded and just goes on fighthig like nothing has happened.But the solution is bound to be abstracted in "easy" way to make the game still fun and playable.
(I hope)
-tom w
-
"I'm pretty sure the cost of armoring a US Soldier is close to $1000. "
By that you mean body armour alone not counting the cost of any other equipement?
-tom w
-
I agree with this completelyPlease make the scenario and Quickbattle parameters unlimited beyond strickly realisticborders for both sides. Dont dump the old style meeting engagment type of scenarios. Although unrealistic, many of us find this type of QBs the most fun of all, allowing both players for manuevering, attacking and defending at the same time. I would like to be on the offensive as Syrians as well, using MBT's BMP's etc having a force as mobile as an allied one and being able to use all the air, art assets the syrian
inventory can field. (why not some T-80s and BMP-3s? this is going to be fictional after all, wasn't the kornet supposed not to have been shipped to Iraq?)
Please consider:
" I would like to be on the offensive as Syrians as well, using MBT's BMP's etc having a force as mobile as an allied one and being able to use all the air, art assets the syrian
inventory can field. (why not some T-80s and BMP-3s? this is going to be fictional after all."
Now "What if" scenarios like THAT could make the game fun and worthwhile.
-tom w
-
While researching this on the web I found this OLD game text saved for posterity Commodore 64Originally posted by gunnergoz:So---nobody's heard of Celles? 2nd US Armored vs 2nd Panzer Division? Tanks, tanks, tanks...oh and did I mention tanks, halftracks, SP artillery, etc, etc?
I think that one would, er, rock.
interesting:The goal of Project 64 is to preserve Commodore 64 related documents
in electronic text format that might otherwise cease to exist with the
rapid advancement of computer technology and declining interest in 8-
bit computers on the part of the general population.
Extensive efforts were made to preserve the contents of the original
document. However, certain portions, such as diagrams, program
listings, and indexes may have been either altered or sacrificed due
to the limitations of plain vanilla text. Diagrams may have been
eliminated where ASCII-art was not feasible. Program listings may be
missing display codes where substitutions were not possible. Tables
of contents and indexes may have been changed from page number
references to section number references. Please accept our apologies
for these limitations, alterations, and possible omissions.
Document names are limited to the 8.3 file convention of DOS. The
first characters of the file name are an abbreviation of the original
document name. The version number of the etext follows next. After
that a letter may appear to indicate the particular source of the
document. Finally, the document is given a .TXT extension.
The author(s) of the original document and members of Project 64 make
no representations about the accuracy or suitability of this material
for any purpose. This etext is provided "as-is". Please refer to the
warantee of the original document, if any, that may included in this
etext. No other warantees, express or implied, are made to you as to
the etext or any medium it may be on. Neither the author(s) nor the
members of Project 64 will assume liability for damages either from
the direct or indirect use of this etext or from the distribution of
or modification to this etext. Therefore if you read this document or
use the information herein you do so at your own risk.
*********
The Project 64 etext fo the ~Breakthrough in the Ardennes manual~,
converted to etext by Vincent <vcsfu@is1.hk.super.net>.
ARDENN10.TXT, July 1997, etext #260#
*********
BREAKTHROUGH IN THE ARDENNES MANUAL
=======================
By December 27, the 2nd Panzer Division had been mauled by the U.S. and 2nd Armored Division near Celles and had to retreat back to Rockhefort. The 9th Panzer was attacking the 84th Infantry near Marche. The 9th SS Panzer had pushed the 82nd Airborne which was now holding a line from Trois Ponts to Manhay. The U.S. 4th Armored Division managed to open a narrow corridor into Bastogne and had linked up with the valiant defenders of the 101st Airborne. On the south flank the Germans held positions across the Sure River against attacks by the 80th, 26th and 35th Infantry Divisions.
-
What about these two
M1131 Stryker FSV - Fire Support Vehicle
M1134 Stryker ATGM - Anti Tank Guided Missile
That ATGM Styker is the one we need and I don't see it in the Company Org chart for the ToE of the Stryker company.
and I understand the MSG Strykers are not ready for prime time.
(still having problems like some one here reported if you point the gun sideways and fire it the recoil tips the Stryker on its side??? :confused: Is that true?)
interesting
-tom w
-
From
More news....
(this even sounds like it could be a "kernal" of the up coming BFC "back story" for CM:SF....
he he
SuspicionsSome sceptics, on the other hand, are suggesting that the interior minister decided to end his life because he knew he would be implicated when the results of the inquiry into Mr Hariri's death were published later this month.
Critics and opponents of the Syrian government go even further.
Mr Kanaan was killed, they say, in order that the blame for the assassination of the Lebanese prime minister could be pinned on him alone.
President Assad faces a monumental challenge in keeping his regime together under these various pressures - and in the unwelcome spotlight of international attention
They back their argument by pointing out the manner in which the news was released - the time, place and circumstances of his death, encapsulated in an uncharacteristically speedy and informative bulletin from the state news agency.
In the end, it matters little which version one chooses to believe.
The real damage is the fact that a very senior member of the Damascus regime, a man who for two decades orchestrated Syria's policies in Lebanon, has gone.
In his post as interior minister, Kanaan symbolized the awesome power of Syria's security and intelligence apparatus.
His untimely death demonstrates a previously unimaginable vulnerability in that apparatus.
-
JasonC's points are well taken
-tom w
-
Please recall that Steve said they would consider this suggestion:
(I don't know if we can seriously expect any more than that?)
Other MeansMember
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
-
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
-
Well I agree for realism sake casualties "should" slow things down a LOT!I for one would be disappointed if a US squad takes a load of casualties and then just carries on after a minute or two pinned as if nothing has happened. The sticky AAR indicates that casualties must be retrieved at all times when engaged in MOUT operations. We need to see those casualties and see how they are being retrieved, or at least abstract it so that it is a severe limitation on US mobility.
However, the game will become REALLY boring and perhaps border on unplayable if the player must med-evac all WIA's.
I think somewhere in this thread Steve said the player would absolutely NOT be able to move or kill or med-evac any WIA's and that it would "somehow" (insert BFC Magic Bullet here) be abstracted, otherwise the game would fall apart right there.
I am sure Steve was aware of the theatre of operations and the near future time frame when he posted to this thread with the black and white edict that WIA's won't NOT ever be moved by the player. (If I understood that correctly).
Perhaps I should review this thread, (BUT its a BIG one!)
-tom w
-
come on! Any body who has ever watched Toy Story knows:
"A good soldier never leaves a man behind!"
-Army Soldier Commander in Toy Story
Sorry couldn't help it.
-tom w
-
bump
Just for fun since Steiner started a new thread for this issue.
-tom w
-
Hey, and don't forget to give the Syrian's Home Field advantage!
-tom w
-
WOW
I thought the thread and the post was a joke!
NO joke.
BBC News:
Last Updated: Wednesday, 12 October 2005, 14:35 GMT 15:35 UKSyrian minister 'commits suicide'
Kanaan (left) was Syria's top official in Lebanon for years
Syria's Interior Minister Ghazi Kanaan has committed suicide, the official news agency in Damascus says.
He was reportedly questioned by a UN investigator last month over the murder of ex-Lebanese PM Rafik Hariri.
For many years Kanaan was Syria's powerful intelligence chief in Lebanon, which was dominated by Syria until its military withdrawal earlier this year.
Hours before his death, he said he had served Lebanon with honesty, adding that this interview may be his last.
Last message?
"Interior Minister Brig Gen Ghazi Kanaan committed suicide in his office before noon," the Syrian Arab News Agency (Sana) reported.
The authorities are carrying out the "necessary investigation" into the incident, Sana said.
-
Welcome 19K30
I hope you will feel free to post more often with your thoughts and experiences.
Thanks.
-tom w
Originally posted by 19K30:As a M1 Tank Commander, I can tell you that M1 is very vunerable in a MOUT setting. The M1 was designed for fighting the Russina T-72/T-80 horde in the Fulda Gap. Several concepts and modifications are being tested to improve combat effectiness of the M1 in MOUT.
I can tell you from personal experience that a M1 can be seriously damage/destroyed from a determined foe. One of the tanks in my Company became combat ineffective due to RPG's and IED's in Iraq.
Strykers aren't designed to replace the tank, but to be a lighter, radidly deployed, combat effective force used in areas where tanks would not be as effective or deployable.
Strykers are the bridge between light infantry brigades/divisions and the heavy mechanized brigades/divisions.
As a Tanker I am bias to tanks but I do see the use for Strykers. European countries have had stryker-esqe vehicles for decades. In some ways, the US is finally catching up to modern combat thinking.
My buddies, some of whom are combat vets on strykers, LOVE them and would never go back to tanking.
-
Agreed!Originally posted by Hoolaman:I am extremely relieved that there will not be suicide bombers, even if it's only because of technical issues.
I know it's part of the modern spectrum of war, I'm just not interested in seeing anyone make game of it at all. Yuck.
That news alone makes me much more inclined to buy CMSF.
Although WWII did see Japanese fighter pilots use commit suicide to fullfill their mission objectives so the prinicple is not without historical precedent.
But the game will be better off without them for sure.
-tom w
[ October 12, 2005, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
grunt_GI
Junior Member
Member # 5553
posted October 11, 2005 08:56 PM
Hello Battlefront,
Love the idea, I have been a loyal CM player even after Apple dropped RAVE support with OSX
Would like to know if CMSF will be dual platform and what you THINK the hardware requirements will be...haven't seen much on that in this section. Will a 1 Ghz with 64MB of VRAM be enough horsepower?
-
]If you have not read this blog you should!
That was a great AAR of action at Mosul.
-tom w
Luckily I made a mirror after his famous Men in Black post, you can find it here . [/quoteOriginally posted by Martin Krejcirik:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Andreas:
My War Stryker Blog - does anyone know where the original posts of that blog ended up?
Andreas
My War Stryker Blog - does anyone know where the original posts of that blog ended up?
Andreas [/qb]</font>
-
This thread might help you if you are seriously looking for hints on tactics:
Advice for guys that don't know anything about modern combat tactics with Strykers.
There are some REAL gems of wisdom and insight in there.
-tom w
-
Thanks for the insightful and very informative reply.
-tom w
Originally posted by JasonC:The Israelis lost 800 to 1000 tanks to Saggers in the 1973 war. The Sagger isn't a particularly good ATGM, and the Egyptian crews using them weren't particularly good, either.
[ October 16, 2005, 08:32 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
This web site says Syria has ALREADY bought the Kornet!
army-technology.com Says Russia has sold Kornets to Syria!
KORNET E ANTI-ARMOUR MISSILE, RUSSIAKornet E is the name given to the export version of the Russian Kornet missile system. The system, first shown in 1994, has been developed by the KBP Instrument Design Making Bureau, Tula, Russia and is in production and service with the Russian Army and has been sold to the Syrian Army.
Kornet is a third generation system, developed to replace the Fagot and Konkurs missile systems in the Russian Army. It is designed to destroy tanks, including those fitted with explosive reactive armour (ERA), fortifications, entrenched troops as well as small-scale targets. The system can be fitted to a variety of tracked and wheeled vehicles, including the BMP-3 infantry fighting vehicle, as well as serving as a standalone, portable system. The self-propelled Kornet missile system is manufactured by the Volsk Mechanical Plant, Volsk, Russian Federation.
It was reported in April 2005 that the Kornet E missile system has been ordered by the government of Eritrea.
-
Originally posted by Vanir Ausf B:
It had to do with rarity.
Oh yeah
OK
I will give you that one, because I never "buy units" so the whole rarity could have been something we did not agree on.
But that was not a big deal for me
Just a matter of opinion and difference of play style. NOW back to Syria and those T80's BRING 'em on!
-tom w
-
OK
this is how the victory points should go
(WAY off topic but somehow related to Side balance)
every time a weapon get destroyed or a round or missile is fired there should be database the keeps track of how much it costs (in REAL US dollars) for each player to play that game, and the one that spends the least and gets the MOST bang for the Buck wins!
I am laughing here because obviously some of the new anti tank missiles cost around US $100,000 EACH!
So the player that spends the least amount of cash to achieve the objective WINS
(oh AND yes, I am joking!)
-tom w
Sorry to harp on about casualties again, but...
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
-tom w
[ October 13, 2005, 10:27 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]