aka_tom_w
-
Posts
8,130 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by aka_tom_w
-
-
but its a small request...
Just toss in the T80 and the BMP-3 is all we are asking....
-tom w
-
A handfull of BMP-3's and some T80's (he he) might make the game a little more interesting I would say.... (just for "What if..." sake!
)UPGRADED BMP-3M VEHICLEKBP and Kurganmashzavod have upgraded the vehicle with a new turret and engines. The upgraded vehicle is called the BMP-3M and the new turret includes a new automatic fire control system with digital computer, new BZS1 gunner's sight with SAGEM thermal imager and laser illuminator, TKN-AI commander's periscope with laser infrared illuminator and new ammunition loading system. The BMP-3M will also be able to fire ammunition types including new 100mm laser-guided projectiles, new 100mm HE-FRAG (high explosive fragmentation) rounds and new 30mm APSDS (armour piercing discarding sabot) rounds. Additional passive armour protection is effective against 12.7mm armour-piercing rounds from a range of 50m. Explosive reactive armour is available as an option. The new uprated engine is the UTD-32, which is rated at 660hp.
BMP-3 ARMAMENT
The main armament of the BMP-3 is a 100mm 2A70 semi-automatic rifled gun/missile launcher, which is stabilised in two axes and can fire either 3UOF HE-FRAG (High Explosive-Fragmentation) rounds or 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missiles. Effective range for the HE-FRAG round is 4,000m. Muzzle velocity is 250m/s. 22 HE-FRAG rounds can be carried in the automatic loader, total ammunition load being 40 rounds. Rate of fire is 10 rounds per minute.
The gun fires the 3UBK10 anti-tank guided missile round, which consists of the 9M117 laser beamriding missile and container. This missile is used in the Bastion missile system (NATO designation AT-10 Stabber). The missile can engage tanks with explosive reactive armour (ERA) as well as slow, low-flying targets such as helicopters. Range is 100 to 4,000m. Hit probability is given as at least 0.8 with armour penetration of 600mm. Ammunition load is 8 rounds.
Armament also includes a 30mm 2A72 automatic gun, stabilised in two axes, which fires 3UOR-6 and 3UOR-8 rounds. Ammunition load is 500 AP (Armour-Piercing) or HE-FRAG rounds. Rate of fire is more than 300 rounds/min and range is 1,500 to 2,000m. There are also one 7.62mm PKT coaxial machine gun and two 7.62 bow machine guns.
-
Doesn't this pretty much sum it up for the Syrian side?
The OPFOR (Opposing Forces) consist of regular Syrian Army troops, the well trained/armed Syrian Special Forces, hastily organized militias, and other non-conventional combat formations. This array of opposition allows for a host of possibilities and opportunities for vastly varied play from one scenario to another. The tactical challenges that these forces and terrain options, along with the new way we're constructing scenario parameters, present make CMx1's battles look mundane and repetitive by comparison. Rest assured that CM:SF is not an unchallenging "turkey shoot" for the US player. We'd not be making a modern game if we felt an unrealistic turkey shooter was the best we could do.
The campaign is single player only from the US side. Quick Battles and user made Scenarios (using the Editor) can be played from both sides. Additionally there is an option to play "Blue on Blue" where US forces face off against US forces.
-Steve
-
Great post Scott!!
Excellent reply by Steve as well.
Perhaps this thread deserves a sticky to the top of the forum as well?
-tom w
-
OK!Originally posted by Grapeshot:I think the real question here is a little hidden. I like modern combat but the problem simulating it is the leathality of the equipment. What I mean is for the most part in modern combat, if you can see it, is dead.
snip
I really like the modern setting, but how do you keep it from being a "I see you now your dead" type of game.
This was the essense of my first post and question.
So far the only thing that makes sense is to use lots of arty (I sure hope the Syrian's have some too
)and smoke and dust to obsure the advance.I am trying my best to figure out how these battles could be a fair fight. But the US with all the UAV',s Helo's, CAS, and arty AND fancy pants counter battery arty, (NEVER mind the stand off firpower of the M1A1) seem to me to be still quite invincible leading me to wonder just how one sided these battle's will be.
If balance in the scenario's is to come from IED's and guerilla tactics including the possibility of suicide missions that might sort of become somewhat distastful.
I can't wait to hear the cries of "gamey" tactics on the part of Syrian player, because "gamey" maybe be the only option for the underdog, and by gamey I mean use of IED's and suicide bombers and car bombs and truck bombs.
I am trying to keep an open mind. The Demo should tell us a lot.
Thank-you JasonC for your very interesting and informative reply!
-tom w
-
good question
How many campaigns?
how about replayability?
curious?
:confused:
thanks
-tom w
-
cleary artillary, CAS and UAV's may tip the balance for the Yanks, but supposing arty et. al. is not always available I can easily see a balanced scenario.
yes?
-tom w
-
even in 2007?
are we talking about what works right now or what "should" work in 2007?
:confused:
-tom w
-
Excellent, Smithers!BTW, the other way to get decent numbers is to have guys with classified info play it and listen for complaints that such and such should be "a little bit more" or "a little bit less". Think I'm kidding? Let's just say we weren't the ones that came up with this idea
Steve
-tom w
-
OK
but the Strykers that carry the infrantry over those 1-2km are ALSO vulnerable to the ATGMs.
So this does this mean my inf advance over 1km without AFV's to make contact with the dug in inf with the ATGM?
I am still trying to figure out how this whole thing will play out, sounds more and more like if the Syrians know what they are doing that it won't in fact be a "turkey shoot" in any way.
-tom w
-
OK!I'm very curious to see what BFC does to replicate the C3I issues in the upcoming game, since simply thinking "WW2 on steroids at 2500 yds" is not going to cut it.Exactly
That is sort of what I was thinking.
The range and the size of the map almost need to be about 10 times bigger then WWII scenarios. Except they say the emphasis is on urban terrain so lets see what the demo scenarios look like.
Thanks
-tom w
-
Thanks to all.
I just don't understand the whole "range" thing.
Meaning that ranges for leathal kills from Anti tank missiles are about 10 times larger (give or take) then what I am used to in WWII.
Dan, thanks
its just that for me the 88mm flak is a "known" quanity I understand the 88mm and its accuracy and leathality.is the problem you are posing really all that different from maneuvering Shermans in an environment where the enemy may have had a couple of Flak 88 waiting for you?I have NO idea about how accurate the anti tank missile is or how long its range? But I am guessing they are VERY accurate and can be targeted out to 1-2 kms.
I guess my point is that for me this is REALLY a whole new ballgame. I hope there is some form of scenario balance so that the underdog Syrian's actually have a chance to win in some scenarios.
Thanks for the replies!
-tom w
-
umSo I wouldn't be surprised if many of the early scenarios in the main campaign represent the time period between when medium units, like Stryker brigades, get in-theatre, but the M1A1s are still on a ship somewhere. . .Except that the REALITY of this present day situation is that the M1A1's are in Iraq right now AND Iraq borders Syria so they should "theoretically" NOT be on a boat somewhere. IMO
They should be immediately available despite the theory of how Stryker brigades "should" be deployed.
-tom w
-
OK
I am one of those guys that "doesn't get" modern combat.
Sorry my gaming experience is almost exclusively WWII.
I just don't understand how to play or plan for infantry with TOW and anti tank missiles that have REALLY long ranges.
So the point is that in CMx1 if you could stand your armour off say 200-250m the 'shreck's 'zooks 'fausts (whatever) could not really reach you.
Maybe I JUST don't see this from the most appropriate perspective but it looks like Syria as a TON of infrantry based anti-armour assets and technology and I could be wrong but those things look like they can take out Abrams tanks with no problem.
I am not sure of the range but 1-2km does not sound unreasonable. If I am wrong about this someone please tell me.
I don't understand AT ALL how we can have a CM like game (somewhat like the CMx1 series) with leathal ranges for infantry based anti-tanks weapons leathal out to 1-2 km?
Am I wrong?
Please tell me how to play this game which appears to be Stryker based when the Syrians on defense (with HOME field advantage by the way Lets see how they model that!) will have plenty of infantry based anti tanks missiles with LONG ranges???
I don't get it?
Thanks
-tom w
-
I think Steve said somewhere in this thread they would take a look at this:
quote:
Originally posted by Other Means:
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.
-
good points
-tom w
Originally posted by vincere:Steve, I think that this thread has a bearing on the new title for two reasons.
1. The ARR that you posted made several references to the tactical impact of casualties.
2. The TOE diagrams being posted are showing platoon/company level medic Strykers with 2 medics and one surgeon/specialist.
So my question is: are you likely to look at modeling casualties in more depth in the future?
-
-
More OFP2 eye candy here
I have to say it DOES look nice!
(But there is NO Mac version IIRC)
-tom w
-
First though off the top of my head....Actually BFC doesn't have to invent these TSD dispalys and the mechnaization to handle data link targets in that this capability is part of the Stryker's (and other platform's) design. Thus all BFC needs is to get access to a Strkyer user's manual and see how they handle it. And even though CMSF is not a FPS game (and hence does not habe to imulate the crew station operation like say a combat flight simulation) it could be argued that it does need to address how data linked targets are treated in that these affect tactical C2What a GREAT way to NOT have to worry about eliminating BORG spotting.
All units in Cmx1 had that intel sharing technology (platform specific or whatever) modelled PERFECTLY.
(I do hope they will pay extreme attention to the detail of this particular issue with regard to relative spotting AND technology and C2 command and communications for BOTH side of the battel in as REALISTIC a way as possible!)
-tom w
-
Now thats INTERESTING!Originally posted by Peter Cairns:I am Okay with Syria as a setting, but given the current situation in Iraq and the politcal fall out from OIF, let alone Katrina, I think it would need to be something spectacular to get the US involved in another major military operation.
The one I would have choosen would have been Pakistan.
Scenario.
In a democratic parliamentary election Islamic party's with Talaban sympathies win a majority and look set to take power.
This raises the prospect of people not just sympathetic to Bin Laden, but potentially actually hidding him, taking control of nuclear weapons. The very nightmare scenario that OIF was all about.
The Army steps in to prevent the government taking power and a civil war errupts.
The UN Security council then agrees to a US lead force ( popular or not they are the only nation that can project anything with punch rapidly), to secure the Nukes and put them under international control.
I think it would be more plausable and a better game, but hell Syrias not bad.
Peter.
Great back story.
Is Syria's military larger or more of a challenge than that of Pakistan?
-tom w
[ October 10, 2005, 06:44 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
I thought that "What If.." scenarios were what Military simulations are ALL about!
How many times in CMAK and CMBB and CMAK have we hear all the those calls for "What if" scenarios???? (plenty)
The venerable "What if" scenario is the foundation of all military planning and training. And this whole Syria thing seems to be as good a "What if" scenario as any at this point. Korean 2007 might be interesting as well but that one could get REALLY messy fast (as in escalate to the use of WMD's maybe).
So..
It matters not to me if this particular game, or "What if" scenario, is probable or likely or not likely to become reality. But from the looks of it, it looks like it could provide a tactically challenging back drop to get a feel for modern MOUT combat using (mostly) today's current equipment and technology. So that should be interesting for a change of pace from CMx1.
I don't care at all if it is real or possible or probable or likely to actually take place. I personally hope it does not. I just hope this simulation is tactically challenging and actually entertaining to play.
-tom w
[ October 09, 2005, 11:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]
-
Thanks
Perhaps, everyone here should read that AAR and stop and think, it was very sobering. IMO
-tom wThe tactics and techniques contained in the evaluation were gained at an enormous price. Marines were killed on the field of battle developing these tactics. It is the duty of every Marine infantryman to not allow these lessons to die with time. This evaluation is only one step in passing on the knowledge. -
late Q1 2006
maybe Q2? 2006 April May June at the latest?
Just guessing
-tom w
-
OKOriginally posted by mattwagner:Wanted to add my 2 cents...
I was in a Stryker brigade in the cav. I never got to live fire a Javelin, but I've seen it a couple of times and went through simulator training on it. I forget how much one of those missles run, but suffice to say, only a couple guys got to live fire.
The thing is insane. It can kill anything, including the Abrams. Its neigh idiot proof. You lock on your target and hit the trigger. It's dead. Completely dead.
That's one thing though.
We also had LRAS3 (15k thermal & more).
In NTC we were spotting ****(vehicles and dismounts) practically through solid objects. Way far away. 15K, straight up. T-72? Call in the big guns. Boom. Don't even need to break out the Javelin.
Modern battlefield? Its not even a contest. And its only getting like that more and more. Playing that in a game... would be so boring.
Urban ops? That's a whole nother story!
Also wanted to add, the Javelin is supposed to be able to kill any armor threat into 2010-2020.
that's interesting!
-tom w
)and smoke and dust to obsure the advance.
Side balancing
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
perhaps I am dillusional or just forgetful but I cannot remember the last point, concept, issue or "thing' we disagreed about? (really :confused: )
-tom w