[How is BFC going to handle armour?]

Originally posted by Gryphon:

Hello,

I must say that despite the fact I am a ww2 fanboy, I love the new setting! What puzzles me however, is how you guys are going to handle armour (penetration) for modern vehicles. Modern armour composition (resistance) and armour penetration numbers are generally well kept secrets.

So, how did you guys do it?

This is perhaps the BEST question yet.

-tom w

[General discussion about CM:SF]

Originally posted by retkit:

Thanx Kwayzdog... can help if u want me to.

bw. please try to include more realistic setups for the missions and sides...

Hordlund : why do you think the what IF scenario I suggested is 'interesting'. It sure can happen. We (Turkey) have been threatened more than once by that duo.

Most folks here might "think" they know where Syria is but just in case....

here is a map

from here:

CIA world fact book page on Syria

Just in case you are interested..

More

Military Syria

Military branches:

Syrian Arab Army, Syrian Arab Navy, Syrian Arab Air Force (includes Air Defense Command), Police and Security Force

Military manpower - military age and obligation:

18 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 30 months (2004)

Military manpower - availability:

males age 18-49: 4,356,413 (2005 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:

males age 18-49: 3,453,888 (2005 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:

males: 225,113 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:

$858 million (FY00 est.); note - based on official budget data that may understate actual spending

Military expenditures - percent of GDP:

5.9% (FY00)

Transnational Issues Syria

Disputes - international:

Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied with the almost 1,000-strong UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) patrolling a buffer zone since 1964; Lebanon claims Shaba'a farms in Golan Heights; international pressure prompts the removal of Syrian troops and intelligence personel stationed in Lebanon since October 1976; Syria protests Turkish hydrological projects regulating upper Euphrates waters; 2004 Agreement and pending demarcation settles border dispute with Jordan

Refugees and internally displaced persons:

refugees (country of origin): 413,827 (Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA))

IDPs: 170,000 (most displaced from Golan Heights during 1967 Arab-Israeli War) (2004)

Illicit drugs:

a transit point for opiates and hashish bound for regional and Western markets; weak anti-money-laundering controls, bank privatization may leave it vulnerable to money-laundering

MILITARY FORCES (Total Active Equipment Inventory, including some items in storage)

Source: Adapted by Anthony H. Cordesman, CIA World Factbook, 1996 and IISS, Military Balance, 1996-1997.

-tom w

[ October 09, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[General discussion about CM:SF]

I sure hope they are aiming for mid to late Q1 2006

(I hope!)

-tom w

[A WW2 fan's guide to the CM:SF setting]

hey...

OK ... just for the heck of it lets stay by LATE 2007 they have some T80's to make things interesting!!!

OK?

-tom w

[General discussion about CM:SF]

LOL

[A WW2 fan's guide to the CM:SF setting]

GREAT post

thanks for the thread!

VERY informative

so what's the REAL story ???

in the game in 2007 do the Syrian have the T80?

Or something better?

T80 Notes: The last Soviet-era main battle tank. Syria is rumored to have purchased about 300 of these, though I've read conflicting reports about this (they have, they haven't, etc.)

I sure hope the game will give the OPFOR some "punch" with the rumoured 300 T80's he he

-tom w

PS please feel free to post your idea's for US forces and their WW II comparsions.... Thanks.

[ October 08, 2005, 07:39 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[General discussion about CM:SF]

Originally posted by Hoolaman:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

BTR-60

Good for: Armored personnel transport

Similar WWII vehicle: M3 halftrack

Notes: Giant boat of a vehicle. Can carry twelve dismounts in addition to the crew of 2. Same armament as BRDM-2. Vulnerable to nearly anything - including small arms fire, shell fragments and evil looks from passing camels.

</font>

[General discussion about CM:SF]

Originally posted by Salkin:

If Tom is not using his right to be the president chearleader on this project, maybe I should run.

//Salkin

Its all yours.

I will not be in the running for "president/resident cheerleader for CM:SF".

I will however reserve the right to run again for the same position when CMx2 WWII in the ETO comes around !!!

thanks

-tom w

[General discussion about CM:SF]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by 76mm:

This thread is for general discussion, and that's what this is. Maybe you should start a seperate cheerleading thread?

I'd be stunned beyond words to find that aka_tom_w has not done that already.

Now, now, boys, play nice. I noticed the missing unit patches too...I think they should have one on THE CODPIECE, strike some fear into the heart of the enemy... </font>

[General discussion about CM:SF]

Excellent set of questions

these questions and this level of technical detail are what I am looking forward to!

I like this one the best!

"Will the laser designation time be modeled so the laser has to be kept on the target for the entire time of flight of the weapon? If so can the guy with the laser be suppressed (sp?) with counter fire?"

THAT is one heckuva a good question!

(The answer could come in the form of "Don't worry about it, there are no Special Forces modeled in the first release, NO AC 130's and no laser painting of targets to worry about.")

-tom w

Originally posted by Midnight Warrior:

Bravo! Super! When can I preorder!!!

A few questions:

Will any of the modules have tactical UAV's such as a Dragon Eye?

Dragon Eye Photos

How about the bigger UAV's like hunters and predators. Do they play a role in a CM sized fight?

Will the game include ground based laser designators for CAS delivered LGB's and artillery laser guided rounds such as Copperheads and Helo launched Hellfires?

Will the laser designation time be modeled so the laser has to be kept on the target for the entire time of flight of the weapon? If so can the guy with the laser be suppressed (sp?) with counter fire?

Will CAS aircraft also carry JDAMs, Maverick Missiles? Will there be just A-10's or also F-16's for CAS. Will they be able to use employ their Gatlin guns?

What about AC-130's. Will they be included for CAS?

edit: corrected a couple of typos

[Defense Contracts]

If they can sell Title #1 CM:SF to the military and make a few extra bucks GREAT!

more cash for better and longer CMx2 WWII in ETO Title #2 developement!!

Perfect, I hope they can make a Bundle of ca$h from contracts with the military defense establi$hment!

(I fear however, this is A LOT easy said then done!, but they do have a good track record so far with the Australian Defense Ministry so that should help for sure!)

-tom w

[ October 08, 2005, 05:00 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Thank you for CMx2 WWII ETO!]

This is may be the game most here are looking forward to:

Combat Mission set in WWII

We won't be talking much about this project until after CM:SF is released for the simple reason that we can not afford to be distracted by something we aren't actively working on yet. What I can tell you is that the setting for the main title will be WWII set in western ETO 1944-45 timeframe. Like CM:SF the player will be in command of a task force based around US forces. Follow up Modules will cover other Allied forces and settings within the same WWII western ETO setting.

This one could be a REAL Gem after they work out all the bugs in the CMx2 game engine while finishing CM:SF!

There has been plenty of bitching and moaning this afternoon about the first title.

How many folks here have said "Thanks!" the second title sounds GREAT!!!

Well let me be the first!

THANKS! BFC the Second title will be the one I will be MOST looking forward to!

-tom w

[General discussion about CM:SF]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

I think there was a quote from an Iraqi tank battalion commander in GW1 who said something like "We went into Kuwait with 30 tanks. After six weeks of air attacks we had 25 tanks. After five minutes against the M-1 Abrams I had no tanks."

Ground power is still where it's at. Just remember that Syrian T-72s are not the Asad Babyl tanks the Iraqis had.

OK Thanks

I could be wrong but I was always lead to believe helicopters bearing anti tank missiles where to be the GREAT leveler of the battlefield on the Fulda Gap to over come the advantage in numbers of tanks the Warsaw Pact had present in the 80's compared to the lack of tanks on the part of the NATO forces, thus implying all the "extra" Warsaw pact tanks would be held back (destroyed) by squadrons of attack helicopters firing precise anti-tank missiles against multiple targets.

BUT I could be wrong maybe it does not actually work that way in reality

-tom w

[General discussion about CM:SF]

Hi Steve

Thanks for all the answers

Did anyone ask about Anti rockets from helo's??

I thought that big tanks and any armour on today's battlefield would be instantly smoked in the opening minutes of any US lead battle by missile's fired by helo's, thus bringing us back to the aformentioned "turkey shoot" . As in "This won't be just another turkey shoot for the US forces" .

"Since helos are a common component of CAS, of course they will be included. However, if you don't have them assigned you don't get them. You can't just stop your attack and call up the chain to get something that isn't available just because you want it. Doesn't work that way in real life, shouldn't work that way in the game. Obviously in real life the commander can theoretically make a decision to abort a mission until such assets come into play, but that doesn't make for an exciting scenario. Though I can think of ways it could be. We'll just have to wait and see what we're able to do with stuff like that."

I could be wrong by won't US air power completely dominate the battlefield in any such future battle or scenario? :confused:

Thanks

Just curious....

Of course I hope there will be a demo available for Mac OS X.

-tom w

[Where's the stickies gone?]

Oh yes we are all WATCHING for the big announcement and any little hint like removing the stickies MUST mean something to the curious masses

-tom w

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Perhaps this should read:

This won't mean too much for CMx2's first release, when the player controls all forces, but it will be very important when CoPlay (multi-multi player) is introduced.

-Steve

-tom w

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Indirect fire in CMx1 was not simualted very well because we didn't have a functioning chain of command. In CMx2 this is all fixed. Now if you want those guns to fire indirectly someone must "take responsibility" for the call. If the Company Commander wants to blind fire into the forest... that's fine. But if he doesn't have the authority to order the guns to perform that function, then it ain't going to happen.

Steve

Wow the clarity of that post is unusual! (and much appreciated!)

WOW....

" because (in Cmx1) we didn't have a functioning chain of command. In CMx2 this is all fixed. Now if you want those guns to fire indirectly someone must "take responsibility" for the call"

That says alot about how the game will work.

It does not address the issue of firing without LOS or whether you can "aim high" or blind fire into the tree tops. But its a GOOD start!

Thanks

-tom w

[ October 06, 2005, 07:04 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

I should be able to use those 150mm guns to make that patch of forest a living hell by firing rounds into the trees and generally tearing the forest. (not sure if CMx2 will allow destructible forests, but you get the idea).

I like it

-tom w

[ October 06, 2005, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[Advancing Tanks and Troops]

The long answer is in this thread:

LOS thread

The example in the linked thread involves moving units. Can they block LOS? No. Can they block LOF? Yes. The question is... if the system knows that the vehicle is in a specific spot, why can't it treat it like a piece of blocking terrain and therefore not see what is behind it? After all, the system knows that it can't shoot through that vehicle, so why can't it also know it can't look through it? Remember what I said above about the very clever shortcuts? Remember that I said they are essential for managing the hit to the hardware for all those LOS checks? That's where the answer lies.

One of the most important shortcuts is establishing a "LOS map" of the entire battlefield which is, basically, a precomputed LOS check. Units don't scan the terrain map directly, they scan the LOS map. So it doesn't matter what is on the terrain map, it matters what is in the LOS map. Since the LOS map is precomputed, it can't possibly know about things that move around dynamically since that would require constant recomputing the LOS map data. So much so that it would probably negate the reasons for having the LOS map in the first place. Which brings us back to the point about this shortcut being necessary for the game to run at all.

-Steve

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

did the tank spot the 88 on its own? (LOS to 88 had then backed away, yes?)

If so it knows about it now in its **NEW** unit memory

If so the area fire order might be reasonably expected to be NOT overly delayed.

yes?

-tom w

[ October 06, 2005, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

The suggestion to conserve ammo and not waste it was intended to refer to "saving the ammo for a shot within the same battle with LOS to a spotted target for a better chance to kill" as opposed to conserving ammo for the next battle beyond the current one.

Area fire is a "player as God" problem, as has already been pointed out here:

"Well, there's this issue of Borg Spotting, and measures to reduce its ill effects. In reality, your 150mm gun wouldn't know that enemies just entered the forest from other side, hence it wouldn't fire there."

This is not so much a Borg spotting issue as it is a Player is God issue. The gun has not spotted the target but other units have seen the enemy unit go into the trees. Who gives the command to have the gun waste ammo by firing blindly into the trees. (The gun in this example has not spotted the enemy unit in the trees but the player thinks its there because one of his other units saw them go into the trees)

So who issues the fire order for the gun blindly into the trees??? Not the gun crew chief, he has no spotting info to go on regarding the units "supposedly" in the woods.

So now there is a problem with the radio net or the command and control structure to deal with. Should there be a delay between when the Player as God wants the gun to fire and when the first rounds start flying?? I think so.

Now the gun is ONLY using area fire. Should the gun be able to fire beyond its LOS and shoot rounds deeper into the trees than it can see (or through smoke for that matter???)

These are all good questions.

The example of the 150 mm gun is a good one to consider with respect to LOS and area fire and CMx2.

-tom w

[ October 06, 2005, 07:11 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

As it is now I presume (I could be wrong) that there is a big difference in "effectivenes" of HE rounds when they are used to "area fire" at a suspected, (unspotted by the shooter) target and when they have LOS and are firing at a target which has been spotted and is in LOF and LOS.

Is that correct?

If so in CMx2 they may have to make area fire almost useless, or just very very ineffective to the point that players will learn that blind fire and area fire without LOS or a spotted target largely becomes a waste of ammo. Suppression could be the only impact of blind area fire. Would that be realistic?

I would suggest it is wrong to ban area fire all together, but maybe they can make so ineffective when not directed at a spotted target, NOT in LOS, that it would simply become a waste of firepower causing only suppression.

(maybe)

-tom w

[ October 06, 2005, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Originally posted by c3k:

Gents,

A LARGE consideration: LOS/LOF seem to be merging here. The difference between them only being if a target can be affected. I disagree. There are plenty of INDIRECT fire weapons which utilize a highly arced trajectory specifically to fire against targets with which there is no LOS. And I'm not talking about on-call assets.

Here are some examples: M-79 grenade launcher; M-203; light mortars; short-barrelled infantry cannon (German 7.5cm, 15.0cm); trebuchets; rifled muskets; bombards; and all the rest in this category.

This category of weapon is NOT displaced away from the firing line. They are right up front, and they can see what they want to hit, yet they cannot see their target. "Sergeant, drop HE directly behind that house!" You can see the house; you saw a target move BEHIND the house; you have a weapon which can arc rounds OVER the house; you have NO LOS there, yet, you CAN fire at it.

Will CMx2 support fire by units where the is NO LOS?

Thank you,

Ken

I agree completely

-tom w

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

Units who have seen or heard a unit within the last n minutes of an area can fire within x meters of them, in or out of LOS.

Units in C&C can get orders over the command net within y seconds to area fire, dependant on strength of C&C, unit experiance etc.

Units not in C&C cannot get area fire commands.

That sounds like a VERY reasonable suggestion to me, at least in keeping with the way things used to work in the CMx1 series of games.

I hope they do something like that for CMx2, blind fire should be permited into places and on to targets or areas you don't have LOS to with some reasonable restrictions as mentioned above.

-tom w

[ October 04, 2005, 05:57 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[LOS, LOF, units, and you!]

OK

Thanks Steve

Perhaps just a note here, this is the part of the post we will all remember the most

There's no technical reason to prevent blind firing, nor is there any desire on our part to artificially restrict this.

-Steve Oct 4 2005

To add to discussion ....

What if the player only suspects there is a target or an enemy in the woods or behind the smoke and would like to fire blindly without LOS? Why should the suspicion of enemy activity or presence outside of or beyond LOS be penalized along with the restriction that limits the 'Player as God' from having one unit spot an enemy in the woods and directing all other units that do not have LOS to fire into the woods?

I find this interesting and somewhat difficult to understand because a player is free to rain down Arty on ANY suspected emeny position. SURE its better if you have LOS but if the spotter does not have LOS he can still call in Arty on any place on the map that the player only suspects there may be an enemy target.

I am hoping that other aspects of the CMx2 game system, including Relative Spotting to reduce the Borg issue, and command and control structures that somewhat reduce the player as God problem will balance out the Blind fire into no LOS positions for all weapons and not just arty.

Maybe it could be play tested and tweaked to balance out the realism factor. ONE possible way to make it work and "appease the masses" (same as in CMx1 sort of) is to allow area fire/blind fire beyond LOS but tweak the effects of the round or the explosion down so low as to let the player see and think the rounds are actually doing something, but mostly all they do is cause suppression and no actaully wounding or killing (or only VERY little damage if the player is lucky). This sort of the way blind arty fire works now, SURE you can rain arty down blindly, but it usually does almost not damage to the target of the enemy except route or suppress them (BUT sometimes that is enough!)

-tom w

[ October 04, 2005, 07:47 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]