Bil Hardenberger

Steve, how will the UI change for the Real Time mode? I know you will be able to pause, but will you be able to rewind, etc? Bil

After reading the RTS plans for CMSF I was initially very satisifed as I think this is going to be the way to go for the most realistic experience. Upon reflection though, it seems that there might be a few problems with this in action. 1. If the units are given orders as in CMx1 (i.e. one at a time) then this are really going to be problems being able to keep up with the action, even for a Company level action (3 Platoons). 2. Steve hinted at some sort of SOP to help the TacAI.. but I am hesitant to buy into this without seeing it in action, or even in outline form... 3. I think you are going to have a click fest just giving orders to your units, changing orders, babysitting units as they close... etc. That is, not without having to constantly pause the action.. which would IMO defeat the purpose for the real time action. Now some things that might help are detailed Platoon SOPs (that are standardized, but flexible enough that they can be changed as needed, similar to TacOps), and Platoon orders. Platoon orders could be fairly generic.. but with the proper SOP's I think it would be possible to replicate any real order/action drill a Platoon might receive... sure in CMx1 you can get a Platoon into any real world formation.. but it would quickly fall apart in action.. even when there was no enemy activity. Some in game help in this area would be much appreciated. I know its still early, and Steve and Co. have not released all of their plans (especially the UI for units larger than Squad)... but I thought it important enough to post about. Hopefully Steve can shed some light on the plans.. or send me an ALPHA version to shut me up Bil

Thanks M1A1 and for the pics. Bil

Dan, I have seen no photos of troops wearing a device like this... have any you can share or can you point me in the right direction? By modded out I meant giving it a completely transparent map.. but if it shares mapping with another model component (which makes sense) then yes it would be impossible to mode out. I would love a version without the groin protector included. Bil

Interesting stuff Steve, and about time Pity that Platoon orders might not make it in.. but I definitely understand the need to either do it right or not at all. Bil

I think the groin protector will be the first thing modded out when this game gets released. To be honest I can't imagine a US Infantryman actually putting up with that thing in the field. If it is a kevlar flap then I can see it constantly getting in the way whenever kneeling, going prone, or simply moving tactically. Bil

FM 6-20 and FM7-20 are here: Army_Heritage_Collection along with most US Army FM's from WW2, also on this site are pre-WW2 and post WW2 FM's. Check back periodically as they add to their collection. Go to the Military Publications section, then click browse, next select "browse ONLY Military Publications by historical time period", select your time period and have fun! Bil

Highway to the Reich

Another tip... if you own HTTR you can use it's MapMaker utility to create the campaign map and then export (screen grab) each layer as needed for use in Mapping Mission. It is a quick and dirty way to get a linear map into CM. The map wil probably require some tweaking of course to add details, etc.. but it will get you your CM maps very quickly. This technique was pioneered and used for the CMOC campaign to good effect. Bil

If you hate symbols why say anything at all? This thread wasn't trying to replace the 3D icons only ask for an alternative for those of us who like their games a little cleaner and more easily read, agian, for us (most likely prior or current military). It is a personal thing. If military sysmbol mods become available (which I'm sure they will) just ignore them and download the latest grass mod for the game instead. Me? I'm looking forward to playing around with the artwork and perhaps creating a NATO sysmbol set and a WW2 German symbol set for us hard cases out there. Bil

Well, this is a timely post... I just posted about this very issue in the "Interesting" thread... Great stuff. Bil

Steve, all sounding good to me. Looking forward to how you are making this game realistic and still maintain the challenge. Re: the AI commanding friendly units (for friendly FOW).. well, it does a credible job with the opposing troops, so why not? Sure there would be some bickering (always is isn't there?) but it would sure add another wrinkle to the game. 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. You could also have friendly forces on the flanks of the player controlled unit, each with their own objectives.. the motivation to stay within your own AO would be heightened for sure... as would insuring positive ID before opening fire.. a valid and very real consideration in modern combat. Bil

Well, if your intelligence guys are doing their job then you should have a fair picture of what the enemy is doing, or at least their dispositions... if they are sending their sanitized overlays to the TOC (compiled from all sources, ELINT, HUMINT, SIGINT, SPOT reports, etc.) then that information should be available to those that matter... namely the maneuver commander, usually at Brigade level, who should pass the information to the maneuver Battalions and then to Company level. A good analyst can determine a lot from that raw information. When I was in Intel we were able to send enemy dispositions (for attack missions), and enemy assembly area locations and probable COA's (for defensive missions), this information was then used by the commander on the ground when creating his plan (although often he would ignore it, to his later shame ). And this was before digital comms. Bil

Hopefully shoot and scoot will work better in CM:SF than it did in CMx1 So tell me Steve.. can we expect to see a US Platoon against a Syrian Battalion? Or are we expected to maintain a certain force survivability in order to score well? Re: comms... to what extent will these be simulated? It sounds like you are planning on a certain amount of radio malfunction and combat damage effects... will you have a friendly FOW present in game? That would be unique and add to the challenge for sure. Bil

You make an interesting point Warren about the borg spotting... it will be interesting to see the effect digital comms for the US forces have on the battles... if recreated correctly the US side will have great situational awareness while the Syrian's (OPFOR) will be hamstrung and in the dark about not only enemy forces but friendly troop information (Will we perhaps see friendly FOW?). Still experience has proven that even the excellent information sharing technology that the US has is not perfect, for example, the tendancy is for these types of units to be micro-managed by higher echelons, which really does nothing but disrupt coordination and spread confusion. I am especially looking forward to the communications aspect of this game, it has some serious consequences on how the battles play out. Bil

Instead of the pseudo 3D graphics... I know I would prefer a top down map with military symbols instead of what currently is being offered. It looks a lot like Panzer Commander (is that the correct game?) right now... The rest looks just great though. About time a product like this came out. Bil

Steve, I understand completely... well, you can always sell follow-up modules after CMSF is released to keep in interesting. I'd be getting every one of them regardless. Come out with CMSF, then come out with a US Army training package that concnetrates on NTC and the US v. OPFOR, etc. I think you guys are genius's by the way... you get more money from your fans for less work. Excellent business model. I'm going to have to adopt it Bil

Steve, yeah I missed that... I don't have the time to check all these threads and read all 9000 plus messages.. I wish I had your spare time Well it was very astute of you guys to choose this subject, I applaud you. As for the longevity of the product, if you include a good variety of terrain and some generic OPFOR units then that would be assured. Why not shoot for along shelf life? Who knows how long it will be before you can come back to this setting? Bil

I love the idea of doing a modern game.. but I fail to see how a US vs. Syrian game can hold anybody's interest (unless you are a soldier training for deployment in the region). I'm sorry but the setting for this game sure sounds like it was right off a military wish list for a CM type training aid. I think they are in cahoots not that there is anything wrong with that. I hope there will be a generic OPFOR force present with standard Russian equipment so some real interesting scenarios can be created. The blue on blue capability is a start in the right direction, especially if more armies than the US and Syrian are present. Bil

No, but it is a 1:1 representation concentrating on MOUT combat... do it right or don't do it at all. Squad commands are one thing... individual representation is another.. either it has to be done correctly or it will just be a cartoon trying to recreate modern warfare. Bil

Sounds to me like you are going to need very high point values for each US soldier... and the cost for leaving a US soldier behind should be doubly high. Is that going to be the big challenge for this game? I will be interested in seeing the animation for room/building clearing... will buildings have rooms? If you are going to concentrate on MOUT then I suppose they must. Bil

I hope my tardiness in checking the forum won't keep my questions from being answered... First up, this setting (which I thoroughly approve of BTW) sounds like it was dictated by the US Army for future training.. ..being "near future" will you include the FCS? ..will you include older equipment (like the M-60 and M-48?).. some of these are used by potential NATO allies. ..how much Russian kit will be included? If so, will you include older Soviet equipment also, or are you going to concentrate on only the best, more capable stuff? ..how "future" will it be? I would like to see equipment used by the participants in the first Gulf War included... for obvious reasons. ..although the models in the screen shots do look pretty good... the rendering doesn't look that much better than CMX1. I understand these are Alpha screen shots, but I was expecting a better look to be honest. Anything more recent you can share? ..with radio comms being simulated will you also simulate Electronic warfare? Including jamming and interception. More later I'm sure... I'm really looking forward to this one.. still waiting for my early war game though Bil

Gpig. Thanks for that. Yeah, I found it a lot easier too, mainly because you spot the guns so quickly. In CMBO it took a long time to spot them, which to me seems a lot more realistic. Numerous anecdotes abound about armor wandering into an AT gun defense where the armor had no idea where the rounds were coming from. I guess it doesn't help that the guns are pretty much in the open.. perhaps giving that hill some concealing terrain for the guns to set up in is the answer. I was actually surprised that it was so much easier in CMAK.. I expected it to be tougher... on that score I am sorely disappointed and wonder what was changed. Thanks for the great feedback! Bil P.S. Hey Mark!

Gpig, let me know how it goes. I hope it can still give you a hard time. Bil

I had some free time lately and decided to port my original scenario from the CMBO CD to CMAK. I hope you guys check it out and enjoy it. It plays quite diffrently from the original so I would be very happy to get any feedback you might have. Here is the link: Fire & Maneuver Regards, Bil Hardenberger