Tero

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: There isn't much that Syria has that Iraq didn't have. Not completely true, but we're planning on holding some of that stuff back from you guys so you can be surprised just like the real commander would. How will you make sure the tech-spec is up to spec to accomodate any number of tactical situations your clientel is bound to come up with which have not been envisioned when the ordnance was being developed and deployed (like the use of RPG as anti-helo weapons) ?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: Ask me again in a couple of months. How far into the next year do you project release will drag on ?

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: These will be set, on an individual scenario basis (and global paremters for Campaign) to reflect various real world situations. For example, it is planned that you can assign a "don't damage this building more than x%" to something like a Mosque or map wide. Go in and blow up everything... you lose even if all the bad guys are dead. Move through to your Objectives and miss the fact that a bunch of bad guys were holed up in a building you decided to bypass instead of checking out, you lose again. So on and so forth. Will the players force selection in the campaign be hard coded or can he choose between infantry heavy vs armour heavy options ? The single player campaign is the NORMAL situation for games out there. Yes. But in most tactical/strategic games you can choose your side. I just think that going along with a single force campaign sets you back 15-20 years in the tac/strat scene even when most FPS games (which are admittedly more popular) around these days have hard coded single force single player campaigns. Very, very few are two player. It is expected that few people are interested in playing multi-player campaigns, due to the time requirements. So why cater to something few people would ever play? Better to optimize the game experience and have a much more enjoyable and challenging campaign. That's why most campaigns are like this. Will you be disabling in-game quick saving during the scenarios to prevent gamey abuse by the player ? They are after all what make games like CoD and MOHAA playable. That means two people playing the campaign will likely experience a different series of individual battles based on performance. This differes from a dynamic campaign where the battles themselves are created on-the-fly based on performance. The latter is extremely hard to do and have it be much fun. I hated the Steel Panthers campaign and Panzer General bored me to tears. CC2 was pretty good, but it also had serious problems with generating on-the-fly battles (I got in a rut once and was bounced back and forth between two stupid battles something like a half dozen times). Been there, done that. Will you include changes in the political scenery based on the player performance ? Will we include a campaign from the RED perspective? It is not currently planned, but I wouldn't rule it out. We'll just have to see how things develop. OK. Having one from the get-go would make for a much better gaming experience IMO.

Originally posted by stoat: Marine snipers in Vietnam used 13 cent bullets, or so the story goes. Good old American production. Coupled with Good old American ordnance expenditure and overkill.

Originally posted by Abbott: I would say that is a very good idea when they are your largest customers. Yup. But IIRC Steve explained making a campaign from the Red side may not be all that enjoyable for the solo player when a scenario may only include a sniper and some mines. Since the solo campaing is scripted why would the Red campaing have to be exactly the same as the Blue, only from the diffrent side ? I would assume the Red campaing could take different routes since I doubt the US side would be killing off the entire force, save one sniper and some mines, in every scenario.

Originally posted by Abbott: Nah, just the Blue on Red solo-campaign is scripted. So we go back, oh, 15 years to the days of the very first C64 BoB game where you could get multiplayer Germans but solo games were all strictly RAF. Now THAT is what I call progress. Or was it Politically Correct approach to a deligate issue so as not to upset the US consumers when you can kill digital US servicemen in the best tech-spec accuracy available, courtesy of a US company. There will be scenarios, a quick battle generator. Blue on Red. Blue on Blue and Red on Red. OK. Still wading through the tidal wave of new data.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: I thought he meant as a way the game interface works - ie how the player gives orders to his soldiers - not necessarily how the soldiers interact within the game itself? :confused: I thought that would be SOP more than ROE.

Originally posted by Sergei: Here's what Steve has said. He also said Oh, and I actually kinda misses this bit: To add insult to injury as it were it seems the new game is scripted. Perhaps it will be the first CM:RPG. I wonder how they will implement multiplayer games though if there are no individual battles and no editor to make your own scenarios. No mention of collateral damage. Hmm, in other words, MRLS'ing Damascus is a fair game? Or perhaps the player simply gets his fire missions denied whenever they would be hitting too close to delicate terrain features. A nice little deux ex machina, I'm sure.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: CMX1 wasn't "historically accurate" in that regard either, so why should this one be? The setting is too close to contemporary reality to have enough immersion appeal if the game is degraded into FPS level killing spree with no regard to ROE. Or the ROE is not up to spec with the tech-spec accuracy. If you have "unconventional" forces engaged in urban setting you gotta have penalties for hosing streets down with fletchette/beehive rounds with reckless abandon. The designer sets the parameters; I am "getting" that this is a simulation of military equipment and manpower, not civilians and ROE. ROE is an all important aspect in modern combat. With no ROE and related penalties for screwing the pooch.

Originally posted by Barrold: I wouldn't assume they were in, but I would think these kinds of political considerations are to be expected in this situation. Most military actions are also excercises in PR these days so with the background story like that there is no escaping the political aspect in such petty details as mission assignment. The game can not be a pure tech-spec military tactical simulation. If keeping a bunch of M.E. forces in some sort of coalition is part of the overall story, one would think excessive collateral damage would be included somehow. From the morale POV I would think that under the right circumstances even these coalition forces might turn on eachother or even the UN/US forces, even during the actual game. I'll await official word before assuming it though. This is a fishing trip.

Originally posted by Dillweed: From what I understand the game is going to be a "real" military op. Think Falluja not Mougadishu. I would say Beirut is more accurate as an example in most respects. 3 is ideal but 1 and 2 take priority. So civillian stuff not being modeled is not the biggest deal in the world. Can you think of an Arab town without a mosque ? Even when no civilian stuff is modelled.

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh: Penalties for collateral damage were not included in CMX1, why assume they will be in CMX2 - unless I missed an admission by Steve? Collateral damage and how it affects the performance rating of the player is simply unavoidable when the game is set with parameters like this. Otherwise the game will not be accurate "historically" (for the lack of a better term).

Originally posted by SturmSebber: *I don't like the "us-only" option. What i liked about CM was the ability to play all nations. What is more, there are simply too many FPS games around which echo the same or similar subject matter. *Fictional is less interesting than real history.Why not use any of the Israeli wars as a subject? Why a fictional scenario? Indeed. If you choose a fictional setting why not simply have generic blue and red as OPFOR in a specific terrain setting ? Why set the date and sides so that "best before" date makes sure the sale of the product will be limited.......

Can't say I did not go WOW when I read the choice for the settings. Anyhoo, it all made me wonder about the bitesize the BFC has chosen. Knowing the credo they have woved to upheld I can not see how they can not include ROE based victory conditions like "scratch that mosque and you will be covered ancle deep in manure, head first". Unless of course they will take to the Vietnam war era "in order to save the town we had to destroy it" line of actions. Since UN is in the mix I think that will not be very realistic though. In other words: what good is your more accurate heavy stuff if you can lose the game with the first well placed salvo during turn 0 ? Another is the tech-spec aspect. For one, smoke screen isn't in the new game and I can not see how BFC can make do with a generic smoke for all occasions when even a poorer army can have all sorts of chemicals with multiple effects and composition. Then you have your classifieds which will make any and all speculation on the performance of the weapons systems impossible because the necessary tech-spec is not released and RL performance will not be reflecting the true capabilities. I look forward with great anticipation to the first "Why does my M1A2 get killed so often by this-or-that supposedly inferior weapons system ?" piss-and-moan thread and how that will be resolved. Most propably all causes relating to M1's getting killed involve a bug of some sort in the game engine. These are my first off thoughts. Any other pitfalls along these lines you may think of ?

My guess: too much variety in the force composition.

Originally posted by Sergei: In reality, your 150mm gun wouldn't know that enemies just entered the forest from other side, hence it wouldn't fire there. Are you sure ? Depending on the circumstances the gun crew might hear the fire fight and be able to determine who's who and let go a salvo on the location perceived to be occupied by the enemy. If the 150mm gun in guestion belongs to the defender who is entrenched or otherwise know the location of friendly positions and has TRP's set up (a fire plan SOP related issue) and they hear what sounds like an overrun attack on one of the positions they might let go a salvo or two on or near the friendly position, especially if the FO has been off the air too long for comfort.

Originally posted by Battlefront.com: In CMx2 the Borg is not as much of a problem as it used to be. Still there, but greatly reduced. Oi, gevalt ! Something I was not looking forward to. I thought the Borg had been squashed altogether. However, we must do what we must do to limit gamey God/Borg effects and that means we might keep things the same as CMx1. IMO the effect the God aspect has on the game is not as critical as the Borg bit. Only the accuracy and level of intel the player gets is not what it is IRL. Starting with the accuracy of the map. The level of intel concerning enemy troops is in line with IRL. Have you ever tested the game with Ridiculous Fog of War settings where the map keeps changing on the player as the troops move along and report things like hills or ravines gropping up where there should not be any or where there should be paved roads there are only bottomless mud tracks ? How much does the reduced Borg actually affect the tactical intel the player gets that could be considered gamey and warrants the denial of firing beyond LOS ? [ October 04, 2005, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: Tero ]

With the Borg spotting out there is no excuse not to allow firing beyond LOS in the new game engine, is there ?

Originally posted by aka_tom_w: Using tanks to lob HE in the woods is a good point you can't area fire or targe past your LOS. Same problem for smoke or fog or just plan night time darkness. In the night you can only target or area fire within your LOS even if it just restricted by darkness, you should be able to Area fire HE with your tanks down range into the darkness farther than your LOS due to darkness limitations. IMO What about ambient lighting conditions (someone strikes a match, exploding shells etc)? Aural spotting would and did also initiate countless "recce by fire" fireworks. Currently targeting partially spotted (including bogus contacts like rabbits) is not allowed beyond LOS even when IRL it was a common occurance.

Panzer Colours I-III. And you can take them to the toilet with you too.

Originally posted by John D Salt: The term "sheaf" describes the planes of fire of two or more artillery pieces, and tells you how the pattern in which the shells arrive will correspond to the pattern in which the gun positions are laid out. Is that really accurate ? Does the pattern of the gun positions really correspond with the sheaf used ? I have always thought the sheaf is relative to the aiming point (individual gun or battery) and not to the gun position. Having the guns all pointing on the same bearing is known as "parallel sheaf" -- the shells will in principle (ignoring elevation differences and ballistic errors) land in the same pattern on the ground as the pattern in which the guns are disposed. You can have the shells land in the same line even if the gun/battery positions are staggered. Having the planes diverge is a "divergent sheaf", where the shells land more spread out than the gun positions; having them converge, a "convergent sheaf", where the shells land more concentrated than the gun positions. That is dependent on the battery vs individual gun aim point. In the low density end is when the batteries use aim point(s) which are parallel and each gun in the batteries fire using parallel sheaf.In the high density end the guns in the batteries fire converged sheaf and the battery sheafs converge. http://www.winterwar.com/forces/FinArmy/FINartiller.htm

Originally posted by Captain Wacky: Well obviously you aren't going to run into an open field and stand there just because someone said 3o clock, 200 meters, and they couldn't see past the next terrain feature. Obviously. But you did claim (to the effect) that they would haul ass out of the barrage kill zone ASAP with the first round only 50m off. With the first round that close you would more likely burrow down instantly instead of making a run for it.

Originally posted by YankeeDog: I assume you're talking about a situation where the FO (and battery, of course) have well surveyed maps of the area? That was the überFinnish experience. But the principle works even in less than ideal conditions. The principle works also backwards. You order a ranging shot giving fixed values and guestimate where it lands. When observe where the shell actually lands you can determine both the FO's and the battery position relative to the ranging shot and use that data when calculating subsequent fire missions. Otherwise, I would assume that there would be at least some error from the FO guesstimating the adjustment from the known registered, point (i.e, FO thinks to himself, "Hmmm. . . looks like the enemy position is about 500m ENE, and about 20m higher elevation than the registration point." That would be the case if the ranging shot was done on the spot and you need to walk the ranging shots on the target. If you are using data precalculated as I described you would cut the number of required ranging shots in half since the range data calculation would be already done. And if your elevation estimation is on the money you can go FFE off the bat.

Originally posted by Captain Wacky: Pick a spot on the clock and run like hell. Hopefully you run right out of his bracket instead of further into it That is not how trained troops with brains would react now is it ? They would pick a near by spot which gives them cover and make a dash for that spot. If no cover is near by you hug the ground and ride it out. Or that is how we were told to do during training.

Originally posted by Captain Wacky: If they've got any training or brains at all they'll be hightailing it out of the target area before the second round lands. The million monetary unit guestions are: where does the next round land, how many will there be in the next volley and to which direction will you run to ? By the time that one round falls there is a high propability there are already several on the way. If it is a solitary round can be (most propably is) a ranging round. If the enemy has you within 50 meters he will either bracket you or go straight to FFE after adjustment. Since you can not tell what the shell flight time is from the mortar to your position running away may be a valid option. Then again, if you high tail just for the heck of it you might run straight into the next round.