c3k

GSX, Thanks. Where and when were you a FAC? Dinger - I certainly agree: I wouldn't want to play a game where I have to set up all that coordination. However, in a simplistic view, I'm suggesting that perhaps air support and artillery support are EXCLUSIVE of each other in a game of CM:SF's scale. Regards, Ken

Bigduke6, You've brought back memories... At one point in training, I was told it was against international convention to use a specific weapon against a soldier. It could only be used against vehicles or material. The Sergeant then looked me in the eye and said, "Of course, I consider enemy uniforms to be material targets. If there is collateral damage to the soldier..." followed by a shrug. So, with that in mind, we would always be aiming at weapons, uniforms, rucksacks, etc... Ken

Gents, Thanks. This is exactly the sort of information needed for a game/simulation of the quality BF.C is known for. My knowledge of CAS and Arty deconfliction is limited. My understanding is a higher HQ delineates supporting fires, both arty and CAS. One of the elements of the plan at the Joint HQ is setting up artillery fire corridors. These are rectangular, from the arty position to the expected targets, and extend into the airspace for quite some distance. (I'm leaving out any kind of numbers since I do not have concrete references at hand.) NO air assets will knowingly allowed into these corridors. (Timing may be allowed.) In a game sense, this seems to me that modern combined arms in the U.S. military will NOT allow for simultaneous artillery and air support. Regards, Ken

Steve, et al., I'm starting this topic to break it out of the UI in CM:SF thread. I'm not going to hold forth as an expert in CAS. I will throw out some issues and we can see what may have a game effect or not. - Marine CAS is VERY different than Air Force CAS, both in concept and equipment. (Marine Air has a much higher reputation with the Marine ground elements than the Air Force has with the Army.) - Helo Support is VERY different than Air Force CAS. - Artillery Support is VERY different than any CAS. I'm not trying to be disruptive or through stones at the game design: I am trying to get relevant information into play. I'll add more to the topics I listed above at a later point. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Air Force ops are closer to my forte than Army. The operations concepts can change quickly, but Air Force Close Air Support (CAS) seems to rely on Air Force personnel attached to the Army unit to call in the strike. The Air Force and Army are trying to push the Forward Air Observers down to a lower level. That doesn't mean, as I understand it, that Sergeant Johnson can direct an airstrike because he a radio. See this website: ************************************************ http://www.tradoc.army.mil/pao/training_closeup/050504.htm Huang said that a couple of the measures include using trained, experienced observers and pilots during live drops. Air Force forward observers will guide in aircraft to ensure that pilots have properly identified the targets, and the Army and Marine Corps observers will call in the artillery, he added. Also, revisions were made to the airspace coordinates to make sure artillery isn’t fired at the same time aircraft is flying over, said Huang. ************************************************ The above was in reference to a Fort Sill (U.S. Army artillery school)exercise and training program. Let's talk more about airpower... Thanks, Ken

Hmm, I wasn't aware that U.S. Army/Air Force ops allowed for airstrikes to be called in by non-qualified FO's. Some issues: Deconflicting airspace - Planes and artillery shells cannot share the same space by doctrine. Target Identification - WHICH mud-colored hut do you want vaporized? Not an insignificant issue when the aircraft is 20 miles away at 23,000 feet at 600 knots. (This gets into ground-level perspective vs. aerial, or accurate coordinates.) Weapons Availability - Okay, we know which mud-colored hut, but the only assets on station are equipped with 2,000lb class JDAM's. Are friendly units ALL outside of the allowed impact zone? Weapons Targeting - Is it a laser guided munition? Who is lasing? Is the laser compatible with the munition? (Specific coding to prevent multiple lasers from interfering with each other.) Anyway, things to think about.... Ken

JC_Hare, Well, more than just flying machine guns. Depending on the model; 20mm, 40mm, 105mm weaponry. Of course, all that linked into high-tech spotting and targeting systems. Kind of fun to pick a window through which to send a 105 round.... Ken

M1A1TankCommander, Oh, I agree: all the M16 versions will not be included. I don't think it's a pointless waste of time. (Of course, my wife thinks any computer game is a pointless waste of time, but that's a whole other subject. ) You're obviously very well versed in modern weapons. What about those who aren't? This is the formative period for the next CM engine. If BF.C has the time and resources to include this information, it can only help. Since you know all the different small arms, both U.S. and Syrian, their effective ranges and planned uses, you need never bother digging deeper in the game for the information. What of the poor Frenchman who doesn't know his M240 from an M230? If not for the kids, think of the French! Regards, Ken P.S. If this offended any Frenchman, feel free to flame me in French. P.P.S. M1A1TankCommander, nothing in here was meant to be snide or sarcastic. It was written with mirth and merriment foremost.

Guys, I'm glad I'm not alone in feeling the need for this. (Okay, not so much NEED as DESIRE...) WWII weapon systems are pretty simplistic by today's standards. So many of the differences in modern weapons are almost invisible to an observer. Yet, these differences can have huge differences in battlefield effectiveness. Not that they're _all_ going to be in this iteration of CMx2, but just think of the differences among the M16, M16A1, M16A2, M16A3 and M16A4. Now, imagine you're NOT a modern grog. I'm glad BF.C is thinking of including access to this information. As a player, I'd prefer it to be IN GAME. But, having the manual open nearby is not the end of the world. Thanks, Ken

Steve, et al., Thanks for all the bones you've been throwing. It's great to get a look, even at a preliminary stage, of what's going on. In a different thread, "The main UI explained", you showed the User Interface. In one section of it, labelled number 5, were the depictions of the weapons used by the various squad/team members. Would it be possible to put the weapon name as a background behind each weapon? As an example, if the Team Leader has an M-4, use semi-tranparent graphics to write that in over the weapon depiction. Additionally (because your customers are NEVER satisfied), would it be difficult to enable weapons information to be accessed by right-clicking a mouse over the weapon depiction? In the same M-4 Team Leader example, if I know nothing about what an M-4 is, I can hover the cursor over the weapon, right-click, and get a small window describing caliber, range, magazine capacity, design intent. This would also enable me to learn the difference between an M-249 and an M-240B. With the rapid change in weapons abilities and the superficial similarities between different weapons, I think this addition to the UI would make the game more accessible to the non-hardcore modern militarist. Thanks, Ken

M Hofbauer, I find your postings to be somewhat worthless. You've marginalized yourself due to your use of terms such as "Shmyker", "Strykeout", and other derogatory words. Your refusal to type "Stryker" or even to use the proper "M" series designation shows that you are EXTREMELY biased against the concept. If you have any valid points to make in regards to tactics, operations, technical shortcomings, etc., I have yet to see them. Please start a "Let's all gather and hate the Stryker" thread and put all your posts there. Ken

Dinger, Great observations! Regards, Ken

Pardon the delay, but I was out of town. M. Hofbauer, you raise an interesting point. I appreciate the humor, but as I understand it, you're asking if EVERY language will be able to be substituted for the in-game language. That's up to BF.C... Ken

John, Ahh, that's the ticket! Ken

Is the difference in the number of dismounts able to be carried due to the Bushmaster weapon system, or is there a difference in chassis size? Also, during some Google action I'm seeing all sorts of names being bandied about; Piranha, Bison, Stryker, et al. What are the differences? Ken

John, Thank you! That explains what the LAV III is then. It must be the one that can carry THREE Marines.... Now, if any non-jesters know the answer, feel free to join in. Thanks, Ken

Gents, As the title implies, I'm curious about the differences between the Stryker vehicle and the LAV. Also, why no Bushmaster gun for the Army? Thanks, Ken

Wow, I'm glad there seems to be others who'd also like this OPTIONAL IMPROVEMENT added to the game. I've even gotten noticed by (begin background sound of angels singing...) Seanachai, who, with ample stinging prose, shows HOW IMPORTANT this would be!! Thank you Seanachai.(Sound of shotgun firing followed by angelic singing cut-off with yells of pandemonium.) Ken

Cool! Thanks for the response, BF.C. Will the player know what kind of ammo supplies each vehicle has for squad resupply? Regards, Ken

Midnight Warrior, Thanks. Not being snotty here, as I said those were off-cuff numbers. Using the SAME website, the maximum range for a TOW 2 is 3750 meters. The flight time to reach maximum range is 21 seconds. Let's do some math: 3750 meters x 39 inches/meter = 146,250 inches. That divided by 12 inches/foot = 12,187 feet. 12,187 feet/21 seconds = 580 feet per second. So, my 880 fps is fast. BUT, is the TOW 2B booster/sustainer firing for the duration of flight? Or, does it glide the last bit? I don't know. If I'm wrong on all counts, then the ATGM takes twice as long (being generous) to reach the tank. So, the tank can be up to two vehicle lengths away from the predicted impact point; of a GUIDED missile. I think Renaud's training account is much more accurate. Thanks, Ken

RMC, It's simple: a NEW game = BETTER interface. If you don't like it, don't apply the toggle. You're happy, I'm happy; we're ALL happy... Frankly, despite the ability to order beer, and other needs, in German, and a year of Russian culminating in my ability to reply to any query with "I don't understand", CMBB and CMBO were not linguistically satisfying to me. When I commanded my Germans and Russians I had NO FRIGGIN' CLUE what they were saying! (As punishment for my men speaking behind my back like that I'd often send them on reckless attacks. Fools.) As for French, how many ways can you say, "I surrender"? The Finns never spoke; the attacked with individual ferocity unmatched by words: hence, I never needed to know exactly what they were saying. Regards, Ken

Yes, toggle-able (is that now a word?) English sub-titles. Ken

Warmonger, Good points, especially about missiles in mid-flight at the end of a turn. However, I'm curious about the swerve manuever. (I thought the Sagger-wire draping was more due to operator error or aiming at other tanks rather than vehicular vector changes.) Some off-the-cuff calculations: 60 mph = 88 fps Lets assume a tank is moving at 15 mph - a reasonable advance speed. That's 22 fps. Assume a generic ATGM moves at 600 mph (barely subsonic), which is 880 fps. At what range does the ATGM fire? Say, 1,000 yards; which is 3,000 feet. That's less than 3.5 seconds of flight time. In that 3.5 seconds, the tank can (assuming it will CHANGE it's velocity) get a delta V of 22 fps. That would change its EXPECTED location by 77 feet. ASSUMING it saw and reacted with zero inertia INSTANTLY upon ATGM firing. Give it some delay, 1 second, some inertia (assume an acceleration of 1/2 its velocity/second) and that distance drops. I get about 33 feet. If it's a GUIDED missile, that's approximately one vehicle length. Not much of a factor. I'm sceptical of the suppression fire tactic. Pick all the assumptions to shreds. If a NON-TARGETED unit tries to suppress the ATGM unit, I'm okay with it. Please don't tell me that every tank (or most, or a large proportion) will know it's being fired at, it can find the specific ATGM unit (ignore scores of Egyptian Sagger units) which has THAT tank targeted, can slew a weapon in that direction, range in and get rounds close enough to suppress... You see my sceptisism? (Again, I'll grant if the target units outnumber the ATGM firing units it MAY be possible.) We need some real analysis on this. Regards, Ken

Oh, dear me. I seem to've posted the SAME new thread twice. Let's not get into specifics, let's merely drop this one and let the other AMMO thread live a full life. Thanks, Ken [ October 14, 2005, 07:02 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

BF.C, I enjoyed the ammo system in all the previous games. However, with CM:SF most troops will have a high ROF weapon. Even with high ammo loadouts, ammo could run out. Will the "always able to scrounge some ammo" ability be included in CM:SF, or will forces actually drop to zero ammo? (I'd prefer the latter ) Regards, Ken