Peter Cairns

Well if we are talking about player slots down to squad, then in theory if each player had three or four teams only, then a company could have ten players. Even if we had a platoon level command, with some supporting units, a company could still have six players, which isn't bad. I like large games, but my experience on on line games tends to be that after about six or seven players it's pretty common for people to have to drop out after a while leaving gaps. True, the AI could take over, but It's not always the same. Peter.

If we have control down to teams of two or three even a platoon could be quite hard work, so I have my doubts about giving orders below that. If a squad has three or even four teams that should give you the flexibility you need, without it all becoming too micromanaged. As CM is about giving orders to units rather than controlling every individual I actually like the fact that a lot of the time your units will be controlled by the TI as much as you. Peter.

US Special forces strike could be a good basis for scenarios. I wonder of Co-play would let you have eight slots, 3 US players and five Militia, but with the militia able to fight each other as well as the US. I don't suppose BF have thought about the possibility of three way fights, as it's hardly an everyday occurance. Although not un heard of in peacekeeping it rarely happens, factions may shift etc. but you usually fight one or the other not both at once on a CM scale. Peter.. Peter.

So where does the "war on terror", pre-emption and hunting down AQ go, if it's clear they are in mogadishu but he US won't do anything about it. If they were to flaunt there presence, what option would the US have but to act, if they didn't they would look weak or scared. Peter.

My take on M-theory is that it is testing CMx2, in that M-theory is about creating a unified single theory from all the existing theories, so it's probably a good code, for integrating all the various parts of the new game engine, in to a stable working game. Peter.

I am putting this in more as a topic for possible CM:SF scenarios, but I've noticed that fighting has flaired up in Mogadishu between the militias of Muslim Clerics who seem to be forming some kind of Islamic state, and a loose grouping of warlords who like things as they are. This could be a scenario wher the US finds itself with another Taleban. In the early years most Afghans welcomed the Taleban with open arms as they brought and end to the chaos of the power vacumn that followed the soviet withdrawal. Which side should the US back if any, The clerics who seem to be at least bringing some order and stability but who are probably pro Iranian and might harbour AQ, or the warlords who are responsible for the Chaos. as they did by using the Northern alliance in Afghanistan. Current doctrine is to prevent failing states and help rebuild those that have failed, but what if the people doing the rebuilding won't be allies..... Peter.

Well as a mac user I have to get in the quip I read last week. Original line. " If they can get XP to run on a Mac without crashing it will be really cool." Reply " Hell if they can get XP to run on anything without crashing it will be really Cool". Peter.

I am pretty much against "Berserk, Rambo, or Fanatic"', in that it's a bit like "Short, Medium, and Long" for range. Things like "Short range are good on a table is CM1, to give you an idea of firepower, but the game uses an algorithm to calculate it precisely taking in to account all relevant factors. In the same way the game should use a sort of response "bell curve", from " run like hell to fight to the death", with both low probabilities, adapted by circumstance. Players should be able to influence the factors in game design, and they will need to be given broad names, like "high' and "low" for ammo, or "tired and exhausted" so that people have a simple quick way of assessing unit effectiveness. I think a fanatical setting is a bit crude and unrealistic and I would rather it was a random and rare product of circumstances than a button you could press. Peter.

If longhorn isn't combatible with existing systems then Microsoft will be bankrupt within a financial quarter. Peter.

You could go for a to part system, where you only get a small part of your force for the first ten turns ( or real time equivalent). You would use this for recon. This could be done by making either most of the attacking force reinforcements, or by preventing the bulk from moving for a period of time. Peter.

Heres an interesting option to the V-22 especially if the US comes onboard. flight international Peter

I think that fanaticism is a hard one to call, as what you are actually simulating in CM1 was specific to the era. It's not that a modern US unit might not be extremely brave, but rather that their training and ROE would suggest that they wouldn't throw away their lives to hold and objective that the US could just come back and re-take, (or indeed flatten) tommorrow. You may get Syrian irregulars who display suicidal tendancies, and that might make them harder to dig out (or easier if they stand a fight to hold a farm house when you bring up an M1A2). I'd rather there was a bit of variation in how everybody responded with the very occasional unit breaking far easier or harder than you would expect (I think Chicken is as valid as Fanatic), than have a fanatic setting as such. Peter.

Cpl Steiner, I am not sure about confusion, but certainly asymetric force levels where you don't have a fixed ratio like, meeting engagement, attack , assault, could be quite good in that you wouldn't know exactly the strength of your opponent ( although an approximate idea, including some details of type would always be good). You would then be judge more on what you had achieved with what you had, than on winning as such, inded you could even have sceanarios where both sides won or lost. I.e., You lost because you didn't defend all your key points, but he lost because with his superiority he should have walked all over you and didn't. Not really knowing what was out there would also probably make people a bit more cautious and realistic in attack. Peter.

Steve, Given what you said, isn't there an arguement for a "random" element option in CMx2 games, where once the game was set up the actual units would be altered. I know you can do this already, but as far as I am aware, you can't get more than you started with, only less. With up to 16 slot Co-play, there would also be the option of adding or subtracting AI controlled slots. Thus in an eight player (four each side) game you could actually add 4 extra AI slots one for the defender and three for the attacker, with each side only being informed of the extras at the depolyment stage, you would only learn about added, or indeed subtracted AI slots (sorry that unit has been pulled it's needed elsewhere) slots for your side. This might also help in attacks in that although the attacker would be a superior force, the none AI elements would be the same size for all players. Similiarly a mix of AI and human on each side would be usefull for "Iraq" scenarios, where the insurgent player had only one of four defending slots, simulating control over only part of a disorganised irregular force with no over all command, while the three US slots were in conjunction with eight or nine AI Iraqi army slots with the US players working together and with there allies without directly controlling them. Peter.

cassh, When co-play comes along we really have to get a team together to take on Mr GungHo. Peter.

Steve, That could be quite harsh if it's not really your fault, like getting hit by off target artillery fire. having said that i quite like the idea of your level of control being limited by your rank, experience and position on the battlefield. In addition, I think depending on troop type and incoming fire etc, there should be a command delay before you take over, where you have to sit and watch as the AI takes over until the chain of command is re-established and you get back in the game. If we are talking about the AI being able to take slots in a Co-Play game, then it should be possible for it to take temporary control (as well as AFKB). In addition the same option should allow scenario designers to do AI V AI testing. all this sounds really good . Peter.

Cpl Steiner, I've mentioned the idea of "awareness" a few times before, especially with regard to raid type scenarios, or in a Thunder Run type situation where a fast moving unit appears out of nowhere, but BF doesn't seem to have ever taken the idea up. But then as they haven't commented I don't know if it will be in or out. Peter.

Steve, given that the CMx2 engine is scalable, your comment could be taken as there being a scale below CM:SF. Up to now I and others have focused on larger scales, with up to 1:10 representation for brigade style combat with 120m grid instead of 8m. However is it a possibility that we could have a 1m grid and individual control with players as team leaders as opposed to platoon leaders. Peter.

Tagwyn, You really are an advocate of "Find a hole and keep digging" foreign policy aren't you. Peter.

Against a moving Helicopter they would be a hard target, but as the Chinese one fires on automatic what would be useful would be a proximity fuse. Again the Chinese are claiming 25m radius for shrapnel, where as most people talk about 10 to 15m. Still getting a half dozen grenade to go off within 10m of a helicopter could well bring one down. The issue is that in terms of weight auto GL's tend to be far heavier with the Chinese one (12kg) the closest I've seen to really man portable. Most others tend to be single shot. I am not sure quiite how the fusing in the proposed new US grenades works. If the designator sets the range just before firing, then it would probably detonate at the right distance, but behind a moving helicopter. If however you tried to lead, then it would be in about the right place, but wouldn't detonate because the lead point would set detonation at infinity. It depends on whether you can range on an object and the get it to detonate at that distance on another target. This of course opens up the option of having a proximity fuse option on something like an AT4, giving you an anti helicopter engagement mode. I don't know what a thermobaric round 20m from a helicopter in flight would do, but I wouldn't like to be in one to find out. At very least I think you'd lose some glass..... Peter. [ March 20, 2006, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

cassh, Aren't there laws against Jokes like that.... Peter.

What Google thinks Napoleon never won a battle.... That's one crap search engine. Peter.

I my thread about the chinese w87, ( which no one responded to, BooHoo), I was intersted in these as Anti-vehicle weapons, as the Chinese claim up to 80mm penetration. Would the cage on a stricker be effective against a 35mm HE round, would it penetrate the armour. The chinese also claim it as effective angainst low flying aircraft, which I suspect means helicopters. Given what we have seen with Helicopter damage in Iraq from small arms, and the damage the rare RPG hit can do, three, three round bursts from a light grenade launcher, could bring down any helicopter, within about 600m. Peter.

I'd stress that i only ever wanted this as an option as some people would like it. The problem with restricting it to ground level view for all, is that you loose to much situation awareness. The ability to see from a higher level is a way to simulate the combination of looking at a map and having multiple eyes and ears out there. In CMx1 you probably have to much information, but relative spotting and real time with command delays should help with that. However, just as flight sims, even the best of them, don't give you the same feel as being in a real aircraft, looking at a screen isn't really like being there with people around you many with experience and being able to recall where you have been or places you remember. I'd like the option to restrict the views available depending on Rank, C3 and suppression etc (You can't overview the whole battlefield, when you are being targeted by a 155mm battery). Peter.

Bigduke6, Good point. If this is testing how well the Iraqi army can conduct large scale operations, will they have the resources post US withdrawal to carry out this type of action. I doubt they will have enough helicopters and if they did, will the US be doing the flying, either with service personnel or ex US service people. Peter.