Ryan Crierie

On to other things; why can't we "Fast forward" or "rewind" the turn based turns until they've finished playing in real time?

Then why does my copy of CMAK (which I received from BFC) work like so: Red Area rotates Blue area left and right. It's ALWAYS worked like that for me from CMBO to CMBB, to CMAK.

Graphically, I'd have to say CMAK is better than this. EDIT: To elaborate: CMAK - you could see sharp detail no matter how far away the unit or terrain was from your POV; with CMSF; even with 16 x Antiisotropic set; it gets real fuzzy further away.

No they don't -- I just played a CMx1 game, and I was able to rotate the view around by moving my mouse cursor to the middle left/right of the screen.

We have had what, six-seven years to get used to: M keypress being - Move; now it's O? Huh? The left and right sides of our monitors being "rotate view" with the mouse; now they're totally different. Huh? Why'd you change everything?

The graphics mode modifications also are not good; you have global "fixed" modes, like "Good, better", rather than the granularity of CMx1; where you could turn the density of trees up, or just turn them off. Same for doodads. Hi density or off; which allowed you to customize it as you wanted.

Is there something I'm missing; I automatically select my units and try to right click over them to bring up the menu of commands and it doesn't work! Instead, I have to boop through a stupid push button screen at the bottom to find what I want. It means I have to click the unit, then move the mouse away from the unit, dig thru the pushbuttons until I find what I want, then move the mouse back up. Horrid compared to CMx1.

Is it possible to mod the game to add your own aircraft?

Only because of the threat of massive retalitation by one or the other sides in the conflict causing deterrence, not because of any treaties.

In theory, yes. But in order to do it practically, you need to do some pretty absurd things like deflating the tires to gain a few more inches of clearance with the conventional Stryker variants, and in the case of the MGS, you IIRC have to remove the turret completely. IIRC they've dropped that requirement for FCS. Or they were pressured into it by Shinkenski (more on this later), and once a big budget military program gets started, it's virtually impossible to cancel it. I'll try to elucidate more on the absurdity of the Army's "lightweight force" program later and how it was a total overreaction by Shinkenski due to the US Army's poor performance in 1999. The problem is, if we're deploying such small portions of a unit by C-17 (the only reasonable aircraft), why not simply upgrade the vehicle to Bradleys or Abrams to take more advantage of the C-17's massively increased payload capability over the C-130? IIRC, in the invasion of Afghanistan in 2001; this did happen, once we had secured an airfield, the USAF flew in several C-17s and landed a small detachment of M1s for airfield defense. Actually, one of the major reasons the LAV III series was selected as a baseline for the Interim Armored Vehicle was because it was already available and could be produced quickly and cheaply, with a minimum of development costs. (FYI There were quite a few other contestants in the IAV contest, a good quick overview, even if it's just pictures of the contestants can be found in Richard Hunnicutt's Armored Car) Then the Army insisted on something like 2000+ or so design changes to the LAV III design to make the Stryker instead of simply using the LAV III as is with the digital stuff; negating any savings from an off the shelf design. To be truthful, that stuff is going to be applied to the Bradleys and Abrams anyway through complete overhauls; we're putting some truly absurd mileages on our vehicles in Iraq; quite a lot of stuff is sitting over here in CONUS waiting for refurbishment after being driven until they broke. Technically, everything in the Stryker family did exist as variants of the LAV III; even the Stryker MGS had some prototype hardware at the time of the IAV competition, albeit on the LAV III chassis. The Crusader restructuring, M2A3 new production cancellation, M1A2 SEP new production cancellation, BAT Cancellation, ATACMS Block II, and Improved Stinger cancellation in 2002 (48 programs in all!!) were to pay for the Stryker program and FCS program, which both stemmed from a total overreaction by Eric Shinkenski and the Army brass from the Army's poor showing in Kosovo; Instead of asking for the USAF to buy more C-17s so the Army could move equipment and units overseas faster, they decided that the "Legacy Force", e.g. our existing heavy equipment like the Bradleys and Abrams was obsolete in the kind of peace keeping, rapid reaction environment that they thought would be the future states of conflict involving the US Army. What killed the Crusader program was when they restructured it to be lighter rather than weighing nearly as much as an Abrams, a lot of the features, such as shoot on the move capability were terminated, leaving it essentially as a really expensive M109, so it was killed. Ironically, the kind of "peacekeeping" we're encountering in Iraq is proving Shinkenski and his ilk completely wrong; the Army's buying up just about every heavy mine resistant wheeled vehicle that there is on the market; mainly because virtually every program for such vehicles has a backlog out to 2009, and so if we order 10 billion different vehicles, we'll get them faster than just orders for 2 main vehicles. Ironically such vehicles are making the US Army heavier, much heavier than lighter; because these heavy wheeled vehicles weigh in at about 12-15 tons, versus only 7 tons or so for the M1114 Armored Humvee. Actually, the war in Iraq is pretty much weaning the Army off it's lighter is better fetish, and might actually result in FCS being worth a damn, since the weight limit has been raised from an absurd 19 tons to a bit more sane 24 tons, and might possibly end up being a much more reasonable 40 tons. Hey now, don't attack FCS....it has yet to absorb the entire DoD budget....yet. Seriously, the sooner it's cancelled for a 40~ ton common chassis, the better. As for Missile Defense, actually no, the program is proceeding quite well, and is worth it. Contrary to popular belief, it is not that hard to hit a ballistic missile. Why? Look at the word "Ballistic Missile". That means it cannot manuver at all. Once you have painted the ICBM on radar a couple of times, you can use your computers to calculate where the missile will be at all points in it's trajectory. From there on, it's only a matter of placing something into it's path. You don't even need a homing warhead on your ABM system, you just need a rocket motor that will place the ABM in the same location at the same time as the incoming missile, and the sheer kinetic energy from both systems closing speeds will destroy both vehicles. What about MIRVs or Decoys? Well, MIRVs are a much overstated threat. See, the missile bus cannot release all of the MIRVs at once; because doing so will severely upset the stability and balance of the bus, due to all that mass being released at once, and hence will make the MIRVs miss their targets completely. So the bus has to release the warheads in sequence and correct for the missing mass of each warhead before it can release the next warhead. This makes defeating them relatively easy; you just make the ABM even more longer ranged, so you can hit the missile buses in orbit before they've released their warheads. Decoys, well, here's the problem; they simply don't work. Decoys simply don't behave like real warheads do, because they don't have the mass or sturdiness of the actual warheads themselves. A popular anti-balloon decoy method is to simply spray a cloud of ball bearings ahead of the interceptor, so that it shreds any balloons floating around. And once the warheads and decoys start to enter the upper atmosphere, the much lighter mass of the decoys will cause them to fall far behind the much heavier actual warheads, making discrimination easy. For the kind of weight that decoys impose, you could just put actual warheads in. The Russians FYI are updating their Moscow-based ABM system and changing over from nuclear armed interceptors to hit-to-kill ones, the same kind that we have deployed at Fort Greeley. Sorry to sidetrack a Stryker discussion into one on Missile defense, lol. At least it's providing us with a large live fire arena to prove/disprove military theories and concepts, and will heavily influence any future Humvee replacement, leading to US troops being the most heavily armored and protected troops in history by the time we leave. That would be news to a friend of mine, who drives a M1A2 SEP v2 in the Brave Rifles. The big problem with this is that the Stryker's (and the FCS's, to a large extent) boosters make claims that such units could stand up in a high intensity heavy mechanized environment due to better situational awareness and "transformational" technologies. While I can see them standing up to a conventional mechanized force in a defensive formation taking advantage of the plentifulness of the brigade's Javelin missiles organic to their infantry, I have serious doubts about their capability of assaulting a mechanized force successfully without significant casualties, due to the lack of any organic heavy weapons capable of directing fire while on the move, other than the Stryker TOW (or is it Javelin) vehicles. I really don't think the MGS will actually see service, and will end up being cancelled due to intractible problems with the design.

You can't move Strykers by air in any meaningful amount unless you're committed to C-17 or C-5 support; and those rarely fly into direct combat zones to unload. Each time the Strykers have deployed to Iraq or overseas, they've gone there in RO-RO ships; which begs the point, why not just send a Bradley instead if we're shipping by sea? The Strykers yes are a big improvement over the M1114 Armored Humvee; and Iraq is pretty much the optimal place to test them; a nice dry flat country with decent enough roads leading everywhere; no real heavy weaponry except for IEDs. What is so outrageous about the Stryker is it's outrageous cost; the Army could just have bought the USMC's LAV series and outfitted it with the digital equipment (FYI, the army did actually plan to buy LAVs in the 80s; they were assigned a M number, M1047, IIRC or something, but congress cancelled that order). To pay for the Strykers, the army had to kill or cancel quite a lot of equipment not the least: Restructured Programs * M2000 Crusader SPH (later cancelled on the altar of Transformation) - TacAir and smart bombs aside, god forbid our artillery actually outrange the bad guy's * Future Scout and Cavalry System (folded into the FCS as the Reconnaissance & Surveillance Vehicle IIRC) Cancelled Programs * M-4 C2V - M-577 replacement (IIRC, they actually pulled the prototypes out and issued them to 4thID during the invasion of Iraq) * Grizzly Engineer Vehicle * M104 Wolverine Heavy Assault Bridge Along with quite a lot of others. I really don't have a problem with the idea of a wheeled armored vehicle; but the entire emphasis on a mythical C-130 transportation capability has severely crippled the Strkyer in a lot of areas. The European nations on the other hand have wisely specified A-400M transportability instead of C-130, which allows a much more powerful vehicle to be designed and built; such as the Boxer and VBCI. Yes, I know that the Stryker is supposed to be an interim armored vehicle, a step on the way towards the objective force, but it looks like it'll become the objective vehicle due to lack of funding or cancellation of the bigger meaner version. [ March 11, 2007, 01:56 AM: Message edited by: Ryan Crierie ]

I always love this story about the stryker: I know a guy over at spacebattles.com forums who is assigned to a MGS platoon (only currently equipped with the Stryker TOW variant) and he said they simply had no idea when if ever they would get the thing several months ago. He also had a story to tell about his brigades trip to the NTC. One battalion (not his) went up against a strongpoint defended by several ATGM teams and two M1 tanks simulating T-80s. The tanks and missiles destroyed over 30 Strykers and pinned the battalion down so badly that the exercise was terminated because no training could take place! The same exercise was then run again the next day only with only a single M1 defending, that tank then wiped out half the battalion before running out of ammunition and withdrawing. The story got confirmed by someone else on the board who ironically serves in the NTC OPFOR, though he also did not specifically take part in that exercise. Ya gotta take NTC stories -- even if absolutely true -- with a grain of salt. In the real world nobody flushes a battalion against one or two tanks. They ID the tanks' pos and call in air. Or just bust them with organic AT assets. At NTC, they don't give you air and they make you work against artificial time pressures that keep you from maneuvering your available assets into place. I’m aware of the limitations placed on troops at the NTC; but do you think the same thing would have happened to a Bradley battalion when every single vehicle can actually engage and destroy enemy armor? I very much doubt it, and it is not reassuring for an entire battalion to need external support against a platoon of enemy heavy weapons.

(stupid accidental posting removed, carry on)

Stryker with the RPG cage has a ground pressure of about 90~ PSI. Meanwhile, a M1A2 Abrams which weighs 70 tons is about 17ish PSI. Do the math. Strykers are effectively roadbound unless: 1.) The area is very very dry.

Dragon Skin is made by.......Pinnacle. The order is well founded. Linka Second, there are a number of companies -- among them, according to Sorenson, one named Pinnacle -- that are making unsubstantiated claims about their products. Pinnacle, Sorenson said, is "all hooah and no dooah." The army has run preliminary tests on the Pinnacle armor plates and found that they are deficient in stopping power, ten pounds heavier than the current 31-pound armor set, and about 50% more expensive. Offers to buy Pinnacle armor sets have been answered by the company by statements that production versions of their "dragon skin" armor aren't available for testing.

Well, I tend to think of Steel Panthers style games as sort of Advanced Squad Leader brought to your PC; and they're good for beer and pretzels wargaming; they're complex enough to be more than just "Tiger has a Armor rating of 10, Shermans 5"; yet not inordinately complex to prevent non-grogs from playing the game. Also, you can edit the SP Games heavily; which is I think their biggest grace; Ever wondered what the US T30 and T34 heavy tanks (155mm and 105mm High velocity guns) could have done in WWII? now you can!

By "blank", I mean a few vehicles say, about 3 for each side, and a few squads that we could edit the statistics for to create our own custom units. The 3D model data would of course be of a default unit. Basically, think of it as being like the IS-3 in CMBB, it had the data of the IS-3, but the 3D model of the IS-2. This would help alleviate the time interval between modules for players, and allow modding to actually be more than just repainting what BFC gives us; allowing us to have a bit more fun like M-1 vs T-90 while we wait for future releases.

I'm hoping BFC gives us more than just a "regulation" stowed stryker, and has a few 3D Models with sandbags and miscellaneous stuff on the roof.

Anyone hope to see this modelled in game?

If you could place "shot down" helicopters, you could create some very good scenarios from real life, such as Operation Anaconda, and Black Hawk Down.

In anycase, the problems from tire inflation; IE having to have people manually check each tire three times a day, are beyond the scope of CM. However, the mobility problems; such as Strykers having problems when moving on anything other than road surfaces or dry terrain, are problems which can't be changed by modifications in the field; as the LAV III chassis the Stryker was based off of was already near at it's weight limit before they bulked it up into Stryker; so having to worry about immobilizations if you decide to take an off road route with your Strykers should be an important part of tactical planning in CM:SF.

Since so much of the game is apparently going to center around the Stryker, will the drawbacks of the Stryker series of vehicles be accurately modelled, in particular: 1.) Propensity to roll over from blasts, or taking turns too fast. I have a video 984 kb in size, which I can supply on demand, showing a Strkyer rolling down a street in Iraq, and being hit by an IED and being blasted onto it's side. The single injury resulting from that attack was a broken arm of one of the troops inside the Strkyer, despite it being blasted onto it's side. 2.) Issues with mobility, which you can read about from the "INITIAL IMPRESSIONS REPORT OPERATIONS IN MOSUL, IRAQ", which you can obtain HERE. The interesting stuff begins in: Chapter 4 Stryker Vehicle Performance and Survivability on Page 45. Topic B: With slat installed, to the Stryker vehicle, a number of design and safety issues have been identified to include fuel can spouts and tow bars not being long enough to fit past the slat armor, causing a safety hazard to Soldiers, and the lowering the rear troop ramp causeing a loud noise signature, reducing stealth, during operation (the installation a rubber stopper could possible address this noise issue). Slat armor did not significantly impact Stryker handling, off or on roads, during the dry season however, the additional weight significantly impacts the handling and performance during the rainy season. Mud appeared to cause strain on the engine, the drive shaft, and the differentials. During a mission in Tall Afar, one Stryker had two drive shafts and a differential broken while trying to maneuver in the mud. The bolts on the rear ramp, of the slat armor, tend to break off frequently with just normal use of raising and lowering the rear troop ramp. The slat armor also bends, with continued operation and during accidents and roll-over incidents, covering vehicle escape hatches and can block the rear troop door in the ramp. Topic D: The additional weight of the slat armor was not accounted for in the design of the Central Tire Inflation System (CTIS). Operators must frequently check throughout the day that the tire pressure is maintained at 95 psi. The vehicle encounters soil bearing difficulties when operated off of an improved road and frequently becomes mired. The additional weight of the slat armor greatly reduces the take off speed, but does not affect the braking characteristics of the vehicle. The slat armor attached to the rear ramp places a weight that exceeds the normal capacity of the lifting equipment which raises and lowers the ramp. The lifting equipment (ramp lift diaphragm) becomes inoperable over time. When the rear ramp is dropped on an improved road surface, the slat armor causes a loud clanging sound that is counter-productive during operations when noise discipline is required. ... The slat armor attached to the driver side escape hatch makes the hatch extremely difficult to lift when the vehicle is in an inverted position following a rollover.

My only disappointment is the name picked; hopefully before release, they'll come up with a better title; but for now, Shock Force will have to do as an interim standin.

I'm happy as a pig in crap! Combat Mission in a modern tactical setting, yay!

See, I'm a player of Silent Hunter 3; and the developers of SH3 have put out the word for 3D Modellers that they're looking for a few good 3D Models; would we be able to submit 3D Models to Battlefront for inclusion in future patches or expansion packs? I know IL-2 has had some success with this model... a lot of the add on planes developed were done independently.