cassh
-
Posts
297 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by cassh
-
-
Peter Said -
Peter with the best will in the world that would never, ever, ever, ever, ever happen. Taiwanese inviting Chinese into their country would be synonymous with Eire inviting the UK to re-invade.As a scenario yours is fine, and probably pretty accurate, but it rules out the version with a Tawainese civil war, and at least one faction "inviting" the chinese.As to a Taiwanese internal civil war - my simple question is why? No major racial/social/political/religious divides that I can think of..? They are a fairly integrated society, and whether your background is partially indigenous aboriginal, Sino-Taiwanese, Japanese or post-war Chinese it really makes no odds. The Taiwanese have a great sense of national identity and are grounded in that view by the over-shadowing threat from the mainland communists.
lucero1148 said -
That will be a yes. It is the J-11 and has been in production since 1998 with an estimate 40 airframes a year going into service. Couple this with the 64 Su-27 and 38 Su-30 from Russia and you have a frontline strength of 320 - 380 Su-27/Su-30/J-11. There are also approximately 300 J-10 fighters as well which are decent aircraft and capable of causing the Taiwanese airforce a few headaches. Then there is the question of whether any FC-1/JF-17 are deployed in China? These are again more than capable of causing Taiwanese/US aviators a few problems.Are the Chinese manufacturing their own SU27's under license? If not that's their only front line fighter with their J7's as backup. They have the logistical edge over the US but it's still a toss up if the US stands by Taiwan and only in a defensive role to prevent a landing.In Red Flag training at Nellis AFB lowly F5s flown by aggressor squadrons, demonstrate routinely that low cost aircraft such as the JF-17, can be incredible dangerous and effective against the most advanced aerial packages the west can offer. So to some extent the J-8 and J-7 by sheer numbers can be added to the soup of doubt.
Then there is the question of the J-XX (J-13/J-14) fifth generation stealth aircraft that has just gone into service that is designed to compete with the F-22. If the game scenario is set three or four years from now they could have anything from 30 - 80 advanced air superiority aircraft of this type.
These airframes are all air-to-air.
Then one must consider strike capability as well with the JH-7 entering service in 2004 and the aging Q-5, H-5 and H-6 still being used as strike platforms; these are more than capable of dropping lots of nasty stuff over Taiwan.
The H-6D maritime strike bomber would pose the greatest airborne threat to any USN platforms operating in theatre during a conflict. H-6D combat radius is 2000km and with the YJ-6 Kraken anti-shipping missile range of 90km (180km modification upgrade programme models) gives the PLAN a good stand-off strike capability. If the YJ-6 is set to attack at its low level altitude of 50 meters, and fired in volley pairs as is Chinese doctrine, then it has good low-level penetration capabilities and would pose a serious threat to any CBG.
-
Although technically de jure a civil war, it would de facto be an international conflict as the RoC and PRoC are very much different countries with separate armed forces and governments no matter what they have to say in public.
An invasion of the Taiwanese held islands Kinmen (Quemoy), Matsu and Wuchiu by PRoC is one in which game balance can be met the easiest whilst not having to constrict or fudge reality too much.
It is also the scenario in which a contained conflict would be most likely.
The downside is I cannot envisage the U.S. getting involved to secure or retake these virtual fortress islands given that they are not heavily inhabited and few civilians would need ‘saving’, so from a game point of view it would be a Chinese/Taiwanese affair.
If the focus were an invasion of Penghu off the west coast or Taiping (Itu Aba) in the Spratlys then the U.S. involvement would be more likely and make for a more marketable game.
Personally I’d like Taiping (Itu Aba) in the Spratlys as the oil connection makes this more plausible in foreign policy/strategy terms for the Mainland government. Its invasion could be conducted under the auspices of punitive measure against any independence signals coming from Taipei. It is also far enough from mainland China and the PLAAF to make the U.S. consider getting involved. You also have a nice mix of nations (China, Taiwan, Philippines, Vietnam, USA) and small archipelagos to fight over and play with... could be fun
-
Will the new CMx2 engine take full advantage of dual-core processing technology?
It will make the game run much more quickly, but only if it has been configured with dual-core processing in the code.
With potentially twice the processing power - running two threads at once - some very complicated and complex calculations can be achieved. This could allow for much of the detailed modelling touched on in multiple posts here such as ammo count modelling, LOS modelling etc.
-
flamingknives - Afraid I've just used the old A1. Everything I've heard about the A2 upgrade says reliability is vastly improved - especially in hot dusty climates which is handy if you're in Iraq or Afghanistan.
-
Oh, to answer your question I don't actually hit them - the round passes by the bird at a beak's length with the shockwave stunning them momentarily, causing them to tumble to the deck. I then release a pack of trained sea otters to retrieve the unfortunate geese.
-
John Kettler - Now there's a thought. Game shooting and fowling with an armalite. Hey, it was late, I was tyred [sic].
My God, you should have seen those gease [sic] fall one after another.
The pitfalls of mild-dyslexia and a few beers... My apologies for the confusion.
-
MikeyD - I am not really sure if anyone is trading down or up but rather that the M249 fulfils the role it was designed for, light support, incredibly well.
I used the C9 Canadian variant for only four weeks, but was very impressed with its ability to deliver sustained fire whilst also being highly mobile when compared with a GPMG. It also seem just as reliable as the GPMG. Basic cleaning and maintenance routine of weapon and ammunition as you would with any weapon meant there were no dramas.
In terms of comparison with other weapons I have used I thought I would bore you all with the following impressions:
FN MAG 7.62mm SF role
Used extensively
Reliable, predictably-accurate, highly-effective in the SF role
Requires highly trained team
900mm Observed/tracer (tracer burns out at 1100m but being lighter they drop short of where the ball rounds impact)
1800mm Observed/fall of shot
FN MAG 7.62mm Light role
Used extensively
Reliable, predictably-accurate, reasonable mobility, difficult to find comfortable forward holding position once fired as too many hot surfaces - wear a gardening clove on your left hand for scorch-free operation
Improvised ammunition feed required (web pouch) on patrol
700m
Sterling SMG 9mm
Used moderately
Unreliable, inaccurate, magazines prone to damage, can pinch fingers when folding stock.
50m barn door
100m expert users
FN FAL SLR 7.62mm
Used extensively
Incredibly Reliable, quite accurate, soldier-proof, matchstick modification full auto
300m average soldier
500m marksman
L4 Bren 7.62mm
Used extensively
Quite reliable, very-accurate, ejected cases can ping up in your face when prone
700m hit a knat's bollocks
SA-80 5.56mm
Used extensively
Questionable reliability, highly-accurate, awkward/fiddly working parts, fragile gas port cover and cheek rest, also magazine release catch on left side so can be depressed when patrolling with embarrassing lack of magazine/ammo - if it drops off it can be really tedious as the section/platoon etc have to retrace their steps to find the bastard ammunition. Also optical sight can mist in damp/cold conditions making target recognition/aiming difficult.
400m
LSW 5.56mm
Used extensively
All problems of above and also not great in the light support role
600m
L96A1 rifle 7.62mm
Used extensively
Excellent reliability, awesome accuracy (.5 MOA), robust, thoughtful design with many adjustable components to suit ones own preferences. Quite heavy, but legs can help.
Requires extensive training and rangework
900m
HK-53 5.56mm
Used moderately
Cracking little weapon that punches well above its weight
Excellent in FIBUA/CQB role and vehicles due to compact size
Robust, reliable, quite accurate, well engineered and excellent tool kit
200m
Diemaco C7 (Canadian M-16) 5.56mm
Limited use
Light, accurate, reliable if maintained (warned about gas port issue but never had any problems with fowling) excellent range scoring and easy patrolling made this popular
-
Used the FN Minimi in Canada and it held up brilliantly for weeks of live-fire exercises.
As the Minimi (M249 SAW) working parts and mechanism are essentially a scaled down M240/Gimpy I'd be very surprised to hear these weapons were proving unreliable.
I don't recall the weapon jamming often, if at all.
With regard to weight, if you've ever been a GMPG gunner then the Minimi comes as an awfully nice alternative form of suffering.
To be honest I'd be thankful for these awesome little powerhouses - if you've ever had to use the dreadful British fire-team support weapon, the LSW, you'd be dreaming of Minimi/SAW and its belt-feed drum. I'm just surprised it took us so bloody long to adopt them when the shortcomings of what we had were so obvious.
[edit typo]
[ April 19, 2006, 09:09 AM: Message edited by: cassh ]
-
On a similar vein to LOS checks I heard talk of real-world handheld GPS/digi-map units that allows one to check intervisability between any two given points and therefore the ability to quickly and easily indicate deadground and approach marches when advancing on an enemy position in unfamiliar terrain?
Does anyone know whether is in use yet?
-
Might I recommend Olaf Caroe's book "The Pathans 550B.C. - A.D. 1957" as a great book to get one a better understanding of the history and culture the Pathans (Pashtuns/Pakhtuns).
Also very interesting and informative - and still relevant is John Masters's Bugles and a Tiger which covers operation in the NWFP and Wazirstan.
I think the most insightful though is a classic little volume by Qazi Rahimullah Khan (ed. H.L.Ogden) - "The Modern Pushtu Instructor" where the underlying soul of the culture is indicated in some lovely example phrases and vocabulary exercises:-
Awal war bāndé awāz wo kra aw biā yé wola - Challenge him first and then shot.
Zamā khāli yau vrōr woh aw haghuh hum yau sakht juram wō kar aw mafrur sho - My only brother committed a serious crime and became an outlaw.
Hagha dazé da suh dee? - What is that firing?
Nasibé dushmanān dā kala rāse nā jora shaway yé - May your disease become the lot of your enemies. How long have you been ill?
N.B. Linguistically this volume relates to the NWFP and Pakistani Pushtun regions.
-
flamingknives, regarding guided artillery shells - have a look at this Rhinemetall 155mm GPS Corrected Artillery Ammunition in development
-
Peter - I think a smart Anti-Radiation-Sell would require proper first-world development and manufacturing over a period – not something the Syrians can knock-up in the work-shed, and more importantly any such munition would require the ability to calculate a targeting solutions mid flight using dual sensor/receiver telemetry to perform basic triangulation - and have the propulsion to get their - otherwise if it merely turned to face active radar it would be susceptible to radar-painting disco...
Bigduke6 - I think you're nearer the mark here. Not sure ground markers are always necessary - but definitely pre-surveyed target-reference-points and pre-surveyed firing points would be the standard response for artillery targeting.
As for command and observed fire-control I think the Syrians will face a much greater challenge as much of the wired infrastructure will be directly attacked in C4I targeting and wireless communication will be jammed incessantly in the EW battle. In a mobile convention fight the Syrian gunners are going to moving or hiding, but probably not much shooting.
-
John Kettler Said
Thought you might find it interesting that they actually only ever had four working Shermans during filming plus a couple of tank hulks. If you look closely you'll see that same damn Firefly again and again. (info from the film's set dresser and one of the military advisors - both friends of the family, reunited a few years ago at a luncheon where they reminisced and discuss the awful luck that plague the shoot - lots of accidents and mishaps away from the set.Even if you don't like the movie, the concentration of period armor and equipment is simply stunning -
Captain_Wacky said -
Are you sure of that - I believe a well drilled battery and TOC will get their CBF off in 2-3 minutes - and that is considered fast? Flight time of a 122mm shell from 10km?... Not sure the maths will sum but you may be right. Regardless we agree a D-30 isn't going to remain a threat for long once it's gone pop.If we pick them up on counter battery radar our rounds would be going out towards them before theirs even hit the ground. -
Excellent - sanity prevails. BTS keeps their head whilst all around them they are losing theirs. DRM is a pain in the arse - I'd rather buy two copies to sub the pirates than have a Steam-like half-hour boot up rigmarole. And you can hold me to that...
-
Counter-battery radar and highly accurate positioning systems (GPS & inertial guidance systems etc) and gun-section/vehicle level computerise fire control, plus air superiority means realistically Syrian gunners are going to have a bad day at the office following most salvos they fire - especially static D-30s etc. If they shoot-and-scoot they may survive a while - but from memory a D-30 isn't quite as speedy as say a 105mm Light Gun in the sequence :- unlimber - fire - limber - piss off quick time... Therefore, I would say the rarity-cost for Syrian artillery would most likely be quite high in the game.
-
Talking of ammunition, does anyone know whether a platoon can undertake the battlefield procedure called the "re-org" or "re-organisation" whereby platoon Sgt. counts ammo and re-distributes it evenly across the platoon's section?
I takes about 5 minutes in real-time. If the platoon believed itself to be out of enemy observation (i.e. none of its units could spot and enemy unit) it could then 'safely' undertake a re-org. The platoon would have to be static for say five turns and each element be within 50m of the HQ unit...
-
Bruce70 – sorry I probably didn’t explain that to well.
What I meant as you inferred correctly is that at 1-to-1 level each time one abstracts/fudges an issue you create problems elsewhere or when circumstances change. It is better to try and model as much as possible in a real-world object orientated way of modular factors and issues.
Clearly as you point out and I alluded to this hugely increases the complexity of thing. My original point was and is that no AI will model everything perfectly, but if the player had a little more input then anomalies and such like can be worked around.
-
Bruce70 - The problem with 1-to-1 scale is that abstraction often creates more problems than it solves.
For the AI to handle small unit behaviour it must have an accurate model of that behaviour in a multitude of situations. That means BTS must programmed into the AI each army’s/fighting force’s doctrine, methods and tactics to accurately model what the would do and have them do that in the game.
That is going to make modules a pain in the arse as even a change from Striker Brigade to MEU is going to mean a complete IA re-programme as Army and Marines do things differently at the sub squad/team level.
The one size fits all approach simply will not work, and more importantly will restrict the commander’s option and course of action to any given event.
Model in flexibility, and you model in reality.
-
My reason for bringing it up is twofold.
I don't want to micro manage but some basic infanteering needs to be addresses from the CMx1 engine.
I am sure most of this is already old hat to Charles, Steve and the CMx2 team, but just in case thought it needed mentioning:-
Fire Control
Can I stop assault team A posting S-charges into a room and just use grenades. This will prevent casualties to team A and also team B who are in close proximity. In CMx1 you often bring the house down on everyone in large buildings when thing get ugly! A kind of suicide assault engineering.
Multiple Targets/Threats
Likewise, I'd like to see something like primary and secondary targets and being able to select different types of fire or weapons for each target.
This will better reflect the power of infantry fire teams and sections; their flexibility and multi threat, multi orientation capabilities.
By forcing four-man or eight-man units to engage a single threat/target we substantially misrepresent what they often do.
The reason a four man patrol is referred to as a brick is its shape and posture with an all-round-defence. Often you can see the rear two men backing up the street in the direction of travel facing the rear arcs.
This multi threat posture cannot be represented in a model where engaging one target at a time is all that is possible.
I just hope CMx2 has some target flexibility, that's all.
-
In the CMx2 engine will it be possible to nominate one weapon or weapon type to fire only at a target/location from a squad/section/team; and instruct the rest of the squad to fire at another target?
e.g.
one or two soldiers directed to target smoke grenades twenty-five metres at the section's two-o'clock whilst the others concentrate their fire forward in an 'advance'.
Or
The soldier with the scoped-rifle/sharp-shooter status is directed to engage a heavy weapons crew at 500m range that is trying to suppress them whilst the rest of the squad concentrate on an advancing enemy unit 200m out.
Or
Forcing the soldier to fire the M-72 at the sanger/bunker or throwing the satchel charge where you want it...
-
Cpl Steiner said -
A simple and elegant solution, bravo.Defending units would start inactive but would become active if they heard enemy movement near their position.This makes the most sense in game play - higher troop quality in either attacker or defender will determine the ability to either remain undetected in their approach or detect the advancing enemy.
It would also elevate infantry to an arm of battlefield utility (as a high stealth asset), and mean the tank heavy scenarios that dominate the CMx1 games would hopefully be lessened in CMx2 for more predominantly infantry engagements as the noisy dusty AFV alert the enemy and draw arty…
C'Rogers said -
That would be the standard result of a well conducted infantry night-attack.And by taken completely by surprise I mean when the bullets started flying no one was remotely expecting it.Well trained units were, and are, more than capable of performing this mission (game level veteran/crack). The company lays-up stealthily short of the enemy position in the FUP and then conducts the assault. Often the defender only has a small quarter-strength stag/sentry posted and therefore surprise is high and overruns can occur. If the moonlight/cloud cover permits, one can stealthily approach a platoon strength element to within 20 meters and remain undetected. At that distance your grenade volley will kill, shock and stun most defenders in the forward areas of the enemy location and allow the attackers to overrun.
C'Rogers also said -
Day timeHow often was one company able to sneak within 1 km of the other without the defenders knowing about it?This would depend on ground and cover, but 1 km is a fair distance. Unless it is billiard-table flat terrain, or the enemy has control of all terrain features that allow observation of all approaches as we see in some Italian campaign battles, often one can approach relatively closely without compromise.
Night time
This would depend on Moon state and cloud cover but generally this would be a cake walk. If you can see 300m at night with the mark-I eyeball, then you've been eating far too many carrots! At night getting within 20m - 50m is the name-of-the-game so to speak.
C'Rogers also said -
Whilst it was not common (as you needed well trained and disciplined troops), it was not uncommon either. The New Zealand divisions got quite a reputation for night fighting, as did the Germans.Correct me if I am wrong but too my understanding this would be a very rare situation.Night fighting has been at the centre of British Infantry doctrine since the war, and the sea-change really occurred following the experience of being on the receiving end of Chinese night attacks in Korea where overruns were common.
Likewise US forces were often on the receiving end of NVA/VC night attacks where infiltration and stealth were used to great effect.
-
Steve said -
Not sure I agree that the attacker doesn't often know more about the enemy than the defender in symmetrical warfare.The real life attacker also has few opportunities to make educated guesses about the enemy's force size and motivation to defend. In real life this leads to large attacking forces getting held up by a tiny defender or moderate sized attacking forces getting wiped out by much larger defenders. Not so in a game of CMx1, though less so in CMx2 (at least in the campaign that ships with the game).This may well be true of a meeting engagement or probe, but in an attack, and certainly in a deliberate assault in symmetrical warfare quite the opposite can be true.
This is one of the slightly unreal elements in CMx1 that I hope you can fine tune better in CMx2.
For a deliberate assault, reconnaissance patrolling, infiltration and CTRs are sine qua non. They allow you to identify surface and gaps in the enemy's defences. These include a breath of recce and intel data that the company commander can call on that have varying degrees of accuracy. This data is merely what a rifle company's own recce patrols and OPs can gather with a bit of stealth, the mark-I eyeball/nightsight and basic tracking skills that identify sign:
</font>
- approach march routes and deadground (likely to be unsighted to enemy OPs or defences)</font>
- obstacles</font>
- navigation and reference points to highlight in O-Groups for attacking forces (e.g. gap in hedgerow just past burnt-out Nissan)</font>
- enemy forces (EF) location & dispositions/orientation</font>
- EF strengths</font>
- EF type & quality (fieldcraft & noise discipline, uniform, weapons, NCOs and officers)</font>
- EF fatigue, supply status, alertness</font>
- EF habits (stand-to routine, patrolling etc)</font>
- EF heavy weapon</font>
- EF likely reinforcement routes</font>
- EF depth</font>
- EF OP overwatch</font>
Now add to the mix the modern array of sensor platforms, electronic intel and recce capability available to battalion commanders and the picture of the enemy can in some cases, and quite often in a deliberate assault be very detailed and accurate.
If you have seen an O-Group for a platoon or company deliberate assault the level of detail gathered by your recce teams can be quite astounding.
This is not reflected currently in the game, and this is a shame.
The standard by which one judges troop quality and basic infantry skills is their ability to aggressively patrol, dominate the FEBA and conduct detailed reconnaissance. Using sniping, patrolling, OPs and CTR an infantry company can work its patch and make life bloody difficult for the enemy and pin them back in their own defences. They become blind as you gather a more detailed picture.
You can then hit them when they are least prepare, where they are weakest and/or most vulnerable.
Therefore, in short I am arguing to get the recce-battle put into the CMx2 engine to allow infantry combat to occur as it often does.
-
Cpl Steiner - You make a valid argument.
I agree this needs addressing as designing out the defending player's knowledge of an impending contact/attack will remove the chance of gamey play. This will help with realism and prevent the defence being too active in the pre-contact phase of play.
Might I suggest one amendment to prevent misuse of this feature? You mentioned predefined patrol paths – now it seems to me those player who are by their nature gamey are going to exploit this feature to send suicide patrols out forward of FLOT or across the FEBA laterally to spot and draw fire.
However, if only the scenario designer can plot patrol routes, and this feature is not available in quick battles, then the defending player can either assign units to the patrol routes or not, but the designer's intent and realism is then not compromised.
Battle for Taiwan.
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
The planes are very much off the drawing board. The prototypes from CAC and SAC have been selected are now in service with the PLAAF for testing and evaluation. The winning aircraft will then be selected for full production within the next 18 months or so after full avionics and wpns evaluation. Add another 12 months for squadron conversion training plus programme overuns which usually occur and we'll probably see the first operational wings in about 4 years.
Chengdu J-XX Prototype?