C'Rogers

I believe I proposed in a thread a long time ago that it would be mass overconsumption of alchol and egotistical statements gone way to far. If I remember correctly though won't blue/blue be limited to quick battles? Sadly a scenario plots won't be needed.

And then the thread spun wildly out of control into an off topic political discussion

It is not my assumption but a theory if I remember back when game balance was originally discussed. The idea was that while the US has superior firepower/tactics if engagements (in game) where represented as spear head assaults the Syrians could have surprising (in metagame concept) numbers as a counter. Thus making the battles balanced. It was one of the way's proposed by some who believed that the US army will have a Turkey Shoot against the Syrians. Give the Syrians superior numbers and a defensive position. As it was argued at the time, that was unnessecary as the US advantage is not the extreme. That was what I was commenting on that it was most certainly not true by the way the battle was portrayed in the AAR. Interesting AAR for the three parts. Though if I may ask, was this played WEGO or Real Time?

Heh, sometimes it pays to read the blog.

Well on reading what stood out at me is not only the US forces having superior equipment, but superior numbers. I guess that throws out the theory that the Syrians will be balanced by having far more guys all the time. Are victory conditions modeled yet? The AAR really doesn't state what the acceptable losses are yet. Is it just a test to see how combat works out?

A couple things that have been brought up in previous threads that didn't really get talked about here. One of the major strengths of the US military is the strength of its command structure, while many recent opponents it has gone up against have not been not nearly on the same level. However as players will be replacing the command structure this means that the Syrians can be played much stronger than they may in an actual conflict (and as Steve is fond of sighting, people playing the US may do in a much poorer fashion). Also CM:SF is on a much narrower time frame then previous CM games. Whether the US/UN will win the war is not really in doubt. However as the lead element in the attack the US forces are at high risk of suffering unacceptable losses. If you consider that they may also be proceeding, for whatever political reason, at a faster than safe speed the potential for a losing battle is very realistic. Asymetrical victory conditions are also a strong element and don't necessarily equate to 'suicide bombing'. The Abrhams might be able to dominate every other Syrian tank but if losing it is considered near unacceptable the US player may not be able to fully deploy it as he would see fit if score was handled in normal CMx1 fashion. I think you have the wrong idea of the game. I am very much looking forward to CM:SF but if it turns out to be anything like the way you envision it I, and I imagine most others, would be highly disappointed. True there may be many reasons to dislike the game even though you are a fan of the other games. If you are primarily only interested in WWII, you like tank on tank battles, or prefer even on even foces in meeting engagement scenarios, yeah this doesn't seem to be playable. But if your main worry is about an insurengency based game where your biggest threat is suicide bombers I don't think CM:SF will disappoint. But I guess the proposed AAR will shed more light.

As someone who saves a lot of battles on the last turn I have quite a cluttered scenario box and have to go down a few pages to get to the battles. However I can always just move the save files to different folder if it becomes to bothersome. So I would put this as a something that would be nice, but on an extremly minor level.

Does this mean that there is a civilain setting for a map/scenario as a whole with every sector the same? For example if the map is an approach on a city, with there being being desert lead up to an urban area, does the whole map have the same civilain level? Would a VIED have the same levels of disguise in all areas, even if the Syrian player moved it out into the normally open desert? Or does the scenario creator specify areas within the map for levels of civilain activity?

Since when has there been a need for a particular reason to heckle the French? It is easy enough if you just pick any random element of their history, culture, personality, economy, military, cuisine, drinking preferences, body odor ...

Wow I opened up this thread without looking at the author expecting it to be a post about the worry that there would be too much micromanagement in the upcoming CM:SF. Espeically considering it can be played realtime. Instead it is a post wanting more micromanagement. As for one tank using smoke and blocking another tank's vision, nothing unrealtic about that. A lead tank may use smoke to protect itself seeing it as a higher priority than the fire line of the tank behind it (or you know, just plain old fear).

When this game was first being discussed I thought 'well, it needs to have civilains'. The more I think about it I think, even if all of the extensive AI problems could be solved, it is better off without them. Mainly because I don't think the player's role in the game has anything to do with decisions regarding who and who is not a threat. While the player is not defined into a specific role, he is something of a god company commander (battalion or whatever). His job is to provide orders and the overall strategy. A lot of the posts here about US players engaging potential threats would require an intense level of micromanagement. Just picture a turn with civilians (or even harder, real time). The player must go to each squad, and scan the crowd. Is anyone edging to close? Well we better fire a couple warning shots just to be safe. On top of that the time between someone going from normal civilian to insurengent in disguise is a few seconds. With vehicles there might be a brief period of time as it closes on the US players units but otherwise a person will go from non-hostile to hostile in an instant. Unless of course the game would suddenly become CM: psychological anaylsis. Did that guy just twitch? What about that one over there, it looked like he sweating pretty heavily as he prayed. Hmmm, that little kid looks a lot more serious than he should. I think the current idea is the best to go with, even if the AI problems weren't so huge. My 2 cents on how everything should be (because what wouldn't be a post without throwing out personal opinions). Insurgent units (armed but plain clothed), for lack of a better term, would have very very high stealth ratings in heavily populated areas until they have started firing (and maybe regain them after they have stopped firing and retreated). IEDs. Current system seems the best. Placed, with different types, US troops have a chance to detect before hand based on numerous factors. VIEDS or suicide bombers. Treating these like the current (CMx1) setup for mine fields seems reasonable. Syrian player has access to a suicide bomber that doesn't even need to be represented by a unit. At the start an area is placed where the bomber operates in (obviously larger for vehicles). Players entering that area have a chance to be attacked. Experience, busyness, rules of engagement (if they are in place) and surronding population detemines the chance that the attacker will hit US units before they have a chance to stop him.

Actually he could have just seen it in my post as one of the things highlighted, thought WeGo was fairly standard term. Also I aplogize for screwing up my original attempt to link to WineCape's thread (which is immensely helpful btw, I have directed more than one friend there when they ask about the new game).

At the momennt it is abstracted remember (and always will be to a degree likely). Remember you aren't controlling the indiviual placement of soldiers, you are placing squads. So saying "You have to move the soldier round the coner into the open, then fire" doesn't make sense. Think of it like you can order the squad to take cover, or you can order them to engage an enemy. But you can't tell 8 guys to take cover, and one guy to fire. In an abstracted sense this does happen with additional cover from buildings. A soldier pops out, fires out a window, and then hides again. That is noted by the increased cover the soldier has from the building. Someone with more combat experience then me (cause all I am going off is paintball) can probably answer this better, but popping around corners seems like a good way to get shot. Each time you hide you lose sight of the target and they can move and know where you will pop out of. It is like sticking a gun around a corner to fire. Looks good in movies but my assumption is that it isn't very realitistic. But as for indiviual soldiers using corners better, with 1 to 1 representation who knows. Though I doubt it will be anything you as commander will be ordering.

Got to say mav you have had some interesting suggestions but at times you seem to playing a different game then the rest of us. When I first started out suppression was very difficult. After a lot of experience it became much easier to gauge how much fire would take to suppress guys. Suppressing guys is fairly easy with tactical superiority. It is harder to suppress guys in buildings but that is the way it likely should be. It is by no means impossible (or even overly difficult).

Depict, yes. Each soldier will be tracked indiviually as to what weapon they have (I believe down to specific ammo). However you will not be able to control the indiviual soldier, still squad based. Do any search for 1:1 I think will get the results you want.

Depict, yes. Each soldier will be tracked indiviually as to what weapon they have (I believe down to specific ammo). However you will not be able to control the indiviual soldier, still squad based. Do any search for 1:1 I think will get the results you want.

I recommend the following thread by winecape. Winecape As pointed out by others I also recommend the search function. Of course the final option is to just wait for some forum member to come along who has time to type out a reply regardless of pointing you to the other forums. Which at the moment happens to be me. Theater of War was not developed by Battlefront, they are the publisher (though they do far more than a normal publisher to my understanding). Theater of War has in production for some time and to my understanding has bounced around between a few companies. I don't much about that but it has been discussed in the forum. It is different from CM in a few different ways. One is it seems to have a somewhat unrealistic level of tanks/planes to infantry (though that is just from the AAR we have seen). Two you can control indiviual soldiers. Three remaning tanks and guns is possible. Four, buildings are inaccessible currently. There are probably more as well but that is what comes off the top of my head. CMx2 is a new engine from Battlefront that has been in design long before they picked up Theater of War (unless my timeline is really off). It will be used to release at least five "titles". A series of modules will follow each title. The engine is designed to simulate all sorts of warfare and will no longer be limited to WWII. The battles will be far more in depth, but the overall game scope will be narrowed. It is suppose to be ridiculusly pretty as well, or will be when they actually get the artwork in and show us screenshots. The core elements of the game (company level squad control game) remain unchanged (though some of us were very scared for awhile). There will also be a realtime option with the WeGo. As a side note for future titles it is possible the game depth will change (from company level, either up or down). BFC has said that is possible, but not indicated that is planned for any release in the next couple years at least. There will now be a campaign game as well and blue vs. blue quick battle option (American vs. American). There are a ton of changes but I think I came out with the top ones. Read the thread and search around otherwise.

I recommend the following thread by winecape. Winecape As pointed out by others I also recommend the search function. Of course the final option is to just wait for some forum member to come along who has time to type out a reply regardless of pointing you to the other forums. Which at the moment happens to be me. Theater of War was not developed by Battlefront, they are the publisher (though they do far more than a normal publisher to my understanding). Theater of War has in production for some time and to my understanding has bounced around between a few companies. I don't much about that but it has been discussed in the forum. It is different from CM in a few different ways. One is it seems to have a somewhat unrealistic level of tanks/planes to infantry (though that is just from the AAR we have seen). Two you can control indiviual soldiers. Three remaning tanks and guns is possible. Four, buildings are inaccessible currently. There are probably more as well but that is what comes off the top of my head. CMx2 is a new engine from Battlefront that has been in design long before they picked up Theater of War (unless my timeline is really off). It will be used to release at least five "titles". A series of modules will follow each title. The engine is designed to simulate all sorts of warfare and will no longer be limited to WWII. The battles will be far more in depth, but the overall game scope will be narrowed. It is suppose to be ridiculusly pretty as well, or will be when they actually get the artwork in and show us screenshots. The core elements of the game (company level squad control game) remain unchanged (though some of us were very scared for awhile). There will also be a realtime option with the WeGo. As a side note for future titles it is possible the game depth will change (from company level, either up or down). BFC has said that is possible, but not indicated that is planned for any release in the next couple years at least. There will now be a campaign game as well and blue vs. blue quick battle option (American vs. American). There are a ton of changes but I think I came out with the top ones. Read the thread and search around otherwise.

Here is something I have been thinking about in regards to soldier experience, both for CM:SF and in the real world. Situation: Two companies of infantry are about to clash. One company is from a relatively poor country though they are well armed. Each man was enlisted one year ago. They have received no real training except basic lessons in their weapons and overall manuevers. However they have had extensive combat experience and are used to firing in combat, getting shot at, and watching comrades die. The second company is from a rich country. Each soldier was also enlisted one year ago. Since then they have seen no combat, however they have received extensive training. Most of the soldiers are excellent marksman and have been trained to be in top physical conditions. The soldiers have also learned a lot of tactics and strategies, though they have never seen real world use. Which company is in better position, all else being equal (unrealistic but is a hypothetical). A well trained unit with little experience, or a experienced unit with little actual training. Second thing, experience in the CM series. Generally the abstracted experience system is pretty solid. To my understanding there are few parameters associated with experience. How quick a unit will respond to commands and their ability to stay cool under fire are effected by experience (as well as a host of other things I believe). It's only main problem is that all parameters go up as a unit gains experience. A veteran squad is tougher, faster, and shoots better than a regular squad. However I am sure there are military units in the world where soldiers may be willing to take a lot of incoming fire before retreating, but our crappy shots (and vice-versa with excellent shots who don't stand well under fire). Will the new game be able to handle the concept of a squad of soldiers with the courage of a crack squad but the response time and firing ability of a green squad? Or is this issue to minor to spend time on and clogging up the user interface with?

BFC probably remembers the intial complaints about the setting more than I do but weren't most of the people who thought the game would be a cakewalk also generally oppossed to interventionist actions? Am I remembering wrong or are you talking about two different things here.

To me this is the key to the issue. The player needs to understand what caused friendly fire and that they could of planned to avoid it, or at least what risk they took that made it more likely to happen. I have seen a few instances of squad on squad fire in CMx1. In all instances it was just kind of random at night occurrences. While perhaps somewhat realistic it seemed totally outside my control. When arty misdrops and hits my own guys I know why. The experience level of the dropper was low and I took a risk being as close as I was. With the few instances of friendly fire it was just kind of 'usually my guys at a 100m across an open field at night spot each other just fine, sometimes they shoot at each other'.

Generally there isn't a hard and fast rule as is kind of evident here, and how you choose to deploy is based largely on your equipment you have and the terrain. Though as general rule I have noticed one thing. A forward slope position does a good job of slowing the enemy down. On the other hand a reverse slope position does a better job of inflicting casulties. So it depends what you want (my experience at least, not sure if others as well). Also I find machine guns to be of much better use in a forward than a reverse slope position (do to their suppressing nature).

The friendly fire issue actually worries me quite a bit. From a realism perspective there is too little FF, but from a game perspective it feels like there is to much at times. One of the major things non-grogs seem to complain about when they show up on the forums is the "bug" where your own airplanes target your troops. While realistic it can ruin a game. A player likes to feel that the game is under their control. If events are out of control it doesn't feel like you are playing a game, so much as it is playing itself. The main worry about friendly fire (from squad to squad or squad to tank) is that it is completely determined by the computer and not by the player. If I am moving a squad down a street in a foggy battle and I move a machine gun to protect them, and instead the machine gun identifies them as enemies and fire on them, it is realistic, but may ruin the game. As a player I have made no mistake by the action and in a similar situation would do the same thing and likely get a radically different result. With artillery or air (how it is now being described) it is a players fault to a large degree. Move troops to close to the arty zone and they get hit, don't go so close next time (or you knew you were taking a calculated risk that you lost). The best example I can think of is a battle I played long ago. The quick battle generated a great random map where I was attacking a small village surrounded by hills. My friend and I play 25 turns where I slowly encroach on the town, exchange artillery and casualties. He weakens up my infantry but I drive him back into the few buildings he has. I was holding a large tank in reserve and knew he had a few anti-tank weapons as well. We both knew a charge was coming and it would be interesting to see who would win the final turns. I had purchased a small plane at the beginning of the battle and carefully kept my tank back knowing the dangers of friendly air fire. It didn't show up and I knew I was low on time and had to move. Soon as I begin to move the tank the plane shows up and drops a bomb squarely on it. Without it I had nothing to give cover to my infantry advance and we both agreed that it was bad way for the game to end, all coming down to one misidentification. Looking back there is nothing major I would of changed. If the plane had struck on the second turn I would of surrendered the battle having lost the necessary heavy assets to close on the town, if it had never we would have had an excellent last couple turns to find out who had better positioned their guys and got more effective casualties in the build up. It was realistic, but didn't feel like a good game (one of the few times I can say that about CM). So things like that or what worry me about friendly fire. By its nature friendly fire is an accident, out of control. If I misdrop artillery on my guys, I screwed up and will (hopefully) learn from it. If I outflank my enemy and then take fire from one of my own machine guns, what is there to learn? It isn't so much squad on squad fire that worries me, it is unlikely that any battle will be changed because one squad fired on another. However if an anti-tank shoots a friendly APC or tank down range the whole game might turn on that. Conclusion: I would like to see a knew FF system. I wouldn't mind seeing more FF even. But for a newg ame engine that has freaked out many a poster on this forum this is the first issue that has really worried me.

Michale Emrys The human body is at times inherently illogical. The thing about tension is that the body if nervous wants to put everything out right away (in danger, run as fast as possible). Stress also takes your mind off what you are doing, so instead of controlling your pace you let it get out of control going faster than you should. It is one of the reasons long distance runners receive a lot of training on remaining calm. Being they are doing an engine for multiple games I imagine it would be easier to do a standardized experience system ('regular' units whether America, Syrian, or German WWII all are pretty much the same). To simulate the US having a greater advantage in soldiers do to training just have US soldiers at a higher experience level. I also think it would make it easier on players when switching between sides/games that when they get a regular unit they know its capabilities. Sidenote: Is BFC going to use roughly the same experience as before (Conscript - Elite) or something different to describe the soldiers? A good point. The only question being how many of the Syrian defends will be regular's to that city? Or will the standard army come from around the country. While they would still have the edge due to some of the things you mentioned it wouldn't really be a home field advantage. More like both are visitors, the fans are just heavily on the Syrian side.

As someone who grew up running a lot (in light sneakers and light clothing) who tried a few runs in full military gear in college (minus the body armor, maybe 10 runs or so of a few miles) the biggest problem was not actually the load I was carrying but two things that really can't be changed and haven't been mentioned. Boots and the uniform. Running with boots really screwed up everything. As you get tired your stride naturally shortens and the boots just exacerbate this. I would of gladly taken another 20 pounds in the backback if I could of replaced the boots with shoes (which for a soldier is obviously impossible). On hot days the full body uniform was also a huge problem. Heat saps the energy really quick and while modern unifroms are much better than their predeccesors it still a lot of clothing to have on in a stressful, hot, intense situation.