rudel.dietrich
-
Posts
644 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by rudel.dietrich
-
-
I know that the focus of the game will be on Stryker Brigade units but does this mean that squads have to have their Stryker vehicle on-map in every scenario? I hope not. I would have thought a Stryker ICV is the modern equivalent of a WWII half-track, i.e. a battle-taxi that can just about survive a nearby mortar round going off but should be exposed to very little else. In most scenarios I am hoping that the Stryker ICVs are off-map and the US player just has infantry - with perhaps the odd M1 Abrams thrown in for company! </font>Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by rudel.dietrich:
Now imagine you have a Styrker loaded with a squad and it catches a RPG round and bursts into flames.
-
There have been dozens of threads on this topic.
My thoughts are that it will be much easier to play as the Syrians.
As the US player you have to lead cordinated attacks on entrenched forces in good defensive terrian.
That is the hardest of all military moves at the tactical level.
It requires patience but at the same time enough agression to follow up sucesses and take advadtange of mistakes.
It requires making many many moves at once and predicting well in advance what will be happening at any given time.
The Syrians may not have the best equipment but they have enough to get the job done.
A typical Syrian infantry spraying enough AK rounds at 100 meters at a infantry squad crossing a street just have to get lucky once and you have a US casulty which in and of itself is huge.
Now imagine you have a Styrker loaded with a squad and it catches a RPG round and bursts into flames.
Or heaven forbid you get a little sloppy and expose the side of an M1 to a T-62 sitting in an alleyway 300 meters away and it buries a 115mm shell into the side of the M1 and kills it.
Just one little mistake could lose you the scenario.
As the Syrians you could lose all your armour and take 70% infantry losses but if you kill 5 Americans and wound 18 and destroy a Styker and damage a M1 and hold up an enemy force for an hour then you will have done your job and will probably win.
So as I said before, playing as the Syrians will be far easier than playing as the US side.
-
Just what I was wanting to hear.
Will man portable sams and on board AA guns make a differnce or are they even modeled?
It seems like they should have a small impact on fixed wing aircraft and a much greater impact on helocopters...
Also could reduce the blue forces use of UAVs and helocopters like Blackhawks who tend to hover in place to scout and provide light ground support.
And will scenario designers have the option to globaly set if reinforcements get delayed or reduced in numbers or fail to appear at all due to air/artillary inderdiction.
I know we like CMx1 can set the % fail to appear rate.
But I was hoping for a bit more flexibility in that area.
Perhaps depending on the level of interdiction a company sent to reinforce might make it ok but be delayed a few turns or lose a few trucks/tanks or lose 65% of their equipment before even reaching the field
Or perhaps be outright destroyed and never show up.
This could be applied to the US force as well since ground reinforcements might be held up by ambushes, losing their way, IEDs, roadblocks, running into another ongoing attack or higher ups calling them away for another mission.
I am just looking for as much flexibility with the editor as possible.
I guess what I am asking for is a global interdiction setting that would simulate losses and delays in route.
Any chance of seeing it make it into the fire release?
-
How exactly does this work?
Does it depend on the amount and type of artillary the players buys?
Or is it a global setting which can be set by the scenario designer or toggled in QBs?
I hope it is the later since that would add alot of flexibility.
-
I am partial to the PSG-1 myself
-
My platoon burned probably over $5 million USD worth of poppies and ready to be cut heroin.
It got to the point where it took up so much of our time we let them keep their drug industry.
-
This trend is a good one howeverOriginally posted by flamingknives:Although BFC have hardly made a habit of following industry trends.
Also gives games a longer lifespan since as technology gets better so do the graphics to a certain point.
-
I am going back to Virginia tomorrow for some much deserved time off.
These 100 hour work weeks are not exactly what I envisioned when I decided on this line of work
I do not know when I will be able to update this, but it has not been forgotten about and is on my to do list.
It would be nice if you could send me what you have already and let me comb over it/fill in details/look over the organization.
I know you guys are the programers, but I have some organizational ideas in mind that I think would be best in both of terms of presenting the TO&E in a logical format and ensuring that the user was presented with the most accurate force possible.
And could you also detail what you needed for 'fantasy units'
i.e. the direction you want to take with that and how deep you want to go with it if you want to add any at all for the first release.
I could begin working up a list of units and rank them something like
1. Possibly exists in country but not verified
2. 1-5 years from acceptance and use
3. Could be used in OPFOR nation but no plans for use at this time.
4. Possible OPFOR equipment (i.e. anything that the 'bad guys' could use.
5. Pure fantasy (i.e. western weapons that could end up in Syria in some bizzaro world)
So starting tomorrow here is a quick run down of how I am going to tackle things leading up to release.
1. Work on any project you give me and answer your questions.
2. Work on my own projects and answer any questions I have left lying around this thread and fill in gaps.
3. Comb over the TO&E when you send it my way and see if I can improve it in any way or suggest ways to make it better.
4. Learn about how you plan on organizing the OPFOR TO&E and see if any of my ideas could be used
5. Begin work on a 'fantasy' OPFOR TO&E for use outside of the Syrian TO&E
If you need anything at all, you know my E-mail and you can pm me or use this thread.
I am here as a resource so please make use of me
Rudel
-
Industry trends are to allow the gamer to choose as high of a rez as their monitor will support.
Half a dozen games purchased in the last few years allow for this.
I am very suprised CMx2 does not allow this seeing as how it will be the CM vehicle for the next 6-8 years.
-
Dissapointing
-
I am on assignment at the moment and hope to be back in the office by Oct ~10-13
This also explains my dissapearance as of late
-
?Originally posted by cassh:rudel.dietrich said </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Not sure why Britian would come first unless it is just preference
Cos we're still allowed to fight wars on foreign soil!!
German equipment, while interesting has limited combat reality other than with the Dutch. The German constitution means the Budenswehr is a white elephant in combat terms. I don't know how many of us would buy CM-PeaceKeeper... </font>
-
Would it be ok if I admitted that I would get a perverse sense of dark humour if France had one of their LeClercs taken by Hezbollah?
-
Probably the AMX-10 which is quite possibly the worst APC I have ever had to ride inOriginally posted by John Kettler:Don't know whether any of you saw it or not, but CNN reported yesterday that the French force in Lebanon is bringing LeClerc MBTs with it, presumably along with other AFVs. This was news to me and opens up even more possibilities for grog agitation.
Regards,
John Kettler
-
Once Germany is done Canada will follow according to Steve.Originally posted by MikeyD:Though I haven't given it much thought and I don't expect to have an affect on their decision, I'd vote to get the Canadians in there somewhere. Turreted LAV IIIS, LAV Bisons, and apparently Leopard Is are back in the inventory too.
Poor Canada gets no respect, though they seem end up in every hot spot out there. The reason why the U.S. purchased the Stryker was because they were jealous watching Canadian LAVs spearheading the march into Bosnia.
Once you model the US and Germany and USMC you have most everything Canada uses and I am sure BFC will fill in the gaps.
I have also read that late last year Canada was has either purchased or is going to purchase some plain vanilla strikers, true or not true?
[ September 27, 2006, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: rudel.dietrich ]
-
It would also be nice if BF could one day grow to be able to support two teams.
One team working on WW2 stuff and the other post WW2 stuff sharing the same engine both teams developed.
I have very little interest in WW2 these days since I have fired more virtual bullets than were fire in the real war itself.
Nut I know that is how BF earns its money.
WW2 related would be a Korean War game which I would purchase in a heart beat.
I dont think that has ever been done in 3-D tactical before.
Would not be a huge change from WW2 either.
-
If you modeled German equipment you could model half of Europe.
Not sure why Britian would come first unless it is just preference.
Anyways, I like the idea of a modern USMC force.
Maybe we can get some M-60s
Or are those still in use?
-
I would want to see the Germans since they have the most powerful force avaliable to Nato besides the Americans, but well...im biased
-
Has a decision been reached yet?
I have done a bit more research and would like to know if it will be of use before I proceed any further.
-
I always thought that was a way to show you related products and try to induce impulse buys :confused:
-
If a serious war did break out I think the US would strike from Iraq and Turkey would grant NATO foroces access to launch an attack out of their border.
-
A HEAT round bounced?Originally posted by pad152:I really liked the demo of Faces of War, too bad the release is DOA (dead on arrival). The damage model is one of the best I've seen, I hit a tank with I bazzoka it bounces out and hits a truck that knocks off the bumper and right front tire. Now that's a damage model.
That sounds like a really ****ty damage model
-
I don't take you for an idiot.
By your words you seem a little iffy on a very big decision.
And yes, I think you have no clue what your getting yourself in to.
But no one ever does.
If you join you very well might not end up near home and there is a near 100% chance you will end up fighting or being in theatre during a war.
Based on what you said you do not want to do that.
So that is why I advised thinking about it.
And no I don't underestimate youth.
I was one not that long ago.
-
The US goverment is not stupid.Originally posted by Battlefront.com:BigDuke6,
Rudel,
Yes, your boss is right that one can not win an asymetric war. One can only try to prevent one from getting started in the first place. The policy of the US since Vietnam was to simply avoid them, even if it meant "cutting and running" or leaving a massive mess behind after some sort of military adventure that went down the wrong path. Those who pushed for a war with Iraq used a different policy; if one doesn't know anything about asymetrical warfare then it doesn't exist.
Somewhere in the General Forum there is some quote from me prior to the war in Iraq. I said then that I believed we would make short work of the invasion and quickly take over the country with few losses. However, I expressed "fear" that we'd totally screw up everything after it. Either I'm some kind of briliant visionary or I'm just someone who is apparently more informed than many in leadership positions. I don't think I'm brilliant, so somehow I must be better informed. That is scary.
Steve
They knew the risks but felt the case for war was very strong and was worth the risk.
Or
They did and knew full well where the road would wind.
But to sell the war to the public and Congress of course downplayed the after invasion part of the conflict.
I do not think Bush and company are nerfarious individuals bent on a Pan American world rule or that the war was to help his oil friends get rich.
I think Bush and his goverment had an agenda in mind that was shattered by 9/11.
They had the world on them change overnight and quite frankly had no idea what the hell to do (and who did at the time?)
They fell back on their ideological roots.
And that was that in order to stamp out terrorism you have to attack it roots and therefore democratize the ME.
For some reason they saw Iraq as the first nation on the list.
On one hand I cannot fault them for doing what they very strongly belived was right.
On the other hand I have to take issue with under what reality they are operating which told them something like that would ever work.
I think history will be softer on this adminisration as the years pass.
Every new goverment is going to come into office and face the same challenges and try and do what they see as right.
Lots of mistakes are yet to be played out.
I just realized how pessimisitc that all sounds, but I don't see this problem going away.
The only solution I can offer is to no longer import foreign oil.
Once oil runs our or is no longer needed the area will no longer have any useful value to anyone.
Military forces can be pulled out and like Africa the area can be completly ignored.
I think that will get the extremists to leave the west alone.
But until that occurs I see this whole mess as something which is not going to be cleaned up.
Bush and friends are just unfortunate to have been the ones that had the mess dropped into their laps.
The other side...
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
If you need indirect support then you can use the 4.2 inch mortar variant and punch holes in buildings or supress and kill enemies in defensive terrain.