Alan8325
-
Posts
583 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Alan8325
-
-
It would be very helpful if you can describe a single typical one minute turn explaining precisely how these UAV's would function that is different from the way air support is depicted now.
The scenario briefing mentions an MQ-9 is in support of the mission gathering intel. The player starts the scenario and has significant pre-battle intel showing some locations of enemy contacts with '?' symbol (already included feature). After starting the scenario, the player gets these '?' contacts updated as the UAV spots more contacts and previously spotted contacts move (new feature).
Some of the infantry units in the scenario also have micro-UAVs. A unit with a micro-UAV is on the roof of a building and the player wants to see behind some buildings on a street where he has no LOS. The player clicks on the unit and selects a new "launch UAV" button, or maybe it's just the "deploy weapon" button already there, and then selects an action spot within range, say 200 meters (new feature or maybe not). The unit, as long as it is unsuppressed, will have one member showing a new animation throwing the UAV. Then the UAV will fly over to the selected action spot and loiter between action spots, controlled by the TAC AI while one member of the controlling team is listed as "controlling" while the others are "spotting" (new feature). Enemy units spotted by the UAV are effectively spotted by the controlling team so if you click on that team you see the contacts spotted by the UAV. Perhaps clicking on "deploy weapon" again would instruct the UAV to return to the team that launched it.
As for ground unmanned vehicles, they would be controlled by the player just like any other unit under the conditions that the "controlling" unit is alive and unsuppressed and the UGV is within range (new feature). Enemy units spotted by the UGV would also be "spotted" by the controlling unit.
-
UAVs (aerial) used in the close support role can be simulated in CM in the same way that manned air support is currently simulated. A forward air control unit calls an area or point strike mission and the off-screen "unit" that arrives is an MQ-9 rather than an F-16. Same type of Hellfire missile or GPS guided bomb falls on the target.
The new functionality that they would have to add to make UAVs authentic is real-time spotting ability. A modern battlefield has micro-UAVs up to MQ-9s relaying information to controllers on the ground which have C2 links to the troops. Micro-UAVs are directly controlled by the combat troops and would have to remain in contact to function. To my knowledge they have to remain within a few hundred meters of the controller. I'm guessing that rather than give the player direct control of a micro-UAV it would be fully under TAC AI control. The player would probably select an option to launch the UAV and select an action spot and then the TAC AI would launch and control the UAV in a loitering pattern.
Ground unmanned vehicles like the SWORDS also have to stay relatively close to the controller but I'm not certain what their communication range is. New functionality to CMx2 would have to be added here too to allow for one 'unit' to remotely control another 'unit.' It would probably be some type of conditional relationship where the player has control of the unmanned unit just as if it were 'manned' as long as it is within effective communications distance from the controller and the controller is alive and unsuppressed.
-
True, there are some people who don't even like modern era combat at all. I'm a fan of modern combat, however I still believe you have to be careful when projecting current experimental technology as actively deployed in a near future-set military sim as to not get into the "space lobsters" sci-fi region in the game setting. I think two to three years in the future is about all they should go while keeping with a military simulation type of game. Any further than that and it might as well be speculation and sci-fi as to what types of equipment we see. With that said, anything that we see in active duty at this point in time should be included in a near future-set game and there are many unmanned vehicles currently in use, including in the combat role.
-
Here is a short list of some modern unmanned vehicles, some experimental, that will be used increasingly in any near future war. Especially interesting is BAE's "Black Knight" light unmanned tank currently in testing. Those that are currently in use such as the MQ-8, MQ9 and Talon Swords I would fully expect to be included as part of U.S. kit in any near future conflict and should be included in CMSF2 if possible.
http://interestingengineering.com/index.php/top-10-unmanned-military-vehicles/
-
Just curious if the gun was given a facing adjustment before it was destroyed. I notice its not completely inline with where its target was, and quite often players want to shift that gun shield towards the threat. Not realizing this is the equivalent of tossing your cam net off your gun and losing any concealment bonus. Happened to me before, lesson learned.
I don't think it was shifting its facing prior to being spotted by the Jpz because GaJ had issued the ATG a 'Hide' command, which should keep all movement to a minimum. Spotting from vehicles aside (which may currently be slightly too good), GaJ should have kept that particular ATG unhidden and allowed to fire at Bil's overwatch units since these units are unlikely to show their flank on that hill as GaJ was hoping. He likely would have hit the Jpz at least once which could knock it out or at least immobilize it. If he did manage to knock it out, Bil probably would have used his Brummbar to try to take out the ATG which would be unsuppressed and ready to fire again. Even the Brummbar then would face at least a possible immobilization. That said, I also agree that the ATG could have been placed in a much better position.
-
I loved the quote: “I’d love to sit at a cafe and just hang out. The last time I was there as a senator, I still had the option of wandering through the Old City of Jerusalem. That option becomes much trickier once you’re actually president. You can’t just slip out and interact with people without having a bunch of guys with machine guns with you.”
Is it accurate when he said "machine guns"?
Interesting that he 'needs' machine guns (probably referring to m4s and p90s) while he believes that any civilian in the U.S. doesn't need and shouldn't have anything more than a handgun.
That, however is a debate for a different forum.The xm25 "Punisher" is now in active use by U.S. forces in Afghanistan and will be a welcome addition to CMSF2.
-
What is the range from the sniper to the kubelwagon?
-
I dont believe Israel on its own is going to be able to permanently prevent Iran from getting nuclear weapons without using them themselves. They maybe can delay it (as they did in the past), but without a successful ground invasion of wich Israel alone isnt capable, Iran is ultimately going to get its nuclear weapons.
I agree with this. Iran is probably going to get a nuclear weapon, but that doesn't mean that it will be used. It will certainly not be used and for the same reason that North Korea won't use theirs, it would be the end of their regime. The US wouldn't retaliate to a nuclear strike with nuclear weapons in either Iran or North Korea however, because it would like to see pro-US regimes eventually appear, and every city being leveled and radioactive would make that much harder. The likely response to any Iranian or NK nuclear attack would be massive strikes with conventional weapons followed by a ground campaign, probably more refined in some way than that used in Iraq and Afghanistan. Nevertheless, they would still dislodge the regime. Isreal is another story regarding nuclear retaliation, however I think there would be strong pressure from the U.S. to avoid the use of nuclear weapons. Whether the U.S. can apply enough pressure to avoid nuclear retaliation against a nuclear strike on Isreali soil may be unlikely though.
The most likely results from Iran getting a nuclear weapon, which I think will happen, are that Iran will be slightly more bold with its proxy warfare activities utilizing Hizbollah and other groups in Lebanon and Syria, and Saudi Arabia will pursue its own nuclear weapons program to counter Iran's. Therefore the biggest risk to Isreal with Iran having a nuclear weapon is not that Iran will use the nuclear weapon on Isreal, but that there will be increased violence on Isreal's borders with Lebanon and Syria.
-
"What did you say about rum at the bar on the other hill?"
-
If firing from indoors is so dangerous, couldn't BF just add a chance that it would result in a 'red' or 'yellow' casualty? Since the player has to assume the role of the squad (or team) commander anyway, he should be able to decide whether to take that risk or not.
-
my Panther got taken out by a single, head-on shot from **spoilers** a 57mm AT gun halfway across the map. I was literally sick to my stomach for a few minutes. It made the next mission much harder.
***Spoiler Alert***
Didn't know this was possible. APDS round? IIRC a 57mm team has 2 of them.
-
I have a feeling that GaJ would have been better off using his foxholes for the ATGs to extend their life against artillery and Brumbar shelling. Anyone know if foxholes would have made the ATGs easier to spot?
-
What experience factors did you buy your troops at? Did you leave the Rangers with their default "veteran/high leadership/motivation" settings? I don't recall how much a whole company of infantry moving up and down the soft factor scales costs in points.
-
Agreed on the bazookas as a mistake. The map is too open to make them more useful than AT guns. Maybe include a few bazooka teams to hide in well concealed areas and buildings inside VLs.
As for mobile forces, I think it is important to have a significant amount of tanks or self-propelled AT guns in order to take advantage of the side of the bisected map where Bil is weakest. Bil will probably have an AT overwatch on the far end of his "weak" side, AKA the side he chooses NOT to advance on, and this will likely have to be targeted with artillery or air support before GaJ can make use of it to flank Bil's forces. For this purpose GaJ should have at least one battery of 155mm+ and some TRPs on likely overwatch positions. I'm going to guess that Bil will use the Elefant as an overwatch unit due to its strong frontal protection and poor mobility.
-
The Elefant looks like it will be formidable and almost indestructible from the front. This is from Wikipedia:
"Reputed to be able to knock out a T-34 at a range of over 3 miles with its 88mm Pak43/2 L/71, it was a strong opponent for the Allies. Although effective at destroying Soviet tanks, they performed quite poorly in other respects. In its original configuration, the Ferdinand lacked a machine gun as secondary armament, making it vulnerable to attack by infantry. While this was a disadvantage, most combat losses were from mine damage and mechanical failure. Within four days nearly half of the vehicles were out of service, mostly due to technical problems and mine damage to tracks and suspension. Combat losses to enemy action were very low as the very thick armor protected the Ferdinand from almost all Soviet antitank weaponry; in fact, most of the vehicles destroyed or captured had been abandoned by their crews after mechanical failure."
-
CMSF2 is NATO vs. Russia in Ukraine, year 2015 or so. I know that there are many here who hate state-of-the-art weapons and equipment, but I personally prefer a modern setting over the 1980's because I like "what if this happens" type scenarios over "what if this happened." I think BFC can come up with a credible story of how Russia avoids having its air force and air defenses wiped out, creating more equal conditions on the ground.
-
Before watching these videos I was sure that the best way of assaulting a battery of AA guns was with infantry on foot across an open field hundreds of meters across, but now I'll have to reconsider.
-
I'd like to see shrek teams get to fire from inside buildings before they get an MP40, although that would be helpful as well. As it stands, AT teams aren't nearly as useful in urban combat as they should be. In real life there is all kinds of cover in urban terrain, especially in areas already hit hard by combat, but CM urban terrain is stripped of most of this and units cannot shoot and scoot around corners. Until this kind of fidelity in urban combat shows up in the CM engine, I think we should get the ability to fire from buildings as a compromise.
-
I just noticed from Bil's thread that the FJ weapons company includes a recoilless rifle platoon. Why did you take this out? Were they expensive? Is the effective range short enough that you might as well have just replaced them with shrek teams for better mobility?
-
How is ArmA3? I have played the demo of Arma2 but my computer was far too slow to run it well. I'm getting a new gaming computer soon though, and am interested in Arma3. It looks very realistic, however I have some reservations about the far-future setting and vehicle damage modeling. Does Arma3 use any kind of new penetration-based damage system or is it still using the hit-point system for vehicles? Do they still blow up every time they are knocked out?
Battlefield 4 looks interesting as well, from what little I've seen of it so far. Although I already know to what audiences these games are geared towards, it will be interesting to see how their development plays out.
-
Did you have a gentleman's agreement to not use Panthers or Tigers? Those would have evened the odds!
-
True, we are not likely to see any active cyber warfare in a CM type game, but the effects of cyber warfare can be built into a CM scenario. Things like troops being placed into a disadvantageous position or less-than-ideal force being deployed to the theater because of economic damage back home.
-
The thing with CyberWar, it has the capability of being the ""revolutionary form of warfare" that makes all the current crop of high tech weaponry we spend billions on useless. Rather like the sub and air made battleships obsolete, or the tank made horses etc.
All that armed might is useless if the C2I is disrupted. And that means that any realistic depiction of Cyberwar in a game like CM2 would make for a non-game. Eg: "Enemy Cyberattack completely blinds you and stops all communications. You lose."
Not sure a high-tech army becomes useless, just less high-tech. Much of our fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan was done with small arms and artillery technology that hasn't changed much in the last 40 years, albeit with a lot of high-tech intel help such as drones and high-resolution IR cameras.
Cyber warfare could in fact be a very good story element in CMSF2 as a factor that levels the $630 billion difference in defense spending between the United States and Russia. Imagine the U.S. GPS system having been knocked offline, preventing the kind of massive precision Tomahawk missile barrage that we use to knock out air defense systems. As a consequence, the U.S. doesn't have the unchallenged air superiority that we've enjoyed for the past few wars.
-
I think those are Stens. Hitting 3 out of 4 targets at that range is... really, really good marksmanship with a SMG. Or really lucky.
Or why they would expect to kill it even if they hit it. I wish the TacAI would only fire mortars at soft skinned or open-topped vehicles without orders, and only stationary ones.
What was the range of the sten engagement?
That, however is a debate for a different forum.
ALLIED : Gustav Line BETA AAR Round Two - Eye of the Elefant
in Combat Mission Fortress Italy
Posted
Images like this have gotta make you wish you had a forward bazooka team huh?