Apocalypse 31

I'm not sure if this is directed at me, but if it is then you've missed the point because its not something that I've ever asked for.

You don't read the news or watch YouTube much, do you? Plenty of medium/long-range ATGM engagements occurring in Syria. Syria? Isn't that the same theater that Shock Force is based on?

In terms of performance, the game has a difficult time handling large maps - even with a decent gaming rig.

I'm not sure who you're directing that towards. If its at me, then I have no idea why...because that's not what I was expecting from SF2, not have I ever expressed that.

Also, @Battlefront.com I'm surprised the thread has lasted this long. Feel free to lock it and ban me at any time. Won't be offended. Where I come from and how I work, divergent opinions are welcomed and wanted. But this is the internet and not real life.

Right. Not even sure what you're talking about. Nobody wants to road march into battle - that's boring and a waste of time. If you notice that screenshot I posted only has roughly 3km of buffer space between the Assault Position and the expected line of enemy contact. The cooks aren't there. But with that kind of space, it allows commanders to be creative with how they assault the enemy. God forbid I use the term maneuver again on this thread, people will think I mean rigging ballots.

With your WW2 titles, maybe. But I disagree when it comes to modern conflict within CMSF and CMBS. Every scenario with armored vehicles feels like a knife fight, with little room to move without becoming instantly engaged. It's one of the biggest frustrations I had with Black Sea and why the game no longer exists on my hard drive

And it holds true in the military as well... Infantrymen carry a 1:10,000 map, Tankers carry a 1:250,000 map.

I think we are talking past each other when we use the word maneuver, which is understandable because every branch of the US military has its own definition of the word. From ADRP 1-02 Operational Terms and Graphics: ...And how its defined among the US Department of Defense But the one I enjoy the most (ADRP 3-90) so yeah...tomato / tomato

A "combat team" is a Company-sized element that consists of its original forces (tanks or infantry) but is augmented with another force. Usually 2x Platoons of tanks, 1x Platoon of infantry or vice versa. I believe that photo is broken down into individual vehicles, but is the same composition. At higher echelons it is referred to as a Task Force; a Battalion-sized echelon with a mixture of Infantry and Armor forces. Usually 2x Companies of Tanks and 1x Company of Infantry or vice versa.

It's not. That's a bowling alley with no room for maneuver. The attached photo is what a typical Steel Beasts scenario map looks like, with a (red) overlayed 4x4 km CM map area. That is an example of the space required for a modern Combat Team (MBT & IFV) to maneuver. Edit: this is not a CM vs SB dig, just an example using another game that uses modern armor.

I am really grateful that your responses have been courteous and informative. My initial post is obviously a strong sentiment. Some see it as 'trolling', but I've been a player since CMAK, I'm passionate about gaming and the CM line, and the Shock Force series touches on a personal interest of mine.

I play online with two FI officers - one MECH and one Tank. Both very talented, very intelligent. Trying to convince them to apply for the US Army Staff College. Both of which would do extremely well there, and would be a good addition / balance to the foreign officers that attend.

Ok. I misunderstood, and I agree with that.

We did bring some toys for your Leo's to shoot at. They made good targets, according to the Leo company commander.

Were you recently in the field with some USMC?

Reinforced company of what? Also - there is no doctrine that dictates frontage. The old Intelligence Preparation of the Battlefield (IPB) manual did have that data for enemy forces, but it is very much dictated by terrain. Real units normally just use a template, rather than precise, set distances.

I'm not demanding upper-tactical or lower operational maneuver. Modern engagements just normally occurre across larger areas than depicted in game due to better acquisition systems and weapons.

You and I used to talk via email. It was after my first Iraq deployment in 2007. Aside from two additional deployments (also on Strykers) life has been busy. Edit - I never had the chance to send you that pair of ASUs that you asked me for.

I didn't realize asking for a game that runs smoothly in 2018 is like asking for a pony? You may be the expert in game development, but I beg to differ on this point, and disagree, given my personal experiences, knowledge, and training in the subject.

It's not "pushing the envelope". Modern Tanks and ATGMs can engage direct fire further than 4k. That's still a tactical fight and NOT operational. Because I was expecting progression with Shock Force 2. Not a Shock Force modification with a AAA price tag. It's about the performance and capabilities - not just the graphics. I'd be ok with the terrible shadows, anti aliasing, and paper-like infantry animations if the game was able to run at a solid 60 fps on a decent sized map suitable for MODERN MANEUVER.

I've only ever been disappointed with Black Sea: game world too small for modern conflict / no ability to MANEUVER units in a shoe box map, poor game performance and ugly graphics on a modern gaming rig (especially compared to other games on the market), and the lack of COOP multiplayer.

Correction: Early 2000s. At this point the game engine is ~12 years old, and it really doesn't matter if it was pre or post Y2K because it is still a dinosaur and lacks the capabilities of a modern gaming engine.

Not just about graphics. Shadows and anti aliasing still look really bad. Performance doesn't equal graphics quality. I could do with the current graphics quality if maps were larger (we're taking moden weapons. An M1A2 can engage beyond 4k) and performance was better. Also, still 1v1 MP? Come on.

I don't follow the forums much, and BFC doesn't extend communication beyond here. I guess that's a good thing, then. Aim small, miss small.