Jump to content
Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips

Apocalypse 31

Members
 View Profile  See their activity

  • Posts

    357

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

 Content Type 

Posts posted by Apocalypse 31

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

    If you have a theory on how a scenario SHOULD be designed make that scenario yourself and post if for others to play.

    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. 

     

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Ivanov said:

    Yeah, and how often will they have the opportunity to fire at such a long distances? On the European theatre, the average engagement distance for tanks or ATGMs is about 1km.

    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? 😲

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    1 hour ago, Erwin said:

    It's not the game that is the problem imo.  The challenge is that so few designers able or willing to design the large scenarios.

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

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    2 hours ago, coachjohn said:

    1 - It is a game. You want a simulator go to the high end stuff, but you’d need a PhD in military science to play it and a computer degree to understand it. I bought a couple of those “games” - not a lot of fun. (Plus most computers can’t handle the number crunching and the crash often)

    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. 

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    9 minutes ago, DougPhresh said:

    As much as I would like a 50x50km area to operate in complete with little MPs directing traffic and cooks busy in the field kitchens, managing the forward elements of a battalion is already a big scale for the level of detail in the engine.

    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. 

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    Just now, Battlefront.com said:

     There's plenty of room for "tactical maneuver", such as shifting platoons around from one sector of front to another, exploiting breakthroughs (wherever the happen) with mobile assets, countering unexpected enemy activity with mobile assets, etc.  Fire, speed, use of terrain, etc. are all critical elements in getting good results.  That's always been a huge part of Combat Mission and will always be so. That fits your favorite definition of "maneuver" very well, I think.

    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

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    9 hours ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Combat Mission is designed to simulate the fight that happens from maneuver, not the maneuver that brings a force to the fight.

    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: 

    Quote

    Forms of maneuver – Distinct tactical combinations of fire and movement with a unique set of doctrinal characteristics that differ primarily in the relationship between the maneuvering force and the enemy. (ADRP 3-90)

    ...And how its defined among the US Department of Defense

    Quote

    Maneuver– (DOD)

    1. A movement to place ships, aircraft, or land forces in a position of advantage over the enemy. See FM 3-07.

    2. A tactical exercise carried out at sea, in the air, on the ground, or on a map in imitation of war. See FM 3-07.

    3. The operation of a ship, aircraft, or vehicle, to cause it to perform desired movements. See FM 3-07, ATP 3-18.14.

    4. Employment of forces in the operational area through movement in combination with fires to achieve a position of advantage in respect to the enemy. (JP 3-0) 

    But the one I enjoy the most (ADRP 3-90)

    Quote

    The movement and maneuver warfighting function is the related tasks and systems that move and employ forces to achieve a position of relative advantage over the enemy and other threats (ADRP 3-0). Direct fire and close combat are inherent in maneuver.

     

    so yeah...tomato / tomato

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    10 hours ago, Heirloom_Tomato said:

    Knowing nothing about a modern Combat Team, what would the make up of this Combat Team be? I tried to zoom in on the image to see what the blue unit markers represented but they are too small to see clearly.

    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. 

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    3 hours ago, IanL said:

    Is that big enough

    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.

    OlzAjSn.jpg

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    3 hours ago, sburke said:

    As much as I know I have been tagged as a “fanboi” there are things I don’t particularly like in certain implementations.

    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. 

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    3 hours ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

    If I may inquire, How did you became knowledgeable of this globally rather small adventure in the Scandinavian wilderness?

    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. 

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    4 minutes ago, sburke said:

    In regard to your response to my earlier post I think you misunderstood.  When I said we were pushing the envelope I meant the capabilities of the engine not the engagement ranges for an M1

    Ok. I misunderstood, and I agree with that.

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

    No I was not. I am no longer in the service, but I am very familiar with yearly main exercise of the Finnish mechanized forces in "deserts" of Niinisalo. You yanks brought some M1A1s with you this year.

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

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    10 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

    I was looking for ballpark numbers and hopefully some examples. I have firsthand experience only with Finnish army mechanized forces (CV9030, 2A4). Because of the Finnish terrain movement is constrained to roads (at least in the places FDF plans on fighting). A company might have just one road surrounded by heavy woods on which to advance and have another company trailing it ready move through and relieve the forward company. Max engagement ranges would be no more than 300m and only in the direction of the road. Width of the engagement would be the immediate surroundings of the road. This of course is a extreme case example.

    Were you recently in the field with some USMC?

    0

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    5 minutes ago, The_MonkeyKing said:

    What would be a likely frontage given to reinforced company sized unit in modern combat and in what terrain? Any examples from current wars or military doctrine?

    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.

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    5 minutes ago, MikeyD said:

    There's always those people who will demand the game should accommodate a division's worth of troops, gargantuan maps, helicopter insertions, fights in sewer systems and beach landings, following the maxim 'Nothings succeeds like excess'. Its like complaining that a Lexus sedan can't also operate as a dump truck and a school bus. Sure dump trucks and school buses are handy, but that's not what the Lexus was designed for. and BTW. CM now does beach invasions

    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.

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    20 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Illuminate us with your powerful insights, then

    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.

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    2 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Sheesh... might as well demand that we ship every game with a pony while you are at it

     I didn't realize asking for a game that runs smoothly in 2018 is like asking for a pony?

     

    3 minutes ago, Battlefront.com said:

    Engagement ranges have changed very little since WW2.

    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.

    2

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    7 minutes ago, sburke said:

    We push the envelope, but it isn’t what CM is meant to be nor what the code will support  

    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.

    7 minutes ago, sburke said:

    The graphics for CMBS are the same as for every other current CM title so why you are only disappointed in CMBS is confusing

    Because I was expecting progression with Shock Force 2. Not a Shock Force modification with a AAA price tag.

     

    7 minutes ago, sburke said:

    For now we settle for what it is because the alternative is those other games with nice graphics that frankly suck compared to CM

    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.

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    4 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

    I'm affraid that you will have to learn to accept that Battlefront is (atleast currently) a VERY ! small company...or you will be continuesly dissapointed...

     

    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.

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted

    1 hour ago, MikeyD said:

    Game engine developed in the 1990s? Huh? If you're going to post ad hominem attacks get your facts right at least.

    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.

    1

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    53 minutes ago, sburke said:

    I did see in previous posts @Apocalypse 31that you were disappointed in CM graphics

    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. 

    5

    Disappointed

    in Combat Mission Shock Force 2

    Posted · Edited by Apocalypse 31

    I don't follow the forums much, and BFC doesn't extend communication beyond here.

    6 minutes ago, RepsolCBR said:

    BFC have never claimed it would be anything else.

    I guess that's a good thing, then. Aim small, miss small. 🙄

    2
×
×
  • Create New...