Apocalypse 31

Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.
 
Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.
 
I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.
 

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 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 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. 🙄

Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.
 
Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.
 
I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.
 

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

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 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.

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. 

Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.
 
Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.
 
I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.
 

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. 

No problem. For what it is worth I do agree with some of your sentiments. As much as I know I have been tagged as a “fanboi” there are things I don’t particularly like in certain implementations. For example drones. Interestingly conceptually but problematic for me as to how it is done. Air support in general.  I could list a couple more, but the point is no I am not going to say CM is unblemished. I just adapt as frankly there isn’t anything else that even comes close for me.  
And I frankly love CMSF2.  While I like CMBS a lot, it is the beginning of a curve where technology is altering combat just a bit much for me. I guess the same way some folks feel about CMSF who are hardcore WW2 players. CMSF for me is still a grunt’s battle. Insurgents can still take out an M1 (probably better than in real life statistically speaking) and tanks are not doing instant auto response to ATGMs. 
You are disappoimted as you hoped CMSF2 would somehow advance the engine beyond current 4.0 issues. I was just happy to see CMSF2 start sharing 4.0 issues and not be forever stuck in the 2007 version of CM2   Just a different starting point. 

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. 

Depending on circumstances. Iraq is not the same as Ukraine in terrain for example so yes it can happen at longer ranges, but it isn’t necessarily true it always will. (I noted your profile and am not about to get into a losing discussion about what folks train for for example. I know my limits  ).   
However as a broad brush statement I think it is a very slanted view in terms of types of engagements. For example I have been doing some testing of the CMSF scenario USMC circle the wagons. It is a relatively small map, urban terrain and a gem of a scenario. Engagement ranges are the width of a street frequently. Combat in Iraq for the vast majority of engagements was not armor vs armor at 4km and up. Nor has combat in Ukraine. 
Can it be? Certainly I expect many of the NTC training scenarios may involve longer range engagements (though that is purely a guess on my part).
all that is pointless though. As Steve noted the engine that provides the basis of what we like in our tactical sim is getting stretched the greater the map size.  Sure we could give up the engine for bigger maps, but then what would be the point?  We’d have big maps and we’d be complaining about how crappy the actual play was.  
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. CM is a tactical game that shines in the small to medium battle range.  Folks who have pushed for much much bigger maps and larger forces (i’m Looking at you Ian with your 20,000 point battle) are really straining the games ability to process an enormous amount of data. 

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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'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.

Really disappointed in what I've seen with SF2 screenshots.
 
Looks like the same old CM2 game engine. Call it upgrade 4, upgrade 100...or whatever it's called now. It's still the same engt that was developed in the late 1990s.
 
I was hoping for something more...perhaps a new game engine that would support larger maps, better terrain, better performance, better multiplayer.
 

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. 🙄