CM: Shock Force 2 Wish List

[Erwin]

There are other DE weapons than lasers of course.

[Buzz]

Color borders on the icons for a squad, and the icon color for the platoon (for example).

That could work.

I wonder about having some free user interface option slots. Allowing a very customized key sequence or combination to let the user select Do XY&Z?

[Buzz]

Almost forgot to include "Appearance" options CM WWII has.

For non grog guys maybe an Editor "Data" screen guide as to "Rarity" of X uniform mod being available in the location / time frame.

[General Jack Ripper]

Regardless of what features get put in the game, I would like one thing:

The ability to have multiple battles (or campaign) on the same map with persistent damage (a.k.a.) something similar to the old "Operation" game type.

I'd also like to see full TO&E for US Army, British Army, German Army (East and West if in the 1980's), and Red (Russian) Army.

Working AAA would also be a huge plus, but is not necessary.

[Buzz]

SLIM, Expanding to have multiple battles (or campaign) on the same map would be cool.

Thanks to you and everyone as if we keep expressing what we want somethings will "stick" and show up in CMSF-2, IMO.

[Sequoia]

Do present day Russian units still use a red star on their vehicles, planes etc?

[Dazza_Bo]

Yeah they do on their aircraft. Not 100% sure about tanks, I don't think modern armour really has much in the way of insignia these days.

[Buzz]

I do not know what the present day Russian units have. My google for current insignias was not very productive. I will bet someone at BFC knows;)

[Amatoro]

I do not know if it was already mentioned, but it will be good to have line of sight check tool. For example let us just press Alt or something and drag mouse over a terrain and check the line of sight. It will be great if such tool will not be linked to selected unit. It will allow to check line of sight before issuing the movement comands and it will be much more comfortable.

[Erwin]

You know you can check LOS from any waypoint? So just put waypoints where you are interested in and you can check LOS from any of them and delete em after.

But, yes, it's only really workable in WEGO, and often what you see from a waypoint isn't what you can shoot at when you actually get there...

[Buzz]

Interesting note in latest "Armor" January-March 2013.....

"In Iraq, insurgents have even seized U.S. UAVs, possibly for use against U.S. forces. It is not a stretch of the imagination to envision guerrilla forces collecting intelligence or conducting strikes using off-the-shelf products adapted for their use as well as co-opting captured Western UAVs. ....

I think we can safely bet UAVs will be in CMSF-2 in some form. Exactly how detailed and what flavors?

[Amatoro]

You know you can check LOS from any waypoint? So just put waypoints where you are interested in and you can check LOS from any of them and delete em after.

Yes I know that. But it is not so simple as draging mouse over a terrain while Alt pressed.

[Erwin]

Agreed...

Re UAV's one can buy relatively cheap model helicopters and fixed wing aircraft that can carry payloads for use as short range recon and missiles.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WcfdY1sZlsw

[Buzz]

Game utility to transfer the literally many hundreds of CMSF 1 scenarios, campaigns, maps, into CMSF 2 Mac as close as possible.

Map editor image overlay feature.

Detailed "kills" of who did who. Includes off map resources, artillery, aircraft, drones, etc.

[John Kettler]

I keep putting things into the wrong thread, but I wanted you all to see this vid. Should grow your wish list considerably!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQzeynBZlfw

If Soviet era/modern Russian/modern Ukrainian tanks are your thing, then you really need to see this. Not only is there the usual great footage from arms exhibitions and racing about the Poligon, but footage of the Drozd in action, Shtora, Arena, Nakidka, ERA (how it works, installation, animation), survivability testing (RPG-7, SPG-9, AT-3, AT-4), what a tank looks like after ERA goes off, even what we used to term the FST (Future Soviet Tank). T-55, T-62, T-72, T-80, T-90, etc. are shown.

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Buzz,

U.S. soldier immediate action drills against DE weapons were in FM 100-5 Operations (think that's the right manual) as of ~1980, which should tell you something right there. If you look at this thread, starting with my post #40 (link below), you'll learn a great deal about what the Russians built in the early 1980s, and was it ever revelatory!

What could we expect 30 years plus later, given what's only recently surfaced from way back then?

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=106597&page=5

Would also add there's evidence the U.S. combat tested a manportable HEL (High Energy Laser) in 1989 in Panama. Not only do I have a translated period statement by a Panamanian woman whose fridge wound up incinerated by it (read it when doing primary research for the Oscar-winning "The Panama Deception" and had original Spanish cross checked by a bilingual Panamanian), but what close friends were told by a close friend who was there, as well as multiple sensitive sources who acknowledge the weapon exists but won't say much more than that. Also, I've now identified a technique that would solve the vexed power problem.

Back when CMSF was aborning, I spent a great deal of time outlining very real energy based potential threats that Syria could employ. Simple ones could be built using readily available, cheap components, while the Russians could supply other unpleasantness, such as nonnuclear EMP bombs, if they desired. Here's what is available at the Unclassified level on RF weapons with very high payoff vs high tech foes. Some of these weapons are both simple and cheap. The audio's muddy, but this guy testified before Congress on this RF weapon threat. It's quite real, as evidenced by the ban on electronic device use at takeoff. This is because such devices can engender false control inputs, with potentially disastrous consequences. Metal aircraft do a good job of keeping RF out, but weren't designed to deal with RF inside the protective enclosure, hence, the ban.

I looked at this stuff in considerable depth during my military aerospace days and was a co-founder of the DEWWG (Directed Energy Weapon Working Group) at Rockwell International, North American Aerospace Operations (now part of Boeing).

I believe it would be prudent to seriously think about the energy weapon threat, especially if Russia's in the loop. Shortly after the Cold War ended, the Swedes obtained and tested a Russian EMP bomb. They characterized it as "absolutely devastating to electronics." Let me know if you'd like to know more.

Regards,

John Kettler

[agusto]

I keep putting things into the wrong thread, but I wanted you all to see this vid. Should grow your wish list considerably!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PQzeynBZlfw

I hope were going to have soft kill/hard kill active protection systems in CMSF2.

[sburke]

Buzz,

It's quite real, as evidenced by the ban on electronic device use at takeoff. This is because such devices can engender false control inputs, with potentially disastrous consequences. Metal aircraft do a good job of keeping RF out, but weren't designed to deal with RF inside the protective enclosure, hence, the ban.

Regards,

John Kettler

That is bogus. Have you ever heard of any instance at all (verifiable - not just some internet blather) of an aircraft having any instability much less accident due to cell phone usage or any other device in the cabin? I fly a LOT and have forgotten to turn off my cell phone in my bag more times than I can count. Cell phones are on a completely different spectrum than the aircraft functions themselves. The ban is simply there because no one will take the effort to lift it. Which frankly I am quite happy about, the last thing I want is chatter on cell phones in the plane.

If just one in 10,000 people forgot to turn off their cell phone, the amount of impact on airline traffic would be catastrophic according to your statement. You really think not one in 10,000 forgets on a regular basis? This one is so easily refutable it is sad that time is wasted to even bother pointing out the glaring hole in the logic. Not to mention,if it were true Homeland security would ban devices being even brought on to the plane. Hell they ban water.

Also it is bad form to cite you own links that have already been refuted on the thread you are linking to. Recycled bad data is still bad data. Recycling as a good thing only applies to products that can actually be used to help the environment.

[Erwin]

IIRC The whole cell phone ban issue was that drug dealers were doing deals and couldn't be tracked when in the air at 500 mph. Then the airlines realized that they could charge flyers simply for the privilege of routing the calls via their own tech. Safety issue totally bogus.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

The latest policy dates back to 1991, when aircraft systems were, generally speaking, crude compared to what we have today. Most of the fleet back then was 10-20 years old, with avionics to match. Such systems preceded even the general awareness of such a problem. Nor were cell phones like what we have now. Relative to ours, their power output was enormous, creating greater possibilities for interference. WSJ looks at some of the issues here. The piece fully reflects your position.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10000872396390444273704577637703253402734.html

I'm talking about the problem from the standpoint of very real technical matters we were looking at as military aerospace problems in the mid-late 1980s. One I identified was the loss of EM protection as a result of the switch to composites, thus nullifying the Faraday cage which kept EMF out of sensitive electronics.

David McNamara's piece takes a look at the origin of the no PED rule going back to its origins in 1966. The jets flying then were designed in the 1950s.

http://www.crttbuzzbin.com/do-personal-gadgets-really-threaten-planes/

Now, consider what's said in this ABC News piece, particularly that guy from an outfit called Boeing! What he's referring to there is what we call backdoor penetration of the avionics. This means EMF coming in through various unplanned entry points in cabling, improperly installed seals, insulation gaps and the like. As noted before, standard aircraft fuselages before composites did a fine job of protecting the avionics--from outside EMF, but they were never designed to survive such irradiation from within. Don't know about you, but I find the incident reports to be sobering. The lab tests are exactly the kinds of things routinely done in both aerospace and military aerospace to establish and measure the emission characteristics for an electronic device. I've been in the anechoic chambers myself and seen devices on the test stand.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/safe-cellphone-plane/story?id=13791569#.UXlnlL-PdEJ

Further, these days, the signals that run your computer--and the avionics on that plane--are very weak, thus vulnerable to being "outshouted" by things like that iPad mentioned in the ABC News article. When a clock spins backward (a known sign of electronic interference--Japanese scientists reported this as a piezoelectric effect from crushing granite at just before failure under compressive load) and a GPS gives false readings, "Houston, we have a problem."

As for your other assertion, while you're entitled to your opinion, that's not the same as a fact. The fact is that what I said has NOT been disproven, embodies a great deal of new analysis based on previously unavailable to me, even SECRET and change while in military aerospace, military-technical data. From these, I conclude the HEL developments seen and, often, shown on video, are wholly consistent with Soviet/Russian design practice and security considerations. Moreover, not only are my proven insider contacts fascinated by what I've uncovered (they can't track everything), but they shake their heads in wonderment and disbelief at how clueless some of my respondents in that thread are when the truth is presented.

Your inability to imagine, let alone accept that the technology is way ahead of your knowledge of it, in no way negates the reality of that technology, however incredible. Ben Rich, who took over the Skunk Works after Kelly Johnson was gone and is the father of the F-117, said the black program technology was as much as 50 years ahead of what we think it is. I'm getting ready to release info on a weapon so inconceivably advanced and lethal, it nearly made my head explode. It took me try after try and truly expert coaching before I finally got it, and I've been steeped in weaponry practically since I could read! Suffice it to say I wouldn't want to be an SF writer in the face of it. David Drake's Hammer's Slammers tech looks pathetic and obsolete by comparison.

Regards,

John Kettler

[sburke]

Yeah well you have fun with that. My inability to imagine is simply a healthy level of skepticism to unproven hyperbole. Just because someone talks about it on the internet doesn't make it true. That you choose to believe all that stuff is your business. That you toss it around here as fact is just annoying.

I work in the VoIP field. If I listened to what the carriers told me about SIP I would have a lot of egg on my face at work as it turns out the carriers do not even transmit SIP between themselves. Skepticism is a good thing, it has kept me gainfully employed.

[John Kettler]

sburke,

P.S.

Ever heard of harmonics? Positive and negative harmonics can occur almost anywhere in the spectrum.

Regards,

John Kettler

[agusto]

Quote from the ABC news report:

"A report by the International Air Transport Association, a trade group representing more 230 passenger and cargo airlines worldwide, documents 75 separate incidents of possible electronic interference that airline pilots and other crew members believed were linked to mobile phones and other electronic devices. The report covers the years 2003 to 2009 and is based on survey responses from 125 airlines that account for a quarter of the world's air traffic."

This means were are talking about 75 incidents out of estimated 50.000.000* flights or a 1,5*10^-6 % probability of such an event occuring within 6 years. Additionally, it is not even certain that those apearent electronic interferences in those 75 incidents were caused by passengers personal electronic devices.

So IMO, the danger of an aircraft having problems due to electronic interference created by mobile phones is so low that it is neglectable, even if if it was technically possible. Of course i am setting my mobile phone to "flight-mode" when i fly though, i mean i wouldnt get a signal anyways and if it makes the person sitting next to me feel safer, why not?

*estimated from the data i found here:

http://www.flixxy.com/scheduled-airline-flights-worldwide.htm

[Erwin]

The point is that there are probably so many other problems that are statistically more likely (exploding batteries anyone?) that this is the same as people worrying about getting killed in an air crash when you are far more likely to die driving to the supermarket. Are we panicking about driving?

[agusto]

On the other hand: If there is a risk, even only a small one, it is not unwise to to avoid it if that can be done without too much effort. Keep in mind that lots of independent small risks too can significantly increase the overall chance of something going wrong. I think that if of those 50.000.000 flights all passengers on board had constantly been on the phone with someone during their flights, the statistics could look different. Same principle as it is with ALFs planet: it blew up when all inhabitants simultaniously used their hair dryers. But whats the chance again that all passengers on a flight with several hundered persons aboard are simultaniously getting a call? Besides that it would be totally enerving if everybody was constantly talking in the confined space of an airplane, probably the plane would be in risk of crashing due to the pilots beeing unable to bear the noise.