CM: Shock Force 2 Wish List

[Buzz]

8-12 KM is a BIG map. Big Maps can be fun wit the right equipment. 4X4 KM is about the maximum I have fired up in CMSF now (I think) and that is plenty big for a good fight with modern equipment.

I do not think CMSF-2 will go that big. That would almost be another CM game.

If Russia is heading into Ukraine they would not be as air defense countermeasure heavy being mobile and on the attack I would think.

[Alan8325]

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that, myself, except it would require a LOT of concessions, though. Goodbye hi-rez terrain tiles, goodbye multiple building types, fancy trees, high rez vehicles and cast shadows. The game giveth and the game taketh away. People would have to reconcile themselves to a significant change in gameplay scale to be able to play on a 12km map.

I understand that the part of CM that becomes rough on the CPU with larger maps is the LOS system having to check between each action spot constantly, not fancy graphics. I could understand wrong though. Maybe BF will eventually find a way to make better use of multiple CPU cores as well as offload some calculations to the GPU. I'd like to see bigger maps too, so that the maximum ranges of many modern weapon systems can be maneuvered around. In CMSF1 many weapons could pretty much insta-kill anything anywhere on the map.

[Erwin]

"2-Email games for up to four human players (2 vs 2/2 vs 1)"

In CM1 we tried team play a few times - but you really have to rely on your teammates to stick with it and send turns in a reasonable time or everyone gets PO'd.

Team play would also benefit if during set-up you could assign units (via password?) to a particular player so that players don't move "someone else's units" in error.

But when it works, it's great to have a CinC and (say) 3 subordinates, each ico certain units or KG's.

[Wodin]

Why would you want 8 - 12km maps?! I mean I like big maps but 8-12km - effective engagement range of Abrams main gun is just over 3km. Given battlefield conditions etc etc I could see that dropping to around 2km - then you have ground folds etc (terrain not being flat) so that would reduce it further. As MikeyD says it would be a totally different game. Maybe not even 3d but 2d.

Wargames played out in Germany by NATO after the war came to the findings that 1500m to 2000m was the average range of tank vs tank warfare for a West European Conflict..due to terrain\LOS\LOF etc.

So 12km maps really aren't needed at all.

[Vanir Ausf B]

It does exist when you are under fire, but what about when you need to approach carefully to a distant enemy? You must to do it manually. My wish is to make these routes automatically before you´re detected. Panzer Command Ostfront uses this order creating instantly waypoints to reach an objetive. I can tell you it´s extremely handy and confortable, specially when you have loads of troops (no micromanagement).

The good terrain magnetism is always on, not just when under fire. I actually wish it could be turned off. It is very hard to keep units moving through dry creek beds that are lined with vegetation. They constantly want to walk along the top edge so you have to plot a waypoint every couple of action spots which dramatically slow the unit down.

[YankeeDog]

The good terrain magnetism is always on, not just when under fire. I actually wish it could be turned off. It is very hard to keep units moving through dry creek beds that are lined with vegetation. They constantly want to walk along the top edge so you have to plot a waypoint every couple of action spots which dramatically slow the unit down.

Yes; this an ongoing issue that unfortunately I suspect will be very difficult to fix and therefore we're going to have to live with for the foreseeable future. Right now, it seems the Unit Pathfinding AI tends to favor ground with some actual cover/concealment over lower ground that may be in at least partial defile. This isn't always the right choice, but I can see how this would be a very difficult thing for an AI routine to "know" which to use when.

[Whiterider]

An anti-cheat (and a cheat) system for email games.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I wouldn't mind seeing something like that, myself, except it would require a LOT of concessions, though. Goodbye hi-rez terrain tiles, goodbye multiple building types, fancy trees, high rez vehicles and cast shadows. The game giveth and the game taketh away. People would have to reconcile themselves to a significant change in gameplay scale to be able to play on a 12km map.

Hmm yes and it might be asking too much from grasphics cards and would involve a lot f work. Having said that, for moderns games some inncrease in map size would be welcome but maybe 5000 to 6000 meters would be a reasonable compromise allowing a good size modern tank scrap but (hopefully) still allowing the visual effects we like.

[LUCASWILLEN05]

I woul'd like to see like Buzz a conventional conflic like NATO and Warschau Pact we can perhaps see tank's and vehicle like M48 Patton, Chiftain, Centurion, Marder, Leopard all T'54 55 62 familly UDSSR and the new 72 tank's Bmp Bmd Btr and all tanks and vehicle's from Nato and WP in 80 year and many many more.

I'd like a 1980s moderns ideally allowing both the European theatre and US intervenion in Iran (the feared Soviet plan to invade the Middle East oilfields. Whether it ids possible to do this in one game or whether we would need two is another matter.

[Alan8325]

A short-range MLRS such as the TOS-1 looks like it would be a fun on-map asset. Apparently they are organic with Russian infantry and armor units.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TOS-1

[Vark]

Would be great for English players, they could write in DAR/AAR's that they opened up with their attached battery of TOS'ers. Though given the accuracy from some of my pixel spotters I think I already have those deployed!

[Buzz]

An anti-cheat (and a cheat) system for email games.

Have you experienced cheating in a CMSF email game?

[Whiterider]

Have you experienced cheating in a CMSF email game?

I´m not sure at all... Think the file can be opened for a second time, at least the game manual doesn´t mention this issue:

"The single file format ensures that it can be transported from

person to person without missing pieces. It also ensures that

players can’t cheat by opening up individual battles in the Editor to peek or alter elements to make it easier to win. This

means the person making the Campaign must keep the individual battles or forever lose the ability to make changes to

the Campaign"

[Whiterider]

A set units formations button (column, wedge, line, echelon). Tactically speaking it would be a great improvement.

[Wodin]

A set units formations button (column, wedge, line, echelon). Tactically speaking it would be a great improvement.

Oh yes please...

[Buzz]

I would enjoy this in CMSF-2. Doubt it would make it for the reasons listed in the thread but would be cool.

dont know if this idea was post on the forums before.

maybe a sights view? just like using the lock view can this be possible? what you thing?

[Whiterider]

A target accuracy range applied for all weapons in the target arc. Good, Medium or poor range accuracy are different for a tank and a infantry squad. Example: If you are going to make an ambush give orders to every unit involved to shot in good range accuracy. I suppose soldiers know their best range accuracy (depending on the weapon it can be 100m/500m etc), players don´t usually.

[medlinke]

I'd like to see:

Blackhawk

Hind

Troop carried AA weapons

I wouldn't envision scenarios loaded up with these options, but deployment via chopper or a scenario featuring an air component makes good sense. I know BFC has a hard time with coding up anything in the Z axis, but these would be incredibly important weapon systems in even company sized engagements and would create some awesome scenario design opportunities.

[Erwin]

If the maps were a LOT larger, or there was an operational level to the game I would agree. But, having units appear on a map as reinforcements is basically the same as parachuting or choppering in.

I liked the way AA worked in CM1 - abstracted in.

[JMFC]

Having to conduct casualty evacuation would add to complexity for the Blue side. Successful evacuation of wounded Soldiers would take casualty points away from the Red side. This would put the First Sergeant's and medic M113s in the game. Since M113s are lightly armored, the player would have to choose between taking combat power away from the fight to escort them or risk letting them travel alone.

[agusto]

If the maps were a LOT larger, or there was an operational level to the game I would agree. But, having units appear on a map as reinforcements is basically the same as parachuting or choppering in.

I liked the way AA worked in CM1 - abstracted in.

But it would be great eye-candy to see guys fast rope from helicopters onto the battlefield, wouldnt it?

[Stagler]

I assume the game will have the Russians as the strategic attackers as attacking into Russia would be unwinable. Would all these air defenses be available for a Russian attack into the Ukraine for instance?

I would not assume anything. I would think that Russia would already be un Ukraine and that NATO would be trying to attack to remove them or assist the Ukrainians taking back their occupied territory.

There is no way the US could get its hardware to Ukraine before Russia, even if Russia launched a suprise attack or even if it had a 3 month build up.

And to answer,yes. PAK-FA is an air superiority fighter so would be used by frontal aviation for CAP, BUK complex is a integrated radar-launcher tracked mobile EL for Bn level AA defence. S-500 is strategic level long range AA but is still a mobile TEL complex capable of being moved.

[Buzz]

How about a CMSF-2 "Bestiary" file included with launch?

Like a "Dealership" file to se all the enchanted by extraordinary units / vehicles in our Toy Box. Might help average folks decide what they want to play with tonight

[John Kettler]

medlinke,

Would love to see them, too. Got a spare million lying about? If so, BFC would probably happily oblige you!

Erwin,

But not as much fun!

JMFC,

Casevac or medevac? Could we have both, please? Also, I'd be remiss if I didn't point out we have no monopoly on medevac. The Russians did it a lot in Afghanistan.

agusto,

But how much more fun/astounding to newbies and visitors would it be to merely render the ropes and the troops sliding down them?

Stagler,

I remember very well the consternation that ensued at Hughes Missile Systems Group as the Russians went from the SA-6 GAINFUL (4 x TEL, 1 x Radar = 1 engagement) to the SA-6B (3 x TEL, 1 x SA-11 GADFLY (BUK) TELAR/Fire Unit, 1 x Radar = 2 engagements) to the all-up SA-11 GADFLY (4 x TELAR, 1 x Radar = 4 engagements). Guess what? Your SEAD/DEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defenses)/Destruction of Enemy Air Defenses problem just quadrupled, and with it, your weapon requirements--if using antiradiation missiles and other guided point kill munitions! Then there's that pesky attrition modeling.

It was a Buk, I recall, which downed that BACKFIRE C ELINT bird during the Ossetian fray. I'd bet it was because the onboard jammers didn't read the signal as a threat and ignored it. Oops!

I need to reprogram my brain, for every time I see "PAK" I think either Pakistani or German antitank gun.

Buzz,

You guys partying late over there? "Enchanted by extraordinary units"--? So, a very special meter (the international reference standard in Paris, say) is waving a magic wand and casting a beguilement spell? If so, who's being enchanted? English must be awfully confusing to newcomers. Ambiguity everywhere!

Regards,

John Kettler

[Whiterider]

More detailed information about the weapons and vehicles (statistics, rules, history) during the game. It´s really annoying to be playing and reading the game manual at the same time and often the game manual is incomplete about details.