Future modules ideas (unofficial topic)

[akd]

The BMPT might come in a future module if its use is effectively confirmed as an integral part of a Russian Army formation.

 

It is not, and there is no intention to acquire at this time.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

-the use of suppressors, these would need to be modelled accordingly, especially when it comes to spotting system, and it would take a lot of work even if it was possible to program such kind of thing with the actual game engine. The same goes for all those special and high end equipment a special unit might have, such as flashbangs, smoke grenades, for example.

 

I think one of the US sniper weapons is already suppressed.  

 

 

-buildings and structures. These are generic an abstracted in game, any kind of special unit shines in close combat conditions and fighting in a closed environment, all of this could not be simulated with the actual game engine.

-commands; the available commands for infantry would not allow to represent all the possible tactics special forces could use. The actual commands don't even allow for a full representation of standard infantry tactics, go figure those of a special unit.

 

Yeah, but not doing it perfect isn't something that's stopped CM from doing it before to at least include it.  The civilians in Shock Force are a good example of this, basically it should be included, but we can't get it perfect, soooo here's pretty good

 

I think we're getting too deeply wrapped around making SF ultimate amazcore.  They've got a distinct MTOE and some special weapons/different allocations of weapons, and a lot of their "special" skills are simply why the "elite" troop option exists.  The suppressors are already in the game, I wonder if the flashbang should just be a grenade that does purely suppression or something.  

 

Again wouldn't be too hard, and for "very small" type missions, it'd be an interesting addition.  

 

 

 

But i would love to see one of the coolest vechicles ever designed the BMPT and the BMPT2

 

As pointed out, the Russians never opted to purchase the platform.  They went from "this is something we are interested in" to "maybe we'll buy it if you make these improvements" to "please go away" levels of interests.  I think Kazakhstan is the only country to use them at this point.  

 

In terms of Patriot/S300, if they're within direct fire range, something is super-wrong.  If enemy troops got even moderately close to a battery of either, the battery would be tearing down and moving further to the rear ASAP.  

[db_zero]

Understand the limitations of the game engine to fully simulate infantry/special forces operations, but as others have said close enough is good enough.

 

I have the Theater of War games-wanted to try Korea, but for some strange reason it wouldn't run om my system. As a game engine I always thought it would be perfect for a modern day special forces game. You control individual soldiers and vechicles. As a WW2 simulator its pretty good, but I find that when you start to get too many soldiers and vechicles it gets a bit cumbersome, but for the small scale spec ops stuff I think it could work well.

[MikeyD]

 

...Currently there is only one single vehicle doodad in CM:BS - a forklift truck.

 

Super-size flavor object have been of everybody's wish list for awhile. The main impediment is coding them to behave as you'd expect - blocking LOS/LOF/defilade and affecting movement paths. If you're going to put in a city bus or locomotive on the map you can't have the AI react as though its not there. The object themselves are the least amount of hassle. Its the behavior coding that's the big time-sink stumbling block.

[Razgovory]

I'd like to see:

 

Russian equipped irregulars.

 

NATO: Equipped irregulars.

 

New terrain and buildings.  Something to make it "feel" more like 2017 rather then 1944.  Chain-link fences of various sizes, water towers, Radio and TV towers, Electrical pylons and substations.

[DreDay]

New terrain and buildings.  Something to make it "feel" more like 2017 rather then 1944.  Chain-link fences of various sizes, water towers, Radio and TV towers, Electrical pylons and substations.

 

Good point. Along the same lines, it would be nice to see more military buildings/objects, like radar towers, tents, storage depots and such...

[DreDay]

Curious what you have in mind equipment-wise.  The super-tacticool high-speed-low-drag rifles, optics, plate carriers, etc. would seem to me to be almost entirely cosmetic.  Obviously if SOF make it into the game those should be modeled, but I'm wondering if there's something beyond essentially visual changes I'm not thinking of?  I guess there's also suppressors (also already in-game on at least US marksman rifles) but I don't know how much difference that might make.  I don't have enough of an idea to comment on any Ukrainian or Russian elements.

 

 

I was thinking along the lines of US SOF using weapons like SCAR-L/SCAR-H, MK46/48, and others; hopefully "tuned up" with latest thermal sites, suppressors, and other add-ons. By the same token, I would like to see Russian SOF armed with AS Val, VSS Vintorez, KSVK, and some other (imported) sophisticated sniper rifles... again with advanced sights and such.

 

I would also like to see SOF units to get additional bonus for concealment (and possibly CQB).

Edited May 21, 2015 by DreDay

[LukeFF]

I was thinking along the lines of US SOF using weapons like SCAR-L/SCAR-H, MK46/47, and others; hopefully "tuned up" with latest thermal sites, suppressors, and other add-ons. 

 

The SCAR-L was dropped in favor of the SCAR-H, although apparently there are conversion kits to make it fire 5.56. 

Edited May 21, 2015 by LukeFF

[DreDay]

The SCAR-L was dropped in favor of the SCAR-H, although apparently there are conversion kits to make it fire 5.56. 

 

Right, I've heard something along the same lines as well... My overall point though, is that the SOF units use unique weapons (whether it's SCAR-H or HK 416/417) that would be a welcomed addition to CMBS...

[Kieme(ITA)]

 

 

I would also like to see SOF units to get additional bonus for concealment (and possibly CQB).

 

This is a good example of why SOF would not fit CM games.

[DreDay]

This is a good example of why SOF would not fit CM games.

 

Not sure that I follow you friend, please explain. I have re-read your earlier post regarding this; but I fail to see why a slight increase in some abilities would make the SOF teams into Rambos... They would still be just as mortal as anyone else; it's just that they would be better than regular infantry in some parameters (i.e. sort of like engineers are better at spotting mines, or FOs are better at calling in strikes).

Edited May 21, 2015 by DreDay

[Kieme(ITA)]

One of the basic concept of CM games is that X unit is identical to Y when it comes to the human representation.

Additional factors are Fitness, Morale, Motivation, Training/Experience etc. and then there's equipment, which have different charactristics, ranges, accuracy, handling etc.

These are the elements that make a US soldier different from a Russian one in game now.

 

When an infantry unit is on the field, the difference between what it can do and cannot is based on the above factors plus the player's input.

 

"Bonus for concealment" and "cqb" (I imagine "close quarters battle") is not something that fits CM games mentality (my first combat mission was CMBO).

 

Bonus for concealment. Just because a unit is "SOF" instead of "conscript russian army" doesn't make the human body heat signature of the former less evident than the one of the latter, for example. The only way to give such kind of bonus would be to make the single soldier of said SOF unit something different in game's logic, thus reducing its logic signature (hit box) somehow, or something else (not an expert of how the game is programmed, but it's evident that a rework of some basic elements would be needed). So one human being would not be the same of another human being.

This kind of bonus/malus is at the basis of most if not all common RTS games since their origins and that's what makes a tactical simulation different than the common RTS game.

 

Bonus for cqb. The ability of a "SOF" unit in a restricted environment is represented by a superior tactical training (in game now: experience/training, like Green, Regular, Veteran etc.), a better personal training (in game now: Fitness level), or quipment. Just because a unit is "SOF" doesn't make an AK-74 more precise than the AK-74 of "conscript russian army" or the reloading time significantly faster (for this game's sake), or the weight of ammunition inferior etc.

If equipment is what makes the difference then it must be it, there's simply no space for a "bonus" here.

FOs are better at calling arties because of their position in the chain of command and/or because they have better radio equipment and dedicated training, not because they have strange obscure bonuses.

 

As you can see, it's down to game's mechanics. Potentially SOF units could be modelled in game, but this would require a considerable amount of time, and while Organization and Equipment could be easily modelled, training, tactics and abilities of SOF units within the game environment that is the one we have now is simply impossible. A new engine would be required at least, as a very basic requirement I can imagine buildings interiors, such that the inside space of a building is not abstracted like it is now in game, but it's effectively depicted, thus allowing for the use of more advanced and detailed tactics; not only that, the entire logic squares among which the units move now should be much smaller; commands, there should be many more commands available than those we have now, and in general a more detailed micromanagement, an example: smoke grenades. If you order a unit to do "smoke" you'll get the infantry unit to toss a smoke granade some meters in front of itself. That's it. This is a generic representation, but fits the level of simulation CM games are based upon. A dedicated team such as that of a special unit would at least be thought to be able to put a smoke grenade at a precise distance, in a precise position. So as you can see you'd need a re-work of the "smoke" command, but this wouldn't be of much use if the logic squares in which you can put the order were so large and generic as the ones we have now, which again, do fit the game level (for most occasions but not all), but wouldn't be small enough to represent a special team in a complex environment.

In conclusion, the game as it is now does not allow for the specific requirements a special unit would be able to cope with, the only solution would be to start giving out bonuses etc. to units, thus breaking the basic idea of the tactical simulation as it is now and the very soul of CM games.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[DreDay]

Kieme, I understand your points, and I appreciate you taking the time to express them so thoroughly and eloquently. At the same time, I have to respectfully disagree. CM engine already has allowances for special skills that are utilized by certain teams (i.e. engineers and FOs). SOF teams would fall into the same bracket.

 

There is a difference between a top level Mechanized/Light Infantry team and a Spec Ops team; as certain levels of training, equipment, and SOPs are unique to SOF units. I personally have never served - so take it for what it is; but I have quite a few close friends that have served in US light infantry/mech infantry/marines for many years and have risen to E7+ levels through multiple deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan. They are about as good as their branch of service has to offer, yet they would be the first ones to admit that SOF guys are on entirely different level. It has to do with unique tactics, equipment, and drills that are the SOF guys are taught.

 

Now as far as CMBS is concerned – the last thing that I’d want is a bunch of uberman green berets (or Spetsnaz) that are bullet-proof and wipe out their enemies at first sight. I see the Spec Ops guys being just as vulnerable to enemy fire as any other infantryman. However, it’s only fair to have them utilize their unique skillsets that are not used by regular infantry units. Obviously this would come at a higher price and rarity level.

[Kieme(ITA)]

That unique tactics and drills are what's simply not possible to depict due to engine limitations.

[DreDay]

That unique tactics and drills are what's simply not possible to depict due to engine limitations.

 

Why not sir? What's wrong with having an SOF team having +50% (just as an example) concealment bonus; or let's say +50% lethality bonus when operating within a building? Surely that can't be that difficult to program in one of the future modules...

[Kieme(ITA)]

And the absence of those kind of "bonuses" are what makes CM games different from any common RTS games.

 

The "+50% lethality bonus when operating inside buildings" is given by what? Nothing, it's just a gamey and false way to represent reality. How would that be achieved? Soldiers in CM games have their bodies, their eyes, their equipment, what should be programmed to make them achieve this +50% lethality? Faster shooting AK-74? Like a dream weapon? Special spotting abilities? Like programming their eyes to see 10 times better than those of an infantryman under the same conditions? No, simply not possible.

God bless CM games follow another path.

 

The "concealment bonus" is simply not possible, if you read what I wrote, understand how spotting works in game and what provides concealment, it's just impossible to add this kind of "bonus" unless you make the soldier logic model smaller, transparent or modify the spotting system globally (which would be a major change and affect ALL units), concealment in game is not given by the units, but by the environment features and environmental conditions, you need to better understand what are the contstraints of the game engine before you can assess what's easier and harder to implement in a module.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[DreDay]

And the absence of those kind of "bonuses" are what makes CM games different from any common RTS games.

With all due respect, I do not agree with this line of thought. The focus on realism and authenticity is what sets CM apart from other RTS games...

 

The "+50% lethality bonus when operating inside buildings" is given by what? Nothing, it's just a gamey and false way to represent reality. How would that be achieved? Soldiers in CM games have their bodies, their eyes, their equipment, what should be programmed to make them achieve this +50% lethality? Faster shooting AK-74? Like a dream weapon? Special spotting abilities? Like programming their eyes to see 10 times better than those of an infantryman under the same conditions? No, simply not possible.

God bless CM games follow another path.

Well... it might not be an ideal, nor the most realistic way of handling this; but like Panzersaurkrautwerfer has already pointed out - that's nothing new to CM... It's simply a compromise that allows for unique options and tactics that are representative of what a real-life commander would face...

 

The "concealment bonus" is simply not possible, if you read what I wrote, understand how spotting works in game and what provides concealment, it's just impossible to add this kind of "bonus" unless you make the soldier logic model smaller, transparent or modify the spotting system globally (which would be a major change and affect ALL units), concealment in game is not given by the units, but by the environment features and environmental conditions, you need to better understand what are the constraints of the game engine before you can assess what's easier and harder to implement in a module.

With all due respect sir, I happen to know a few things about algorithmic logic as well. There is absolutely no reason why another condition could not be placed in the spotting algorithm that would lower the chance of SOF team being spotted. We a talking about a couple of extra lines of code here...

Edited May 21, 2015 by DreDay

[Kieme(ITA)]

When I say:"The absence of this  kind of bonuses are what makes CM games different" it's exactly what you confirm by saying (your words) "focus on realism and authenticity sets CM apart from other RTS games". But after that you say: "it might not be ideal, nor the most realistic way of Handling this".

 

Pretty clear that you understood that gamey and unrealistic paths are not those followed by CM games. This pretty much closes any space for "bonuses" to be given to soldiers in CM games.

 

If you think that's so easy to change anything within the spotting system, well... your opinion. Seeing how this feature evolved in the last few iterations of the CM2x series tells me something very different.

Edited May 21, 2015 by Kieme(ITA)

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

I'm against the bonuses too.  A Delta team isn't magically less spotable standing in an open field than a regular army team.  If we put SOF in, the differences in equipment should be the things modeled, and the rest of what makes a SOF team "special" should be replicated by the various troop quality/fitness ratings.  We wander too close to normal RTS realms when we're giving bonuses and other nonsense.

 

Also from my limited exposure, SOF when they're being used in a kinetic manner is less "harder to spot" and more "someone just dropped a very angry weasel with plans to destroy your gonads in your pants"  It's a lot of violence and well practiced speed and a whole lot of noise.  

[DreDay]

When I say:"The absence of this kind of bonuses are what makes CM games different" it's exactly what you confirm by saying (your words) "focus on realism and authenticity sets CM apart from other RTS games". But after that you say: "it might not be ideal, nor the most realistic way of Handling this".

Pretty clear that you understood that gamey and unrealistic paths are not those followed by CM games. This pretty much closes any space for "bonuses" to be given to soldiers in CM games.

If you think that's so easy to change anything within the spotting system, well... your opinion. Seeing how this feature evolved in the last few iterations of the CM2x series tells me something very different.

I really don't want to turn this into a big argument (especially since I very much appreciate your contributions to CM community); but I just don't get why you refuse to acknowledge that SF teams have a unique skill sets that don'y not quite correspond to those of Elite Mechanized/Light Infantry teams...

As for the spotting system, I have no idea of how CMBS is coded - so I would not dare to speak with any degree of certainty; but I do know algorithmic logic fairly well, so I can't image why the CMBS developers could not put in a condition along the lines of:

If (unit.class == SOF)

{

unit.concealment = .5

}

Edited May 21, 2015 by DreDay

[DreDay]

I'm against the bonuses too. A Delta team isn't magically less spotable standing in an open field than a regular army team. If we put SOF in, the differences in equipment should be the things modeled, and the rest of what makes a SOF team "special" should be replicated by the various troop quality/fitness ratings. We wander too close to normal RTS realms when we're giving bonuses and other nonsense.

Also from my limited exposure, SOF when they're being used in a kinetic manner is less "harder to spot" and more "someone just dropped a very angry weasel with plans to destroy your gonads in your pants" It's a lot of violence and well practiced speed and a whole lot of noise.

I certainly don't expect any "magical bonuses" either; but it is perfectly fair to expect the elite SOF (or Sniper/Recon) team to have better concealment skills and tools than an elite mech infantry team...

As for using SOF teams as simply "Bad Ass MoFos" that kick ass and take names - that can certainly apply in asymmetric scenarios; but would not work when facing a (relatively) comparable foe. SOF ops would not survive against Tunguska fire any longer than regular infantry grunts; nor would Spetsnaz troopers bare a direct fire from M2A2 any longer than their Motor-Rifle counterparts...

[A Canadian Cat]

when they're being used in a kinetic manner is less "harder to spot" and more "someone just dropped a very angry weasel with plans to destroy your gonads in your pants"  

 

Now that caused me to LOL but I"m telling all my operator friends that you called them weasels.  Oh wait I don't have any friends who are operators - you are very lucky

[kraze]

Whatever the next expansion will be I really hope it introduces a new season (like autumn). So you could autoswap summer/autumn/winter textures when you pick an appropriate month (instead of permaswap with a mod like it is now) and thus affecting all the maps that are already in the base game

[Stagler]

Autumn and winter aye, that would be decent.

[panzersaurkrautwerfer]

 

 

As for using SOF teams as simply "Bad Ass MoFos" that kick ass and take names - that can certainly apply in asymmetric scenarios; but would not work when facing a (relatively) comparable foe. SOF ops would not survive against Tunguska fire any longer than regular infantry grunts; nor would Spetsnaz troopers bare a direct fire from M2A2 any longer than their Motor-Rifle counterparts... 

 

If it's an objective with AFVs parked on it, I've got news for you, the SOF isn't showing up unless they're initiating with an air strike.

 

The sort of long duration recon stuff, or the infiltration stuff isn't really well modeled by a game like CMBS.  And it's not like they sneakasneakaplantabombasneakaVICTORY! as that's your average video game BS.

 

It's not a matter of them being Rambo, it's simply a matter of how SOF actually operates.  When bullets start flying they're going to open with maximum violence over minimum time before leaving.

 

SOF, even sneaky SOF will die eighteen ways to sunday if it's going to attack something like a bunch of 2S6es parked in a field, as there's not a magic cloaking device that makes them less observable on the move.  

 

Re: Weasels

 

Only thing I could think of that violent that fit in pants.  It's not "rambo" it's exploiting the surprise and localized fire superiority to the maximum effect.  The longer you're on an objective the higher your chances of:

 

a. Something changing/the force proportions getting really unfavorable

 

b. Your detection threshhold gets higher the longer you're on station.

 

So yeah, start the fight, end the fight, get the hell out.