The year to come - 2024 (Part 1)

[Simcoe]

10 hours ago, Brille said:

Well but isn´t that exactly what happens in real wars ? If you have AA assets like manportable rocketlaunchers, you surely can end the threat often before it even begins. We can see it in the actual ukraine war: Where anti air units are fielded the losses in aircrafts of all sorts rise rapidly to the point of one faction keeping the usage of them to a minimum or very cautiously deployment.

I understand that there maybe should be some tweaks here and there but in general it would not change the outcome that much. For example I have the feeling that MANPADS have a to quick reaction time when an aircraft passes. I would guess in a combat zone as CMBS where each faction knows that the oponent has anti air assets, proper flight tactics would also be used (low and fast). Plus the MANPADS rely heavily on eyesight and are mostly not radar assisted. At least not in the actual spotting/identifying of an aircraft.

So I would guess that they would take a bit longer to actually take a shot, unlike AA vehicles like the Tunguska for example. Sure those are bukier weapon systems but they have radar and probably would have got a small blip on their screen beforehand to know that aircrafts are around. Plus they know directly if that aircraft is either friend or foe.

All in all however aircrafts feel like they should, at least by the scale that combat mission depicts.

Maybe BFC could add jetfighters into the mix to hunt down enemy CAS or to limit their effectiveness (aircrafts can not stay in the area for to long - reduced gunruns). But that would also lead to more randomness (which is not a bad thing entirely).

Other than that is just to communicate with your opponent to not use air assets at all. For the new PBEM++ system however it would be really nice to maybe introduce a check list of options of what you want to have in your game, as you have no way to communicate there.

But well that is more likely to come with CMx3....

 

As I agree that the spotting in CM is sometimes a bit too random (especially talking about forests), I find it to be working most of the time.

No offense here but if you loose an entire company of tanks in a turn without gaining anything, you either had bad tanks and/or low quality crews (compared to your opponent), bad tactics or you must have been very very unlucky.

If you have fielded T62 tanks against more modern ones (for example) you either start digging their graves already or you bring a huge bunch of them with you and even then you probably get beaten up pretty bad.

They are not that much more better than a WW2 tank after all so that seems about right. In CMCW they surely can compete with M60s until they get their TTS upgrade but that´s mostly the end of it. Random spotting has not much to do with that.

Fielding them with more experienced crews and keeping the commanders out for observation (against doctrine) helps a lot though.

 

And I also lost a full company of them once in 1-2 turns in CMSF2. But that came down to the lack of knowledge I had at that time and because it is an outdated tank even when upgraded.

I got to know the hard way that their smokebombs don´t block IR imagers. Oh what a fine turkey shooting my oponent had.

On the first point. I'm coming at this from a fun standpoint. I totally understand that CAS isn't fun for the opposing side in real life but there are many aspects that aren't fun that have been removed from the game in the name of fun. 

All I'm saying is the mechanics are not fun because neither side has much agency over the results. I think there are ways to make it more interactive but I have low confidence it will happen. 

[Erwin]

57 minutes ago, Simcoe said:

WW2 mechanics have been bolted onto a 21st century conflict. 

Until then I'd rather stick with the age the mechanics were made for.

Never thought about the CM2 games like that, but it is a very valid point.  Maybe that is why we used to see CMSF scenarios that had a lot of EW but very little airpower.  Nowadays, airpower in the modern games seems more prevalent and so it has become more obvious where the game system is breaking down.  

[Genushe]

1. Will Red Thunder's unique aircraft mechanics be expanded to other WW2 titles?

2. Will Steam releases be made available on Mac?

[Anthony P.]

17 hours ago, Simcoe said:

Great point. WW2 mechanics have been bolted onto a 21st century conflict. 

It would be great if you had more control over CAS.

Personally, I'd rather there be some "off map" IADS factor, like Electronic Warfare is implemented. In the context of what technical capabilities that F-15s, F-16s, Apaches, etc. have compared to the on map air defences in game... the latter should be borderline irrelevant.

What may influence their abilities to provide CAS is the levels at which the IADS a few kilometres behind the immediate frontline can operate. If the mission maker sets that to High, attacking aircraft might be more likely than not to abort or terminate their attack runs prematurely to evade SAMs, resulting in ordnance either not being dropped or having a decent chance of missing (a high EW setting has IRL been demonstrated to degrade the abilities of GPS guided munitions, so they might miss due to that factor as well if ground forces aren't able to lase the target), etc. Additionally the attacking aircraft might even stand a ~10% chance of actually being damaged/shot down at High levels during each attack run, a not insignificant risk when contemplating whether and how often to use CAS platforms like the F-15E which can carry a large number of bombs.

I very much agree with your description, the WW2 mechanics are clumsily and unrealistically bolted on to SF and BS. Chasing after Tunguskas to clear the field for Apaches is... yeah, realistically the Apache is likely better at finding and destroying Tunguskas than the ground forces it's supporting would be.

[Simcoe]

6 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Personally, I'd rather there be some "off map" IADS factor, like Electronic Warfare is implemented. In the context of what technical capabilities that F-15s, F-16s, Apaches, etc. have compared to the on map air defences in game... the latter should be borderline irrelevant.

What may influence their abilities to provide CAS is the levels at which the IADS a few kilometres behind the immediate frontline can operate. If the mission maker sets that to High, attacking aircraft might be more likely than not to abort or terminate their attack runs prematurely to evade SAMs, resulting in ordnance either not being dropped or having a decent chance of missing (a high EW setting has IRL been demonstrated to degrade the abilities of GPS guided munitions, so they might miss due to that factor as well if ground forces aren't able to lase the target), etc. Additionally the attacking aircraft might even stand a ~10% chance of actually being damaged/shot down at High levels during each attack run, a not insignificant risk when contemplating whether and how often to use CAS platforms like the F-15E which can carry a large number of bombs.

I very much agree with your description, the WW2 mechanics are clumsily and unrealistically bolted on to SF and BS. Chasing after Tunguskas to clear the field for Apaches is... yeah, realistically the Apache is likely better at finding and destroying Tunguskas than the ground forces it's supporting would be.

Totally agree. Either let us decide what risk we’re willing to take or restrict the ordnance based on the AA/EW factor of the scenario. 
 

 

[Centurian52]

6 hours ago, Anthony P. said:

Personally, I'd rather there be some "off map" IADS factor, like Electronic Warfare is implemented. In the context of what technical capabilities that F-15s, F-16s, Apaches, etc. have compared to the on map air defences in game... the latter should be borderline irrelevant.

What may influence their abilities to provide CAS is the levels at which the IADS a few kilometres behind the immediate frontline can operate. If the mission maker sets that to High, attacking aircraft might be more likely than not to abort or terminate their attack runs prematurely to evade SAMs, resulting in ordnance either not being dropped or having a decent chance of missing (a high EW setting has IRL been demonstrated to degrade the abilities of GPS guided munitions, so they might miss due to that factor as well if ground forces aren't able to lase the target), etc. Additionally the attacking aircraft might even stand a ~10% chance of actually being damaged/shot down at High levels during each attack run, a not insignificant risk when contemplating whether and how often to use CAS platforms like the F-15E which can carry a large number of bombs.

I very much agree with your description, the WW2 mechanics are clumsily and unrealistically bolted on to SF and BS. Chasing after Tunguskas to clear the field for Apaches is... yeah, realistically the Apache is likely better at finding and destroying Tunguskas than the ground forces it's supporting would be.

Having off map air defense as a configurable scenario setting, like how electronic warfare currently works, would seem to be a good mechanic to add to get more realistic behavior for modern air support. I generally feel that CM2 does a pretty good job of handling modern warfare overall. Everything on the ground seems to be modeled just as well as WW2. But I'll grant that it does start to break down when it comes to air support. I suspect that getting better handling of air support is one of the priorities for CM3.

[Murauder]

So,nothing new for CMSF2?

[Artkin]

1 hour ago, Murauder said:

So,nothing new for CMSF2?

The game already has 3 modules when a few other games one have one or less

[Brille]

On 1/21/2024 at 5:01 PM, Anthony P. said:

MANPADS are, provided you're somewhat on top of what you're doing, not a serious threat. Or rather, they shouldn't be, not for a capable military like the American one at least. Russia did seem to have gone into the war with the aim of sufficiently blunting the Ukrainian IADS that they should be able to fly high level precision missions, and low level within actual visual range of their objectives as opposed to just lobbing rockets all over a few square kilometers. Ukraine never had a hope of blunting the Russian IADS to that degree, and in the end the Russians couldn't pull it off against the Ukrainians either, hence the mess/suppressed air ops of both sides.

So for CMBS, sure, Russian and Ukrainian CAS can be argued to be reasonable, but American CAS is just so off that it fails to bear serious resemblance to reality (it doesn't even have a number of capabilites which the CMBS manual itself grants that they have IRL).

That's what's lacking with Western CAS in CMBS and CMSF. It is dumbed down to low tech standards which do not align with reality. AH-64Es, which for one should bring serious spotting abilities to the table in the shape of an FCR and its own drone, do not but are entirely dependent on spotting made by player controlled ground units and drones, and secondly, though it should be able to sit at a safe distance, well outside the range of the best Russian air defences on the map in CMBS (either lobbing laser guided missiles at targets painted by drones or ground forces or firing radar guided missiles at targets it's spotted by simply unmasking its small mast mounted FCR) they instead come flying in lasing their targets themselves and holding fire until within range of enemy air defences, even when being aware of them and actually targeting them.

 

That's one of the more egregious examples, but the overall point is that Western CAS in the modern titles (BS and SF) is horribly dumbed down to very unrealistic standards for simple gameplay balancing. Sorry, but an Apache or a Strike Eagle in SF going up against even the worst threats it could face should be even less vulnerable than an Abrams facing off against a T-55 in a plain desert at night time. Instead a single MANPADS is a very serious threat to both of them simply for balancing. CAS works well in the WW2 titles (because it works horribly and is almost as dangerous to your own side, which is realistic) and in CMCW (because that was prior to the Soviet systems being badly outpaced by Western tech and it was a scenario in which heavy air losses was something foreseen as inevitable), but in later games it becomes so poorly implemented that it's not much fun as an asset.

Well you are totally right yes but would a real depiction of US airforce make it any better in terms of "fun gameplay" (at least thats what Simcoe was after I suppose).

It is a simulation indeed, so it should be in some way as realistic as it could be but on the other hand it is still a game and should be playable by two sides with a good possibility for both to win.

And I doubt that it would be much fun if one side gets hammered down while you cannot even do a thing about it.

 

Yes you could add some off map extras like long range AA (SAM, S400) and such to lower enemy air activity or fiddle with their aiming but it would be as random as it is now, just with some variables switching around.

The depiction of aircrafts in CM by the way hasn't changed that much since CMx1. In CMRT it even is pretty much the same.

The question is how or can you improve much on that without loosing the focus of the game ?

Originally these games revolve around the combat of ground forces where CAS is "just" a off map tool like artillery.

And If I remember correctly BFC wasn't even that keen on implementing aircrafts at all.

One way could be to give players even more control over aircrafts either by more vague call orders or by controlling a real (3D) unit just like with tanks.

The questions here would be what those orders could be and how much effort would it cost to code everything in. And in the end it still matters if it is all worth it and playable. Aircrafts are still just a tool in your toolbox.

[Anthony P.]

5 hours ago, Brille said:

It is a simulation indeed, so it should be in some way as realistic as it could be but on the other hand it is still a game and should be playable by two sides with a good possibility for both to win.

And I doubt that it would be much fun if one side gets hammered down while you cannot even do a thing about it.

Well, I really think that's up to mission makers to take into account. The player doesn't need to have access to CAS every mission, much like he doesn't need to have access to Abrams' every time he's up against T-55s. Having CAS on call wasn't the norm even in "curb stomp" wars like the invasion of Afghanistan or Iraq. And when the player does have CAS on call, it could be limited due to having expended some of its ordnance already, and there could even be a "limited playtime" factor for it implemented, simulating that it might only be available for perhaps 15 minutes before leaving due to fuel considerations.

Overall I do think that there are a fair number of avenues of approach to redesigning CAS in a way which both portrays it realistically and doesn't turn it into more or less a USAF propaganda reel.

[Anthony P.]

9 hours ago, Murauder said:

So,nothing new for CMSF2?

My personal guess is that it's off the table due to the Syrian civil war, somewhat like the Ukrainian war put CMBS on the backburner (no CMSF DLCs were ever made after the war started).

It's my personal hope though that the situation isn't too similar, and that they might revamp the shelved CMBS VDV (+ more) DLC as a "Russian military" DLC for SF.

[Centurian52]

CMSF2 is pretty much complete. It really has all of the modules it will ever need. It's one of my favorite titles, so it's not that I don't want more content for it. But it's already got a full roster of forces. It might be nice to add cluster munitions in, though it's not unrealistic for NATO forces to abstain from using cluster munitions at that point in time. There really isn't much left to add to it.

[waffelmann]

Turkey would be cool!

[AtlasActual]

14 hours ago, Centurian52 said:

There really isn't much left to add to it.

Demining vehicle like a mineplow. It was made in BN

[Halmbarte]

8 hours ago, AtlasActual said:

Demining vehicle like a mineplow. It was made in BN

Yes, we have mines but no way to clear then so a vehicle can pass. 

H

[Centurian52]

9 hours ago, AtlasActual said:

Demining vehicle like a mineplow. It was made in BN

Ok, that's a fair point. A vehicle pack with some mine clearing equipment would be nice.

[Sequoia]

I think having Engineers be able to deactivate spotted IED's would be a great feature.

[AtlasActual]

1 hour ago, Sequoia said:

I think having Engineers be able to deactivate spotted IED's would be a great feature.

They can, the problem is having them spot unspotted mines

Edit: Read mines and you're saying IEDs, can they not do it?

Edited January 25 by AtlasActual

[Halmbarte]

3 hours ago, Sequoia said:

I think having Engineers be able to deactivate spotted IED's would be a great feature.

Any unit can deactivate a mine or IED. 

 

Once. 

 

H

[LukaFromFallujah]

On 1/5/2024 at 4:36 PM, Battlefront.com said:

Yeah, sorry about that.  CM:A is a dead end and so I don't think about it.  I can say that I've tried several times to get permission to bring CM:A into the current CM2 engine, but the company that owns the rights went out of business and my contact (who worked for them) hasn't been able to figure out who we need to talk to.

Steve

 

Hello Steve, mind a suggestion ? Why not turn "CM:A" into an cold war module, bring afghan terrain just as "NTC Terrain" with the date going 1979 until 1989 only for "Afghanistan Terrain", i mean, you have almost all the assets done for the soviet side, you need some new uniforms and orbats, then DRA, Tribal Militia and Mujahideen new models and textures, the ww2 weaponry for these factions you have in WW2 families, PPSH, Mosins and Lee enfields, in CW you have some stuff too like the M16a1, the good thing would be that people who want the afghan experience would need to buy CW in order to play it, plus the module, so it would sell well, and probably with a different name, or as it will come as a module and not a game, shouldn't have license problems and should save alot of time with reworking assets. 

[Sequoia]

There's a good chance a non-compete cause in the original contract would still prevent that. I wonder if anyone is still collecting royalties on sale of CM:A currently? Maybe the money is just going to some savings account in case actual ownership is ever established some day

[Erwin]

IIRC the developer was a Russian company:  "Snowball" I think.  

[Sequoia]

I believe that's correct. I also seem to recall Snowball was hired by Paradox games to create the original Crusader Kings game, but they were so slow in their progress Paradox dropped them and did it themselves.

[Centurian52]

On 1/4/2024 at 7:07 PM, Battlefront.com said:

CMFI - Battle Pack 1

This is coming along nicely and we will make some more noise about it soon.  I wasn't able to confirm some of the details with the guy heading this project in time for this post so it's probably best to make a more detailed announcement a bit later.  What I can say is the focus is on giving the various oddball forces in CMFI some time to shine. 

Now that Downfall has been released, and we can start turning our anticipation towards some of the other upcoming projects, does anyone have any theories on what this could be?

I'm sure we'll know in a few days or so, whenever Steve makes the part-2 thread. If the focus is on giving us more time with some of the oddball forces, then it may be revolving around an operation in Italy that wasn't principally US or British led. Or it may be giving a finer resolution to operations that were already covered. I understand the French played an important role in the Battle of Monte Casino, but there were no French forces in the game back when Gustav Line was released, so their part in the battle had to be skipped. Maybe they're going to rectify that?

[Ultradave]

On 1/21/2024 at 8:51 PM, Genushe said:

1. Will Red Thunder's unique aircraft mechanics be expanded to other WW2 titles?

2. Will Steam releases be made available on Mac?

#2 is a no. Windows only on Steam, so no PBEM++ for Mac users. Unless you find it works ok in Parallels Desktop (I don't and I can live without PBEM++ and tournaments).

Dave