Louie the Toad Posted March 17, 2001 Share Posted March 17, 2001 I mean 2001 warfare with helicopters, rockets, laser guidance, fast tanks, and everything else thats out there. Not talking about a bug fight here, but going toe to toe with the equipment of the day. ------------------ "Too much of a good thing... is wonderful." -- Mae West Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rob/1 Posted March 17, 2001 Share Posted March 17, 2001 This has been discused before do a search and you will find that there are 4CMs on the way already so it could be a few years way after CM4 came out if at all. [This message has been edited by Rob/1 (edited 03-16-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lcm1947 Posted March 17, 2001 Share Posted March 17, 2001 Yeah, it would really be cool, but unless somebody else comes out with it I don't think we're going to see it anytime soon. If in my life time at all.. Oh well I'm still having a ball playing with this one. But yes it would be something, wouldn't it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfpack Posted March 17, 2001 Share Posted March 17, 2001 Originally posted by lcm1947: Yeah, it would really be cool, but unless somebody else comes out with it I don't think we're going to see it anytime soon. If in my life time at all.. Oh well I'm still having a ball playing with this one. But yes it would be something, wouldn't it? I really don't think it would be all that practical unless done as an all infantry game. The ranges of effective attack have increased so much since WWII that half your equipment could realistically be placed off map. Calling in offboard M-1 fire anyone? I'd prefer them to go the other way and do maybe WWI. Western front might not be too much fun, but there were plenty of interesting battles elsewhere. ------------------ Do not taunt Happy Fun Ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Black Five Posted March 17, 2001 Share Posted March 17, 2001 The problem of long-range modern weapons can be dealt with in part by fighting in restricted terrain and urban environments. Sure an M1A1 can hit from a couple klicks, but if there are a bunch of one and two story buildings around the value of that long-range kill power is greatly diminished. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
istari Posted March 18, 2001 Share Posted March 18, 2001 CM: Modern Battles...drool...drool. I was one of the chaps who suggested this several months ago, and I still think this could be the most fascinating, rich Combat Mission of them all. I'm aware that Steve, Charlie, et al are planning CM2:Ostfront, CM3:North Africa and CM4:Early-War (Poland, France) before considering any further additions to the series. So I plan on waiting quite awhile for my dream to come true. However, I think the arguments about the range of modern weapons being too long to portray in CM as rather specious. The major limitation on battlefield size is processor power. If it takes them an average of 1-2 years between CM installments, I think that by 2008 we'll have the computing power to portray M1A1 Abrams vs. T-72 at 3000m, or even AH-64D vs. said T-72 at 8000m. Don't worry about it, the processor power will be there. The only question is whether CM: Modern Battles will be there. Keep on praying. Regards, Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy w/gun Posted March 18, 2001 Share Posted March 18, 2001 Might I suggest TacOps? It isn't 3D and it's interface/mechanics are different than CM, but non the less is a great game Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnR Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 I have to say I really don't care for modern combat games. I played a few but they just don't have the appeal for me that WWII does. I played steel panthers both the wwII version and the modern combat version, and the modern battles just don't do it for me. Fireing anti tank missles from umpteen miles away just isn't the same as looking down the barrel of a panzer as it rolls through history. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fytinghellfish Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Hi guys, erk! I live in the north-central plains of Illinois, arguably one of the flattest places on Earth. From ground level, in winter with empty fields, I can't see more than 1-2 miles in any direction. I don't imagine an M-1 tank seeing much further. I've had games in Combat Mission where a Tiger, King Tiger, Pershing, even Mark IVs and Shermans, shooting at each other from 1000-2000m, though this is rare. What does this sorta prove? 1. CM, in its present incarnation, can depict relatively long range tank vs tank shooting matches. Any CM:Modern will have an even more advanced map/distance engine (I'm sure) that would be able to model not only longer ranges and bigger maps, but probably even bigger battles (brigades anyone?) 2. These long range battles are rare because of terrain. CM models terrain obstruction well, well enough to be believeable. Long ranges will only be a REAL factor in desert battles and when you park a BRDM-2 platoon with AT-5 missiles that range out to 5km (on a good day, providing they survive long enough from the time of launch to the time of impact) on a hill well above any intervening terrain. 3. The possibility that AH-64/long range helicopter fire support could be modeled abstractly, like air strikes and artillery are modeled today. AH-64s fire Hellfire missiles. Hellfires are laser-guided missiles. Do you really think that a laser beam will be constant and strong enough over 8000m in battlefield conditions (vehicle and fire smoke, atmospheric conditions, etc.)? I doubt it, though I am not a helicopter pilot. AH-64s were designed as part of a hunter/killer team, along with OH-58Ds, FIST-Vs, COLTs, etc, who could 'illuminate' targets for the AH-64s while the Apaches themselves were well behind the lines. Just thoughts, ------------------ hellfish erk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fytinghellfish Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 I just had a thought... Modern CM? What the hell defines that? 1945-2001? Think of the daunting project to model all the appropriate weapons, vehicles, TO&Es, and OOBs needed for that! Dividing it into smaller segments might be better, if only for BTS' sake! How would we separate that? Into decades? 1946-1955 1956-1965 1966-1975 1976-1985 1986-1995 1996-2005? Hey.. looking at that, it almost works out. 1946-1955: Chinese Civil War, Korea, Early Israel, hypothetical early Soviet invasion of W. Europe, misc. colonial conflicts. 1956-1965 is early Vietnam (France, initial US involvement), Cuba, interesting Middle East (Israel, Suez Crisis, Aden, Oman, Kuwait), colonial Africa, and some more hypothetical Soviet stuff. 1966-1975: The meat of the Vietnam war, two of Israel's great wars (1967, 1973), Soviets vs China, more hypothetical Western Europe 1976-1985: South Africa in Angola/Namibia, Rhodesia, Grenada, a really interesting time in Western Europe. Israel's invasion of Lebanon (fighting T-72s in the Bekkaa Valley!!), Afghanistan, Iran vs Iraq... 1986-1995: Gulf War, of course, last time for Soviets vs. Western Europe, Soviet Civil War, Modern Korea, Modern China, Yugoslavia, much more, I'm sure... 1996-2005: Anything including very near future weapons systems (like RAH-66, M-1A2E, AAAV, T-90, Black Eagle tanks, etc.) Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorBeef Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Originally posted by fytinghellfish: Hi guys, erk! I live in the north-central plains of Illinois, arguably one of the flattest places on Earth. From ground level, in winter with empty fields, I can't see more than 1-2 miles in any direction. I don't imagine an M-1 tank seeing much further. I've had games in Combat Mission where a Tiger, King Tiger, Pershing, even Mark IVs and Shermans, shooting at each other from 1000-2000m, though this is rare. What does this sorta prove? 1. CM, in its present incarnation, can depict relatively long range tank vs tank shooting matches. Any CM:Modern will have an even more advanced map/distance engine (I'm sure) that would be able to model not only longer ranges and bigger maps, but probably even bigger battles (brigades anyone?) 2. These long range battles are rare because of terrain. CM models terrain obstruction well, well enough to be believeable. Long ranges will only be a REAL factor in desert battles and when you park a BRDM-2 platoon with AT-5 missiles that range out to 5km (on a good day, providing they survive long enough from the time of launch to the time of impact) on a hill well above any intervening terrain. 3. The possibility that AH-64/long range helicopter fire support could be modeled abstractly, like air strikes and artillery are modeled today. AH-64s fire Hellfire missiles. Hellfires are laser-guided missiles. Do you really think that a laser beam will be constant and strong enough over 8000m in battlefield conditions (vehicle and fire smoke, atmospheric conditions, etc.)? I doubt it, though I am not a helicopter pilot. AH-64s were designed as part of a hunter/killer team, along with OH-58Ds, FIST-Vs, COLTs, etc, who could 'illuminate' targets for the AH-64s while the Apaches themselves were well behind the lines. Just thoughts, Actually, the new apaches (the "longbow" apaches) have radar guided missiles, so they're more flexible. Also.. its not too difficult to use a tactical laser sight at that range, depending on humidity and weather. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfcub Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 im an aviation nut[yes at 13 years old] and the apache would proberly be hard to model as would any helicopter as u proberly knoow they do not sit in 1 place like artilery and so u would have to chang los and lots of other complicated things and i just dont think it would possible to model them in cm .and i think it would be good if there is a ww1 cm done and a vietnam version cause have u noticed there are bairly any at all games that model these periods Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spook Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Originally posted by Guy w/gun: Might I suggest TacOps? It isn't 3D and it's interface/mechanics are different than CM, but non the less is a great game I hope someday that TacOps will be more expanded in terrain options, or at least something more than "plateau" elevation levels. I also hope for a viable morale-proficiency model in that game too. But otherwise, Guy w/gun is right. TacOps is a good game system that consistently models modern warfare & weapon systems, if you don't mind the 2-D view and nominal platoon-level scale. This scale is better to play for those debating "maneuver vs. attrition," IMO. And we'll soon see what TacOps 4.0 adds (which MajorH plans to release later this year). For those who really HAVE to have that 3-D environment for gaming modern warfare, and with a single-vehicle unit scale, I think that Steel Beasts does an impressive job as a "crossover sim", especially when you're trying to manage a couple companies' worth of mech forces. I found a "Fulda Gap" user-designed scenario for SB to be VERY challenging to play last month. A missing element to SB is helicopters & air support, but the SB2 now being designed is planned to include these too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fytinghellfish Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Originally posted by SenorBeef: Actually, the new apaches (the "longbow" apaches) have radar guided missiles, so they're more flexible. Also.. its not too difficult to use a tactical laser sight at that range, depending on humidity and weather. Ah, but who has a clear LOS to anything at 8000km? You'd have to be at a high altitude to see 8000km under most circumstances - and altitude means death for helicopters. As for the Longbow, I am aware of the MMW system it has, but does that really change anything? It can still be abstracted as off-board support in a CM environment. It just doesn't have to be spotted for, if thats possible. ------------------ hellfish Got Operation Flashpoint? Join the Revolution! www.60thguardsmotorriflediv.homestead.com erk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mikey D Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 There's 'modern combat' and modern combat. A Balkans theme wouldn't involve the ultra-long ranges or the combat aircraft. Just give 'em (whoever 'em is) AK47s and RPGs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpion Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Originally posted by Mikey D: There's 'modern combat' and modern combat. A Balkans theme wouldn't involve the ultra-long ranges or the combat aircraft. Just give 'em (whoever 'em is) AK47s and RPGs. But that misses the point We want MBTs and IFVs, we want to be able to ambush with ON-MAP helicopters, see troops running out of their APCs and deploying ATGMs and SAMs. In short, I want M1 Tank Platoon 2 without the action elements. Is that too much to ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpion Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Originally posted by fytinghellfish: Ah, but who has a clear LOS to anything at 8000km? You'd have to be at a high altitude to see 8000km under most circumstances - and altitude means death for helicopters. As for the Longbow, I am aware of the MMW system it has, but does that really change anything? It can still be abstracted as off-board support in a CM environment. It just doesn't have to be spotted for, if thats possible. No no no! Helicopters have to be ON-MAP. Direct control for helicopters is a must in today's combined arms warfare. You are right about the distance though. Even attacking with the MMW Hellfires can only be done if you can identify the target as hostile so most helicopter engagements occur at about 1500-3000m ranges, which would be fine I think, in my vision of much larger maps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Pattison Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 For the Longbow Apache, a clear LOS to 8000m maybe not be possible under most circumstances. However, the real power in the 64D's ability is to datalink with other sensors and salvo launch MMW Hellfires into a threat area designated by the D's gunner in Lock-On After Launch(LOAL) mode. The missles then follow a ballistic trajectory to the target area where they go active and hunt for only the types of targets that they are preprogrammed to engage within the target area. Longbows can also control and designate for other helicopters that aren't equipted with MMW radar, so they can also use MMW Hellfires in LOAL mode. So, AH64D support could be modeled as OBA as long as they were only firing MMW Hellfires. Also given the LOS, the Apache's MMW radar can distingush between friend and foe at far greater distances than the TADS. The real question then becomes are 64D's so good that having one completely unbalances a scenario? [This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 03-19-2001).] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skorpion Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Originally posted by Jeff Pattison: For the Longbow Apache, a clear LOS to 8000m maybe not be possible under most circumstances. However, the real power in the 64D's ability is to datalink with other sensors and salvo launch MMW Hellfires into the threat area. In that case, the 64D support could be modeled as OBA. Also, given the LOS the Apache's radar can distingush between friend and foe at far greater distances than the TADS. [This message has been edited by Jeff Pattison (edited 03-19-2001).] You're right - I forgot about the datalink. However, in its absence I'm pretty sure ROE would require a visual instead of trusting the radar (assuming you've turned the radar on, because you don't really want to warn the enemy you're there do you?). Anyway, that doesn't change my desire for the helos to be on-map assets. It would make for much more interesting play to be able to hide you apaches behind one hill, your abrams behind the other and teast the enemy into the kill zone with your cavalry assets. Boom - all dead! ------------------ Skorpion Think you've got me? Watch out for the sting in my tail! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mensch Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 ya I guess it would be boring if one spent 600pts on a a tac nuke.. boom.. game over on the third PBEM file... then we could call it Post CM Radiation Survival.. watching any survivers throwing up and mutating into teletubies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Pattison Posted March 19, 2001 Share Posted March 19, 2001 Skorpion, I expanded my response above. Whether they would to trust the radar for IFF is a good question? I think they would trust the radar id, since they can designate fire areas. They also would check with HQ over the datalink to make sure no friendlies were supposed be in the area. As a third fail safe, they could do a visual id or have some other GPS equipted unit do it. But, they only would do that in the case of enemy units in close proximity to friendly forces. Under the concept of deep battle, most of the helicopter action should be going on off map about 8 to 30 klicks ahead of the friendly ground forces as they try to attrit the enemy before they come into direct fire range. Given the battlefield in CM is currently limited to 2.4k(?) depth by 2.4k(?), most of the rotary and fixed wing action will have to be off the map and abstracted. However, there should be a few helicopters available for CAS under direct control and these should be on the map. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fytinghellfish Posted March 20, 2001 Share Posted March 20, 2001 Are helicopters really relevant on a CM battelfield? That battlefield would have to be 10x10km at least for helicopters to be useful. Even in TacOps, which models some pretty big maps, helicopters are kind of cramped. Is there really a usefulness for loading an infantry squad into a UH-60 to move only 2km? I don't think so - boots were made for 2km movements. Helicopters are as much, if not moreso, operational-level elements as they are tactical elements. And an Apache pilot that is within 2km of the enemy is either going to be a dead Apache pilot or an Apache pilot relieved of his rank because of incompetence. AH-64s were NOT designed to close with and destroy the enemy. If you have to use your 30mm cannon for anything more than self-defense, you've done something wrong. Also, think about the speeds they travel at! You could move across 3km in the space of a one minute combat turn! I think the use of attack helicopters (maybe with the exception of OH-58Ds and their breed of light scout/attack birds) should be limited to off-board abstracted fire support, just like how CM today does not model US 155mm artillery on-board. Stand-off weaponry has no place on a battlefield that is 10x10km - there is simply no room to maneuver a helicopter, let alone multiple and opposing helicopters. Don't get me wrong - I'd love to see an AH-64 represented in a modern CM, but without big maps, there really isn't a point. Especially with a Soviet-style air defense net present. ZSU-24-4s, SA-7/14/16s, SA-9/13s and 2S6s will make short work of a helicopter with no where to go. ------------------ hellfish Got Operation Flashpoint? Join the Revolution! www.60thguardsmotorriflediv.homestead.com erk! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts