General discussion about CM:SF

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by stoat:

Will there be claymores, or to a lesser extent, shotguns, and if they are included, how will you track all of the metal bits that they shoot?

PS: same question for cluster munitions.

WRT cluster munitions...

A bloke called Morris Driels in his book Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness provides some answers for figuring out the kill probabilities of air launched cluster munitions. I have droned on about weaponeering before and I have this recommendation for the BFC team: if you don't already have a copy, go and get youself one.

AIAA Publication Morris Driels' Weaponeering

I am really interested to see how BFC handle US airpower. Especially in conventional style battles. Unless the background brief limits US air power in some way, conventional warfare will be rather one-sided IMHO. SAMs and AAA regardless - realistically they are not a factor! (edit - except versus the A-10)

BTW, Driels' book also provides weaponeering guides for ground-to-ground weapons too!

[ng cavscout]

I remember back in 2003 suggesting that you (BFC)try and sell CM games at PX's and BX's, and you said that they were being carried in the PX's. I was wondering, if you are willing to say, how successful that venture has been? Have you had good sales out of military outlets? I haven't seen any of your games in any of the PX's that I have been in though. I do believe that CM:SF would be a sure thing in military outlets these days. I have had quite a few questions about CMBB from other soldiers that have seen me playing it, and I think my platoon leader is getting ready to purchase it. Unfortunately, most of the soldiers that play computer games are in the 18-22 yoa bracket and prefer first person shooters or RTS games. There are a couple that I am trying to win over though.

My brother is here with me, in a different platoon, but the same company, and he is a fan of both CMBB and CMAK.

Regarding the Syrian Air Force, here is a link.

http://www.scramble.nl/sy.htm

Note the diagram showing Arabic numbers and their English counterparts, very handy for modders I would think.

[IDILIX]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Lots of questions. Forgive me if I don't get to all of them...

No Turkey and Israel involved in this game since you're in command of US forces only. For Modules we are looking to add other NATO nations. Turkey, although part of NATO, doesn't strike me as being a popular choice to focus on

Steve

Why so ? We have some interesting hardware and OOBs. I would personally think it would be much more popular than having a add-on for some other obscure NATO member.

Can help with the OOB and Equipment lists should u wish ...

[IDILIX]

Sorry - this one is a quote from the 'scramble' website that I should have attached to my above post... I am sure u can find similar statements in a few other books so what I am trying to say is we wont be far away from the action this time, one way or another.

( we are actually talking about a country who has actively tried destabilizing another country actively for the last 35 years, EU membership or not , TR should and will join the fray... )

So far only a few MiG-29s are delivered and they are apparently based at two bases, one being close to Turkey (still one of the biggest enemies of Syria) and the other is located in the Damascus area. More Russian deliveries are rumoured

[Midnight Warrior]

Remember CM:SF is not a first person game, so some of the things associated with the graphics of stuff like NVGs is irrelevant. However we do it graphically isn't really the issue though, it is what we do with it from a simulation standpoint. Yes, we will be doing justice to the pros and cons of the various different systems for soldiers and vehicles alike.

Steve

That makes sense. Even so it would be cool eye candy. Perhaps more importantly will CMSF provide tactical situation dislays (TSD) where data linked targets (as symbols) can be displayed (perhaps overlayed on a digitized or digital map. This would be a "legal" way of providing the US forces a form of Borg spotting in that whatever one unit sees (and choses to eneter into their fire control computer as a target) can be shared with the other platfroms in the unit as symbols on the TSD.

[Midnight Warrior]

in fact the question in general is how will data link targets be treated in CMSF? This could be one of the more intriguing questions to explore in that (as said in another post) some units will have data links (like a Stryker ubnit) as soe won't (like the Syrian units and perhaps some leg US units). The data linked targets can be used for both targeting and situaional awareness (SA). One of the big questions in DoD today is the value of what they call Network centric warfare (verses platfrom centric). CMSF has the potential to explore some of the isuues of Network centrik warfare a he tactical level.

Actually BFC doesn't have to invent these TSD dispalys and the mechnaization to handle data link targets in that this capability is part of the Stryker's (and other platform's) design. Thus all BFC needs is to get access to a Strkyer user's manual and see how they handle it. And even though CMSF is not a FPS game (and hence does not habe to imulate the crew station operation like say a combat flight simulation) it could be argued that it does need to address how data linked targets are treated in that these affect tactical C2.

My thought is that a generic TSD with data linked targets and/or a common "shoot list" of the data linked targets where if one clicks on a sysmbol or a data link targte in the shoot list would cause the viw of the selected vehice to pointto the selected target would be sufficient to apporximate the employment of data linked targets. This is not too radically differet than the "next target" command in CM1

[aka_tom_w]

Actually BFC doesn't have to invent these TSD dispalys and the mechnaization to handle data link targets in that this capability is part of the Stryker's (and other platform's) design. Thus all BFC needs is to get access to a Strkyer user's manual and see how they handle it. And even though CMSF is not a FPS game (and hence does not habe to imulate the crew station operation like say a combat flight simulation) it could be argued that it does need to address how data linked targets are treated in that these affect tactical C2

First though off the top of my head....

What a GREAT way to NOT have to worry about eliminating BORG spotting.

All units in Cmx1 had that intel sharing technology (platform specific or whatever) modelled PERFECTLY.

(I do hope they will pay extreme attention to the detail of this particular issue with regard to relative spotting AND technology and C2 command and communications for BOTH side of the battel in as REALISTIC a way as possible!)

-tom w

[Thomm]

Look-a-like-contest ... CM versus OPF2!

I thought it would be interesting to see these shots side by side!

[WineCape]

I'm open-minded. Therefor, more often than not, I get to be surprised, pleasantly. I'll keep the former. Battlefront will provide the latter.

Sincerely,

Charl Theron

-----------------------------------------------------

Co-creator & Sponsor of the following CM tournaments:

</font>

• The serial Rumblings of War (RoW I, II, III, IV, V)</font>
• The infamous CMBO Invitational</font>
• WineCape Tourney I and II</font>

[aka_tom_w]

More OFP2 eye candy here

I have to say it DOES look nice!

(But there is NO Mac version IIRC)

OFP2 Gallery of images

-tom w

[Michael Dorosh]

Those aren't pictures of the next OFP are they? I thought that was the home video game adaptation of OFP1...

[Ivan Drago]

Something tells me that by the time the game is finished, those Alpha screenshots will look pretty close to OFP2.

Steve said that CM:SF map sizes will be about 2km x 2km, so those kind of terrain features aren't totally out of the question. Of course I may be a bit too hopeful

Originally posted by Leutnant Hortlund:

Not grand strategy "what if Russia (who cant fight their way out of a wet paper-bag these days anywya) invades Turkey"

That's an ignorant statement, if I ever saw one.

Early to mid 90's, maybe. Performance has gone up ten-fold from experience gained in the 2nd Chechnian war, Russian Federation infantry weapons are some of the most advanced in the world, and general solider quality level should technically increase after they end conscription in 2010.

The economy was the crucial factor in poor performance recently, and as it improves so will everything else in the country.

[Sunray]

I'm kind of interested by CM:SF but not yet in drool mode. I guess it's going to be a sort of 3D supercharged version of TaCops? Had it been exactly that (the cold war getting hot)then you would have experienced what I believe all BB/AK players feel when they play those WW2 games. This feeling is that they are "taking part" in a titanic struggle, the outcome of which is in doubt. That's what makes it so exciting, quite apart from the incredibly accurate gaming engine care of Battlefront. With great respect to the near future armed forces of Syria, a punch up between them and a near future US Army is not my idea of a titanic struggle unless you unrealistically rig the dice in favour of the Syrians.The problem is I don't want to play unrealistic scenarios - "Stryker platoon meets T80 battalion, but all US Aircraft and helos are grounded by sandstorm blah blah".Also how will the game deal with the increased "distance" in modern warfare? Tacops handles it by keeping the graphics primitive as hell but these days US tanks kill other tanks out to 5km so I'm going to need a 42 inch screen unless everything is reduced to dots on a map! The urban terrain stuff(which I feel was the AK/BB achilles heel)might be very interesting on the other hand because the US tech edge will be realistically less overwhelming so "fair" fights can be simulated.

Maybe Battlefront will deliver the goods,and if not we will wait the WW2 module. Final point yes please to other friendly forces - the Brits have an army which fights now and then I believe(and quite well),ditto the IDF but maybe we are getting a bit political....

Cheers

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by Sunray:

I guess it's going to be a sort of 3D supercharged version of TaCops? Had it been exactly that (the cold war getting hot)then you would have experienced what I believe all BB/AK players feel when they play those WW2 games. This feeling is that they are "taking part" in a titanic struggle, the outcome of which is in doubt. That's what makes it so exciting, quite apart from the incredibly accurate gaming engine care of Battlefront.

I agree with you, but Im amazed that people don't seem to understand one crucial point:

THIS WILL BE POSSIBLE TO MOD WITH THE CM:SF ENGINE!!!

You already have Soviet-style weaponry and armor. You have MBTs, APCs, AK-47s and with the upcoming modules, NATO forces.

I'm willing to bet that this will be one of the first 'total conversions' done for CM:SF by the community.

Hell, you can even simulate some utterly crazy Germany vs. England scenario (assuming modules include U.K. and German units, which technically Steve said they'd hope to do) with the Blue vs. Blue option that Steve specifically said will be included!

[imported_Captain_Wacky]

Originally posted by Ivan Drago:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Sunray:

I guess it's going to be a sort of 3D supercharged version of TaCops? Had it been exactly that (the cold war getting hot)then you would have experienced what I believe all BB/AK players feel when they play those WW2 games. This feeling is that they are "taking part" in a titanic struggle, the outcome of which is in doubt. That's what makes it so exciting, quite apart from the incredibly accurate gaming engine care of Battlefront.

I agree with you, but Im amazed that people don't seem to understand one crucial point:

THIS WILL BE POSSIBLE TO MOD WITH THE CM:SF ENGINE!!!

You already have Soviet-style weaponry and armor. You have MBTs, APCs, AK-47s and with the upcoming modules, NATO forces.

I'm willing to bet that this will be one of the first 'total conversions' done for CM:SF by the community.

Hell, you can even simulate some utterly crazy Germany vs. England scenario (assuming modules include U.K. and German units, which technically Steve said they'd hope to do) with the Blue vs. Blue option that Steve specifically said will be included! </font>

[Battlefront.com]

Yeah, when we add dust effects, actual terrain (that is a CMAK ground texture in the shots ), real textures (Kwazy made those in a few hours), etc we expect to look as good as anything else out there.

Steve

[Ivan Drago]

Originally posted by Heil3451:

When has BFC ever allowed people to edit the engine of a game?

None of the things I mentioned require any engine modification.

Just unit textures, sound files, terrain tiles and some custom-made scenarios.

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

[snips]

A bloke called Morris Driels in his book Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness provides some answers for figuring out the kill probabilities of air launched cluster munitions. I have droned on about weaponeering before and I have this recommendation for the BFC team: if you don't already have a copy, go and get youself one.

Having recently acquired a copy on ozi-digger's recommendation, I'd strongly suggest that most people will have many better uses for a hundred dollars.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

BTW, Driels' book also provides weaponeering guides for ground-to-ground weapons too!

The book has 16 chapters; 12 on dropping bombs on things, and then one each on direct fire, indirect fire, mines and S&TA. I doubt that the Battlefront folks will have much to learn from the last four chapters of the book. It might be worth getting for people who have a single-minded fixation about dropping dumb bombs on people, but it's not terrinbly useful otherwise. There's a reason the book is marketed by and to Aeronautical Engineers, y'know.

All the best,

John.

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by ozi_digger:

[snips]

A bloke called Morris Driels in his book Weaponeering: Conventional Weapon System Effectiveness provides some answers for figuring out the kill probabilities of air launched cluster munitions. I have droned on about weaponeering before and I have this recommendation for the BFC team: if you don't already have a copy, go and get youself one.

Having recently acquired a copy on ozi-digger's recommendation, I'd strongly suggest that most people will have many better uses for a hundred dollars.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

BTW, Driels' book also provides weaponeering guides for ground-to-ground weapons too!

The book has 16 chapters; 12 on dropping bombs on things, and then one each on direct fire, indirect fire, mines and S&TA. I doubt that the Battlefront folks will have much to learn from the last four chapters of the book. It might be worth getting for people who have a single-minded fixation about dropping dumb bombs on people, but it's not terrinbly useful otherwise. There's a reason the book is marketed by and to Aeronautical Engineers, y'know.

All the best,

John. </font>

[Munter]

Battle is battle is battle. I don't care about the theatre of operation. Just give me the hardware and I'll see what I can do with it.

I was just as surprised about the goal of the "shock force" as a big majority of this community seems to have been, but in my opinion it isn't a big deal. Instead of trying to rewrite history we get an opportunity to write a possible one with the help of excisting tools of today.

What is most surprising for my part is that people are still looking down at russian weaponry and the supposed lack of effect of those. The military history should have taught already everybody not to underestimate the so called inferiour hardware in the hands of a determined enemy. You only die once.

I'm looking forward to this game with an eager look. The lessons learned might become handy if/when our eastern neighbour will again follow her true call.

[Sergei]

Originally posted by Michael Dorosh:

Those aren't pictures of the next OFP are they? I thought that was the home video game adaptation of OFP1...

No, I believe it is Armed Assault (not OFP2 nor OFP for XBOX). Armed Assault is based on OFP1.

[AdamAnt2]

Sergei,I checked it out and that is definetly OPF2,,Armed Assault is recognizable in that the hand is like in the same position as in the original opf,,,the graphics are more opf like,,and gettin back on topic If that is a shot of CMSF it is going to look great,,,and judging by BF.C rep,,we should not worry it will rock,,,,Only thing is How long is do we have to suffer 'til it is out?

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

[snips]

Let me reiterate: "I have this recommendation for the BFC team: ". My comment was aimed at BFC, not your average punter. If you got nothing from the book, well thats not my problem.

Thank you, but your reiteration is entirely unecessary. I understood you perfectly well the first time. I am not disagreeing with you because I didn't read or understand your point, I am disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. Sorry if that offends you, but there's no help for it.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

The USAF and USN use Driels as a guide to weaponeering.

Yes, thank you, as I pointed out, I own my own copy of the book, so I would be aware of this even had you not said so before. It is pretty obvious from the bulk and style (and price) of the book that it is intended as a textbook for the weaponeering course at Monterey. There may be some really good books that have been developed from lecturers' course notes, but they are few and far between, and this one I'm afraid I think is pretty run-of-the-mill.

The fact that it is used by the USAF and USN is, of course, an argument from authority, and we know what they're worth, don't we?

"Applied operations research: Examples from defence assessment" (R W Shephard, D A Hartley, P J Haysman, L Thorpe & M R Bathe, Plenum Press, 1988) would IMO be a much better way to spend your money, being much more wide-ranging in coverage. Unfortunately it seems to be practically unobtainable.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

If you're serious about calculating stuff like the accurate footprint of cluster minitions, then you may want to have the manual.

I really wouldn't repeat the word "accurate" too many times in reference to USAF bomb damage estimates, which have had a pretty dismal record ever since the Strategic Bombing Survey was puiblished. Can you remember how many orders of magnitude wrong the assessments were of bombing damage against the Serbs? Not a great advert for the USAF's methods being "accurate", I think.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

If you'd rather use guestimation and fuzzy logic, then knock yerself out. If, as a simulation developer you want an accurate reference for this type of stuff, then I recommend it. IMHO it would be 100 bucks well spent.

I'd always rather write a simulation, thanks, although it would be interesting to see fuzzy quantifiers applied to terminal effect assessment (one set might be "Didn't come close", "Ouch" and "Blown to buggery"). Most of Driels' methods are analytical, and so not all that much use to the simulation writer, who typically needs to make fewer simplifying assumptions and do less maths than the exponent of analytical methods (in exchange for which you get single samples rather than the general case, but that's what you want for a game).

I doubt that Battlefront would get much mileage out of dividing an arty impact zone into rectangles, or figuring out Carleton damage functions. I would think that the methods the Battlefront folks have already developed for the CM series are considerably in advance of Driels' material with the sole exception of modelling free-fall bombs against static structures (a pretty restricted part of the CM universe, although a large part of the USAF's business).

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

Sure, chapters 7-12 mainly deal with air delivered munitions. Chapters 13-16 are about the ground stuff. BFC would get nothing useful from the last chapters? I disagree. The weblink is provided, the weblink provides a chapter outline. Make up your own mind.

H'mmyes. Arty fire that comes only from 155mm howitzers, 5-in Naval guns or mortars. Direct small-arms fire against standing targets that are almost three times the size of the STANAG human target, and with no account taken of suppression, or even mention of it. An account of the ACQUIRE model that neglects to mention its inapplicability to salient "pop-out" targets, or the "thiord tree effect", both admissible omissions for modelling air-to-mud warfare, but hardly for mud-to-mud.

All of which is not to say that it is a bad book, nor that there aren't a few snippets of interest to be found in it, but I can't imagine it being worth $100 of your own money to anybody who isn't a fly-boy doing a weaponeering course as part of their Masters'. And even at that, I wish it had more on blast response of structures.

Oh yeah, and I think "comes with software" is a questionable bit of advertising when the "software" in question is a listing, in the text, of a MATLAB program.

Now I really must nag my pal at the Fort again to write that book he's been planning on "How to do direct-fire combat modelling"...

All the best,

John.

[M1A1TC]

I wander if NCOs and other ranks besides officers will be represented in CMSF?

[ng cavscout]

Originally posted by NG cavscout:

I remember back in 2003 suggesting that you (BFC)try and sell CM games at PX's and BX's, and you said that they were being carried in the PX's. I was wondering, if you are willing to say, how successful that venture has been? Have you had good sales out of military outlets? I haven't seen any of your games in any of the PX's that I have been in though. I do believe that CM:SF would be a sure thing in military outlets these days. I have had quite a few questions about CMBB from other soldiers that have seen me playing it, and I think my platoon leader is getting ready to purchase it. Unfortunately, most of the soldiers that play computer games are in the 18-22 yoa bracket and prefer first person shooters or RTS games. There are a couple that I am trying to win over though.

snip

Regarding my above question, I did see a post from Vixen, stating that she purchased her copy of CMBB at the post exchange, so it looks like at least some PX's/BX's carry CM games. Given the subject matter, I would predict that CM:SF might sell well to military personnel as well. At least to those of NCO rank and above. EM's tend to, for the most part, be shoot em up and console players.