General discussion about CM:SF

[ozi_digger]

Originally posted by John D Salt:

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.

[sNIP blah and rant]

All the best,

John.

I always get amused when 'army-ophiles' see something with air power content and write it off straight away. I reckon you've taken my initial post waaay out of context, but anyway, who cares? Civility is free JDS, please refrain from the sarcastic remarks and state a few facts.

Here are a few things in the text that IMHO a land warfare sim developer may find useful:

1. Target Representation for damage to AFV compartments and components;

2. Target acquisition models;

3. Vulnerability assessments; and

4. The theory behind their direct fire against personnel targets model.

No suggestion that you have to adopt their methodologies whatsoever - it might be a useful reference - something you get ideas from.

Can we put it to bed now?

[grunt_GI]

Hello Battlefront,

Love the idea, I have been a loyal CM player even after Apple dropped RAVE support with OSX :cool:

Would like to know if CMSF will be dual platform and what you THINK the hardware requirements will be...haven't seen much on that in this section. Will a 1 Ghz with 64MB of VRAM be enough horsepower?

[Battlefront.com]

CM:SF simulates all leadership positions from Team Leader (or Vehicle Driver, Vehicle Commander, what have you) all the way up to Company Commander. As stated in many previous threads, we do not anticipate having a Battalion HQ and therefore won't likely need a BN CO for CM:SF. What ranks are simulated? Well, whatever guy happens to be in the position. You might find an E3 in charge of a Rifle Squad if Lady Luck frowned upon it during a firefight. That sort of thing.

No specs can be reasonably posted yet since we won't know for a few months now how hard the hardware will be pushed. 1GHz G4 will be a bit towards the lowend for sure. Not saying it won't be able to play it, just that it's not likely going to be our target level.

Steve

[Gen Von Television]

Hi Steve,

at least the good news is you haven't wrote: 'no mac version has been as yet thought of'!

BTW will the graphic engine be Open GL, if you can tell us?

[Battlefront.com]

Well, there is no Mac version at the moment. We're waiting as long as possible so we don't get another RAVE burnmark on our code Yes, the engine is OpenGL based. Porting it to the Mac should be a piece of cake once we're sure what exactly what we're supposed to do about the new transition to Intel. Should be known pretty soon (and I'm not talking about Apple's PR statements) so we're not concerned.

Steve

[Zemke]

I think this game will fail, BF has left the people who really care about tactical wargames out in the cold. I mean how exciting and realistic will SF be. Think about it, western troops, desciplined, well trained, supurbly equiped, and air power that is un-matched, fighting the Syrians. Give me a break, a one sided blood bath. If it is not then the game will be un-realistic, because there is no way now or in 07 the Syrians will be able to fight the west. IEDs are not militarily effective, and are political. So CMSF will be either realistic and boring, or it will be a police action game, (and boring), or it will be completely un-realistice, (more like SciFi), and the Syrians will be able to fight toe to toe with the West (USA). Also I have had enough of this from the news and in real life. I want a war-game not a police action. I wanted to fight on the Stepps of Russian, so when the WWII mod comes, and if the engine is good (realistic), I will buy then.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Zemke:

I think this game will fail, BF has left the people who really care about tactical wargames out in the cold.

I don't feel cold. Heck, my nipples aren't even remotely hard.

-dale

[hellfish]

Mine are when you talk that way.

[Reichenberg]

Zemke, get over it!!

Your favourite pizza place launched an anchovis capers special on Mondays..... You don't like - so don't order it and wait until Tuesday for the pizza.

Maybe there is some thought process behind it and the pizza place thinks that the new pizza will sell decently and would be the perfect version to test their new kitchen equipement. You should just hope that it really sells well and that they make enough money on it to pay the cook on Tuesday.

So do I and do not whine around.

Uwe

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Zemke:

... or it will be completely un-realistice, (more like SciFi), and the Syrians will be able to fight toe to toe with the West (USA).

Who is this clown and what the hell is he smoking?

I hate to be the one who points this out and risk being flamed from here to Hanover, but while the U.S.A. has exceptional kit, from what I have read, the majority of the troops available to be deployed (many of which are part time reserves) are not the best trained in the world by any stretch of the imagination.

I understand that there are some exceptionally trained members of the US Military: Seals, SF, and some would argue Jar Heads are above average and I'd probably agree. I have a lot of respect for all soldiers regardless of nationality or quality, but a statement like Zemke's is an insult to all non-Americans.

Even when faced with irregulars on home turf, I don't care if you are part of a super power's well oiled machine, you had better check the arrogance at the airport.

[dalem]

Originally posted by J Ruddy:

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

... or it will be completely un-realistice, (more like SciFi), and the Syrians will be able to fight toe to toe with the West (USA).

Who is this clown and what the hell is he smoking?

</font>

[Pandur]

is there any info released so far, how we are supposed to controll ouer units?

will it be, like classic CM where we can plot exact WP-routs, and will there be command delay also...?

or is a copleatly new sytem used? i would doubt that a new system is used since there is still the "WeGo" system, but i cant know for sure.

would be verry interesting to hear on that!

[John D Salt]

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

I always get amused when 'army-ophiles' see something with air power content and write it off straight away.

I'm not "writing it off straight away", I'm writing it off after a good look at the book. Maybe you ought to consider the possibility that people might disagree with your opinion for reasons other than mere prejudice or ignorance, an idea that you seem not to have entertained yet.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

I reckon you've taken my initial post waaay out of context, but anyway, who cares?

What context did you have in mind, then? And if you don't care, why exactly are you raising the matter?

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

Civility is free JDS, please refrain from the sarcastic remarks and state a few facts.

I've stated a few facts in my sample criticisms of Driel's work. You apparently prefer to ignore these points, and then descend to personalities instead of attempting to defend the opinion you have offered of the book. Under those circumstances you have a brass neck to try to delivery a finder-wagging homily on "civility". Maybe you're one of those people whose ego gets terribly bruised when others have the temerity not to agree with their unsupported opinions; but that is, to borrow your own charming phrase, not my problem.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

Here are a few things in the text that IMHO a land warfare sim developer may find useful:

1. Target Representation for damage to AFV compartments and components;

But the 3-D geometry of shotline analysis is trivial, and where would you get the data needed to represent the compnents of the target system? None is provided in the book. How is this useful?

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

2. Target acquisition models;

Well, *a* target acquisition model, and, as, I have already pointed out, one with considerable limitations in handling salient targets and allowing for existing observer knowledge of the scene (the "third tree" problem). It is also based on an assumption of forced-choice experiments which does not apply in terrestrial warfare (although, again, it may be not too far off for air-to-mud use). Far more useful would have been some hints and tips on modelling human attention and scanning patterns.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

3. Vulnerability assessments; and

Same problem as shotline analysis -- the maths is fairly obvious, and where do you get the data on component vulnerability? It's not in the book.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

4. The theory behind their direct fire against personnel targets model.

I've already pointed out that this model takes human targets to be much bigger than the STANAG figure, and makes no attempt to assess suppression. The only element of real interest is the method of calculating P(hit)s, which is well known to Rexford and I'm sure all the folks at Battlefront, whose techniques are I think years in advance of this stuff.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

No suggestion that you have to adopt their methodologies whatsoever - it might be a useful reference - something you get ideas from.

Given that the book is extremely light on the kind of data one needs for this sort of thing, I'm a bit baffled as to what you think the book offers if not methods.

Originally posted by ozi_digger:

Can we put it to bed now?

Just as you like.

All the best,

John.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Zemke:

I think this game will fail, BF has left the people who really care about tactical wargames out in the cold. I mean how exciting and realistic will SF be. Think about it, western troops, desciplined, well trained, supurbly equiped, and air power that is un-matched, fighting the Syrians. Give me a break, a one sided blood bath.

Zemke this certainly isn the case, even the current situation in Iraq should unfortuantely teach us what a poorly equiped, even poorly organised yet determined for can do.

If you would truely like to get an idea of the challanges that would face a US force against a determined foe, particually in an urban environment where much future combat is likely to occur, try reading the AAR stickied above.

Dan

[Drusus]

Originally posted by Zemke:

IEDs are not militarily effective, and are political.

Im willing to accept that if you say claymore mines are not militarily effective, and are political.

[ozi_digger]

Well I asked for a civil debate but niceties in personal interaction seem to evade you JDS.

Statements like:

I am disagreeing with you because I think you are wrong. Sorry if that offends you, but there's no help for it.

or

Maybe you're one of those people whose ego gets terribly bruised when others have the temerity not to agree with their unsupported opinions; but that is, to borrow your own charming phrase, not my problem.

or

you have a brass neck

When do you let off on the name calling to try and get a point across? Makes me think you're deliberately trying to be offensive. There is no "I disagree with your opinion because of [fact]" in your lexicon. Only allusions that I may have thin skin. To me it smacks of bait and flame.... Maybe I'm copping a whole load of sarcasm from you because I tried to defend my position? And you're not used to it? Used to steamrolling people with swagger and jive and they back down?

Then we get on to:

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.

Who mentioned BDA or combat assessment? I think you need to look at the real reasons behind inaccurate BDA reports and I think you might find it has nothing to do with weapon accuracy. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention the US Army uses Driels for weaponeering too. Where are the 'fly-boy' comments now, hmm?

I actually see the point you're making. My argument is not that the book offers software that will save BFC from writing code, nor that it offers classified data. My point is that it has methodologies and models. As a sim developer you are in no way compelled to adopt them. I'd even be swayed by your argument that it is probably not a 'must have'. However, it is my opinion that it would still be a useful reference for weaponeering modern weapons.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Drusus:

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

IEDs are not militarily effective, and are political.

Im willing to accept that if you say claymore mines are not militarily effective, and are political. </font>

[stoat]

Because they have near the same effect on a Humvee at close range.

[JonS]

Zemke expressed himself poorly (big surprise there), but I know exactly what he meant. As do you.

Blowing up an M1 with an IED made out of a 155mm round in the middle of nowhere, and with no followup, is by-and-large a political action, not a military one.

Defending a section post with one or more CDFs is a military action, not a political one.

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by JonS:

Zemke expressed himself poorly (big surprise there), but I know exactly what he meant. As do you.

Blowing up an M1 with an IED made out of a 155mm round in the middle of nowhere, and with no followup, is by-and-large a political action, not a military one.

Defending a section post with one or more CDFs is a military action, not a political one.

In that case though Jon arent you really saying that it depends on who detonates the device and why more so than if the actual device coudl be considered an IED or not?

Dan

[Drusus]

Originally posted by JonS:

Zemke expressed himself poorly (big surprise there), but I know exactly what he meant. As do you.

Blowing up an M1 with an IED made out of a 155mm round in the middle of nowhere, and with no followup, is by-and-large a political action, not a military one.

Defending a section post with one or more CDFs is a military action, not a political one.

If you ran out of CDFs, but you happened to have a lot of explosives, wouldn't you put them under some rocks, and use that? That is an IED. From the AAR thread, there is mentions of different kinds of IEDs used by the US forces. Now if you take it so that an IED means a lone roadside bomb, then it has only political effect. But IEDs are a lot more than that.

[Andreas]

Originally posted by KwazyDog:

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

Zemke expressed himself poorly (big surprise there), but I know exactly what he meant. As do you.

Blowing up an M1 with an IED made out of a 155mm round in the middle of nowhere, and with no followup, is by-and-large a political action, not a military one.

Defending a section post with one or more CDFs is a military action, not a political one.

In that case though Jon arent you really saying that it depends on who detonates the device and why more so than if the actual device coudl be considered an IED or not?

Dan </font>

[Kurtz]

Even lone roadside bombs (improvised or standard equipment) are military actions. Just as mining a road used by your enemy or deploying snipers to kill those who show thier heads.

It might not be military significant (small losses), but it will be psychologically significant.

The IED/ambush threat in Iraq have had the effect of forcing vehicles to travel at higher speeds and therefore increasing the number of traffic accidents (and of the severity of these accidents). A wrecked truck might not be as useful in the propaganda as a truck that is shot to pieces and burned out, but it still won't arrive with its cargo.

[JonS]

Originally posted by Andreas:

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

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

stuff

In that case though Jon arent you really saying that it depends on who detonates the device and why more so than if the actual device could be considered an IED or not? </font>

[JonS]

Originally posted by Kurtz:

Even lone roadside bombs (improvised or standard equipment) are military actions. Just as mining a road used by your enemy or deploying snipers to kill those who show thier heads.

It might not be military significant (small losses), but it will be psychologically significant.

The IED/ambush threat in Iraq have had the effect of forcing vehicles to travel at higher speeds and therefore increasing the number of traffic accidents (and of the severity of these accidents). A wrecked truck might not be as useful in the propaganda as a truck that is shot to pieces and burned out, but it still won't arrive with its cargo.

Perhaps. I lump them (lone roadside bombs) more in the terrorism/policing-issue basket, rather than the military basket.

More to the point; please explain to me how a lone road side bomb (IED or otherwise) could be made into a worthwhile CM scen?