General discussion about CM:SF

[Midnight Warrior]

Since Night Vision Goggles (NVG) and IR thermal sights play such a large role in modern combat will CMSF simulate these displays? They also have different properties from normal viewing from the Mark I eyeball. For example IR thermal sights can see through most smokes and NVG's might be able to see laser spots. I would imagine that this in all likelihood would be abstracted. However, it could be treated in he game more explicitedly for example when selecting the zoom view (the "[" and "]" keys in CM1) one could show NVG or thermal sight view instead of a normal visual view. This might require having NVG or thermal imaging textures which I would imagine would cause all sorts of probems.... But it woud be cool and would give a unique look and feel to the game. Maybe it can be fudged with the normal textures with the dynamic lighting capabilities or something like that.

[Battlefront.com]

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

[Andreas]

Originally posted by Bigduke6:

That's a modern Western concept. There are plenty of societies where a person is not considered a full member, unless he has a personal weapon and can use it. I would say some portions of the Middle East fit into that category.

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

Read the thread before you post. And I think by definition when they start being armed, they stop being civillians.

</font>

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Well I could not be happier…. all sounds good to me.

When it comes to the specifics of the Syrian game there is even an option for Blue on Blue..i.e. First World v First World .

Great stuff….

All very exciting stuff .

All the best,

Kip.

PS. Yes… it is as I expects, but just the other way round… but just as much fun for that.A module covering some other NATO country so we could have US v Other NATO and we are talking "the best of all possible worlds" .

[kipanderson]

Hi,

Come to think about it… the Blue on Blue option, plus the ability ot build my own individual scenarios as usual… and I really do have everything I could have wished for… real OPFOR stuff with NATO v NATO.

Stunning…

All good fun,

All the best,

Kip.

[Zalgiris 1410]

At least CMSF isn't gonna be bloody shoot'em up game then Steve, so when I get my dose right I might bust up my own strike and descide to buy it anyway and suck on the US focus. That said I am broad minded enough that I am actually interested is modern / near future US tactics etc. I have avoided future warfare simulations in the past, because firstly I am mainly interested in historical re-creation and secondly I have a low opinion of most that I've seen of them. I pleadge my allegance to err... my complete confidence in the BFC designers producing a magnificient near future wargame and of actually making it exceptional enough beyond anything expected. I'm quite sure I'll enjoy it.

[IDILIX]

Dear battlefront developers :

One thing I wanted to say , as someone who is physically close to the area in question , and seen parts of it from the north side of the border.

1. Syria is not desert all around. It is flat but not desert. So think about the landscape. Ones I c in the screen shots look like as if they are from mars.

2. Even the Syrian army will not probably think of figthing in the open areas. In fact, realistic scenarios will include mountain warfare in the Border between Turkey and Syria, and urban warfare in the 'towns' and cities.

3. What about a 'do not touch' holly places marker - ie destroy the mosque and syrians get low grade infantry reinf. ( masses of ordinary people hurling themselves against the m1a1 bc. they are just pissed no )

4. What IF, Russians and Iranians decide to intervene and mount a flank attack over the Russian / Iranian-Turkish border to take the NATO forces from the rear. Maoist PKK and Fundamentalist Hizboullah decide to join. Again, will we have the chance to fight as a Nato member against OPFOR and/or Fractions.

[Hortlund]

Now there is a "what if" if ever I saw one.

[TufenHuden]

I wouldn't mind this game but why Syria?

Iran would be a likely enemy....

[Kwazydog]

Retik, the screen shots are from a very early stage as far as terrain is concerned...what you see is merely a base for the soldier to walk on with no details added at the moment. There will be much for varies terrain and urban environment see in future screen shots

Tufen, there are many reason to choose syria but from a game perspective alone they have more interesting and advanced equipment, thus provide a more serious challange to the player

Dan

[Andreas]

Originally posted by TufenHuden:

I wouldn't mind this game but why Syria?

Iran would be a likely enemy....

Obviously you have been to a very peaceful school. Look, in the schoolyard it is always the weakest kid who gets dragged behind the bikeshelter and has the crap beaten out of him by the school-yard bully. In this case that is Syria. This is far more realistic than an attack on Iran - while the US could easily beat the Iranian army, take the post-war operations in Iraq and multiply the problem by, uh, a lot. Iran's male population that could be called up to serve is almost as large as the total population of Iraq, and three times the service-age population of Iraq, 4.5 times that of Syria. Landmass is almost four times that of Iraq, ten times that of Syria. Borders with lots of countries that are problematic in the case of Iran, only with US Allies in the case of Syria.

World factbook Iran

World factbook Iraq

World factbook Syria

Syria is to Iran what Arnold Schwarzenegger is to Woody Allen. I know who I would like to take on, even if I am Mike Tyson.

All the best

Andreas

[IDILIX]

Thanx Kwayzdog... can help if u want me to.

bw. please try to include more realistic setups for the missions and sides...

Hordlund : why do you think the what IF scenario I suggested is 'interesting'. It sure can happen. We (Turkey) have been threatened more than once by that duo.

[kipanderson]

Hi,

The new campaign system does sound good. Greater context for the battles you fight must be the aim of any campaign system. Also, the single player game did need attention if it was to be a made an experience to come close to human v human.

Two quick questions on “future” campaigns.

1) In a feature release is it likely to be possible to build, edit campaigns?

2) In a future release will it be possible to play campaign battles human v human? By this I mean more the individual battles within the campaign than the entire campaign. I understand that games/scenarios can sometimes be a bit slow for one side. However, I and those I play against are in fact quite happy with slow, but tense/challenging scenarios in which not much may be happening at any particular point in time.

As others have alluded to it is important to remember that with a contemporary setting being done first, it means we get live team play, Cooperative play, in the NWE game as this is scheduled to be the main add-on feature for the second version of CMX2.

Additionally, the Eastern Front version of CMX2 will be along at a time when CMX2 has been truly perfected and the hardware has moved on a fair bit. Both very good things for those like me who rather unimaginatively regard the Eastern Front as “the” setting for wargames. No doubt to be the third or fourth game in the series.

All the best,

Kip.

[Hortlund]

Originally posted by retkit:

Hordlund : why do you think the what IF scenario I suggested is 'interesting'. It sure can happen. We (Turkey) have been threatened more than once by that duo.

I dont think that what if scenario is particularily interesting. I find it completely ridiculous to be honest. BUT leaving that aside...it is outside the scope of CM:SF which is about company/batallion level combat in Syria in 2007.

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

[IDILIX]

Well,as a Turk I believe it was a fairly realistic scenario for the last 550 years. I agree that they are not v. good these days but if you are the sort of persone who plays minors in CMBB u might get a lot of scenarios.

[cassh]

Contemporary setting with emphasis on MOUT/FIBUA and night ops - this is excellent news - hats off for thinking outside the box.

I thought with all the talk of building detail - even mouse-holing that it was certainly going to be a MOUT environment - but I had my money on Stalingrad for WWII and possible Hue City and the Tet Offensive for the non-WWII setting.

Anyway brilliant setting - couldn't be happier with it. Will allow one to try out a host of alternative tactics not used in current doctrine and see how they stack-up against the orthodox.

Just some questions occur to me regarding CMSF:-

1. Will infantry have thermobaric weapon systems such as the M141 and SHMEL?

2. Will white phosphorus grenades be available? Reason asked is their role in gloves-off MOUT, and potential complexity in modelling [fire, heat-sig, smoke]

3. Can you tell us anything about how fire and combustible materials are handled/modelled? i.e. could a small house fire turn into a major street fire that inhibits LOS / movement.

4. Will MOUT TOE include scaling ladders, climbing ropes, breaching and frame charges?

5. How detailed/abstracted will combat engineering, mining, booby-traps and IED be modelled?

6. Will reconnaissance assets such as UAVs be available to recce/spot for arty?

7. Will on-board/off-board counter mortar/counter battery radar and fire be available.

8. MOUT battles mean high ammo expenditure - will either the MOUT TOE reflect higher ammo levels or will ammo replenishment be possible.

9. Given US doctrine of never leaving anyone behind and their emphasis on Medivac will casualty evacuation play any role in victory conditions?

10. You mentioned there are no civilians, however can you clarify that their presence is somehow modelled. It occurs one needs 'no-go' high collateral-risk that are reflected in the ROE setting? Otherwise how do you prevent player just flattening an area using all the firepower at their disposal? Any fool can get an FAC to drop a 2000lb JDAM on a target - but it's a bit more involved tactically if the target is danger close to potential populated buildings. In this way you can ensure an infantry/ground attack is required rather than using just ranged weapon systems and airpower.

11. What level of modelling is there for command and control? Clearly the US C4I should mean greater situational awareness - but could electronic warfare enter the game - for example deliberate jamming/disruption of GPS signal - as many junior leader own SPS civil GPS rather than PPS military GPS units this could play a factor in a complex MOUT battle. Either way, GPS jamming is highly feasible from an organised military defence.

I'll stop there as I don't want to get into asking about too much minutiae, but rather want to get a feel for the level of modelling.

I think this title will sell very well. I for one am a certainty as a customer. I think it has the potential to raise the benchmark to heights not seem before in computer war gaming - well done.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by retkit:

Thanx Kwayzdog... can help if u want me to.

bw. please try to include more realistic setups for the missions and sides...

Hordlund : why do you think the what IF scenario I suggested is 'interesting'. It sure can happen. We (Turkey) have been threatened more than once by that duo.

Most folks here might "think" they know where Syria is but just in case....

here is a map

from here:

CIA world fact book page on Syria

Just in case you are interested..

More

Military Syria

Military branches:

Syrian Arab Army, Syrian Arab Navy, Syrian Arab Air Force (includes Air Defense Command), Police and Security Force

Military manpower - military age and obligation:

18 years of age for compulsory military service; conscript service obligation - 30 months (2004)

Military manpower - availability:

males age 18-49: 4,356,413 (2005 est.)

Military manpower - fit for military service:

males age 18-49: 3,453,888 (2005 est.)

Military manpower - reaching military age annually:

males: 225,113 (2005 est.)

Military expenditures - dollar figure:

$858 million (FY00 est.); note - based on official budget data that may understate actual spending

Military expenditures - percent of GDP:

5.9% (FY00)

Transnational Issues Syria

Disputes - international:

Golan Heights is Israeli-occupied with the almost 1,000-strong UN Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF) patrolling a buffer zone since 1964; Lebanon claims Shaba'a farms in Golan Heights; international pressure prompts the removal of Syrian troops and intelligence personel stationed in Lebanon since October 1976; Syria protests Turkish hydrological projects regulating upper Euphrates waters; 2004 Agreement and pending demarcation settles border dispute with Jordan

Refugees and internally displaced persons:

refugees (country of origin): 413,827 (Palestinian Refugees (UNRWA))

IDPs: 170,000 (most displaced from Golan Heights during 1967 Arab-Israeli War) (2004)

Illicit drugs:

a transit point for opiates and hashish bound for regional and Western markets; weak anti-money-laundering controls, bank privatization may leave it vulnerable to money-laundering

MILITARY FORCES (Total Active Equipment Inventory, including some items in storage)

Source: Adapted by Anthony H. Cordesman, CIA World Factbook, 1996 and IISS, Military Balance, 1996-1997.

-tom w

[ October 09, 2005, 05:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[flamingknives]

For reasons unknown, I always get Syria and Jordan mixed up.

[Bil Hardenberger]

I hope my tardiness in checking the forum won't keep my questions from being answered...

First up, this setting (which I thoroughly approve of BTW) sounds like it was dictated by the US Army for future training..

..being "near future" will you include the FCS?

..will you include older equipment (like the M-60 and M-48?).. some of these are used by potential NATO allies.

..how much Russian kit will be included? If so, will you include older Soviet equipment also, or are you going to concentrate on only the best, more capable stuff?

..how "future" will it be? I would like to see equipment used by the participants in the first Gulf War included... for obvious reasons.

..although the models in the screen shots do look pretty good... the rendering doesn't look that much better than CMX1. I understand these are Alpha screen shots, but I was expecting a better look to be honest. Anything more recent you can share?

..with radio comms being simulated will you also simulate Electronic warfare? Including jamming and interception.

More later I'm sure...

I'm really looking forward to this one.. still waiting for my early war game though

Bil

[Vanir Ausf B]

The game is set in 2007 so I would not expect to see FCS.

[Emar]

The more I look at it the game does have some good possibilities. But I cant help wonder with a modern setting like this one that points brought up in the earlier casulty thread might not be even more valid. Realisticaly if things started to go bad in a battle or patrol in modern warfare the focus would most likely shift from the initial objective to the removal of wounded(and if possible dead comrades) from harms way, and typically a good deal of the resources and manpower available to the Allied forces would be diverted to that end(would think it could allow for some unrealistic and gamey tactics if not made a factor in the game). Will this be simulated at all either by victory point incentives, abstactions, or some other means?

[Sgt Joch]

I also have questions about CMSF:

1. will helicopters, like Apache's, actually appear on board or will they be off screen;

2. regarding airplanes:

- will we see them carrying out strikes or will it be abstracted as in CM1;

- what about SAM's? how will that be handled?

3. will tactical doctrine be implemented. In 1973, Syrian armour closely followed Soviet doctrine and fought with their tanks buttoned up. This put them at a disadvantage against the IDF which fought opened up, will this be modeled?

4. What about the desert? presumably, the U.S. forces will be coming from Iraq. Will the environmental charcteristics of the desert be realistically handled, i.e heat haze, sand storms,etc.

5. what about the Syrians? why not have a campaign from the Syrian side? I would like to be able to play a Syrian general to see if I could hold off the U.S. forces.

[hoolaman]

Good question about casualties Emar.

On reflection I am basically withholding judgement until the real announcement in a week (hopefully it really is only a week) when the website is up, the are more than two screenshots, and we can see the real scope of the game.

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

(ex: we aren't simulating the handful of BMP-3s they acquired)

awh, CMSF sound very good, but BMP-3s would make it super.

[mazex]

OK, add me to the disappointed side...

As stated here before, you could set up interesting scenarios if they are small enough, just like you can make an interesting "King Tiger vs. Sherman company" scenario (but one is enough!). In the case of US vs. Syria it's not just the tanks though. Every part of the US equipment is so much better which was not the case in WWII where some "Monster tanks/Über planes" could be extremely successful on the battlefield, but most of the other equipment was rather equal.

This is one thing, but my main concern is the psychological/motivational part of it, which is supposed to be much more in focus in the new engine.

How motivated are 20 year old kids from the west to sacrifice their lives in an all out "assault" attack over a plaza in Syria when momentarily at bad odds? "Let's wait until the F16:s/Apaches/whatever level that damn police station with fantaic militia before risking our butts here ("what was the name of this damn country btw?")". That's at least what I would think! Why where the US/UK soldier losses so relatively low? In no way I want to be disrespectful to those who died over there but it is a fact that the number of lost allied lives in both the gulf wars could be compared to one of the "nothing new on the east front" days of WWII.

How motivated are 20 year old kids in the regular syrian army to fight to the last man when facing a company of M1A2:s in a no-name village in the syrian coutryside? I guess very few middle east average soldiers are the fanatics described in media that will fight on until the last man falls. Before the last gulf war a lot of people where discussing that the guards units of Iraq whould never surrender - but what happened? A few units and religios fanatics kept on fighting but the majority raised the white flag without too many DU shells beeing fired at their rusty T-72:s.

Compare the motivational factors to that of Stalingrad, no one knew who would win the war and the whole world held it's breath. Who would hold their breath accept the poor soldiers in line if the US invaded Syria? It'll be over in a week or two...

I will probably buy it anyway... / Mazex