An example of Artillery in Action

[Scipio]

How destructable are the buildings? Can buildings be destroyed piece by piece?

Would be to nice to see some screenshots of the terraine after the artillery...

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

On no direct fired artillery, does that include things like the D-30 122mm.

Peter.

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

Steve,

On no direct fired artillery, does that include things like the D-30 122mm.

Peter.

... And the 300-odd old 85mm and 100mm AT guns that still show up on the Syrian TO&E?

Such weapons would obviously be of limited use (and life expectancy!) on the modern battlefield, but I could see how the occasional very well-hidden AT gun might escape notice of US recon, and get a few shots off, possibly KOing a Stryker, or even an Abrams if it gets a flank shot. . .

Oh, yeah, and on the subject of 122mm D-30s: I seem to receall that in OIF, there was pretty strong evidence (in the form of prepared gun revetments and abandoned guns) that the Iraqi army dug in D-30s along the approaches to Baghdad in positions that were pretty clearly intended to be employed as DF. But they never fired a shot, because the Iraqi Army abandoned any positions that weren't taken out by airstrikes before the US ground forces ever got there.

So I think the idea of using field artillery in DF is out there. With a more motivated defending force, and more attention to concealment than what the Iraqis did in OIF, I could see advancing US columns encountering 122mms and similar.

But I could live without this for the initial release of CM:SF. . . 'twould be a much desired add-on for one of the modules, tho.

[ December 10, 2006, 11:49 AM: Message edited by: YankeeDog ]

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting GMLRS info. We'll have to look into that more!

Glad to see the Vatican finally getting on the ball. Thanks for the link Parabellum

Buildings are deformable by wall and floor. We have primative structural integrity modeling where a certain amount of damage will cause a collapse, but it's not as sophisticated as any of us would like. Also, the graphics at the moment aren't as pretty as I hope we can make them.

Currently we are not planning on putting in AT guns for the Syrians. It involves a whole bunch of unique coding and animations and we don't feel the urge to do that for what I think we all can see is something that would be found performing a useful roll on the battlefield only infrequently. In a perfect world we'd have it in, but at the moment we don't feel we can do it. Obviously for WWII we will have to add this capability so hopefully we can piggyback the Syrian AT guns on that effort for a future Module.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Thanks for the info, Steve.

While I think AT and Field Guns in DF mode would be a very nice addition to CM:SF, at this point, I'd rather see the game without them, than additional weeks/months delay to get them into the initial release.

But if it's possible to add them to CM:SF, after you've developed the on-map gun modelling for CMX2:WWII, that would be a great thing.

Cheers,

YD

[Peter Cairns]

The problem with omitting DF artillery is that what I want to see is a game that simulates middle east warfare over the next five years.

If we look at the last five years, then crew served weapons be they HMG's, Mortars, RPG's, RR's or light artillery have been of far more use to the defenders, (Iraqi's, Taleban, Hezbullah) than the attackers.

It's hardly going to help the game balance, if you omit things like the D-30 that can be of real use to a static defender faced with a more advanced more mobile attacker, and concentrate on things like the T-72 and BMP, that won't last five minutes if they are used in the open.

If we are, and I think realistically we most, looking at asymmetric warfare then lets have asymmetric forces, it's going to be hard enough for the Syrians as it is without depriving them of some of the potentially most useful weapons.

D-30's for DF will be more useful and effective than IF, and the thing was designed with a 360deg swivel in part for that reason.

Okay it might slow the game release, but hell you can get it out faster if you don't arm the Syrians at all, it just won't be much of a game.

So what exactly are the issues that make DF artillery more difficult that a crew served HMG or a tank gun.

If both sides relied on them equally I wouldn't be so bothered, but most of the US medium and heavy direct fire support is mounted while the Syrians would be far more reliant on ground based crew served stuff.

Peter.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

I'm rather surprised that neither Syrian ATGs nor artillery in the DF role are presently planned for inclusion. Were I defending the country against a U.S. attack, you'd better believe I'd have such weapons fully integrated into my defensive scheme!

I join Peter Cairns in asking the reason for their present apparent exclusion.

Regards,

John Kettler

[ December 12, 2006, 03:11 AM: Message edited by: John Kettler ]

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Uhm, re-read Steve's last post?

[c3k]

BF.C,

Looks great!

Thanks,

Ken

[undead reindeer cavalry]

Originally posted by Peter Cairns:

It's hardly going to help the game balance, if you omit things like the D-30 that can be of real use to a static defender faced with a more advanced more mobile attacker, and concentrate on things like the T-72 and BMP, that won't last five minutes if they are used in the open.

i fail to see how a D-30 could possibly survive longer than a T-72. D-30 has zero chances for changing firing positions and even light fire will take it out of action. it's also a lot harder to dig it in for good ambush positions, where as a T-72 you can just drive in.

[Sequoia]

Yes, this piggy-backing will work out well. I hope CMSF sells well enough for us to get all these goodies in future modules. Speaking of piggy-backing, it is my goofy hope that BFC does a pre-twentieth century game before it does East Front WWII so we can get cavalry in the USSR. Yes horses! and motorcycles!

[Fly Pusher]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

Yes horses! and motorcycles!

And Bren tripods !

[undead reindeer cavalry]

all the work for CMx2 is wasted and for nothing if we can't see in detail how Finnish soldiers use logs to make Soviet tanks throw tracks.

[Battlefront.com]

I posted this in the wrong thread at first, so here it is in the correct thread

Peter,

It's hardly going to help the game balance, if you omit things like the D-30 that can be of real use to a static defender faced with a more advanced more mobile attacker, and concentrate on things like the T-72 and BMP, that won't last five minutes if they are used in the open.

And how long would you expect a D-30 to last out in the open (because that is where it would have to be)? 1 minute? Unlike a T-72 or a BMP, pretty much anything can take out a D-30. Unlike a T-72 or a BMP a D-30 has to fight and die wherever it was set up; no chance of redeployment, ducking out of LOF, etc. Unlike a T-72 or a BMP, the D-30s primary role is to be out of harm's way.

If we are, and I think realistically we most, looking at asymmetric warfare then lets have asymmetric forces, it's going to be hard enough for the Syrians as it is without depriving them of some of the potentially most useful weapons.

What makes you think they are useful? In fact, I think they are largely USELESS. I've seen no evidence that they are. Are there any direct fire examples in Iraq you can draw my attention to? I'd need to see more than one to even consider your argument valid, that's for sure.

As for ATGs, they are also useless on the modern battlefield, not "useful". Why do you think nobody has ATGs in their frontline inventories? The only ones that still have them, and in extremely small quantities I might add, are reserve troops. These are the least likely to stay and fight, as the example cited above on the outskirts of Baghdad proved.

Weapons that are not readily portable and concealable are a net negative for an asymetric force, therefore it defies logic to suggest that not including them somehow hinders such a force. They would never use them in the first place, so not including them means nothing.

Okay it might slow the game release, but hell you can get it out faster if you don't arm the Syrians at all, it just won't be much of a game.

The Baby With The Bathwater line of argument doesn't impress me. If we had to hold the game up for every little thing, meaningful or not, we'd be looking at a 2008 release. Also keep in mind we've said from the very start that we aren't including the kitchen sink in any game we ever do in the future. If you think you've got issues with CM:SF's first release, wait until you see how much stuff we aren't going to include in the first release of CM:WW2

So what exactly are the issues that make DF artillery more difficult that a crew served HMG or a tank gun.

We aren't including ATGs either, in case you missed that These things require a lot of work to get working and, unlike a HMG, they should be seen on the battlefield only under exceptionally rare circumstances. And when they do show up they would likely do nothing meaningful. Not so with a HMG, so that's your answer. We've have no interest in spending inordinate amounts of time on things that don't warrant such attention.

If both sides relied on them equally I wouldn't be so bothered, but most of the US medium and heavy direct fire support is mounted while the Syrians would be far more reliant on ground based crew served stuff.

Which has zero relevance since both are simulated offmap since that is the only place they should be.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

This is from Peter Cairns. It was originally posted in the wrong thread thanks to me posting the above to the same wrong thread. My bad!

-------

Steve,

And how long would you expect a D-30 to last out in the open (because that is where it would have to be)?

Are you nuts, thats the last thing you do with them, you've undoubtedly played more games of CM than I have, but I rarely if ever put or saw ATG's set up in the open.

They were always most effective if hidden as long as possible and positioned on the flanks, covering chock points to get side shots.

Sure if you had 88's and their were poorly crewed T-34's coming down an open road a km or two away you would do it ( if you were pretty sure they had no air support and a very long artillery delay), but if you were British Paras and were expecting Tigers or god forbid a Stuka or two, there is no way you would place your couple of six pounders in the open and try to take the Tigers head on.

It's all very well to say no BMP3's or T-90's because they have hardly any or none at all, but once you start ruling out major parts of the Syrian inventory because that's not how you think they would be used, then you are effectively telling people how they have to fight.

Why not go the whole way and lock the game AI v AI, that way you can make sure veryone fights the way you think they should.

Why do you think nobody has ATGs in their frontline inventories?

Lots of people do, most of Africa and still a fair bit of Asia. The US and Western Europe don't, because they can afford better and emphasis mobile warfare.

Even if they are'nt in the front line, they will still be pressed in to service in an emergency, like I don't know, say YOUR COUNTRY BEING INVADED.

These are the least likely to stay and fight, as the example cited above on the outskirts of Baghdad proved.

Well if second line forces won't stay and fight, why not leave them out as well, after all if they're going to run away they will be as rare as D-30's.

Come to think of it as thats what happened in Baghdad, you can get around your problems with building damage not being as good as you expected.

Just leave buildings out as well, that way you can save a lot of time and you don't have to worry about light ATG's covering crossroads from limited arc positions which don't allow the rest of the Stryker force to bring their firepower to bare, and that are difficult to spot from the air.

Of course you might have to change the mast head from Shock Force with a Syrian and an American, to "Turkey Shoot" with too plump birds....

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

Are you nuts, thats the last thing you do with them, you've undoubtedly played more games of CM than I have, but I rarely if ever put or saw ATG's set up in the open.

You were talking about artillery, and that's a non-starter. Even in WWII, with tens of thousands of artillery pieces capable of direct fire, from far better variety of terrain options, very few were ever fired directly. The heaviest piece of artillery in CMx1 was a 105mm pack Howitzer. The others were Infantry Guns, which are an entirely different beast. So I have no idea why it is you think we should be putting in even larger field artillery pieces into CM:SF. On what grounds do you suggest that this is a problem?

As for ATGs, the Syrians have very few in service. They've instead concentrated on using dug in outdated tanks for the AT role since they are more practical. We are including these. More on this as we go...

It's all very well to say no BMP3's or T-90's because they have hardly any or none at all, but once you start ruling out major parts of the Syrian inventory because that's not how you think they would be used, then you are effectively telling people how they have to fight.

Sure, we did that with CMx1 games as well. We've never, ever given people every possible tactical tool that was available, such as the Bovine MG-42 Sponge. In fact we have tried VERY hard to remove, restrict, or otherwise discourage anything that would yield a distorted view of tactical combat in that particular setting. The list of stuff we didn't include in CMx1 games is about as long as the list of stuff we did include. The infamous Bren Tripod leading the pact. Sorry if you don't like this, but we are at least consistent.

Why not go the whole way and lock the game AI v AI, that way you can make sure veryone fights the way you think they should.

You're serious, aren't you? That's sad. Talk about strawman thinking.

Lots of people do, most of Africa and still a fair bit of Asia. The US and Western Europe don't, because they can afford better and emphasis mobile warfare.

Correct, they have them only because they can't afford something useful, not because these things are useful.

Even if they are'nt in the front line, they will still be pressed in to service in an emergency, like I don't know, say YOUR COUNTRY BEING INVADED.

I'm sure they would be pressed into service, just as the Germans used WWI museum pieces in Normandy to oppose the Allies. But we didn't include them if you hadn't noticed, nor did we include a half dozen other vehicles (Allied an German) that weren't appropriate.

Well if second line forces won't stay and fight, why not leave them out as well, after all if they're going to run away they will be as rare as D-30's.

Come to think of it as thats what happened in Baghdad, you can get around your problems with building damage not being as good as you expected.

Just leave buildings out as well, that way you can save a lot of time and you don't have to worry about light ATG's covering crossroads from limited arc positions which don't allow the rest of the Stryker force to bring their firepower to bare, and that are difficult to spot from the air.

Of course you might have to change the mast head from Shock Force with a Syrian and an American, to "Turkey Shoot" with too plump birds....

I'm not even going to dignify this bunch of horsecrap with an answer. You're clearly being irrational to the extreme, so there is no way I can respond anyway.

Steve

[Nidan1]

I'm confused, who is quoting whom above?

Steve, I think you are being more than generous just responding to some of the things that Peter is saying. Give us more screen shots and in game examples dont waste good forum space responding to dopey comments.

[LGMB]

As for ATGs, the Syrians have very few in service. They've instead concentrated on using dug in outdated tanks for the AT role since they are more practical. We are including these. More on this as we go...

Hmm... there's something grating about this. Dug in tanks would be far more vulnerable then mobile light anti-tank pieces, especially against an American opponent who can waste your desert-heated immobile tank from the air via infra-red. Of course, this isn't a defense for not including ATGs given that pretty much any land-based target (down to machine-gun nests and such, naturally) is vulnerable to precision air-strike in this day and age.

I think Steve's point, over all, is that CMSF will mostly feature localized flash-point maps, where urban combat and close action will negate American technological superiority to a degree. Thus, it would be highly unlikely to see ranged ATG duels with American tanks, since the game itself is geared away from that very principle (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). The only times we'd see ATGs used in that role, anyway, would be specific settings where the Syrians are ambushing, from disguised positions, and the Americans can't simply withdraw and call in the artillery- which I imagine is what they do if encountering such resistance.

Given that, I can understand dropping ATGs. However, I *would* have liked to see them in game, for the purpose of using the simulation to experiment with ATGs vs RPGs and such in urban combat. Ala Beruit and the apartment building mounted howitzer and such.

Anyway, what kinds of artillery pieces will be in, for the Syrians? Flak Guns? Because, if so, we could certainly use those to sub for ATGs.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Lord General MB:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />As for ATGs, the Syrians have very few in service. They've instead concentrated on using dug in outdated tanks for the AT role since they are more practical. We are including these. More on this as we go...

Hmm... there's something grating about this. Dug in tanks would be far more vulnerable then mobile light anti-tank pieces, especially against an American opponent who can waste your desert-heated immobile tank from the air via infra-red. Of course, this isn't a defense for not including ATGs given that pretty much any land-based target (down to machine-gun nests and such, naturally) is vulnerable to precision air-strike in this day and age.

I think Steve's point, over all, is that CMSF will mostly feature localized flash-point maps, where urban combat and close action will negate American technological superiority to a degree. Thus, it would be highly unlikely to see ranged ATG duels with American tanks, since the game itself is geared away from that very principle (correct me if I'm wrong, of course). The only times we'd see ATGs used in that role, anyway, would be specific settings where the Syrians are ambushing, from disguised positions, and the Americans can't simply withdraw and call in the artillery- which I imagine is what they do if encountering such resistance.

Given that, I can understand dropping ATGs. However, I *would* have liked to see them in game, for the purpose of using the simulation to experiment with ATGs vs RPGs and such in urban combat. Ala Beruit and the apartment building mounted howitzer and such.

Anyway, what kinds of artillery pieces will be in, for the Syrians? Flak Guns? Because, if so, we could certainly use those to sub for ATGs. </font>

[LGMB]

A 100mm Soviet ATG is not the least bit mobile.

It requirs hours of set up time from a prepared posistion.

I meant far lighter calibers then 105s. More like 37s or 20s for hitting Humvees and such.

[rudel.dietrich]

Originally posted by Lord General MB:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />A 100mm Soviet ATG is not the least bit mobile.

It requirs hours of set up time from a prepared posistion.

I meant far lighter calibers then 105s. More like 37s or 20s for hitting Humvees and such. </font>

[LGMB]

Im not entirely sure if modern AA guns are good for that role.

And you still have the same problems as ATG

Even a twin barreled ZU-23 23mm system is far from mobile.

And it would be quite wasteful to use your SP AA guns in a ground attack role and this lose them to combat.

Again, I'm talking about experimenting with the game system, right- so, I'd like to see how the AA would develop in, say, an urban environment against a Stryker attack, or something. Not that you'd want to do this is actual combat, but it'd be interesting to see at any rate. As for their effectiveness against armor- I honestly don't know the stats, but, I mean, a 1.5 kg shell moving 1k a second has got to a stunning thing to encounter, even in an uparmoured Humvee, or a Stryker.

You don't think they'd be effective, at all? Again, excuse my ignorance of reactive armor and all those latest do-dads...

If you are talking ATGs then those do not exsist any longer.

85mm is as small as they get these days and those are so horribly outdated as to make their use suicidal.

Well, solves that problem

[Sequoia]

Now wait, Steve did not say there is no chance of there ever being AT guns in CMSF he said:

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Obviously for WWII we will have to add this capability so hopefully we can piggyback the Syrian AT guns on that effort for a future Module.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

From our perspective, if the 100mm ATG is really only good for launching ATGMs, then there is no point in having it. We already have ATGM teams Sure, sure... I know there are differences, but we have to be realistic about what we can get into the game in a reasonable amonut of time. We're already a year into overtime.

It's been asked why heavy crew served weapons are such a hassle for us. Well, most have a crew of at least 5. That means we have to come up with 5 sets of animations that are not needed anywhere else. Worse, it is doubtful that we can use the same ones from one weapon to another. Therefore, we don't get any economy for putting more in, we get the opposite.

Compare this with ATGM and HMG teams. There aren't much in the way of differences between them and they generally only have crews of 2. So making two animation sets that can pretty much cover 5 or so weapons is sensible. Plus, we *have* to put in ATGMS since they are in the thousands and (unlike direct fire artillery and ATGMs) extremely useful.

So... why should we put in so much extra effort for something that pretty much has no place being in the game at all except for the occasional "I want to see what 1940s technology can do to 2000s technology" curiosity. It's simply not worth it for the first release and is probably only worth it in a Module if we can piggyback it on stuff we are already doing for WWII. As I've said above, we've got no choice but to put ATGs into WWII.

Steve

[LGMB]

So... why should we put in so much extra effort for something that pretty much has no place being in the game at all except for the occasional "I want to see what 1940s technology can do to 2000s technology" curiosity

Totally acknowledged. Indeed, I thought, by ATGs we were talking about smaller caliber weapons- as I noted above- basically flak guns.

I imagine AA will be in the game, so, I've got no problem with dropping heavier caliber ATGs.