New Screen shots posted on the Blog by Moon

[hellfish]

What would entail "fully simulating" mech infantry? Aside from the Bradley and lack of a weapons squad, theres not a whole lotta difference at the platoon level. Still have three 9-man dismount squads.

[Battlefront.com]

What I meant is we aren't pulling out all the stops for Mech Inf by including supporting units, such as armored engineers, AA defenses, etc. Some of these things aren't being fully supported for Stryker Brigades either, BTW. Instead we're concentrating on the Mech Inf's main combat elements. This probably will include Recon and Engineers (dismounted).

Steve

[M1A1TC]

How about Avengers or Stinger teams? Those are usually attached to front line troops ( One of my 3 MOS is ADA(14S), other 2 being MP(31B) and Armor(19K20). Army trained me as a multitasking soldier

[Imperial Grunt]

Although US Army mech infantry squads have the standard 9, I heard they have a odd way of mounting them in Bradleys due to limited space, especially when you throw in all the extra stuff.

And the 11M motto is "Death before Dismount!" Just kidding. Actually I don't think the Army makes a distinction between light and mech infantry MOS's now.

[Battlefront.com]

No treatment of AA defenses directly for either side. The battlefield is too small to adequately simulate these weapons. Think about it... who would be most likely to take down or significantly hinder an aircraft? The ones being shot at or the ones that were flown over on the way to the target? The latter, for sure, so we simulate air interdiction abstractly. Plus, the Red Force will never have air support, so what's the point of moving around dedicated anti-air assets if you are the Blue side?

Yes, the Bradleys have to crossload guys and that means special drills for mounting and dismounting. We decided 2 years ago to not simulate this directly since it would require special case programming and user interface *just* for this one thing. Not worth it. Instead we're going to whack the Bradley based infantry with some penalties when they dismount. They'll initially be suppressed to a small degree, thus simulating there need to organize (i.e. recover the suppression) before they can be totally ready to fight.

Oh, and we're giving most mounted troops a "readiness" penality due to the rough ride they get while mounted. It won't be big for Bradley guys, but BMP/BTR guys will get a significant one. Stryker guys won't get any.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Will the "Roughness" penalty be scenario variable, due to length of time in vehicle or terrain or would that be covered by "fatigue".

Oh and does that mean that a squad exiting a Stryker after an hour will have the same readiness as a squad already deployed?

I,d expect there to be some difference between the two even if they were arriving by limo.

Peter.

[ December 13, 2006, 04:50 AM: Message edited by: Peter Cairns ]

[flamingknives]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No treatment of AA defenses directly for either side. The battlefield is too small to adequately simulate these weapons. Think about it... who would be most likely to take down or significantly hinder an aircraft? The ones being shot at or the ones that were flown over on the way to the target? The latter, for sure, so we simulate air interdiction abstractly. Plus, the Red Force will never have air support, so what's the point of moving around dedicated anti-air assets if you are the Blue side?

Because things like the Avenger have a .50 cal MG and thermal sights.

Linky

Or things like the British Starstreak or the ADATS in Canadian service are dual-role and can be used against ground targets.

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Although I know time and resources are tight, might there still not be an argument for having things like SA-7's in the game, as "Eye Candy", with a few Syrians carrying them, and letting them off, rather than actually being deployed as a weapon.

Graphically how different are they from RPG's, although I suppose you can make them same argument for cooks etc, and in some respects it mirrors the CMx1 horses debate, "Yes they were their, but the didn't have a direct effect on combat".

Still, I think a guy with a Strella would be a lot less difficult than a Clydesdale". I take it we're not getting goats either.

Peter.

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

Although US Army mech infantry squads have the standard 9, I heard they have a odd way of mounting them in Bradleys due to limited space, especially when you throw in all the extra stuff.

And the 11M motto is "Death before Dismount!" Just kidding. Actually I don't think the Army makes a distinction between light and mech infantry MOS's now.

Yeah, the ODS Brads carry 7 dismounts each. I think the extra seat in the platoon is used for the medic?

[dalem]

Gee, American armored infantry getting hit with corner-cutting abstrations? Seems some things are constant throughout all versions of CM, eh?

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

In theory we would like the penalty to be variable depending on the time in the vehicle, but there is no way for us to gauge this easily. The scenarios starts out... how long have the guys in vehicle 1 been in there? 1 second, 1 minute, 1 hour? How about vehicle 2? There's just no way to do this cleanly, so we have to just assign a reasonable value and keep it at that.

Within a scenario, however, we can do things differently (I hope!). Current plan is to reduce Fatigue recovery for units buttoned up in armored vehicles. Hopefully this will get in.

As for eye candy... yup, it sure would be neat to have a SA-7 firing, even though we are showing no aircraft at all. But eyecandy comes at a cost. Right now there is ZERO code to support aiming and firing at an abstract, offmap object. Everything is based on firing at onmap stuff. So it isn't just an animation that would be needed, but an entire abstract targeting system. No reason for that other than eyecandy, so its not going in.

flamingknives,

My point is that the Avenger is not likely going to be 1 block away from ground combat, except for bad luck situations. Any commander that had to call in an Avenger to help out would probably already have lost the battle so I don't think this is anything that we should worry about. Same for the Brit and Canadian systems, unless of course they are routinely used for their ground role because their anti-air role is a non-issue. Although, I would expect that during a full on conventional confrontation such assets would not be thrown into the ground role because who knows... maybe the Syrians manage to get a single HIND through the aircap somehow.

Dalem,

Like CMx1, there are shortcuts all over the place. If we didn't do shortcuts, we'd still be working on CMBO for a 2026 projected release date

Steve

[hellfish]

Will the readiness penalty apply to individual units based on what vehicle they were transported in? I.e. all other things being equal, will one Syrian squad suffer the same penalty getting out of a Ural truck as it would a BMP?

Also, what about Syrian ADA? Most Sovbloc AAA (ZU-23, ZPU, ZSU-23-4, ZSU-57-2) have records of being used very extensively in ground combat roles. If they aren't in the initial release, might they make it into a module?

[Battlefront.com]

The penalty will be vehicle type specific.

Self propelled AAA will likely be in a Module. I know they have been used in the ground role, but you have to look at how they were used. Likely they were used by the superior conventional force only in a situation where they didn't have to fear giving away their position to highly responsive air and artillery. When you've got the upper hand and/or the time, a lot of things become more practical. We don't expect that the Syrians would have this luxury very often, if at all. Which is exactly why we have to simulate asymmetric warfare... that's their ace in the hole, so to speak.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Dalem,

Like CMx1, there are shortcuts all over the place. If we didn't do shortcuts, we'd still be working on CMBO for a 2026 projected release date

Steve

Oh I understand, I just couldn't resist an easy dig. I'm actually not bothered because the theater concept of SF doesn't interest me, but I am eager to get my hands on the map editor in anticipation of a WWII version. Of course, if at that future point the U.S. OB is still shortchanged I'll have to whine again.

-dale

[Battlefront.com]

The biggest problem with US TO&E in CMx1, IMHO, was the Bazooka teams. The US got quite a manpower boost and extra tactical flexibility because we weren't able to have a Squad use a heavy weapon like that, which is in fact how it worked in real life. We also couldn't have a unit "pick up" something from a vehicle in which it was normally stored. Both problems have been fixed in CM:SF, so even if we changed nothing else related to US TO&E (and we can, no problem) this major, necessary error of CMx1 has been removed.

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

The biggest problem with US TO&E in CMx1, IMHO, was the Bazooka teams. The US got quite a manpower boost and extra tactical flexibility because we weren't able to have a Squad use a heavy weapon like that, which is in fact how it worked in real life. We also couldn't have a unit "pick up" something from a vehicle in which it was normally stored. Both problems have been fixed in CM:SF, so even if we changed nothing else related to US TO&E (and we can, no problem) this major, necessary error of CMx1 has been removed.

Steve

Sure, and we've already hashed that out back in the day. I'm also concerned with how few unit options and variations were given for the U.S. as opposed to anyone else (no Mech Cav units, no dismounted Armored inf option, etc.). But that's a discussion for another day and forum I'm sure.

Now here's a SF-relevant question: will units be able to dismount vehicle-mounted MGs for ground use? Is the engine capable of doing that in general?

-dale

[c3k]

Hmmm,

Fatigue penalty for transport. It sounds good, but I'd think there should be several variables which would play into the level of fatigue.

- How "buttoned up" are you? A unit which can see out the top of an APC will be less prone to motion sickness.

- How fast is the APC moving? A slow crawl by the transport vehicle should be far less enervating than a long-term, high-speed run.

- How rough is the terrain? Highway is easy; cross country can be very hard.

- As mentioned, some vehicles are worse than others.

Just my two cents being thown into the wishing well.

Carry on,

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

Dale,

I'm also concerned with how few unit options and variations were given for the U.S. as opposed to anyone else (no Mech Cav units, no dismounted Armored inf option, etc.).

In general it was because there was little to no difference between these formations, compared with the Germans and Soviets that had extremely different low level units from formation to formation. This was not by accident. The US forces deliberately tried to standardize everything while the Germans standardized things differently every few months. On top of that, reality dicatated that often times they weren't able to. Same for the Soviets.

So on that count, if we redo CMBO's scope and timeframe all over again with CMx1, the US forces would still be vastly more simple than the Germans. Again, that is just reality. Having said that, now that we can freely mix vehicles and infantry units together in large and small formations, we can put in more US forces and options than we were able to in CMBO. The flexibility in the TO&E itself also allows us to vary weapons and what not more easily too. This means there will be more stuff for the US to choose from, but it's still going to be less than the Germans because that's the way it was in real life.

Now here's a SF-relevant question: will units be able to dismount vehicle-mounted MGs for ground use? Is the engine capable of doing that in general?

We did start out the engine to support this, but quickly found that in a tactical situation this doesn't happen. Or at least not enough to warrant putting it into the game. CM's overall philosophy is to not allow outlier possibilities to become defacto standard tactics. In other words, we don't want CM to become "gamey". Before CMBO was released the SL/ASL people screamed about this, but then realized tht in fact the lack of things like being able to set fire to anything you wanted to actually made the game more realistic. We won't deviate from this way of thinking.

Ken,

In theory this is what we are planning on doing, but it largely depends on what the coding is like. A modest, fairly brain dead, per vehicle "cost" of riding will likely be good enough and certainly better than nothing. If we can make it better than that we will.

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

What about "loading", will a BMP carrying a 3 man team still get the same penalty as one with a full squad.

Which I suppose brings us to overloading, If you lose 1 Stryker in a convoy, can you pick up the squad and crew in the other Strykers...

Do they have to ride on the top or can you squeeze another team in, and if so would "Readiness" drop for everyone....

I'd suspect the easiest answer is cramped is cramped and full is fulll, perhaps not ideal but hardly game damaging....

Peter.

[Sequoia]

Interface

Getting back to the original subject, how much of the interface at the bottom is modable? For example can we change the vehicle and aircraft images at the bottom?

[Tarkus]

Originally posted by Sequoia:

Interface

Getting back to the original subject, how much of the interface at the bottom is modable? For example can we change the vehicle and aircraft images at the bottom?

AFAIK, everything on the interface will be moddable, except, maybe, fonts, although I'm not sure about that.

As a side note about the UI, unlike some instances in CMx1, text is dynamically generated by CM. I think there are no more images files with imbeded text anywhere.

[ December 13, 2006, 08:34 PM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

[Battlefront.com]

I forgot to mention that we intend on % capacity coming into play. And yes, you can overstuff to some extent, since in real life this happens. In fact, it is standard for a Stryker Rifle Platoon since when the Medic is attached (and that is standard) they have one too many butts for the available seats.

As Tarkus says, all the UI stuff is modable. To mod the text all you have to do is redo the font BMPs that we include. Yes, there is no text embedded in any UI element at all. At least not yet, and we hope to keep it that way. Localizing graphics suuuuuuux

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

The load factor is good, but I still think I might have an issue with "readiness".

The idea itself is fine in that time in a vehicle effects the occupants and the longer and more cramped (over rough ground at speed or whatever) the more the effect.

The issue is that by "Zero" rating the Stryker, it becomes your baseline, where as I'd have thought the best base, was say an Infantry patrol that hadn't been in one.

The problem with rating something as "0"or "100%", is what do you do when something better comes long, give it "-O" or "110%", or do you setthe newcomer at "0" and recalibrate everything else.

I'd be more comfortable with some kind of penalty even if it was only 10% Stryker, 40% Bradley, 85% BMP.

That way the effect though minimal is acknowledged and you have room to manouvre if something better turns up.

In terms or "readiness " how does a Stryker compare to a Humvee, or a squad in an open vehicle. and why, as we ( and others) may be seeing readiness as slightly different things.

Peter.

[RSColonel_131st]

Question about the tank screenshots (yes, I'm being late here):

Do you guys plan to randomize skins or decals as well? Randomizing model details is a great idea that adds to belivable visuals - random vehicle numbers and tactical markings would also go a long way towards that.

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

In general it was because there was little to no difference between these formations, compared with the Germans and Soviets that had extremely different low level units from formation to formation. This was not by accident. The US forces deliberately tried to standardize everything while the Germans standardized things differently every few months. On top of that, reality dicatated that often times they weren't able to. Same for the Soviets.

So on that count, if we redo CMBO's scope and timeframe all over again with CMx1, the US forces would still be vastly more simple than the Germans. Again, that is just reality. Having said that, now that we can freely mix vehicles and infantry units together in large and small formations, we can put in more US forces and options than we were able to in CMBO. The flexibility in the TO&E itself also allows us to vary weapons and what not more easily too. This means there will be more stuff for the US to choose from, but it's still going to be less than the Germans because that's the way it was in real life.

Sure, I know all about the standardization, but my beef has always been that you missed/sacrificed the very few easy units and variations that did exist. Like I said - no way to do a mech cav unit/sub-unit without a lot of dorking around, no way to quickly do a dismounted armored infantry force without paying 8 million points for HTs every time.

Those are options that were entirely doable to a reasonable approximation in the CMx1 'verse and yet were not.

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Now here's a SF-relevant question: will units be able to dismount vehicle-mounted MGs for ground use? Is the engine capable of doing that in general?

We did start out the engine to support this, but quickly found that in a tactical situation this doesn't happen. Or at least not enough to warrant putting it into the game. CM's overall philosophy is to not allow outlier possibilities to become defacto standard tactics. In other words, we don't want CM to become "gamey". Before CMBO was released the SL/ASL people screamed about this, but then realized tht in fact the lack of things like being able to set fire to anything you wanted to actually made the game more realistic. We won't deviate from this way of thinking.</font>