New Screen shots posted on the Blog by Moon

[Dirtweasle]

As far as the readines thing goes, how does recovey from the penalty work? From what little I know and have seen it seems that whatever penalty there is the troopers ought to recover full effectiveness pretty quickly. IRL how long does it take for dismounts to form up and/or otherise be effective? A minute or so? Less / more?

[Battlefront.com]

Peter,

You're taking what I said too literally. I had no intention of doing anything more than tossing out a rougly formed bone, so take it for what it is and let us worry about the details when we get around to coding it

Dale,

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.

sigh... you did notice that you can't by German Panzergrenadiers without paying for the HTs, right? So this is not some slight on the US stuff, it is simply how we did it across the board.

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

There were lots of things that were theoretically possible that we didn't do for one reason or another. Much of it has no apparent reason to you guys but a lot of reason for us. Which is why we've spent 3 years redoing the engine

So when you get to the WWII version, German and American armored infantry squads will not be able to dismount their HT MGs (.30cals/LMG42s) and fire them from ground mounts? I'm not talking about the ASL "Scrounging" of every tank coax and BMG and the like, but a designed tactical and doctrinal feature.

Yes, we will likely support this in situations where the doctrine was established fact AND we find evidence that it was done under real combat conditions. Without both elements, we won't support it. For example...

While it is true that a German SPW251 has a mount on the back corner for the Squad's MG to be mounted for AA duty while in transit, I think it is pretty safe to say this was not done all that often nor was it done as the halftrack was driving into combat. It would be removed prior to such action so as to make sure it wouldn't be left behind if the Squad had to suddenly dismount (for one reason or another).

Therefore, as I sit here today I don't see us supporting this. Sure, there was a physical position for the MG. Sure the doctrine states that the Squad's MG would be put there for AA duty. Sure it was most likely done when moving around from one battlefield to the next. But in the context of a CM sized engagement... I find it very doubtful that any Feldwebel worth his saltz would allow one of his most critical assets to be chained to a big target like a HT.

So, it is likely that many of the situations you are picturing do indeed fall into the ASL mentality of allowing people to do things that the real world guys would never do for one reason or another. I'm not saying ALL situations, just pointing out that we're going to continue to apply our tough standards before including something.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

Dirtweasel,

As far as the readines thing goes, how does recovey from the penalty work? From what little I know and have seen it seems that whatever penalty there is the troopers ought to recover full effectiveness pretty quickly. IRL how long does it take for dismounts to form up and/or otherise be effective? A minute or so? Less / more?

Depends on the situation. Some vehicles are so bad the passengers get violently ill during the ride. I'm sure you've up chucked a few times... how long until you felt better? Now picture that in 110 degree heat

I'd say overall the effect won't be that serious nor long lived. It generally should be enough to take the edge off of the passengers for a very short period of time.

Steve

[hellfish]

So... any screenshots of the T-72 yet?

[YankeeDog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

sigh... you did notice that you can't by German Panzergrenadiers without paying for the HTs, right? So this is not some slight on the US stuff, it is simply how we did it across the board.

Er, I feel kind of wierd correcting the game developer on his own game, but I think you're mistaken here, Steve.

In many iterations and time periods of the CMx1 engine, German Panzergrenadiers are available in a "(-)" formation, which allows QB players to buy a Panzergrenadier Platoon, Company, or Battalion, without the attached 251/1 HTs.

This is generally not true of Allied, and especially US Armored infantry formations -- if you buy them in QB, you must buy their "rides" -- the associated M3 HTs.

I conjecture that the "(-)" formations were added to reflect the fact that many Panzergrenadier formations never received, or fought for extended periods of time, with very few, if any, of their paper allocation of HTs. The US Army units, in contrast, were generally lavishly equipped with vehicles.

IMHO, the problem with this approach is that especially the American M3 HT is not really a combat vehicle; it's a transport vehicle with a little bit of armor, to allow it to get troops somewhat closer to the firefight, at less risk. As such, it has a marginal use on the tactical battlefield that CM represents, and forcing players to spend points on over a dozen M3 HTs, in order to buy an armored infantry company, hd the net result that no one ever bought Armored Infantry for QBs; you might as well have just left them off the purchase list.

I would encourage you to revisit this issue when you return to WWII; as I am sure you are aware, just because it's part of the TOE does NOT necessarily mean it belongs on the tactical OOB. Otherwise, we'd have field kitchens, farriers, and quartermasters running all over the place in our CM battles. . .

Cheers,

YD

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

sigh... you did notice that you can't by German Panzergrenadiers without paying for the HTs, right? So this is not some slight on the US stuff, it is simply how we did it across the board.

No need to sigh at me Steve, I've been along for the consumer ride since near the beginning. And yeah, I can't buy dismounted armored PzGrdrs per se (except for the "-" situations mentioned by YD above), but at the least I can buy dismounted Motorized (because who would take a truck into a firefight, right?) and they are the same thing, so I at least have an equivalent.

I have never made, nor will I ever make any claims as to how easy something is to code, but will always feel shortchanged over the U.S. OB choices. For a game that's always been intended as a company-level game I'd've expected a little more "oomph" and creativity to maximize the unit choices at the 500-800 pt level for one of the major players.

There were lots of things that were theoretically possible that we didn't do for one reason or another. Much of it has no apparent reason to you guys but a lot of reason for us. Which is why we've spent 3 years redoing the engine

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />So when you get to the WWII version, German and American armored infantry squads will not be able to dismount their HT MGs (.30cals/LMG42s) and fire them from ground mounts? I'm not talking about the ASL "Scrounging" of every tank coax and BMG and the like, but a designed tactical and doctrinal feature.

Yes, we will likely support this in situations where the doctrine was established fact AND we find evidence that it was done under real combat conditions. Without both elements, we won't support it. For example...

While it is true that a German SPW251 has a mount on the back corner for the Squad's MG to be mounted for AA duty while in transit, I think it is pretty safe to say this was not done all that often nor was it done as the halftrack was driving into combat. It would be removed prior to such action so as to make sure it wouldn't be left behind if the Squad had to suddenly dismount (for one reason or another).

Therefore, as I sit here today I don't see us supporting this. Sure, there was a physical position for the MG. Sure the doctrine states that the Squad's MG would be put there for AA duty. Sure it was most likely done when moving around from one battlefield to the next. But in the context of a CM sized engagement... I find it very doubtful that any Feldwebel worth his saltz would allow one of his most critical assets to be chained to a big target like a HT.

So, it is likely that many of the situations you are picturing do indeed fall into the ASL mentality of allowing people to do things that the real world guys would never do for one reason or another. I'm not saying ALL situations, just pointing out that we're going to continue to apply our tough standards before including something.

Steve </font>

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No Strykers have M240s mounted on the back. I wouldn't be surprised if someone stuck one on there, but it certainly isn't standard kit. Doesn't even seem to be standard with the new armor package either.

Steve

Well, it is a fairly common "field mod," but now that I think about it, the primary purpose may be VBIED deterrance.

Unfortunately, there has been a terrible dearth of Stryker field images lately, so I can't speak to it's continued frequency. The most recent pic I have is this one from Thanksgiving-ish:

[Battlefront.com]

One model of T-72 is in the game, but only in the version Charles is using. When I get to see it you'll get to see it

YankeeDog,

DOH! I forgot about the (-) formation. And with good reason...

I conjecture that the "(-)" formations were added to reflect the fact that many Panzergrenadier formations never received, or fought for extended periods of time, with very few, if any, of their paper allocation of HTs. The US Army units, in contrast, were generally lavishly equipped with vehicles.

BINGO. That is exactly the reason for the (-) formations in general. They were adjustments to reality or, in some cases, engine limitations. They were not put in for additional flexibility.

I would encourage you to revisit this issue when you return to WWII; as I am sure you are aware, just because it's part of the TOE does NOT necessarily mean it belongs on the tactical OOB.

Absolutely. The problem we had in CMx1 was that the TO&E, within the game, was completely static. It was also there as a tool to establish what the TO&E was really supposed to be, since probably 99.3% of you guys wouldn't have a clue what it was supposed to be at all, not to mention off the top of your head in a battle. Sure, you might know what a specific formation was supposed to look like, but game wide? I doubt you guys knew more than a few of the formations with anything even resembling 1/2 accurate info. I can say this for sure since I've probably got more than $1000 worth of TO&E books here and it still took me the better part of an f'n year to get the CMBB stuff done Therefore, if we did NOT include the correct TO&E then you guys would be swimming around in a world of chaos, which is exactly what we wished to avoid.

Now, the good news is that all these hard lessons weren't forgotten when we designed CMx2. In fact, this was a primary piece of the new game design. We have the complete, relevant TO&E listed in what you guys would think of as the Purchase Screen. Once purchased you can delete anything you don't want. When you're done with that you can reorganize your force within certain parameters (side specific) to create a Task Force. That means the only limitations in CMx2 will be whether we include that weapon/unit in the first place.

Dalem,

I have never made, nor will I ever make any claims as to how easy something is to code, but will always feel shortchanged over the U.S. OB choices. For a game that's always been intended as a company-level game I'd've expected a little more "oomph" and creativity to maximize the unit choices at the 500-800 pt level for one of the major players.

See above. The creativity was something we were trying to avoid, since once you start down that road there is no stopping. This is a problem unless you let the customer handle things (within certain limits). The old system was not conducive to "creativity", the new system is.

I've had a heckuva time during my own light research into the topic finding anything definitive on how often the U.S. .30cal was dismounted. I assume (assume) that the HMG HT .30s were not fired from the HMG HT often either, but there's just not much out there between the AARs and the large-scale stuff. Maybe Mr. Yeide can save me by doing a book on the Armored Infantry?

Remember that unless there was a tripod stowed in the vehicle, dismounting wouldn't even be physically possible. Some vehicles, like the White Scout Car were, IIRC, issued them as standard equipment. But I think they moved away from this after North Africa, probably because a) the infantry had enough stuff to lug around and the early US doctrine (pretty much across the board) was found to be impractical in the field.

What have you guys found during your own research in the CMx1 days?

Not a lot, other than what I just mentioned above.

AKD,

Well, it is a fairly common "field mod," but now that I think about it, the primary purpose may be VBIED deterrance.

I've actually never seen such a "field mod", so if it does exist it isn't common. What is common is to have two guys standing up in the back with weapons at the ready. There is no standard for this (for various practical reasons), but often times one of the guys happens to be a M249 gunner. If the Stryker is transporting the Weapons Squad, then often times it is a M240. However, it is just as likely, if not more, for the guy to simply have a M4.

Unfortunately, there has been a terrible dearth of Stryker field images lately, so I can't speak to it's continued frequency. The most recent pic I have is this one from Thanksgiving-ish:

That's not a mod Note the lack of RWS on it. For Stryker variants that don't have an RWS they have a pintle mounted M240 instead. The current ones that fit into that category, off the top of my head, are the medical, mortar, ATGM, and NBC versions. The CV model used to lack the RWS, but I'm pretty sure that got changed fairly early on. It's tough to say what the two vehicles are in the pic you posted (especially since one is totally obscured by the other), but I'd guess because there are two that these are the Mortar variants.

Steve

[J Ruddy]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

One model of T-72 is in the game, <snip>

Yes, but where are the T-90s!!!!!

[YankeeDog]

@ Steve.

Very cool. Being able to select an Armored Infantry company, and "subtract out" the extra (and tactically not very useful) transport vehicles is a perfect fix.

[akd]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

AKD,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Well, it is a fairly common "field mod," but now that I think about it, the primary purpose may be VBIED deterrance.

I've actually never seen such a "field mod", so if it does exist it isn't common. What is common is to have two guys standing up in the back with weapons at the ready. There is no standard for this (for various practical reasons), but often times one of the guys happens to be a M249 gunner. If the Stryker is transporting the Weapons Squad, then often times it is a M240. However, it is just as likely, if not more, for the guy to simply have a M4.</font>

[Battlefront.com]

Hi AKD,

Cool pic! Yeah, that looks to be an ICV. For those looking at it, note that the armor panel is down. I wonder if the pintle is now standard but we usually don't see it because the armor panel is up? Note the one on the left has its armor up.

Unfortunately, I don't think we can do anything with this. Too complicated to deal with from a coding and UI standpoint. If we did put it in it would have to be an always present state and that doesn't seem to be right.

As for RWS, I decided to refresh my memory. The ones without RWS are the RV, FSV, NBC, ATGM, MGS, and MV vehicles. Since the NBC version isn't in Iraq yet, AFAIK, I'm going to guess the one with the turkey fest is the Medical version. All of the other ones are kinda obvious

Originally the only two vehicles that had RWS were ICV and EV. It was added to the CV and MC. Not exactly sure when that happened, but it was before full production I think.

Steve

[ December 14, 2006, 04:21 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ]

[Battlefront.com]

Hmmm... checking another source... I looks like the MC (Mortar Carrier) doesn't have a RWS afterall! The Vangaurd "Stryker Combat Vehicles" book appears to be mistaken, which doesn't surprise me. Guess that wasn't the best source to check out first Quite a bit of the info in there is pretty superficial and it's possible they guessed at some of the variant details.

Anyway, I'll go back to my original assertion that the turkey pic involves the company's two MC Strykers.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, looks like there are at least 4 pintle mounts for the two passenger hatches in the rear (2 per hatch). One faces to the rear and one to the side. The hinged armor has to be dropped in order for it to be effective since with the armor up the gun can't depress meaningfully. I suspect, though I have no evidence, that one is in front of the Squad Leader's hatch too.

We aren't going to simulate this. First, we don't even know how to start with something this variable and complex. Two, we think it is unlikely that these pintles would be used in a "high tempo" combat scenario. In a patrol type situatoin, where the dismounts are expecting only light and sporadic resistance, they can afford to leave someone in the vehicle manning one of the Squad's primary weapons. Third, in a high tempo combat situation the guys wouldn't be unbuttoned like that anyway. They'd either be buttoned or dismounted.

Sheesh... I wish the Army would stop changing the design of the Stryker every couple of months. Yes, yes, I know... this is all about force protection and saving the lives of our brave soldiers. But they should keep us game developers in mind too, and possibly run design ideas by us to see if we like them or not. Is that too much to ask? Sheesh...

Steve

[dalem]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

We have the complete, relevant TO&E listed in what you guys would think of as the Purchase Screen. Once purchased you can delete anything you don't want. When you're done with that you can reorganize your force within certain parameters (side specific) to create a Task Force. That means the only limitations in CMx2 will be whether we include that weapon/unit in the first place.

Shiny. Thanks.

-dale

[RSColonel_131st]

Steve, I feel abandoned...forgotten...hopeless...

Originally posted by 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.

An answer would save me from certain suicide, ya know.

[Thomm]

Hi Steve!

Are you play-testing as Syrians, also?

Is playing Syrians fun?

Best regards,

Thomm

[TheNathan]

Originally posted by Rollstoy:

Hi Steve!

Are you play-testing as Syrians, also?

Is playing Syrians fun?

Best regards,

Thomm

Maybe if one harbors some deep inner loathing...

[Battlefront.com]

RSColonel_131st ,

Steve, I feel abandoned...forgotten...hopeless...

Hey, you're the one living in Austria... don't blame me! Oh... you were talking about your question. Uh, sorry about that

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.

It's on a feature wishlist. Not sure if it will happen for the initial release of CM:SF. It's a perfect feature for refinement, so I'm sure it will get in for, or before, the WWII version.

Rollstoy,

Cripes, is all of Austria on Holiday at once?

Are you play-testing as Syrians, also?

Not really. Without any AI it's tough to play as the Syrians in a meaningful way because they can only be used on the offensive against a completely immobilized US force. That's not really the way things will work once we get the game going correctly. I could play hotseat, but I really don't like playing that way if I can avoid it.

Having said that, I *am* very much looking forward to playing as the Syrians. In CMBB I played a large percentage of my games as Romanians and Hungarians and in CMAK the Italians. I like the underdog challenge

Steve

[Kwazydog]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Having said that, I *am* very much looking forward to playing as the Syrians. Steve

Me too, hehe, as their vehicles look so damn cool

[ December 15, 2006, 03:20 PM: Message edited by: KwazyDog ]

[Moronic Max]

So, is this going to be included in the initial release?

[Jaska.]

I haven't been to this forum for a while for a supposition on slow lack of progress on CM:SF. Having come back, I'm treated to some veeeery nice pics of Abrams', Strykers and information on artillery support. :eek: :eek: :eek:

Great work, BFC-crew ! And it can only get better...

Kudos !

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

At the risk of getting my head bitten off for just asking a question...

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?

Does this mean that you aren't putting Red air support in the scenarios, or no air support in the game at all, so that you can't call it in for either side even in your own "Red v Red" scenarios.

I know it was only a throw away comment, but I'd be interested to know.

I am assuming if you play "Blue v Blue" both sides could have it.

Peter.

[Battlefront.com]

Hi Peter,

Does this mean that you aren't putting Red air support in the scenarios, or no air support in the game at all, so that you can't call it in for either side even in your own "Red v Red" scenarios.

Correct, no air support even in Red on Red. The reason is that this is a "freebie" feature only, as is Blue on Blue. We are not doing anything different for these matchups than we are for the Blue on Red matchup. At least not for the initial release. After that... who knows!

Steve

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

Fair enough, it would limit doing lots of scenarios, like Pakistan v India where both have a lot of soviet kit that pretty much matches Syria, but I guess neither is an exact match.

Likewise a lot of Northern African and the Horn scenarios would work well if you had a limited Red capability. But like you have said from the start our not going for "bells and whistles" anymore.

Still I suppose an air module might be possible at some point giving you the option to add it.

Is the support component fixed, or could it be moduled so that at some point in the future you could have things like,

A force with US equipment but soviet support

or

A soviet equipped ground force with support from US artillery or US Navy airpower.

Peter.