Cpl Steiner Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 At some point I would like to see some work done to improve the way fortifications are handled by the CMx2 engine, e.g.: 1) Placeable trenches and foxholes during Setup; 2) Placeable wire during Setup; 3) Placeable target reference points during Setup; 4) Claymores? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Echoed. Would also like to see a sangar or sentry tower building type and fixed positions/tripod mounts for the M2 .50 Calibre Heavy Machine Gun and MK-19 40mm Automatic Grenade Launcher. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 I like everything posted but one? Why Claymores? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elmar Bijlsma Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 It would be nice to have more put direction of defences put in to the players hands instead of the designers, I agree. If the engine can make bomb craters during gameplay, I would hope it's possible to make trenches and such during setup also. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Combatintman Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Originally posted by JohnO: I like everything posted but one? Why Claymores? Why not? Claymores and their derivatives exist, they are not banned under the Ottawa Conventions, they are widely issued and are damned useful in an ambush for starters. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Don't know if it will happen, but Claymores would be quite an interesting tool to have. Sort of like an AP equivalent to IEDs. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Originally posted by Combatintman: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JohnO: I like everything posted but one? Why Claymores? Why not? Claymores and their derivatives exist, they are not banned under the Ottawa Conventions, they are widely issued and are damned useful in an ambush for starters. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Originally posted by Combatintman: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JohnO: I like everything posted but one? Why Claymores? Why not? Claymores and their derivatives exist, they are not banned under the Ottawa Conventions, they are widely issued and are damned useful in an ambush for starters. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnO Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Yes, I was and I noticed that you was with the 2-502. I was with the 1-502 back in 1977-79. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Originally posted by JohnO: Yes, I was and I noticed that you was with the 2-502. I was with the 1-502 back in 1977-79. Good guys. And yes, still am with 2-502 when I get on my feet again. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cpl Steiner Posted March 21, 2008 Author Share Posted March 21, 2008 Originally posted by JohnO: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Combatintman: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by JohnO: I like everything posted but one? Why Claymores? Why not? Claymores and their derivatives exist, they are not banned under the Ottawa Conventions, they are widely issued and are damned useful in an ambush for starters. </font> 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 We pounded the concept of expanding CMSF fortifications to dust in this lengthy thread in January... Thread on fortifications Steve's basic assertions were: a. BFC simply isn't interested in modeling Iraq-style counterinsurgency warfare in this game, so no police checkpoints, guard towers, HESCO barriers, etc. CMSF and its offshoots are intended to represent the mobile "blitzkrieg" phase of a Syrian invasion only. Iraq style engagements are too small (e.g. 3 US platoons stalking a couple of snipers after running over an IED) to make meaningful or fun games on a CMSF scale. (I disagree) b. There would be few plausible CMSF-scale ground engagements involving fortifications. He argues that even if a Syrian force facing a US blitzkrieg had time to do more than dig a few trenches (which are in the game) the US forces would spot them easily and blast them into oblivion with air and arty. (I also disagree) © Steve noted that urban areas are the one environment where Syrian forces could fortify in force without being instantly spotted and blown away, but he feels that the existing buildings (a single generic type) together with bunkers (that are essentially immobile vehicles) provide an adequate representation of "fortification". So there will be no augmentation for the Marine module AFAIK. I don't agree with the arguments, but there you have it. Steve also said that they would be doing a lot more fortifications, as well as different types of buildings (light/heavy walls) for the Normandy module where positional warfare was a much more important hallmark of the campaign. Backward compatibility of these features to CMSF is TBD. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Secondbrooks Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 Ability to clear terrain from LOS- and LOF-obstacles. Patch of trees blocking visibility (and forming anti-projectile field) to killzone from good spot for AT-team? Go ahead and cut down the trees. Not so much problem in CMx1 i think, but in CMx2 with 1:1 scale i find small terrain features to cause problems some times. Well-well.. I quess CMx2 (or CMx3?) still will take few years to receive this level (not because it would hard to make, but the reason that it wouldn't be very important thing). So i'd be happy with just foxholes [ March 21, 2008, 11:50 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 For you, nothing. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Guest Posted March 21, 2008 Share Posted March 21, 2008 deleted per user request 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LarsS Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 If even the US 81 mm mortar is as effective against entrenched troops in RL as in the game, I'd make sure of having some sort of over-head protection if I were Syrian. Nothing fancy, just a simple roof with a few sandbags on it would make a world of difference. And since the squads fight all bunched up and don't spread out properly, they really need over-head protection not to be overly vulnerable to light shrapnel. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Flanker15 Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 I'd like to see some new forts in SF, free or otherwise. Something that can actually resist all but the strongest weapons. Like a "super bunker" or something, better trenches, fortified buildings, blue force bunkers and mg posts and AT gun bunkers would all be good too. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 I want to see these 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LongLeftFlank Posted March 22, 2008 Share Posted March 22, 2008 Me too, M1, but Steve has been insistent that BFC won't support scenarios relating to the post-occupation phase (which is the point at which the Allies would be building those things). The logic IIUC is that occupation warfare rarely if ever features stand-up fights between evenly matched forces, and is therefore unsuitable to CMSF. Again, I respectfully disagree and believe there's plenty of gamers who would like to model Iraq/Afghanistan tactics from both sides. We could do so if we had just a few additional objects -- sandbagged buildings, sandbag walls, Jersey and HESCO "walls" and a couple of new flavour objects like shipping containers (or even blank cubes and rectangles we can texture ourselves). These wouldn't take much of Charles time to program in AFAICT since they're basically variants on existing objects. But that's BFC's determination to make. All we can do is ask.... again and again and again until Steve gets annoyed and accuses us of failing to appreciate all the great stuff that's in there now (which we do, but that ain't the point). 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 M1A1TankCommander, If you want to see some amazing fortification stuff, please see the console game Army of TWO. That said, the tents are made of Impervium and block fire better than sandbags. Of course, you can't see out of them! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abneo3sierra Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 Good shots M1 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M1A1TC Posted March 23, 2008 Share Posted March 23, 2008 I do own Army of Two, and beat it on the day I bought it. It's ok, the story line and characters are laughable 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted March 24, 2008 Share Posted March 24, 2008 M1ATankCommander, The buddy boost up is something that would be helpful in CMSF, but there's no going prone and no low crawl, either. The weapon prices are insane, but I'd love to see some of the various crates, containers, barrels, sandbags, towers, guard shacks, tents, etc. in the game. The antisniper veils on the towers gave me fits in trying to decide where to move. Of course, the fact that the whole complex was identifiable as fortifications by a 10 year-old led me to wonder why specialist troops were needed. Just blast the thing! Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.