kipanderson Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Steve, I know that engineering operations have been discussed before, many times, but as CMX2 nears completion you are in a better position to confirm what is in or out of CMSF. So… question is to what extent will it be possible to model breaching operations in CMX2? By this I mean the classic smoke coming down, plough tanks leading the way through minefields, tanks and other vehicles following in the path of the lead tanks and mine clearing tanks… and so on… you know the sort of thing… as outlined in the Field Manuals. Of course, I also hope that many of these features will be available for an Eastern Front version of CMX2 and my much loved Breakthrough Operations . Thanks , All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I love trying out breaching operations. Steel Beasts Pro PE does the best job I've ever seen of it. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 Not sure if we'll put in Abrams with mine plow attachment, but we certainly will have smoke to a degree not possible in CMx1. Also, we are pretty sure we can simulate the Stryker ESV (Engineer Support Vehicle) which has mine plow or mine rollers, and a nice mortar launched minefield path clearer (Mine Clearing Line Charge). In real life the MCLC is in a trailer behind the ESV, but there is no way we're going to get into all the AI and physics problems trailers present just for this one thing. So the ESV is going to have the MCLC capability without the trailer. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted August 20, 2006 Author Share Posted August 20, 2006 Steve, It sounds like a lot of the features I hope for will be there so cannot ask for much more. I too am keen not to delay CMSF by having a never ending list of features to be added. I look at CMX2 as a work in progress as was CMX1. New titles will add more features. Hopefully by the time an Eastern Front version appears engineering/ mine clearing will have had its time in the sun and may have been tweaked up from CMSF. The priority now is to get CMSF out with the features you decided upon so we can all get stuck in to some CM fun as of old . Thanks, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hellfish Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I'd strongly recommend having an M-1 with mineplows. IIRC every tank platoon has one tank with mineplows and given the option, I'd much rather send an M-1 into the breach instead of an ESV or even a Bradley ESV. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cassh Posted August 20, 2006 Share Posted August 20, 2006 I hope this means engineer/sapper dismounts can undertake some basic combat engineer missions:- 1. Clearing minefields by hand 2. Clearing charges/booby-traps/IED from buildings/structures/roadblocks/choke-points 3. Demolishing point targets with explosive (buildings, bunkers, roadblocks, bridges, wire) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 fythinghellfish, We'll have to see. Remember that we are highlighting Stryker units and not specifically trying to simulate breaches of heavily fortified positions. The latter often takes hours to accomplish, which puts them out of bounds of the time scale of a scenario. cassh, Minefields can not be cleared by hand for the same reason as stated above; doesn't fit into the timeframe of a scenario. According to my US Army Engineer's Field Manual it would take 8 men 30 minutes under moderate enemy fire to mark a 50m x 3m path. This is just to mark it, not clear it. Which is why the Stryker ESV has the ability to deploy a MCLC. That clears a 100m x 14m path in about 10 minutes, which is well within CM's scope. Rendering IEDs/Boobytraps harmless is something we need to look into further. As far as I know SOP is to mark them and leave them alone until after the battle. If the device is blocking movement completely, I suppose they would take a crack at removing it right there and then. But wouldn't they do that only after the area had been generally secured? It is difficult to picture this happening frequently within the timeframe of a scenario, though I am sure it could happen in theory. Demolishing point targets is what Engineers like to do the most. Well, at least it sure beats setting up piss pits Steve [ August 20, 2006, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: Battlefront.com ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Removing an IED? I know at least a certain Russian tactic to this that can be easily simulated... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FAI Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Originally posted by Drusus: Removing an IED? I know at least a certain Russian tactic to this that can be easily simulated... Oh, do tell... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted August 21, 2006 Author Share Posted August 21, 2006 Steve, “We'll have to see. Remember that we are highlighting Stryker units and not specifically trying to simulate breaches of heavily fortified positions. The latter often takes hours to accomplish, which puts them out of bounds of the time scale of a scenario.” Not in scenarios I build… In CMX1 you consistently underestimated what your own game could model. I know that CMX1 was built with 20-30 minute company v reinforced platoon in mind. But in fact it could handle way more realistic time scales and battle sizes. Real battles, even for smallish hamlets, often take hours. I enjoy the slow, every life counts style of play. It is way more realistic than the crash, bang 20 minute games. Therefore more fun too . In my very prejudiced view . You may choose to ship with short, sharp scenarios but I hope you will give us the flexibility to build long, I would say more realistic, scenarios in the editor. Sixty minutes I regard as a minimum for any scenario. Ninety minutes better. All good fun, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: In real life the MCLC is in a trailer behind the ESV, but there is no way we're going to get into all the AI and physics problems trailers present just for this one thing.What?! No trailers? What about all the BV206's in use in the desert?!!!! In all seriousness, does this mean no towed M777s either? {edit - forgot the toad ] [ August 21, 2006, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: J Ruddy ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Ruddy Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 As a follow on, I recall a comment that stated that going from CMSF to a CMX2 WWII game would be easy because WWII would be simpler. Considering the massive amount of WWII towed AT guns, does this mean there will likely be no towing of guns in WWII? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MikeyD Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 About clearing IEDs, remember we'll have plenty of Strykers with remote .50 cals & camera sights. Sounds pretty easy to put a few rounds into the thing from a safe distance without exposing any soldiers. We'll also have .50 cal sniper rifles to do the same thing - again from a reasonably safe distance for a reasonably small bomb. Of course this technique is frowned upon if you have concerns about wrecking your immediate surrundings - a consideration for occupation activities, not ground assaults. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Kip, Sixty minutes I regard as a minimum for any scenario. Ninety minutes better.I believe in your homeland the correct term for you is "nutter" While I agree that people will make far longer scenarios than we intend on making, we can't afford to divert resources to supporting things which fall outside of the 30-40 minute long target scenario length. To make a 30 minute minefield lane flagging work the scenario would probably have to be pushing an hour and a half (20 minutes to get to the obstacle, 40 minutes to breach, 30 minutes to fight on the other side). J Ruddy, Yeah, no M777s on map And you bet your butt I'd love to have the BV-206 in when we do the Brits. I came *that* close to buying one a number of years ago. We will have towed equipment in CM:WW2 for sure. As you say, that stuff was moved around a lot in the frontlines, so it would be kinda unfortunate to not have it in the game. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flamingknives Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 "when" you do the Brits? Rock and roll! That module is really why I want to buy Shock Force. Challengers, Warriors and Scimitars, with the odd WIMK landrover for gamey jeep rushes. And uprated FV430-series APCs (FRES Mk1, if you're feeling unkind.) Don't forget the BV206S "Viking". Same idea, but armoured against small-arms. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kipanderson Posted August 22, 2006 Author Share Posted August 22, 2006 Steve, “I believe in your homeland the correct term for you is nutter” I cannot deny it.. Big games in both time and size are good games . Talking of which… when modeling Soviet Breakthrough Operations in “sort of” realistic scale one of the biggest problems was the Ubber nature of obstacles in CMX1. Their indestructibility. An example is that in the case of neither mines nor wire could infantry follow in the tracks of AFVs that had passed safely through the hazards. I am hoping that slowly, title by title, engineering will develop so that by the time the Eastern Front turns up mines and wire will be less indestructible. But for now am keen to see CMSF with whatever features made the cut. Clearly lots to look forward to with CMX2, All the best, Kip. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Kip, I am hoping that slowly, title by title, engineering will develop so that by the time the Eastern Front turns up mines and wire will be less indestructible.Yup. What we really needed to do was make a finer resolution terrain engine. Things like wire are a good example. Since we couldn't show a path cut through we either had to leave it there or eliminate it completely. Sure, soldiers can cut their way though it, but not clear 10m worth (or however long the CMx1 wire obstacles are!). So we just assumed that all infantry can make it through with a wee bit of difficulty, and that mostly worked. Should be much better in CMx2 Steve 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.