Any chance for Air Assault in the future?

[abneo3sierra]

I am wondering if there is going to be any chance for air assault type operations in CM:SF anytime in the future. I understand it requires a lot of pieces that currently are not there.

Thanks

[ April 12, 2008, 02:37 PM: Message edited by: abneo3sierra ]

[Dogface]

I doubt it.

A quick search for Helicopters and Member #42 got me:

Don't get me wrong. It is possible for us to simulate hot LZs and fast roping, but for CM:SF it simply isn't a part of the scope of the simulated forces. And in general wouldn't be part of the scope of other forces within the CM:SF setting. A broader USMC/Airborne/Airmobile simulator, that covers generic combat scenario possibllities, perhaps. But considering the dubious tactical relevance and the high effort level needed to pull it off... we have zero plans to include it in any CM:SF realted release.

Steve

Remember kids the search button works.

[Letsbe Ave.]

Thanks for changing the Subject line to include what you are asking about.

(Still cranky, because he had to go and work on his Jeep's brakes, and it was be warm today (89F))

mutter, mutter, 'get off my lawn...'

[ April 12, 2008, 05:15 PM: Message edited by: Letsbe Ave. ]

[abneo3sierra]

Sorry guys, and yes I saw those , of course it was right AFTER I posted. That is kind of disappointing if they are still holding that view, but I can understand.

[gibsonm]

You could always edit the topic so that people after "now" could avoid it if they weren't interested or add something if they were?

Or indeed do the search and then post rather than the other way around.

[SlowMotion]

I wonder if the unit list of some future CM game might include things like this?

http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww&NR=1

[Huntarr]

Ha! Nice find Slowmotion. I don't care how much that sucker carries until it's NOT a gas powered "hey everybody shoot me over here" monstrousity. It's a hell of a long way off.

I caught this vid the other day on Military.com

Big Dog (beta)

It's a very novell approach.

[ April 12, 2008, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ]

[Clavicula_Nox]

I understand their reasoning for not modeling paratroopers. If they did, what possible chance would the enemy have?

[ChrisND]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I understand their reasoning for not modeling paratroopers. If they did, what possible chance would the enemy have?

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by Clavicula_Nox:

I understand their reasoning for not modeling paratroopers. If they did, what possible chance would the enemy have?

Damn, on top of your game today man. That is the best line yet.

PS HUNTARR- We are coming for our rope back...

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by gibsonm:

You could always edit the topic so that people after "now" could avoid it if they weren't interested or add something if they were?

Or indeed do the search and then post rather than the other way around.

Mark,

I would have still posted even with the search though, in hopes that in the 2+years after those two topics, they may have seen the light and realized that without the 101st, there was just no way for the Army to win this Syria thing...

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by gibsonm:

You could always edit the topic so that people after "now" could avoid it if they weren't interested or add something if they were?

Or indeed do the search and then post rather than the other way around.

Mark,

I would have still posted even with the search though, in hopes that in the 2+years after those two topics, they may have seen the light and realized that without the 101st, there was just no way for the Army to win this Syria thing... </font>

[Huntarr]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

PS HUNTARR- We are coming for our rope back...

Who, little ole me?? Slowmo started it

Here ya go. I'll lobby for the Marines...

[ April 12, 2008, 07:18 PM: Message edited by: Huntarr ]

[abneo3sierra]

That's got to be the best thing to do with a Marine..pick them up and dump them in the river

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by abneo3sierra:

That's got to be the best thing to do with a Marine..pick them up and dump them in the river

Hahaha, yeah.

Huntarr, are those SPIES pictures of MARSOC, or what? And why are they wearing the goofy Pro-Tec helmets?

[Battlefront.com]

Definitely a no-go on simulating the actual "dropping" part of airborne forces. Way too much effort needed to get those things to work. We're not even going to touch this with a 10' pole for WW2, just like we didn't for CMx1.

The problem with a tactical simulation is that each thing within it takes quite a bit of time to program and test. The more something is outside the bounds of "normal" combat ops, the less probable it is we will put it in. Unfortunately, that's just the way it goes unless some 1 Star writes us a check to make it otherwise. All kinds of things become viable when Uncle Sam asks nicely (i.e. with cash in hand)

Sorry!

Steve

[SlowMotion]

Huntarr: the "device" in your link didn't do too well in the karate kick test

But I was quite surprised of how well that latest model moved in difficult terrain.

[dan/california]

Ha! Nice find Slowmotion. I don't care how much that sucker carries until it's NOT a gas powered "hey everybody shoot me over here" monstrousity. It's a hell of a long way off.

I caught this vid the other day on Military.com/QUOTE]

There are a great many uses for something like this actually. Like sending it into a potentially hostile farmstead from a bearing that doesn't coincide with your own and seeing if anyone wants to reveal their location by shooting at it for instance. If it had a camera and a remote controlled 5.56mm machine gun, they would have to shoot at it.

It is much easer to write requisition for a new robot and some mortar rounds than a letter to some soldiers family.

I just got a couple of pixel troopers shot checking out a farmstead in Hammertime under those exact circumstances as a matter of fact.

[SlowMotion]

I've read that this "robot gets destroyed instead of soldiers killed" is already happening. Can't rememeber what the robot name was, but it didn't move on feet.

That prototype on four legs reminded of this future war pic:

link

[Peter Cairns]

Steve,

I can understand the logic of what you are saying, but what about a compromise of something like a cut scene which shows an animation of the drop to the deployed positions before the game starts, a bit like in the Market garden scenario in Battlefield 1942 ( okay, it is pretty silly I'll admit, but so's the whole series).

It would add to feel/immersion without the complications of LOS/LOF etc. What you might need to alter is readiness, fatigue, command or moral to reflect the confusion but the visuals would be before the game starts.

You could also block the "landing" side from having any pre planning or only a very restricted ability to do so.

Just a thought, which I do have occasionally.

Peter.

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Definitely a no-go on simulating the actual "dropping" part of airborne forces. Way too much effort needed to get those things to work. We're not even going to touch this with a 10' pole for WW2, just like we didn't for CMx1.

The problem with a tactical simulation is that each thing within it takes quite a bit of time to program and test. The more something is outside the bounds of "normal" combat ops, the less probable it is we will put it in. Unfortunately, that's just the way it goes unless some 1 Star writes us a check to make it otherwise. All kinds of things become viable when Uncle Sam asks nicely (i.e. with cash in hand)

Sorry!

Steve

Could we at least get a parachute on the ground flavor object? I think that would satisfy a lot of scenario designers. :cool:

[Holman]

Maybe a broken tooth doodad?

[Clavicula_Nox]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Definitely a no-go on simulating the actual "dropping" part of airborne forces. Way too much effort needed to get those things to work. We're not even going to touch this with a 10' pole for WW2, just like we didn't for CMx1.

The problem with a tactical simulation is that each thing within it takes quite a bit of time to program and test. The more something is outside the bounds of "normal" combat ops, the less probable it is we will put it in. Unfortunately, that's just the way it goes unless some 1 Star writes us a check to make it otherwise. All kinds of things become viable when Uncle Sam asks nicely (i.e. with cash in hand)

Sorry!

Steve

Fair enough, it's already pretty easy to simulate a (miss) drop by scattering your sticks around randomly in the editor. That would only cover the initial period while the troopers are trying to get assembled, everything after that would be like a standard game. Other than that, just put multiple reinforcement markers in random areas with a platoon and maybe delete some squads or something.

[MikeyD]

I'm tryiing to recall Vietnam war statistics on helicopter losses. I believe of 7,000 Hueys that served in Vietnam 3,300 were destroyed with 2,700 occupants (pilots, crew, passengers) killed. Huey had something like seven million flight hours over 9 years in Vietnam, possibly the most combat flight time of any aircraft in history. Another 842 OH6As, 102 CH-46s, and 132 CH-47s were destroyed in the war. And the list goes on.

In other words, Its not exactly safe doing helicopter insertions into a hot war. If you're landing on a typical 1x1k scenario map with guaranteed Syrian Army presence you'd be pretty likely to take significant copter losses.

[abneo3sierra]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I'm tryiing to recall Vietnam war statistics on helicopter losses. I believe of 7,000 Hueys that served in Vietnam 3,300 were destroyed with 2,700 occupants (pilots, crew, passengers) killed. Huey had something like seven million flight hours over 9 years in Vietnam, possibly the most combat flight time of any aircraft in history. Another 842 OH6As, 102 CH-46s, and 132 CH-47s were destroyed in the war. And the list goes on.

In other words, Its not exactly safe doing helicopter insertions into a hot war. If you're landing on a typical 1x1k scenario map with guaranteed Syrian Army presence you'd be pretty likely to take significant copter losses.

True enough, but we actually have performed air assaults under fire currently.