Why I'd like a special forces module

[Peter Cairns]

I know BF have all but ruled it out but I'll stick this in anyway.

One of the reasons I am a big CM fan is that for 25 years I've like small unit ( squad up to Company) games, and especially self contained ones such as raids.

For me the whole designing your force, organising it and the planning of the mission were all as much a part of the fun as the actual battle.

For me CM was the first and in my view the best toallow it, and I suspect like most people I've created a good few bridge assalts with British or US paras in CMBO.

An ideal for me is a 3km x3km map with the target and the defence in the central 1km2, with you free to deploy a designed force anywhere out with it.

I like the way in which the whole thing is self contained and not part of a larger battle, or even you at one side and them at the other.

I am not particularly in to the Super elite troops or special exotic weapons bit, it's more the way it lets you do self contained missions, whether they be rescuing hostages/POW's? downed crew, or siezing/destroying Bridges/fuelbumps/HQ's.

I just prefer it that way, true you can do it with all the CM games and CM:SF will be particularly good for it, but it just seems that as most players will either design or play "Raid" scenarios, it would be nice to see one, and i suspect it would be a really good seller from the commercial point of view.

Equally particularly in the current climate special ops seem to be a more prominant feature than in the past, even WW2.

That's my Tuppence worth.

Peter.

[jBrereton]

I actually made a pretty good CM:BB mission (lost in the dustbin of XP re-install history, sadly), which had FJ Pioneers (a company, all elites with full special weapons etc.) leading up an attack on a Russian base before a battalion of normal soldiers went in to finish the job. It was a very large operation, which was pretty good in the end.

Anyway, that was a bit irrelevant, sorry.

Top-notch plan, though, it'll be good.

*edits*

If it gets made

[MikeyD]

I've seen some very VERY small short-duration CM scenarios in my day. Mostly for the old CMBO game for some reason (the later games tend to be more Baroque in scenario design). A house, a squad, heavy fog, and a 10 minute clock. Couldn't get much more self-contained than that!

The only problem with Special Forces in CM would be the total lack of the element of surprise in the game. No chance of catching the opponent asleep in bed. But the U.S. side - one supposes - is going to have all the advantages at night. I expect to see a LOT of night fighting in CMSF. If BFC doesn't give you Navy Seals to play with it should still be easy enough to cobble-together a nice little ersatz special forces scenario from what they do supply.

[ January 11, 2006, 08:21 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Cpl Steiner]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I expect to see a LOT of night fighting in CMSF.

This may be a problem for me, as for some reason I just hate night scenarios in CM. I think it is because the night-time graphics in CMx1 make the game look very uninspiring. As CM:SF is a modern combat simulator, perhaps the map could be coloured as if being viewed through night vision equipment to make it visually more palatable.

[Sergei]

The new graphics engine should make night battles a hundred times better looking... with proper lighting effects and all.

[MikeyD]

I can't imagine how they'd visually simulate the use of night vision goggles, especially if only a few men in a Company is wearing them. I'd bet (based on nothing, I admit) that visually night scenario would just be a 'normal' night scene, but as you click on an individual unit its 'visual horizon' bar in the menu would spike if goggles were in use. So some individuals would hardly be able to see their noses in front of their faces, while others would be able to see out to... 2-300m?

(Note the LOS scale in the center of the menu bar)

[ January 11, 2006, 08:53 AM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Peter Cairns]

I don't think we need something like "Green Screen" for night fighting as it's abit "Gamey" for me and it's not a FPS after all.

Big chnage that make SPecial Op's more realistic will be relative spotting, as this will automatically give the elite force with NVG's the advantage of seeing more of the enemy that it will see of them.

If you play the defender you will be at a huge disadvantage. The skill will be in the way you take advantage of this. You will need to be able to somehow judge whether they haven't seen you, or are just holding their fire.

This could probably be done by watching the target graphic. At present units are either actively targeting or in overwatch mode, there isn't an unaware mode as such.

This is perfectly understandable in a tactical game that starts on the basis that "The battles begun".

Such a "sleep or rest" mode isn't exactly restricted to a SPecial Op's game, as fast advancing forces like Stryker can catch people of guard ( the same is said of M1's because of the much quieter gas turbine).

The issue may be that a lower awareness level might be something that needs to be hard wired at this stage in to the game engine and could be difficult to add at a later date.

I suppose thats one for Steve in that I can't recall any info on levels of situation awareness and troop compatence or scenario.

In aware is suppose relative situation awreness and how you are trained and actually exploit it is much more the basis of special op's than exotic weapons and kung Fu ninja stuff you get in the movies.

In my 9km2, 1km2 target game it's where in the margins you come in and how you approach the target is where much of the challenge lies, just as in CM it's deployment , troop choice, and the basic plan of attack that really can win or lose you the game before contact.

And that as I've said is why I love it, the command element.

Peter.

[PseudoSimonds]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

(Note the LOS scale in the center of the menu bar)

If I read the UI explanation correctly, I think that triangle thingy is a suppression indicator, not an LOS indicator. I believe the LOS button works the same as the LOS tool in CMx1.

[hellfish]

I'm curious to see if CMSF will differentiate image-intensifying night vision from the thermal optics. I've read a lot of reports about infantrymen carrying the Javelin CLU and using it as a rather large night vision device - it presumably has much greater target detection capability than a normal NOD.

FYI, nearly all infantrymen in the US Army now carry PVS-7B or PVS-14 IINVGs and crew served weapons will almost always have PVS-4s. On top of that, nearly everyone now has the laser pointers that greatly increase their accuraccy when using night vision (you obviously can't use sights or scopes when you're wearing NODs - so you may see an enemy but accurately firing at him was otherwise difficult until the laser pointers showed up)

[Peter Cairns]

I think it should be abstarcted a bit like firepower to a general level of sighting ability rather than too detailed, although that said if you lost a man with akey piece of equipment, you could find your ability to sight really drop, just like the way your firepower drops if you loss your BAR in CM.

I know that if you haver two different types with different discriminations (IR, II, TI) then in theory losing one should have a different effect from losing the other, but I'd go for a simpler points system rather that something complex.

If a six man squad had four NV devices and it lost two even if they were different types it should loose half it's NV advantage.

KISS... Keep It Simple Stupid.

Peter.

[MikeyD]

I'm trying to remember waaaaay back, but i think I recall Moon once saying CMx2 was delinking the soldier from the weapon. He was implying that we 'might' be able to scrounge weapons and ammo from downed soldiers. So if your SAW man goes down you should not lose your SAW out of your unit. Or maybe if you find an RPG launcher laying around you might be able to pick it up!

I can't say they chiselled this feature in stone. It'd be nice if they were able to include it.

[Sequoia]

Another old thread resurrected. The original poster says Special Forces have been all but ruled out but I can't find confirmation of this from Battlefront other than the statement that module one will be USMC and module two will be another nationality with the Brits being a good bet. I know the mission of Special Forces is not to go head to head with a sizeable enemy force but they would be a nice bonus for scenario makers. Perhaps the TO&E is too variable for them to be in the game without a lot of extra work.

And while we're at it shall we re-open this thread's discussion of night fighting?

[Imperial Grunt]

I think that a special operations forces module would be fun as well, maybe after the first few are modules are out. This would also allow a good combo of special ops forces and conventional forces participating in the missions. I think the kind of special operations missions that would be most playable in terms of CM:SF would be US Army Rangers and USMC MEU(SOC) forces. Joint Special Operations Task Forces (JSOTFs-for example Task Force Ranger in Somalia) would also be a good type of game. JSOTFs will tie in all the special operations forces that the US employs. Missions would be raids, pilot rescues, etc...The Ranger battalions and USMC MEU's also conduct conventional missions in support of special operations and both are inherently light infantry outfits, just with different organizations, capability sets, and insertion methods.

But the fun would be in the planning, like Peter said. You as the player would be given a good amount of intelligence (some of which may be wrong..especially those "assumptions"), the ability to put in some recon and surveillance (R&S) assets in prior to game start, choose insertion points, etc...all leading to scenario set up. Then the game would play out as the tactical execution of the plan and adapting to any changes that arise. But a well executed raid might be completed without a shot fired and many players might not find that very fun in the end.

Small SF/SEAL/SAS operations are not really applicable to CM:SF since they are usually going after a very select target and in CM:SF this would equate to just moving a few small teams (or just one) around and the objective might just be to sit on a hill for a long time and then zap one guy with one sniper shot and then leave.

[ October 30, 2006, 09:43 AM: Message edited by: Imperial Grunt ]

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by Imperial Grunt:

I think that a special operations forces module would be fun as well, maybe after the first few are modules are out. This would also allow a good combo of special ops forces and conventional forces participating in the missions. I think the kind of special operations missions that would be most playable in terms of CM:SF would be US Army Rangers and USMC MEU(SOC) forces. Joint Special Operations Task Forces (JSOTFs-for example Task Force Ranger in Somalia) would also be a good type of game. JSOTFs will tie in all the special operations forces that the US employs. Missions would be raids, pilot rescues, etc...The Ranger battalions and USMC MEU's also conduct conventional missions in support of special operations and both are inherently light infantry outfits, just with different organizations, capability sets, and insertion methods.

But the fun would be in the planning, like Peter said. You as the player would be given a good amount of intelligence (some of which may be wrong..especially those "assumptions"), the ability to put in some recon and surveillance (R&S) assets in prior to game start, choose insertion points, etc...all leading to scenario set up. Then the game would play out as the tactical execution of the plan and adapting to any changes that arise. But a well executed raid might be completed without a shot fired and many players might not find that very fun in the end.

Small SF/SEAL/SAS operations are not really applicable to CM:SF since they are usually going after a very select target and in CM:SF this would equate to just moving a few small teams (or just one) around and the objective might just be to sit on a hill for a long time and then zap one guy with one sniper shot and then leave.

[Imperial Grunt]

Sorry for the double post.

[MikeyD]

Moon had said that CMSF would be able to handle more complex objectives than simple attrition or capture the flag. I wonder if any of those new objective types could be tailored to fit a small-unit special forces operation.

I remember in CMBB I once concocted a tiny infiltrating sniper scenario. Get behind enemy linse and shoot the Battalion Commander. It was some fun playing the sniper side but sucked entirely if you took the other side!

One impediment to BFC properly fielding a Special Forces module might be finding unclassified TO&E. How tight-lipped are SEALS and SAS about thier organization and equipment?

[Imperial Grunt]

Actually their is alot of open source material on SEALs, SF, and SAS. Not so much on Delta, but their is a good book about them called "Inside Delta Force".

But they all task organize for the mission, so there is not a standard T/O anyways.

[13]

I personally would love to see ODA actions, examples being Debecka, Iraq, Operation Anaconda, Afghanistan, etc.

I mean, having one or two (possibly more) ODA's on site, is very, very reassuring as a commander.

And, what's so wrong with waiting around a while, just to make the perfect shot? Sure, the waiting isn't very exciting, but after you take that shot, now you must exfil, or, if things go really wrong, E&E. But, I don't think having your men E&E would be plausible for this game. Sigh. Maybe one day...

The MEUSOC's are still quite...conventional. And the Rangers....I mean.....they're.....Rangers...c'mon.

Well, I've prolly just pissed off quite possibly the majority of the forum base. Awesome. Nice to meet you all. :c)

[Sequoia]

Originally posted by 13:

Well, I've prolly just pissed off quite possibly the majority of the forum base. Awesome. Nice to meet you all. :c)

Well you didn't piss me off because I didn't understand you. Too many acronyms. Please translate !

Oh and welcome to the forums by the way.

[flamingknives]

Right, let's see if I can guess:

E&E - Escape and Evade

MEUSOC - Marine Expeditionary Unit Special Operations Command

ODA - Nope, he'd got me there

[RMC]

ODA - Operational Detachment Alpha i.e an A Team. (SF Element commanded by a Captain)

[cassh]

RMC -

ODA... SF Element commanded by a Captain

- or a Hannibal

"Murdock you crazy fool, I aint gettin' in no airplane!"

[Imperial Grunt]

Originally posted by 13:

I personally would love to see ODA actions, examples being Debecka, Iraq, Operation Anaconda, Afghanistan, etc.

I mean, having one or two (possibly more) ODA's on site, is very, very reassuring as a commander.

And, what's so wrong with waiting around a while, just to make the perfect shot? Sure, the waiting isn't very exciting, but after you take that shot, now you must exfil, or, if things go really wrong, E&E. But, I don't think having your men E&E would be plausible for this game. Sigh. Maybe one day...

The MEUSOC's are still quite...conventional. And the Rangers....I mean.....they're.....Rangers...c'mon.

Well, I've prolly just pissed off quite possibly the majority of the forum base. Awesome. Nice to meet you all. :c)

Well, I am just saying that such small scale special ops missions would probably be pretty boring to play in a game the scale of CM:SF. A Ghost Recon type first person shooter is much better for that type of game. (And I am a fan of Ghost Recon).

MEU(SOC)s are mostly conventional amphibious forces, especially the BLT. But a MEU is also very unique. Plus the MEU has its maritime special purpose force, built around a Force Recon platoon. Its primary mission is direct action and they are good at it. Additionally, the MarSoc units are now being stood up. And on top of that, the Amphibious Ready Group ferrying around the MEU has a SEAL platoon.

But as far as playability in CM:SF, a MEU would be a really good organization for large special operations missions. Same with Ranger units, like in the case on the airborne raid shown on CNN in Afghanistan. JSOTFs would be very playable too. Scenarios can be a mix of infiltrating a direct action element to a target, then having conventional forces close off the area and engage enemy forces in support of the raid site, etc...There are numerous scenarios.

Many operations, such as Anaconda, were conducted with a mix of special operation forces and conventional forces and this trend is only continuing. Special operation forces had an important role at Fallujah 2. I think it would make for a good mix of CM:SF scenarios once CM:SF gets the conventional side down.

Having worked with ODA's in Iraq, I think that they are very good at what they do and they are very professional soldiers, but just simply having them present on a battlefield does not mean much. Once they get into a gun fight, they are pretty much reduced to being a highly trained rifle squad, minus some SAWs. In my opinion, you don't want them fighting at all, you want them doing their primary missions. That is when they make their biggest impact for a commander.

No offense taken. Each Service/branch has its specialites and I see them all as being complimentary.

[Homo ferricus]

well, if we don't get "Special Forces" in the game, should we atleast expect Airborne troops? Or 10th Mountain Division and such special-yet-conventional infantry groups? Or is it going to be more like you get your pick of units only from ground infantry and cavalry divisions.

[RMC]

Originally posted by Homo ferricus:

well, if we don't get "Special Forces" in the game, should we atleast expect Airborne troops? Or 10th Mountain Division and such special-yet-conventional infantry groups? Or is it going to be more like you get your pick of units only from ground infantry and cavalry divisions.

I think the US force is built around a Stryker Brigade organization. There will likely be cross-attached Tanks and maybe Brads, but you're not going to have near the OOB flexibility that you get with the CMx1 games. It goes hand and hand with the narrower focus of the game.