Curious about SF status and a myriad other things

[Gryphon]

Hey there,

I was wondering how SF development is going... yes I am quite curious, especially after those mouth-watering renders from the last time

Did you guys enter beta stage already? and how is the implementation of the 3d models and textures into the game engine going? When are you expecting to show the first ingame screenshots? I'm especially looking forward to seeing the user interface.

Will there be more liberty in choosing graphics options as well? Say, different resolutions without having to change desktop resolution?

Are you guys also planning on releasing some kind of (updated) feature list? (as in mega bone threads like the ones from september 2005 (eek almost a year ago now!))

Will you guys also include the detailed unit statistics like in the previous Combat Mission games? (the select-a-unit-hit-enter-and-get-blown-away-by-information menu). And how would, for example, the firepower rating of a modern squad compare to a WW2 squad? Would i see something like 400 firepower at 250m? or is it all relative?

A lot of misc. questions, hope you can answer some at least thanks a lot!

Gryphon

[ August 01, 2006, 06:58 AM: Message edited by: Gryphon ]

[Gryphon]

shameless bump

[Dogface]

try BlogFront

[PseudoSimonds]

I think they said that they were pretty close (a couple of weeks) to entering beta and when that happens we should be getting some screenies.

There's some old info on the UI here, in case you hadn't seen it before.

[MikeyD]

Firepower for squads will be something to watch out for. it was after the war that everybody followed Germany's lead and shifted to the assault rifle. The old Garand was thought simply too powerful for its 'normal' combat use and combat ranges dropped accordingly.

Now, Stryker Brigade seems to have all-but abandoned the assault rifle in favor of the carb!ne, dropping engagement ranges further. The trend has gone so far that units are now resurrecting the old Korean war era 7.62mm automatic rifle as a specialist weapon. So I don't have a clue how to properly 'score' firepower points comparing modern to WWII squads.

[ August 01, 2006, 02:06 PM: Message edited by: MikeyD ]

[Battlefront.com]

CM:SF is just about at Beta. We now have both wheeled and tracked vehicles completely working. All infantry type Teams are working as well. All basic terrain is in and functioning well, though the graphics are still pretty much placeholders still. The main UI is all coded and basically working except for Support. The Editor is pretty much done, with many rough edges and a few of its features not hooked up. Artillery Support is going in next, followed by Air Support. I think when those two are done we'll call it Beta.

In CM:SF the smallest unit is a Team. Formations are containers for Teams or other Formations. A Squad is nothing but a special type of Formation. A Squad can have between 1 and 3 Teams and they are not user editable, though the user can split and rejoin them. Special provisions have been made to section off a "Detatchment" for such things as maning an AT weapon or deploying a Demo Charge. Gone are the CMx1 days of having full 12 man Squads *and* an extra 2 man Bazooka Team. In CM:SF you have your 9 man Stryker Squad and when you want to man the Javelin, two guys get kicked out so they can go pick one up. Oh yeah, forgot...

Certain units can pick up weapons and ammo from vehicles (and hopefully anywhere else, but not sure yet!). Normally the Javelin is stored in the Stryker or Bradley. When it is needed someone needs to pick it up. This means you don't have to be bogged down with a heavy weapon when you'd rather have 2 more riflemen. By default the Squad's Anti-tank Specialist and a Rifleman are tasked with getting the Javelin. If one or the other is not available someone else will be picked.

Hmmm... what else... I guess that's all.

Screenshots? Well, we would have hoped to have some up by now. But we feel the placeholder graphics aren't good enough for that. But I'll see what I can do to tide you over

Steve

[hellfish]

When you say squads and teams are not editable, does that also include small arms are not editable? I mean I was kind of hoping for a drop down menu or something similar where the mission editor could have the option to swap out small arms for versions with optics and gadgets as needed. Sometimes you might want optics and laser pointers in your scenario and sometimes you just want vanilla versions.

[Battlefront.com]

No ability to edit weapons and most goodies. Too much trouble to go through for too little gain. Gizmos are assigned based on TO&E as are relevant to the game. So no, you can't give a laser pointer to someone, but Leaders, FOs, and other specialists are assigned them explicitly.

You can edit ammo levels and, I hope, set some specific things like AT-4s, Grenades, and Demo Charges. These things are more dynamically chosen based on mission vs. the other stuff.

Steve

[Battlefront.com]

BTW, for sniper weapons we are simulating the M24 (7.62), M107 (.50 cal), and specialized M4A1 (5.56). The latter will be used exclusively by Designated Marksmen, the former two by dedicated Sniper Teams. In case you guys weren't aware, a Stryker Rifle Company has a dedicated Sniper Team, a Stryker Rifle Battalion a dedicated Sniper Squad (2xSniper Teams). So unlike CMx1 games where Snipers should be rare, rare, rare... in CM:SF they will be common, common, COMMON!

Steve

[Seanachai]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No ability to edit weapons and most goodies. Too much trouble to go through for too little gain. Gizmos are assigned based on TO&E as are relevant to the game. So no, you can't give a laser pointer to someone, but Leaders, FOs, and other specialists are assigned them explicitly.

You can edit ammo levels and, I hope, set some specific things like AT-4s, Grenades, and Demo Charges. These things are more dynamically chosen based on mission vs. the other stuff.

Steve

You do realize that you're just giving it away? What the hell is wrong with you? Call yourself an Entrepreneur? You could be passing this sort of info on to someone like me, and I could be carefully leaking it out for cash payments. And we could be equitably splitting the take.

Think of me as Claude Rains to your Humphrey Bogart.

"I'm shocked, shocked to find that game information is being exchanged here!"

[Rick]

Any BFC guys,

For those of us who play mainly WWII games, what do you think we'll think of modern infantry firepower? My reading of things is overall increase, but decreased ranges, as noted earlier in this thread.

[Battlefront.com]

The volulme of fire possible from a current day US Army 9 man squad is superior to that of a WWII 12 man squad. The theoretical range has been shortened due to the differences betwen the M4 and M1 Garand rifles. However, even in WWII it was noted that most infantry engagements happened around the same range as they do now. IIRC 200m or so. One can also question how effective long range fire in WWII really was since the accuracy of the average rifleman against a moving target over 100m dropped off considerably.

Therefore, effectively there has been a major increase in firepower and no loss of range. The loss of the extra 3 men is an issue, however, that firepower can not make up for. This is akin to the German player in CMBB, for instance, fighting with Squads of 7 and 8 men with the same firepower as most Allied 10 and 12 man Squads. Once casualties start being taken the Germans quickly lost their advantage.

Steve

[Fenris]

Thanks for the details. I'm interested just how viable are the Syrian's as a force when playing against the US army in game.

Cheers

[Gryphon]

Thanks for the replies Steve! Hope to see more info coming our way slowly I'm really excited about this game! And coming from a hardcore WW2 fanatic, that means a lot

[John Kettler]

Steve,

A wholly unexpected update. Tasty!

Regards,

John Kettler

[c3k]

Mr. Battlefront.com (oh, nice name), please stop posting off-topic in this forum. This forum is dedicated to debating modern politics and various viewpoints and political definitions. If you continue to post rantings about make-believe games, I'll report you to the moderator.

Thank you,

Ken

[hellfish]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

No ability to edit weapons and most goodies. Too much trouble to go through for too little gain. Gizmos are assigned based on TO&E as are relevant to the game. So no, you can't give a laser pointer to someone, but Leaders, FOs, and other specialists are assigned them explicitly.

You can edit ammo levels and, I hope, set some specific things like AT-4s, Grenades, and Demo Charges. These things are more dynamically chosen based on mission vs. the other stuff.

Steve

Fair enough. The only issue that this presents, then, is that no two TO&Es are alike in practice. I'd be willing to bet that even within the same platoon no two rifle squads have the same doodads on their weapons. Most might have M68 CCOs, some will have ironsights, one or two might have holosights instead of the CCO, maybe more guys than the DM will have an ACOG, SAWs may or may not have the M145 scope (likewise for the M240B), etc.

[M1A1TC]

Battlefront

Can we get an example/standard of TO&E for a infantry platoon in the game?

[hellfish]

I assume they're gonna pull it right out of the Stryker FMs?

[Battlefront.com]

Fenris,

Thanks for the details. I'm interested just how viable are the Syrian's as a force when playing against the US army in game.

Check out some of the links in the sticky threads in this Forum. The short answer is "very" Remember, the most important asset of a modern Western military force is not its doodads its leadership. You, the player, are in the leadership position. If you suck, no amount of laser thingies and smart boom-booms will save you from defeat

c3k... bite me!

fytinghellfish, you are soooooo correct about the "every man for himself, and gizmos too" situation. Which is why we are standardizing everything Most of these things don't make THAT much of a difference game wide anyway. I remember a 101st Battalion commander telling about how he couldn't understand why his guys had so much crap attached to their M4s. He said he was getting too old to lug all that crap around, plus he could hold his own against any soldier under his command anyway.

Anyway, the bottom line is that these things are extremely common force wide and difficult to allow end users to tweak. I don't know why someone would want to go through and change loadouts on a 100+ soldiers anyway. Gotta be a skicko to do that!

Yeah, TO&E is coming straight out of the FMs. They are a fantastic source of info. Not only do we get the headcounts, but we also get their function and rank as well. So much nicer than the WWII TO&E stuff I had to do for CMx1. Ugh... what a research nightmare!

Steve

[Gryphon]

How about the Syrian TO&Es? Any info on that? I suspect they are a nightmare to research as well

[c3k]

Thanks.

Looking at the TO&E posted above, I count 39 legs and 7 vehicle operators for a total of 46 in the platoon. Will vehicle loadouts allow for that plus all the extras? Will players be able to split teams to load the vehicles according to a tactical plan? (E.g., all of 1st squad, 2nd MG team, and FO in one vehicle?)

As for updates: thanks.

Regards,

Ken

[hellfish]

IIRC the Syrians are organized on almost the exact same lines as the Soviets were, at least for their conventional forces.

[Battlefront.com]

c3k,

Looking at the TO&E posted above, I count 39 legs and 7 vehicle operators for a total of 46 in the platoon. Will vehicle loadouts allow for that plus all the extras? Will players be able to split teams to load the vehicles according to a tactical plan? (E.g., all of 1st squad, 2nd MG team, and FO in one vehicle?)

Well, in the case of Stryker Rifle Platoons... yes. A benefit of the Stryker is that it can take a full sized dismount squad, unlike a Bradley. Organic personnel fits nice and neat in the 4 Strykers, though a Medic is usually cross attached and either has to cram in, walk, or ride separately because all seats are full.

Bradleys are not going to be as nice. They have to crossload stuff in a way that makes the seating arrangement in a pool hall look sensible Unfortunately, there is no way we are going to attempt to simulate that accurately. The TacAI programming necessary to recombine the Teams after dismounting is way too much for us to take on at this point. Especially since the Bradeley is not part of our primary subject matter. So at this point you will be able to load bradleys, but they won't be loaded accurately.

Syrian TO&E is a mixmash of 1970s and 1980s Soviet TO&E as far as we can tell. Wish someone could give us better info than we have, but we've found none thus far. So that's what we're going with.

Steve

[YankeeDog]

Steve --

Just a thought, but in the re: The Bradley and infantry loading:

As a make-do abstraction, would it work to assess some kind of C&C or cohesion penalty to infantry units disembarking from Bradleys for, say a few tens of seconds, to simulate the fact that soldiers, having been cossloaded willy-nilly, will therefore need to spend some time reorganizing themselves into their proper combat teams once their boots hit the ground (or fight in a less-then-ideal organization?

Given what you've said, it seems to me that it would take longer for an infantry platoon tumbling out of Bradleys, to get themselves organized into proper combat order, than it would for a Stryker platoon to do the same. But I can see the challenge modeling this completely. Maybe some kind of abstraction would serve?