UI Request to BF.C

[Thomm]

Originally posted by JC_Hare:

Just to make sure I understand, are you saying the Syrian player will not under any circumstance, QB, scenario or campaign, be able to call in air strikes?

Only Scud strikes

Best regards,

Thomm

[hellfish]

IIRC, the XM110 is currently in limited service as the SR-25 rifle. I've seen it with SF guys and, possibly, some line infantry and Marines but I can't remember for sure.

The XM110 may just be a relative of the SR-25 (SR-25 is 5.56 and XM110 is 7.62, right?)

[Battlefront.com]

Correct, the Syrians will never, ever, under any circumstances be able to call upon air assets for combat support missions. There is no scenario in the world that could explain them being able to do this in any meaningful way.

We will simulate 7.63 and a .50 cal sniper rifles in CM:SF. Which ones will largely depend on what we see as most common. From a game standpoint there isn't much difference between these rifles within the same calibre. They are all as accurate as the guy pulling the trigger can make them.

Keep in mind that the old CMx1 distinction between "sharpshooter" and "sniper" still holds true. Squads do have a Designated Marksman, but that doesn't mean much. They are just guys that appear to have what it takes to shoot straighter than the rest of the guys in the Squad. They have not gone to a Sniper training school, nor are they specialized in that they only use a sniper rifle in a sniper role. Often times they use a M4 and are indistinguishable from a normal Rifleman.

The Sniper Team, held at Battalion Level, is a different story. This team is a dedicated sniper unit and they, supposedly, are up to the high standards expected of Snipers. They are a the ones that pack the .50cal rifles as part of their standard equipment (along side a 7.62 rifle).

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Correct, the Syrians will never, ever, under any circumstances be able to call upon air assets for combat support missions. There is no scenario in the world that could explain them being able to do this in any meaningful way.

Clear enough. I understand the rationale for the campaign, but what about QBs, if there will be such a thing. They are largely hypothetical to begin with. Will it not give an additional advantage to the US player if he knows that he never has to worry about Syrian air assets? and what about Red on Red scenarios which were discussed as a possibility, what would be the rationale for not having a "Red" air force?

[Battlefront.com]

We are doing nothing extra for Red on Red or Blue on Blue. These are simply extensions of the game itself, not features that add extra units, capabilities, etc. QuickBattles (which do exist in CM:SF) are the same way. Think about it in CMx1 terms... if you played a QuickBattle did you have access to the Maus or JSIII? Nope

Yes, the US forces do have an advantage that they know they never have to worry about an air attack. That is as much a reality as the US forces knowing that their tanks can knock out anything at several thousand meters of they have communications gear that allows for coordination unlike any force in prior history. It is, quite simply put, reality. On the flip side it is also reality that the US forces have to assume asyemetric combat at any point of the day or night no matter what the sitution might appear to be. This, in a way, has replaced the old notion of airpower threats.

Keep in mind that most players, myself included, never really worried about air power in CMx1 QBs and scenarios. Happened too infrequently to get all worked up about it. I think it is fairly safe to assume that was largely how US forces felt for most of the war in Europe.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Fair enough, but you are restricting my ability to set up interesting what if scenarios.

On your last point, may I presume that air power in CMSF will be more effective than in CM1.

[aka_tom_w]

On your last point, may I presume that air power in CMSF will be more effective than in CM1.

and more precise

[MikeyD]

I don't know if BFC makes a regular practice of checking out the CMx1 mods as they come up, but they might want to look over Vossiewulf's new CMAK menues and panels for CMSF design ideas. Very classy looking stuff.

Vossie's UI mod

(and any of you on this CMSF discussion site who hasn't yet touched a CMx1 product might find the menu items informative).

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr /> On your last point, may I presume that air power in CMSF will be more effective than in CM1.

and more precise </font>

[akd]

Originally posted by fytinghellfish:

IIRC, the XM110 is currently in limited service as the SR-25 rifle. I've seen it with SF guys and, possibly, some line infantry and Marines but I can't remember for sure.

The XM110 may just be a relative of the SR-25 (SR-25 is 5.56 and XM110 is 7.62, right?)

The M110 is derived from Knights Armament Company's SR-25 Mk. 11 Mod 0 Navy (there are a variety of SR-25 rifles out there).

http://knightarmco.com/sass.pdf

SR-25s are chambered for 7.62mm.

[ November 10, 2005, 05:17 PM: Message edited by: akd ]

[Battlefront.com]

Fair enough, but you are restricting my ability to set up interesting what if scenarios.

You mean like "what if aliens came down and destroyed all the US Airforce assets before the Syrians were wiped out, then teleported aircraft, support equipment, weaponry, and traied pilots from Russia"?

1. What will be modeled, I presume we will see the following aircrafts: F-16s, F-15Es, F/A-18s, A-10s;

There is very little difference between F-16, F-15, and F/A-18s from an aircraft standpoint. The weapons they drop are mostly the same, and where they aren't then we can allow for differences. The A-10 is an entirely different beast, as are Gunships. We expect to simulate these three types.

2. What about helicopters, like the Apache, will they be included? If yes, will they be physically on the board?

Yes, rotary attack aircraft will be included. Apache and Kiawah are the only two that I can think of that are relevant. They will likely have to be physically represented because of their engagement range and tactical uses. They will not be controlled like ground units, yet they will take direction from ground forces.

3. How will it work, will there be a FAC unit physically on the board, similar to the FOO in CM1?

Anybody with a radio can call for support, be it air or artillery. FSOs (Fire Support Officers) simply do it inherently better and with more flexible options. The Stryker Rifle Company has a dedicated FIST (Fire Support) Team in a specially designed Stryker. Each Rifle Platoon has a FO assigned to it as well. There are plenty of options for calling in support effectively.

Steve

[M1A1TC]

So what about transport helos, like UH-60 Black Hawk, and Chinooks? Can they be in the game please?

Steve, will you be including Rangers or Special Forces?

How will you handle shoulder patches? Will they be different depending on scenario?

[ November 10, 2005, 05:44 PM: Message edited by: M1A1TankCommander ]

[hellfish]

I hope to God we see Rangers or SF - they are an integral part of the modern battlefield. I have many, many accounts of SF leading Abrams and Bradleys into towns, as they'd been on the ground longer and had contacts (Hillah and Najaf stand out). Likewise, Afghanistan is mostly (even today) an SF operation. Even the Second Thunder Run had SF fighting it out at one of the Objectives (Moe, Larry or Curly) right next to the Bradleys and the truck drivers.

Technically, you can model Rangers using default infantry squads set at Crack or Elite, though I think their platoon TO&E is slightly different (3 MMGs per weapons squad, IIRC). I think Steve mentioned shoulder patches might be modelled - in that case I'd very much like to see the Ranger Scroll on all and the tab on officers and NCOs.

And, if anything, I'd like to try out a modern BHD-type of scenario. Pleeeeease, Steve!!!

As for helos - I don't know if I'd want them or not. I don't think there's been an air assault into a hostile LZ since Vietnam unless it was conducted by the 160th SOAR. Even the 101st nowadays takes great pains to avoid hot LZs. I think wrecked models for map placement in missions would be good, though.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by MikeyD:

I don't know if BFC makes a regular practice of checking out the CMx1 mods as they come up, but they might want to look over Vossiewulf's new CMAK menues and panels for CMSF design ideas. Very classy looking stuff.

Vossie's UI mod

(and any of you on this CMSF discussion site who hasn't yet touched a CMx1 product might find the menu items informative).

that is a GOOD looking mod!

they should hire that guy!!

If you have not seen it click on Mike's link and check it out!

-tom w

[M1A1TC]

So Steve, how about those Rangers and SF?

[juan_gigante]

Remember that you're commanding a Stryker company in the campaign. How realistic that a Stryker company commander would have SF guys under his command? I just don't think it is important enough or a big enough deal to warrant inclusion.

[Battlefront.com]

Rangers? No, we aren't planning on having them in the first release. They fit more into the storyline for a Module. SF... probably in a limited way, along the lines of what FHF mentioned. But remember, this is a a limited scope game unlike CMx1 games. We do not, and will not, get sucked back into the black hole that is "please include this!"

We would love to put in shoulder patches. Unfortunately, that isn't up to us. We need to secure permission from the Army to do that. Didn't think we needed to do that, but yup... in theory we can get into trouble if we don't get the OK ahead of time. All symbols, slogans, or any other form of "Heraldry" for active units is protected by Federal statutes. A few years ago we wouldn't have likely cared too much, but lately the Army has been quite active in this area.

No transport helos. Mogadishu underscores why not. From what I have heard coming out of OIF is that rotary aircraft was kept as far away from combat zones as possible. Even combat aircraft, such as the Apache. There were some spectacular failures in the face of rather low tech defenses in OIF. These lessons learned were applied in subsequent large scale actions such as Fallujah, where rotary aircraft were used almost exclusively around the city and not directly over it. I heard that directly from a Marines Major that was in charge of CAS for the second operation there. He cited vulnerability as the reason for keeping them out. And, of course, he was talking about COMBAT helos, not transport helos

Steve

[M1A1TC]

Definatly seems like this game will have much narrower scope of view then previous ones, but oh well. We can't have everything we want

[C'Rogers]

We do not, and will not, get sucked back into the black hole that is "please include this!"

Definatly seems like this game will have much narrower scope of view then previous ones, but oh well. We can't have everything we want

The games fans need to start pulling out the big guns. We need to start saying pretty please:).

The A-10 is an entirely different beast, as are Gunships. We expect to simulate these three types.

What makes gunships their own category? I will admit to being pretty fuzzy on how they are different. If someone could give an explanation of their use/strengths it would be much appreciated.

[Sgt Joch]

The air component seems to be shaping up nicely.

C'Rogers, some facts about Gunships, they are basically flying heavy machineguns with a very high rate of fire. Because they fly at slower speeds than jets, they can engage specific targets for a longer time.

Air Force Link

Boeing web page

[c3k]

JC_Hare,

Well, more than just flying machine guns. Depending on the model; 20mm, 40mm, 105mm weaponry. Of course, all that linked into high-tech spotting and targeting systems. Kind of fun to pick a window through which to send a 105 round....

Ken

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by c3k:

Well, more than just flying machine guns. Depending on the model; 20mm, 40mm, 105mm weaponry. Of course, all that linked into high-tech spotting and targeting systems. Kind of fun to pick a window through which to send a 105 round....

Sorry, I should have said high-tech flying heavy machineguns...

Originally posted by Battlefront:

Anybody with a radio can call for support, be it air or artillery. FSOs (Fire Support Officers) simply do it inherently better and with more flexible options. The Stryker Rifle Company has a dedicated FIST (Fire Support) Team in a specially designed Stryker. Each Rifle Platoon has a FO assigned to it as well. There are plenty of options for calling in support effectively.

If I read this correctly, it means any american or syrian unit with a radio, which means all regular army units, will be able to call in air (us only) and artillery strikes (US and Syria) on any targets it can see, this will have a big impact on gameplay.

[c3k]

Hmm,

I wasn't aware that U.S. Army/Air Force ops allowed for airstrikes to be called in by non-qualified FO's.

Some issues:

Deconflicting airspace - Planes and artillery shells cannot share the same space by doctrine.

Target Identification - WHICH mud-colored hut do you want vaporized? Not an insignificant issue when the aircraft is 20 miles away at 23,000 feet at 600 knots. (This gets into ground-level perspective vs. aerial, or accurate coordinates.)

Weapons Availability - Okay, we know which mud-colored hut, but the only assets on station are equipped with 2,000lb class JDAM's. Are friendly units ALL outside of the allowed impact zone?

Weapons Targeting - Is it a laser guided munition? Who is lasing? Is the laser compatible with the munition? (Specific coding to prevent multiple lasers from interfering with each other.)

Anyway, things to think about....

Ken

[Battlefront.com]

I was only speaking of the US side. For Syrians we will likely simulate them differently. Far more restrictive in terms of doctrine and capabilities.

c3k, as far as I know theoretically anybody can call in an airstrike. Doesn't mean they will get it or get the full effect, but I don't know of anything to prevent a Squad from saying "I've got a T-72 hunkered down at x,y and want it gone". The main thing is that the decision to use an airstrike is done at another level above the Squad. So the Squad can request airstrikes all day long, but there is no authority that goes along with that.

The thing is that just because a unit can see a target and have a strike authorized to take care of it doesn't mean that all options are open. As you pointed out, only specialized units have certain equipment that is required for specific types of attacks. Some types of attacks require a lot of specialized skills and kowledge. Also, some strikes are not going to happen unless other conditions are in place (like friendlies out of the way).

Blue Force Tracker has allowed a lot more flexibility and freedom than was available before. Better communications gear has also increased flexibility. But obviously there are still limitations so FIST units in CM:SF will be extremely valuable commodities.

I've still got a lot of reading to do on this subject, but whtever the real sitution might be we can handle it fairly realistically.

Steve

[Sgt Joch]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

For Syrians we will likely simulate them differently. Far more restrictive in terms of doctrine and capabilities.

Yet another plot to hamstring the Syrian forces.

The sense I get is that the player will have alot more options and flexibility in terms of artillery and air strikes, sounds very interesting.