Battlefront.com Posted October 16, 2005 Share Posted October 16, 2005 If you follow the smoke trail of the missile, though, it also suggests that everyone on the battlefield is going to know where fired from.Which is why they are fired from highly mobile platforms Shoot and scoot is a major requirement for something that leaves a signature like a LOSAT missile! BTW, the Army has had a very difficult time doing testing with this missile. The reason? Safety. That sucker has a danger range of... cripes something like 6-8 miles IIRC. Needless to say there aren't many test ranges with that sort of realestate available. Yeah, the COTS robotics, communications, Urban Breach Kits, etc. are rather interesting. The DoD has been quite anxious to find real solutions real fast instead of relying on the Military Industrial Complex list of usual suspects. Very refreshing. In fact, much of the Stryker Warrior gear is made by an Israeli company, so the DoD is showing yet again that they are willing to go with the best regardless of who came up with it. They need to do a lot more of that, but hey... it's something! Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Hopefully shoot and scoot will work better in CM:SF than it did in CMx1 So tell me Steve.. can we expect to see a US Platoon against a Syrian Battalion? Or are we expected to maintain a certain force survivability in order to score well? Re: comms... to what extent will these be simulated? It sounds like you are planning on a certain amount of radio malfunction and combat damage effects... will you have a friendly FOW present in game? That would be unique and add to the challenge for sure. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Private Bluebottle Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 About the C^4 stuff. I recently attended a conference where the point was made that its marvellous at telling you what your own troops are doing but patently useless at telling you what the enemy is doing. The speaker made the point that the US division commanders in the advance into Iraq in OIF, based themselves not to the rear, where all the computer stuff was but right at the front, exactly in the style that Guderian and others had advocated in WWII, purely because they didn't want to be swamped by information. I've also read reports from the users of all this stuff in the US Army that its about as reliable as a PC running an early version of Windows. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Originally posted by Private Bluebottle: About the C^4 stuff. I recently attended a conference where the point was made that its marvellous at telling you what your own troops are doing but patently useless at telling you what the enemy is doing. Well, if your intelligence guys are doing their job then you should have a fair picture of what the enemy is doing, or at least their dispositions... if they are sending their sanitized overlays to the TOC (compiled from all sources, ELINT, HUMINT, SIGINT, SPOT reports, etc.) then that information should be available to those that matter... namely the maneuver commander, usually at Brigade level, who should pass the information to the maneuver Battalions and then to Company level. A good analyst can determine a lot from that raw information. When I was in Intel we were able to send enemy dispositions (for attack missions), and enemy assembly area locations and probable COA's (for defensive missions), this information was then used by the commander on the ground when creating his plan (although often he would ignore it, to his later shame ). And this was before digital comms. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: BTW, the Army has had a very difficult time doing testing with this missile. The reason? Safety. That sucker has a danger range of... cripes something like 6-8 miles IIRC. Needless to say there aren't many test ranges with that sort of realestate available.White Sands all booked up? Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kurtz Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 "The Kinetic Energy Missile, a long rod tungsten penetrator, accelerates up to 5000 feet per second and has five times the kinetic energy of current tank rounds." :eek: :eek: :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Originally posted by Kurtz: "The Kinetic Energy Missile, a long rod tungsten penetrator, accelerates up to 5000 feet per second and has five times the kinetic energy of current tank rounds."Oh jeez, I bet that'd hurt. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 You'll have a LOT more control over how units fire in CMx2 vs. CMx1. There is no one answer for how a scenario can be set up. Just think of there being a ton more possibilities than in CMx1 and that details will be filled in later. Coms can go down, get interrupted, or otherwise rendered ineffective. There can be no "Friendly Fog of War" without transfering control of player units to the AI. And for that to be done even 1/10th to the satisfaction of the player we'd be talking about a 2007 release and a 2009 game setting. So no way are we going that route. Instead we'll put in far less time and energy and produce a vastly superior end product in the form of CoPlay (multi-multi player) We can do plenty of stuff to mess with the US Player's "perfect" Situational Awareness potential. I don't want to get into details yet, but not being able to utilize support assets, units not being registered with Blue Force Tracker, poor quality enemy intel being passed along the network, etc. All sorts of things can be done to realistically make things less than perfect for the US player. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sgt Joch Posted October 17, 2005 Share Posted October 17, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: We can do plenty of stuff to mess with the US Player's "perfect" Situational Awareness potential. I don't want to get into details yet, but not being able to utilize support assets, units not being registered with Blue Force Tracker, poor quality enemy intel being passed along the network, etc. All sorts of things can be done to realistically make things less than perfect for the US player. Steve :eek: :eek: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Steve, all sounding good to me. Looking forward to how you are making this game realistic and still maintain the challenge. Re: the AI commanding friendly units (for friendly FOW).. well, it does a credible job with the opposing troops, so why not? Sure there would be some bickering (always is isn't there?) but it would sure add another wrinkle to the game. For example, I can foresee a rescue scenario where a Company team is sent in to locate and extricate a friendly cut off element, where the cut off unit is under AI control, at least until linked up with other friendly forces. You could also have friendly forces on the flanks of the player controlled unit, each with their own objectives.. the motivation to stay within your own AO would be heightened for sure... as would insuring positive ID before opening fire.. a valid and very real consideration in modern combat. Bil 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 For example, I can foresee a rescue scenario where a Company team is sent in to locate and extricate a friendly cut off element, where the cut off unit is under AI control, at least until linked up with other friendly forces. I would like them to try to pull that off. A small team of US special forces in DEEP trouble, cut off ( and completely out of player control). Perhaps some really good stuff like this will show up in the second title release for WWII ETO which would also be very welcome! thanks -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Re: the AI commanding friendly units (for friendly FOW).. well, it does a credible job with the opposing troops, so why not? Because the AI never looses control of its own forces. The actions of each unit is, as best as we could manage, coordinated with other units. If we forced the AI to move around a couple of Squads in ignorance of all else I doubt you would be advocating for this feature without months of specific AI coding. The main problem with "cutting off" a unit is that in real life they don't magically become independent entities. In fact, well trained and will disciplined units expect to be cut off and therefore follow out their orders to the best of their abilities and within whatever mission parameters they have (both immediate and long ranging). Without an ability for the player to communicate stuff the Big Picture, doctrine, and tactical SOPs we can not have the AI doing anything but acting like a moron with your units. And that stuff takes a lot of time to code. Sorry... this is an idea that is OK in theory but not in reality. It simply will not work without major investment of coding and testing time. Wishful thinking won't make it otherwise Sure there would be some bickering (always is isn't there?) but it would sure add another wrinkle to the game. Hehe... this is like the intelligence community saying "sure our evidence to support the claim that Iraq has WMD is weak and contradictory, but we should go to war anyway because it would put a wrinkle in international relations. Sure there will be some bickering, but that's alway the case" Seriously... what you define as "some bickering" I see as a major landslide of abuse unless we invest massive energy into the AI. And that is just not going to happen. Again, I'd rather spend a lot less and get a lot better result by supporting 16 players or more per side. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seanachai Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Originally posted by Moon: After playing Steel Panthers MBT (or whatever the modern version was called)... Martin MBT, of 'Mother Beautiful Thread' is a Trademark of the 'Peng Challenge Thread', aka 'the Cesspool'. It's misuse and misapplication as regards 'Steel Panthers' has, Martin, opened you up to possible legal action by our Thread lawyers. Given that our lawyers are all either Buddhists, Swedes, Unemployed Texans, or District of Columbia Political Corruption Specialists, you've just opened up A GREAT BIG CAN OF WHOOP-ASS FOR YOURSELF, MOON! You can either abase yourself in your contrition for the implied slur, or you can kick in 'two more lives' to the Peng Challenge Thread kitty. We're running dangerously close to the edge on 'bannings', and, frankly, could use a couple of 'Get Out of the Hell of Your Own Making' passes. So, can we count on you to do the right thing, and let a couple of our guys walk when that next episode of 'grain alcohol and ether psychosis during a full moon' occurs? Or are we gonna have to bring in the MBT Lawyers? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thewood Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Originally posted by Bil Hardenberger: You make an interesting point Warren about the borg spotting... it will be interesting to see the effect digital comms for the US forces have on the battles... if recreated correctly the US side will have great situational awareness while the Syrian's (OPFOR) will be hamstrung and in the dark about not only enemy forces but friendly troop information (Will we perhaps see friendly FOW?). Still experience has proven that even the excellent information sharing technology that the US has is not perfect, for example, the tendancy is for these types of units to be micro-managed by higher echelons, which really does nothing but disrupt coordination and spread confusion. I am especially looking forward to the communications aspect of this game, it has some serious consequences on how the battles play out. Bil If you want to see a wargame (simulation) that gets spotting and communications right. Get Point of Attack 2. It's implementation of communication and sighting is something I hope CMSF can do. While POA2 has many faults that have only recently corrected, it gives you a great understanding of what a real life task force commander must go through in looking at SITREPs to get a clear picture of not only the OPFOR forces, but freindly forces as well. You can download the new complete manual at HPS and see for yourselves. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 more on POA2 here: Point of Attack 2 is a "game" unlike any other ever available for the civilian market. It is not for everyone--it is a product designed to accurately model the minute intricacies of modern weapons systems to a degree which casual gamers may find cumbersome, even excessive. POA2 values 'brutal' realism above all else. web page for Point of attack 2 more Point of Attack 2 is an astonishingly comprehensive and detailed modern combat simulator. The weapons database includes hundreds of systems from circa 1960 into those the might be fielded the near future, all modeled in amazing detail. The ammunition types include cluster munitions, missiles, bombs, rockets, kinetic energy rounds, and even hypothetical energy weapons. Systems that are modeled include: Point Missile Defense Radar Laser Decoy systems Jamming systems NBC defense Mines Remote sensors Naval units Air forces Terrorists Civilians and much more. OK That is sort of interesting but it looks HARD to master (and again there is no Mac version that I can see) -tom w 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 but it looks HARD to masterI heard from one source, which is trying to use it for training within the military, that it has taken them a year just to figure out how to use it HPS has always been known for their high level of detail, but also known for user interface that is best described as "outdated". POA2 looks to be an improvement in that regard, but it isn't how we'd do the UI Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aka_tom_w Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 , but also known for user interface that is best described as "outdated". POA2 looks to be an improvement in that regard, but it isn't how we'd do the UI Thank the heavens for THAT! (now lets not talk about the interface for the Map editor in CMx1 that was truly the kludge from hell BUT that's another sorry ) Any chance POA2 can be used as a reference for the data base of specs on units??? I guess you cannot admit it if you are using or looking at their data, but it would appear ALL the technical data and specifications for ALL kinds of weapons systems are all in the public domain and they are giving away ALL that stuff for free download on their web page. (re: the manual and all the specs and charts and things I think) just wondering -tom w [ October 18, 2005, 10:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ] 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drusus Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Originally posted by Battlefront.com: POA2 looks to be an improvement in that regard, but it isn't how we'd do the UI I know what you are talking about, I think I see a unit roster in that picture... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Splinty Posted October 18, 2005 Share Posted October 18, 2005 Originally posted by Michael Emrys: </font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Kurtz: "The Kinetic Energy Missile, a long rod tungsten penetrator, accelerates up to 5000 feet per second and has five times the kinetic energy of current tank rounds."Oh jeez, I bet that'd hurt. Michael </font> 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.