Ground units (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message


rmunie0613 -> Ground units (8/16/2018 1:59:06 PM)

I keep seeing so many comments about ground/land units only being targets. Anyone approaching it from that view, is missing a great deal of fun, not to mention nuance of the game.

While it is true that you won't have a realistic "ground total war"- the game is after all "Modern Air Naval War"... you an use ground units for many things...from recon, to lazing targets, to the inverse- anti-recon, and searching for the hidden teams spotting for those pesky airstrikes.
I have employed ground forces in every scenario I work on, and all have played well, of course not as the centerpieces, but as definite forces to reckon with. When I am creating a scenario, nearly every ground facility I add, I also add a security force to...those security fores are a serious threat then to the units I drop in, for example, to do recon...or look for hard to find SSM launchers, or try to identify a specific building that is a target among many buildings that are not.





Dysta -> RE: Ground units (8/16/2018 2:15:01 PM)

You spoke almost all of my impression I have around 3 years.

Unfortunately ground battle is not going to be authentic because the limitations of terrain elevations and environment, like CMANO cannot tell the difference between desert and rainforest, and neither of them giving 'buff' to specific ground units.

I believed if land battle can be done half as much as ARMA 2 has (read carefully, it's not going to be a copy of it), the game will be both challenging and 'reasonable' to tell the problem of land battle in authentic perspective. There are many board games to specifically tell many different tiles what it will affect the unit and what's not.

But I am applauding to the effort to the sea-enviornment, not many games has much of water details as CMANO has. I mean, once your amphibious units are safe to get on the shore, you're already helping the land battle a lot. So CMANO only focus on air and naval combats does exactly tells a majority, if not entirely, what modern warfare is all about.




DWReese -> RE: Ground units (8/16/2018 2:39:38 PM)

I just played the first scenario of Northern Fury. Wow! What a great scenario. Kudos to Gunner98. This scenario has so many air units dropping off ground units via air drops or helos and the ground war that develops is nicely represented. I would highly recommend it. It seems to be very realistic.

Doug




SeaQueen -> RE: Ground units (8/16/2018 4:19:19 PM)

I agree with you. The ground units in C:MANO are definitely more than just targets. They can also be sensors, and the fact that you can move them around with the cargo feature makes them potentially play importantly into victory conditions. I'm making a scenario set in Poland right now, where small teams of spetznaz does BDA and lase targets for the Russian side. Because I don't place a lot of faith in the ground combat model, though, I don't really worry about the possibility of air base security forces fighting them. In my opinion it'd really just be a distraction from the already difficult task of defending Poland.

Where I really wish there was some more fleshing out of ground combat was in scenarios involving close air support or direct action, although the things I think would be most important are probably not what most people think. I'd like to be able to do things like move fuel around with helicopters or C-130s for tanks and other helicopters. That way I could do things like flying a C-130, a CH-47, CH-53 forward, set up a forward air refueling point (FARP) and then have a bunch of helicopters come in behind it, gas up on the ground, and then go even deeper inland. Or else I'd be doing things like, providing gas for tanks on the advance. I'd also like there to be more attention to artillery and counter battery radars. That was important in The Balkans conflicts, as the counter battery radars were incorporated into the air tasking order (ATO) process. I think the Army's Deep Strike programs are a great subject for C:MANO. I think as the cargo capability starts to come together, amphibious operations and air assault operations are going to start looking increasingly interesting and important, and thus force people to eventually devote some careful attention to ground combat modeling.



quote:

ORIGINAL: rmunie0613
I have employed ground forces in every scenario I work on, and all have played well, of course not as the centerpieces, but as definite forces to reckon with. When I am creating a scenario, nearly every ground facility I add, I also add a security force to...those security fores are a serious threat then to the units I drop in, for example, to do reon...or look for hard to find SSM launchers, or try to identify a specific building that is a target among many buildings that are not.





kevinkins -> RE: Ground units (8/16/2018 10:09:10 PM)

Ground targets in Command will never be at the fidelity of Combat Mission. Nor will Combat Mission be at the fidelity of Command. That said, Command ground units are extremely important. They can provide a lot of operational context and give players planning problems across the entire time span of a scenario. There are many ways to use Ground units as a designer. The issue I have is that the organizational level should be higher than platoon. Or just let the designer have the option to deploy companies or battalions as a single unit on the map.

Kevin




Dysta -> RE: Ground units (8/17/2018 12:25:41 AM)

I think that ground battle also have one underviewed problem is the logisics. The land troops has invaded the enemy position, what’s next? Those equipments need fuel, ammunition and maintenance to keep them in active throughout the battle. If either aerial or naval supply chain is broken, how could you expect the invading force could continue the battle without an upkeep?

Ground-based supply chain and looting enemy resources are both exist, but they aren't as convenient as either two logistic options I mentioned before. Maintaining the ground supply lines are also serve more of distractions to your combat decisions, not to mention to give enemy more options to destroy them.

It's certain that air and sea controls must be absolute before the land invasion begins, but how could you ensure there is no counterattack against them? Especially playing the multi-sided scenarios that giving reinforcements to the defending side will be significantly lagging the progress of attack, ended up into stalemate or ceasefire because of combat fatigues.




strykerpsg -> RE: Ground units (8/17/2018 5:16:53 AM)

Since I am the one that made the gesture regarding ground units in the update, I will assume this was started regarding that particular comment. My issue with what was dangled out to the community in last announcement of Gurkhas added to the inventory are a lack of the deeper parts of what makes a dismounted Warrior something more than a target, in game. A fantastic specialty unit (not necessarily elite) with a well deserved reputation regarding their loyalty to the Crown and their nationality. However, the mechanics to take advantage of that fierceness is lost to the deeper mechanisms of the challenges of ground dis-mounted warfare. Things such as levels of fitness, experience, quality of equipment, training, motivation, and even reputation are not really factors in the current sim. Then there's the absence of more detailed terrain to obstruct or provide line of sight issues, targeting challenges and even logistics of supporting the person on the ground.

While they can indeed provide some basic eyes on target or even lase, terrain does not hinder their movement nor block their weapon trajectories. There's also no randomness to communications breakdown or even the factoring of the limitations of FM/UHF comms, which has a huge real world impact on actual Warriors.

So, after all that rambling, my point is you can take any generic Infantry formation and modify it however, but in the end, it brings no real value to the game currently, aside from having a deployable slow moving 2 legged ISR platform with limited weapons capability. Certainly dropping rapidly deployable entities in any scenario changes the battlefield dynamics quite quickly. But until additional things are factored into their composition, such as quality of training, motivation and all the stuff described above, they are still generic targets that can move on the ground with a lacking of higher fidelity to distinguish. For example, a hard core North Korean conscript who has huge motivation and physical capabilities to adapt and improvise but cannot hit the broadside of a barn because they only shoot maybe 100 rounds during their entire 10 years of conscription versus a US Infantry Soldier that fires thousands of rounds during their term of service, has state of the art equipment, training, ISR support and adaptive leadership. We are just not there yet, at least to care enough about specialty formations, in my opinion.




SeaQueen -> RE: Ground units (8/17/2018 1:45:15 PM)

I don't think they need to be. I think some sort of aggregation or abstraction is exactly the way to treat them in Command.

That being said, I would like to see them better fleshed out in order to bring out the full capabilities and limitations of air and naval forces. Amphibious assault, for example, is an air and naval operation, which has really only begun to be fleshed out in Command. There are no mines or obstacles from the surf zone inland. Naval gun fire support, is a naval operation, but the effect of suppression isn't really modeled. The integration of air power and artillery (particularly rocket artillery) is okay for some purposes (e.g. SEAD, or deep strike), but not so good for close air support where, once again, suppression is an important effect of fires. Smoke and terrain isn't modeled. Dropping bombs on infantry in the jungle is the same as dropping bombs on them in the opened desert. Tanks advancing under the cover of smoke from artillery isn't modeled. Smoke has an effect on lasing, and can make life difficult for A-10s attempting to "tank plink." Logistics from the air is an important part of what air power contributes. The cargo capability is only beginning to scratch the surface of that, and make cargo aircraft something more than targets. I think eventually, being able to land amphibious forces, build up the "iron mountain" and push out, or else experiment with more modern "ship to objective maneuver" concepts is exactly where that kind of capability is going. Amphibious and air assault operations are ultimately going to push Command into maybe not necessarily a more detailed ground combat model, but a more fully fleshed out one, in the sense that more effects are represented.




quote:

ORIGINAL: kevinkin

Ground targets in Command will never be at the fidelity of Combat Mission. Nor will Combat Mission be at the fidelity of Command. That said, Command ground units are extremely important. They can provide a lot of operational context and give players planning problems across the entire time span of a scenario. There are many ways to use Ground units as a designer. The issue I have is that the organizational level should be higher than platoon. Or just let the designer have the option to deploy companies or battalions as a single unit on the map.

Kevin





rmunie0613 -> RE: Ground units (8/17/2018 2:34:55 PM)

Haha..Stryker it was not aimed at you, though I did see yours also... but I have seen that mentioned so often on this forum I just had to say something ingeneral.

There really are limitations with some things like cover, terrain, etc...but it is interesting to have your slow moving team "find" things that air assets cannot find...dropping them in to reach that area opens up tactical choices also...because they are slow, do you bring them closer, into proximity of SAM areas...as it takes a realistic time to unload them from the helos, for example, or do you drop them in a safe LZ far away and make them walk...and possibly have enemy ground units shoot them up before they arrive...as happens fairly often if you put ground security on the other side... those little "security vs recon" battles take place very often...so then you have to add some heavier ground forces to aid the recon against the other side..and then add heavier units to the other side also...

On your comment about the Ghurkhas, I can see the point though...it would be great if each unit was not exactly the same...you can change in editor mode, the proficiency, making them react faster...but other than that the Ghurkhas are the same as a unit of any other infantry.




SeaQueen -> RE: Ground units (8/17/2018 4:28:15 PM)

I would break this into two scenarios. The first: infiltrating SOF to perform special reconnaissance on a strike target would be one. Frankly, if a SOF team was discovered by the security forces, they'd probably abort and have to be extracted. As much as everyone wants to believe they're super-soldiers, they're not. They're usually very lightly armed, tend to not have a lot of armor, they lack the heavier weapons conventional forces carry (e.g. javelin missiles and mortars) and rely a lot on remaining undiscovered. If they're spotted, they go home. Extraction might entail close air support, or building a corridor with SEAD and fighter sweeps to reach them, as well as the extracting aircraft themselves.

The second would be the air strike itself, and would assume the SOF remains undiscovered. Once the air strike starts, the base security is going to be busy sheltering as missiles and bombs rain down on the base, and the air is filled with fragments. It's also too late. Denying them the use of SOF isn't going to stop the air strike while it's going on. They're going to launch/drop whether they're there or not. They're just there to make the targeting more effective and efficient.

quote:

There really are limitations with some things like cover, terrain, etc...but it is interesting to have your slow moving team "find" things that air assets cannot find...dropping them in to reach that area opens up tactical choices also...because they are slow, do you bring them closer, into proximity of SAM areas...as it takes a realistic time to unload them from the helos, for example, or do you drop them in a safe LZ far away and make them walk...and possibly have enemy ground units shoot them up before they arrive...as happens fairly often if you put ground security on the other side... those little "security vs recon" battles take place very often...so then you have to add some heavier ground forces to aid the recon against the other side..and then add heavier units to the other side also...




strykerpsg -> RE: Ground units (8/18/2018 11:22:00 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: rmunie0613

Haha..Stryker it was not aimed at you, though I did see yours also... but I have seen that mentioned so often on this forum I just had to say something ingeneral.

There really are limitations with some things like cover, terrain, etc...but it is interesting to have your slow moving team "find" things that air assets cannot find...dropping them in to reach that area opens up tactical choices also...because they are slow, do you bring them closer, into proximity of SAM areas...as it takes a realistic time to unload them from the helos, for example, or do you drop them in a safe LZ far away and make them walk...and possibly have enemy ground units shoot them up before they arrive...as happens fairly often if you put ground security on the other side... those little "security vs recon" battles take place very often...so then you have to add some heavier ground forces to aid the recon against the other side..and then add heavier units to the other side also...

On your comment about the Ghurkhas, I can see the point though...it would be great if each unit was not exactly the same...you can change in editor mode, the proficiency, making them react faster...but other than that the Ghurkhas are the same as a unit of any other infantry.


LOL, I promise nothing was taken personally. I absolutely love the series, but the Gurkha thing just made my eyes roll. I even enjoy the limited capabilities of the generic dismounted Infantry assets in various scenarios as described above. Good update overall, including the recognition of a lesser known infantry organization.




Sniper31 -> RE: Ground units (8/19/2018 1:11:55 PM)

There is some very interesting discussion going on in this thread. As a career Light Infantry and small team actions NCO, I would love to see the ground force operations side of CMANO more fleshed out. That said, I can certainly understand the potential limitations that might be present. I tend to agree with SeaQueen's comments above, especially regarding the use of SOF forces. Also, the battlefield effects are a great point of discussion. Something that is extremely important for ground combat, in addition to smoke and such, is the effects of day and night ops. I know this is modeled in CMANO to some degree, but it's a bit too abstracted for realistic ground ops. The same can be said of weather effects, another huge effect that can drastically effect ground operations. I would love to see quality of forces (training, experience, quality of equipment etc.) be a factor for ground forces in CMANO. One thing I really enjoy about CMANO is pouring over the available weapons in a scenario, and picking the right platform and weapon for the task. It would be equally enjoyable if that were true of ground forces to the same extent as it is for the weapons in CMANO.




SeaQueen -> RE: Ground units (8/19/2018 1:47:43 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sniper31
One thing I really enjoy about CMANO is pouring over the available weapons in a scenario, and picking the right platform and weapon for the task. It would be equally enjoyable if that were true of ground forces to the same extent as it is for the weapons in CMANO.


Given the scope of Command, I'd argue the proper goal for an improved ground combat model would be to choose the right effects or mass the proper force ratio rather than pairing targets with weapons and sensors. I think the weirdness comes in when you match up the ground combat and the air and naval combat models. If I have my 182mm mortars concentrate their fires on the same platoon that an F-15E is strafing, do you resolve it in a more aggregated/abstract way or do you pair the weapons to the targets? What about if a DDG is firing their 5" gun into the same platoon from off shore, and then an ATACMS impacts them? I'm not sure force ratios is the answer.




Sniper31 -> RE: Ground units (8/20/2018 4:22:24 AM)

That is not exactly what was intended by my comments. Rather, what I was trying to say, for example, would be selecting a proper unit for a specific type of mission. Also, I am guessing you mean 81mm or 82mm mortars?? I have never seen anything close to 182mm mortars on the ground.




strykerpsg -> RE: Ground units (8/20/2018 5:27:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

Given the scope of Command, I'd argue the proper goal for an improved ground combat model would be to choose the right effects or mass the proper force ratio rather than pairing targets with weapons and sensors. I think the weirdness comes in when you match up the ground combat and the air and naval combat models. If I have my 182mm mortars concentrate their fires on the same platoon that an F-15E is strafing, do you resolve it in a more aggregated/abstract way or do you pair the weapons to the targets? What about if a DDG is firing their 5" gun into the same platoon from off shore, and then an ATACMS impacts them? I'm not sure force ratios is the answer.


Adding ground forces in the current state would just be an additional asset to micromanage. You could certainly argue the use of combined arms to provide overlapping destruction of your targets is simply following current doctrine, but depending on the type of target, say troops in contact, where does one now factor in proximity of your forces to the target to avoid fratricide from say indirect fire or air dropped/launched assets? Does this lethal zone become lessened because the unit's in contact are in cover inside a building or behind a terrain feature that can absorb some of the fragmentation using MSD(Minimum Safe Distance)/REDs(Risk Estimated Distance) methodology or do we just go with a generic blast radius circle and everything within that circle dies without factoring in things like buildings and obstacles absorbing damages and blast? The list of realism to be added to the ground fight can become very complex, if allowed and current engine permits those calculations. In the end, why would you need to abstract beyond xxx # of rounds from MG xx, xxx # of 81mm HE rounds from mortar xx, 2 Mk 82 LDGP bombs from F-16 xx detroyed target xyz? It should just be an overmatch mechanism that would destroy everything in grid 12345678 with overwhelming firepower. I would think a pairing of the numbers makes most sense. It would just be destruction by multiple sources.


I think ultimately, ground unit's are nothing more in their current configuration than an armed, slow moving ISR platform, with limited capabilities. To name a specific formation (Gurkha) like it now has some sort of additional strength or value beyond, say a conventional US Infantry is too unrefined at this point. Realistically, Gurkha's are specialized light Infantry formation renowned for their fierceness in battle and come equipped with a Khukuri machete, useful in foraging roots and skinning animals, or lopping a head off of an opponent, though have yet to find an actual recorded incident of this happening. More psychological than applicable. They will not move faster, have more endurance or specialized weapons, aside from Khukuri, that would make them more selected over another light Infantry unit to do a task, aside from maybe high altitude mountaineering (they are from Nepal after all), which US and NATO light formations have been mastering for last 17 years of Afghanistan involvement. (sorry, sounds redundant to my earlier posting but still scratching my head about the Gurkha thing....)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Sniper31

That is not exactly what was intended by my comments. Rather, what I was trying to say, for example, would be selecting a proper unit for a specific type of mission. Also, I am guessing you mean 81mm or 82mm mortars?? I have never seen anything close to 182mm mortars on the ground.


I agree that having a specialized properly roled unit would indeed be nice. But unless I missed something in the last few patches, we are still not there yet. Work in progress? Certainly Can they be made to fit in the editor? Absolutely. I know there's been ongoing talk for some time about how there are existing commercial off the shelf engines that could possibly work with CMANO. Would absolutely love to see this. However, I suspect it would also make this a very niche and expensive simulation.

Regarding 182mm mortars, I also think he meant 82mm, but there are indeed a plethora of much heavier mortars going as high as RU 240mm breach loaded mortars.

Apologies for the rambling, coffee finally wearing off. I may have gone off the intended talking points a bit, but love the direction this talk is going.




Sniper31 -> RE: Ground units (8/20/2018 4:56:43 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

Adding ground forces in the current state would just be an additional asset to micromanage. You could certainly argue the use of combined arms to provide overlapping destruction of your targets is simply following current doctrine, but depending on the type of target, say troops in contact, where does one now factor in proximity of your forces to the target to avoid fratricide from say indirect fire or air dropped/launched assets? Does this lethal zone become lessened because the unit's in contact are in cover inside a building or behind a terrain feature that can absorb some of the fragmentation using MSD(Minimum Safe Distance)/REDs(Risk Estimated Distance) methodology or do we just go with a generic blast radius circle and everything within that circle dies without factoring in things like buildings and obstacles absorbing damages and blast? The list of realism to be added to the ground fight can become very complex, if allowed and current engine permits those calculations. In the end, why would you need to abstract beyond xxx # of rounds from MG xx, xxx # of 81mm HE rounds from mortar xx, 2 Mk 82 LDGP bombs from F-16 xx detroyed target xyz? It should just be an overmatch mechanism that would destroy everything in grid 12345678 with overwhelming firepower. I would think a pairing of the numbers makes most sense. It would just be destruction by multiple sources.


I think ultimately, ground unit's are nothing more in their current configuration than an armed, slow moving ISR platform, with limited capabilities. To name a specific formation (Gurkha) like it now has some sort of additional strength or value beyond, say a conventional US Infantry is too unrefined at this point. Realistically, Gurkha's are specialized light Infantry formation renowned for their fierceness in battle and come equipped with a Khukuri machete, useful in foraging roots and skinning animals, or lopping a head off of an opponent, though have yet to find an actual recorded incident of this happening. More psychological than applicable. They will not move faster, have more endurance or specialized weapons, aside from Khukuri, that would make them more selected over another light Infantry unit to do a task, aside from maybe high altitude mountaineering (they are from Nepal after all), which US and NATO light formations have been mastering for last 17 years of Afghanistan involvement. (sorry, sounds redundant to my earlier posting but still scratching my head about the Gurkha thing....)



I agree that having a specialized properly roled unit would indeed be nice. But unless I missed something in the last few patches, we are still not there yet. Work in progress? Certainly Can they be made to fit in the editor? Absolutely. I know there's been ongoing talk for some time about how there are existing commercial off the shelf engines that could possibly work with CMANO. Would absolutely love to see this. However, I suspect it would also make this a very niche and expensive simulation.

Regarding 182mm mortars, I also think he meant 82mm, but there are indeed a plethora of much heavier mortars going as high as RU 240mm breach loaded mortars.

Apologies for the rambling, coffee finally wearing off. I may have gone off the intended talking points a bit, but love the direction this talk is going.


No worries, your rambling has not bothered me as such, I too think this is an interesting discussion. Also, both SeaQueen and yourself have made salient points, which I mostly agree with. I too think that CMANO is not anywhere near where it would be to have better ground forces like I was suggesting. I am simply stating what I would be okay with, IF they ever got that far. But, to be fair, I do understand some of the complexities with the current engine and trying to integrate more ground force operations into it. One can always wish though ;) I am a firm believer in Combined Arms Doctrine, so I would love to see Sea, Air and Land more integrated some day. CMANO does the Air and Sea aspect so well, I guess the ground-pounder in me is just jealous [:D] Over 18 years of my career has been in the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) and 10th Mountain Divisions (and ALL of my four combat tours were with the 101st), so that is where my heart is. It would be nice to be able to plan a large scale air assault operation to gain a lodgement behind the enemies lines and then be able to push out proper Air Assault/Airborne/Light/Mountain units to further expand the lodegment and make room for follow on supplies and units. Being able to select the right units for such an operation and have it matter in CMANO would be very sweet indeed.

And you make a good point about breech loading mortars and such. I guess I should have qualified my comments that from my own experiences, almost all Light Infantry related, you never see mortars that large in this day and age, and in the theaters of combat that I have been in [;)[:D]]




SeaQueen -> RE: Ground units (8/20/2018 7:05:07 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sniper31
It would be nice to be able to plan a large scale air assault operation to gain a lodgement behind the enemies lines and then be able to push out proper Air Assault/Airborne/Light/Mountain units to further expand the lodegment and make room for follow on supplies and units. Being able to select the right units for such an operation and have it matter in CMANO would be very sweet indeed.


That's exactly the kind of thing I'd like to be able to do too. You can sorta kinda do it with the cargo feature now, but it needs more. Actually, what I'd like to see, ideally, is to be able to do something like gain local air supremacy, destroy the coastal defense cruise missiles and missile boats, defend against the submarines, clear a route through the mines to the beaches, suppress the air defenses, bombard the coast with air and naval gun fires, execute simultaneous air and surface assaults, breach the mines and obstacles on the beach, establish blocking positions, fight off the enemy quick reaction force, have SOF seize a high value objective, reconstitute the force, then move the whole expeditionary strike group further up the coast. I think that kind of thing is closer now with the cargo feature.

quote:

And you make a good point about breech loading mortars and such. I guess I should have qualified my comments that from my own experiences, almost all Light Infantry related, you never see mortars that large in this day and age, and in the theaters of combat that I have been in [;)[:D]]


I was thinking 82mm mortars at the time but went back and edited. I needed to edit my edits.

quote:

That is not exactly what was intended by my comments. Rather, what I was trying to say, for example, would be selecting a proper unit for a specific type of mission.


The thing about that in a wargame is that you run into the problem of modeling doctrine rather than decision making. One of the things that's fun about wargames is that you can sometimes come up with innovative solutions to complex problems. In that case it might not necessarily be doctrine (i.e. "proper") to match a unit to a given mission, but they probably could do it, however the game would't reflect it. In that sense it ought to be about matching capabilities to tasks.

Command is pretty good when it involves a machine which can be boiled down to engineering specifications. Usually that involves either a sensor or a weapon. It's not so good regarding the kinds of human factors that are important in a ground battle. Truth be told, an infantry unit is basically a bunch of guys with guns. Assault rifles are all pretty similar within the scope of Command. Given that, what makes a US Army platoon different from a US Marine platoon, and different from a Chinese Marine platoon, or North Korean Army platoon, an Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps platoon, or a Congolese mercenary platoon? It's not just the guns. They all have guns in roughly similar numbers, and the guns they have are not that different. That tells you how they ought to be described in the database. Next, the question is how is whatever makes them different affected by dropping a JDAM on them?




AlphaSierra -> RE: Ground units (8/20/2018 8:19:09 PM)

I doubt that CMANO will ever be to ground forces, what it is to naval warfare simulation.

Personally I use ARMA3 to simulate ground combat. It picks up nicely where Command leaves off.

Just my 2 cents





SeaQueen -> RE: Ground units (8/20/2018 10:17:35 PM)

I'm thinking less ARMA3 and more Air Assault Task Force...

quote:

Personally I use ARMA3 to simulate ground combat. It picks up nicely where Command leaves off.




Sniper31 -> RE: Ground units (8/20/2018 11:15:45 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: AlphaSierra

I doubt that CMANO will ever be to ground forces, what it is to naval warfare simulation.



I would agree with this statement, but one can always wish. As for ARMA3 (or any separate application for that matter), if I am wishing, then I want ALL of it in one package. [:D]




strykerpsg -> RE: Ground units (8/21/2018 1:26:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sniper31
No worries, your rambling has not bothered me as such, I too think this is an interesting discussion. Also, both SeaQueen and yourself have made salient points, which I mostly agree with. I too think that CMANO is not anywhere near where it would be to have better ground forces like I was suggesting. I am simply stating what I would be okay with, IF they ever got that far. But, to be fair, I do understand some of the complexities with the current engine and trying to integrate more ground force operations into it. One can always wish though ;) I am a firm believer in Combined Arms Doctrine, so I would love to see Sea, Air and Land more integrated some day. CMANO does the Air and Sea aspect so well, I guess the ground-pounder in me is just jealous [:D] Over 18 years of my career has been in the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) and 10th Mountain Divisions (and ALL of my four combat tours were with the 101st), so that is where my heart is. It would be nice to be able to plan a large scale air assault operation to gain a lodgement behind the enemies lines and then be able to push out proper Air Assault/Airborne/Light/Mountain units to further expand the lodegment and make room for follow on supplies and units. Being able to select the right units for such an operation and have it matter in CMANO would be very sweet indeed.

And you make a good point about breech loading mortars and such. I guess I should have qualified my comments that from my own experiences, almost all Light Infantry related, you never see mortars that large in this day and age, and in the theaters of combat that I have been in [;)[:D]]



Agree on all points. I thoroughly enjoy each update and enhancements to the series and I know there has been talk of potentially other engines that might merge with this series, but those were all hypothetical and nothing actioned officially. The series is on the right track definitely, even if that means its in iteration 2.0 and price point of more than the current game. I will support this series till my demise. They have a great development team and an equally great community.

I think we might have quite a few war stories we could could share at a bar some time. I also spent about 2 years in Anchorage, 8 years at Campbell, another 3 in Schofield, O/C in JRTC and 8 years in 3 and 4th Stryker BDEs at Lewis. So, was very fortunate in my career and the interactions through the years.




Sniper31 -> RE: Ground units (8/21/2018 3:44:40 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg


quote:

ORIGINAL: Sniper31
No worries, your rambling has not bothered me as such, I too think this is an interesting discussion. Also, both SeaQueen and yourself have made salient points, which I mostly agree with. I too think that CMANO is not anywhere near where it would be to have better ground forces like I was suggesting. I am simply stating what I would be okay with, IF they ever got that far. But, to be fair, I do understand some of the complexities with the current engine and trying to integrate more ground force operations into it. One can always wish though ;) I am a firm believer in Combined Arms Doctrine, so I would love to see Sea, Air and Land more integrated some day. CMANO does the Air and Sea aspect so well, I guess the ground-pounder in me is just jealous [:D] Over 18 years of my career has been in the 101st Airborne (Air Assault) and 10th Mountain Divisions (and ALL of my four combat tours were with the 101st), so that is where my heart is. It would be nice to be able to plan a large scale air assault operation to gain a lodgement behind the enemies lines and then be able to push out proper Air Assault/Airborne/Light/Mountain units to further expand the lodegment and make room for follow on supplies and units. Being able to select the right units for such an operation and have it matter in CMANO would be very sweet indeed.

And you make a good point about breech loading mortars and such. I guess I should have qualified my comments that from my own experiences, almost all Light Infantry related, you never see mortars that large in this day and age, and in the theaters of combat that I have been in [;)[:D]]



Agree on all points. I thoroughly enjoy each update and enhancements to the series and I know there has been talk of potentially other engines that might merge with this series, but those were all hypothetical and nothing actioned officially. The series is on the right track definitely, even if that means its in iteration 2.0 and price point of more than the current game. I will support this series till my demise. They have a great development team and an equally great community.

I think we might have quite a few war stories we could could share at a bar some time. I also spent about 2 years in Anchorage, 8 years at Campbell, another 3 in Schofield, O/C in JRTC and 8 years in 3 and 4th Stryker BDEs at Lewis. So, was very fortunate in my career and the interactions through the years.


I agree...with your history we would be able to share many stories together at the bar....Hell, JRTC stories alone could fill the night...haha!!




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.046875