Land Combat?

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Land Combat?

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

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

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Land Combat? - 2/21/2018 1:13:33 PM

Roby7979

Posts: 963
Joined: 2/20/2018
From: Italy,Rome
Status: offline

hi all,
currently I have the northen inferno version .. but I have seen that there are many dlc, I would like to know which of all the most concentrated on land fighting .. so with infantry and tanks? thank you

Post #: 1

RE: Land Combat? - 2/21/2018 4:17:17 PM

Rocksoldier

Posts: 280
Joined: 9/16/2015
Status: offline

Ground units are mostly targets or air defense. There is no focus on land vs land conflict

(in reply to Roby7979)

Post #: 2

RE: Land Combat? - 2/21/2018 5:13:32 PM

nukkxx5058

Posts: 2932
Joined: 2/3/2005
From: France
Status: offline

I had a nice fight earlier today with my arty destroying these Syrian AAA batteries ...

(in reply to Rocksoldier)

Post #: 3

RE: Land Combat? - 2/21/2018 8:54:25 PM

HalfLifeExpert

Posts: 911
Joined: 7/20/2015
From: California, United States
Status: offline

None of the existing content focuses on land operations, have a look at the title of the game again: "Command: Modern Air/Naval Operations"

There are plenty of land hardware and units in CMANO, but the engine was not built for it, so land combat is quite limited.

Land units basically fall into two catagories:

Stuff directly relevant to Air/Naval Operations (Airbases, Naval Bases, Radar Sites, Air Defense Sites, land based AShM sites etc.)

Targets (Tanks, Vehicles, Infantry, misc buildings etc.)

There are a few scenarios that make practical use of the latter, such as the first scenario of Chains of War and the second scenario of Shifting Sands, but don't count on there being much expansion of that.

(in reply to nukkxx5058)

Post #: 4

RE: Land Combat? - 2/21/2018 9:02:52 PM

rmunie0613

Posts: 202
Joined: 1/2/2018
Status: offline

They are certainly capable of fighting each other as it stands.. you can give them "ASuW" missions and they will attack other land units... in this, also, I was surprised once by 155mm artillery firing on a CG that came a bit too close to the shore- and putting many things out of action with a rapid fire pace that the ship could not match.

I have used the Cargo ops to carry and drop land units to take out targets ashore...which seemed at first too easy, so I gave the defenders some land units as well, mech platoons, armor, arty... and gave them security patrols to actively search for land units or low flying air...and they performed very well.

Most of the scenarios lean, of course, to naval and air..but there are the tools available to make land units anything BUT "passive targets".

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 5

RE: Land Combat? - 2/21/2018 9:07:08 PM

rmunie0613

Posts: 202
Joined: 1/2/2018
Status: offline

It has also been a stated objective of the devs to expand Land ops at some point... When I first purchased the game, I did not have much time to play it, so other than a few scenarios and "tinkering" I mostly just sat on it, kept it updated, etc... so not sure how much has "improved" because I am not certain how it was at the beginning, but it certainly is better at land operations already than I expected it to be, now that I have a lot more time to play it.

(in reply to rmunie0613)

Post #: 6

RE: Land Combat? - 2/21/2018 10:56:39 PM

kevinkins

Posts: 2257
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline

Roby7979

Welcome to the forum. Players will not find Command to be a ground warfare sim in any way. But there are some scenarios that require the Air/Naval player to take out moving ground forces. These scenarios can be set up so that ground units have to be identified and hit or else your mission will fail. For example, units moving on a friendly base. Those ground units will not provide the tactical combat of a ground warfare PC game that many grogs are used to. But they will simulate important ground targets that have to be stopped.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/jim-mattis-russia-us-airstrikes-syria-mercenaries-killed/

The above link is a recent news story of the type of scenario Command can handle very well.

Kevin

(in reply to rmunie0613)

Post #: 7

RE: Land Combat? - 2/22/2018 9:52:16 AM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: HalfLifeExpert
Stuff directly relevant to Air/Naval Operations (Airbases, Naval Bases, Radar Sites, Air Defense Sites, land based AShM sites etc.)

Targets (Tanks, Vehicles, Infantry, misc buildings etc.)

Actually, I think that land units are further along than that. Right now, you could, for example, easily do a really cool scenario integrating attack helicopters and artillery. Historically, there was some really interesting stuff planned toward the end of the Balkans conflict using Apache helicopters and ATACMs missiles to hunt down the FRY ground forces. That's an easy scenario to implement in C:MANO. I typically think of cruise and ballistic missiles as a integrated part of my attack plans. Right now you can do an okay amphibious assault or amphibious raid using simultaneous air and surface assaults.

There's definitely limitations to the ground war model right now. There's not things like smoke, obstacles, mines, breaching, terrain effects, suppression, chemical and biological warfare, but it's not terrible either. Armored personnel carriers don't carry infantry. It's a start, though. You can do some fun tank battles.

It'd be nice to be able to do things like bomb a bridge and block the advance of ground forces (or conversely, build a pontoon bridge!). It'd also be nice to do logistical things like take a bunch of helicopters, fly hundreds of miles forward, build up a forward area refueling point (FARP), defend it with security forces, and then push further out from there using more helicopters to attack a target with an air assault. You could, right now, though, launch a SOF raid from an aircraft carrier and an expeditionary strike group, provide them with close air support from sea and land based aircraft, land a bunch of Marines and push them inland from the beach while others land from helicopters, then block the enemy quick reaction force using a combination of sea based aircraft, direct fires, and indirect fires from destroyers.

The way things are shaping up, I wouldn't be surprised if the guys get to a pretty good ground war eventually. I think that would make something like Command really unique, by allowing for the interaction between air, naval and ground forces. They've taken some good steps in that direction. That kind of thing is pretty impressive, and I'm sure that eventually they'll expand on it.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 2/22/2018 10:17:13 AM >

(in reply to HalfLifeExpert)

Post #: 8

RE: Land Combat? - 2/22/2018 6:10:57 PM

rmunie0613

Posts: 202
Joined: 1/2/2018
Status: offline

Yes... I think if one is only using the land units as "space fillers" to interact with naval and air power, they are missing a lot of the possibilities.
The game is no "TOAW IV" but wars are won or lost on the ground, and there are a LOT of toys to play with there if used...

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 9

RE: Land Combat? - 2/23/2018 1:15:56 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmunie0613
Yes... I think if one is only using the land units as "space fillers" to interact with naval and air power, they are missing a lot of the possibilities.

It's the only game out there I'm aware of that lets you deal with amphibious assault except for TACOPS, and I think even with the shortcomings in the ground combat model, Command has a great take on it. In TACOPS, there's no solo play amphibious assault options. The focus is also different. TACOPS is narrowly focused on the problems of ground combat. Command takes a more wholistic approach, recognizing that a lot of things have to happen before amphibious assault is even an option (e.g. air superiority, mines cleared, coastal defense cruise missiles cleared, etc. ) All that is assumed away in TACOPS. Command is less focused (currently) on ground combat, but takes a broader view. In Command you see the extent to which amphibious assault is about coordinating land, air and sea elements. You can see how an MV-22 opens up options that a CH-46 doesn't allow you to use. You can see how special operations forces can go deep inland using air refueling, but all of that needs to also be protected. There's lots of good stuff to be done involving ground forces in Command.

(in reply to rmunie0613)

Post #: 10

RE: Land Combat? - 2/23/2018 4:19:42 PM

BDukes

Posts: 1695
Joined: 12/27/2017
Status: offline

Land model is great for now. Can move with elevation penalty, shoot different things and mount spacing and armor matters. Cargo capability is awesome and no other game other than Arma or like shooters have this.

I think you can ask for more but mostly should celebrate this! Sometimes users complain at miracles.

Thank you

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 11

RE: Land Combat? - 2/23/2018 5:14:03 PM

Raptorx7_slith

Posts: 380
Joined: 7/27/2013
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: SeaQueen

quote:

ORIGINAL: rmunie0613
Yes... I think if one is only using the land units as "space fillers" to interact with naval and air power, they are missing a lot of the possibilities.

It's the only game out there I'm aware of that lets you deal with amphibious assault except for TACOPS, and I think even with the shortcomings in the ground combat model, Command has a great take on it. In TACOPS, there's no solo play amphibious assault options. The focus is also different. TACOPS is narrowly focused on the problems of ground combat. Command takes a more wholistic approach, recognizing that a lot of things have to happen before amphibious assault is even an option (e.g. air superiority, mines cleared, coastal defense cruise missiles cleared, etc. ) All that is assumed away in TACOPS. Command is less focused (currently) on ground combat, but takes a broader view. In Command you see the extent to which amphibious assault is about coordinating land, air and sea elements. You can see how an MV-22 opens up options that a CH-46 doesn't allow you to use. You can see how special operations forces can go deep inland using air refueling, but all of that needs to also be protected. There's lots of good stuff to be done involving ground forces in Command.

This, definitely.

If you want an appreciation for what it takes to prepare for an amphibious invasion play the CoW scenario "Okinawa Bound". It will show you how important air superiority, sea superiority and fire superiority around the landing zones are incredibly important. If there is a single howitzer battery in operation that can hit the beaches it becomes a serious problem. Everything needs to work together during them, land, sea and air.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 12

RE: Land Combat? - 2/24/2018 6:53:38 PM

fatgreta1066

Posts: 470
Joined: 12/30/2012
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: [BSM]Roby7979

hi all,
currently I have the northen inferno version .. but I have seen that there are many dlc, I would like to know which of all the most concentrated on land fighting .. so with infantry and tanks? thank you

In the Community Scenario Pack there is a HUGE scenario called The 4th of July. It posits a 1989 Soviet attack on West Germany and it has tons and tons of land units. As others have mentioned they seem mostly to exist as targets for tactical nuclear SSM's (not that I'm complaining). I've used the editor to check out the Russian side and there are many armored and mechanized infantry units, all of which are on missions to cross the border. There are also a lot of NATO land units, including a lot of artillery that could well end up in the fight. I haven't played the scenario out, but from looking at it I wouldn't be surprised if there ended up being some land combat.

I played a very small scenario, can't remember the name, where I inserted special forces onto a beach and they went inland doing recon. They ended up in a fight with enemy infantry, you could hear MG fire and the log showed "... attacks with 7.62mm..." etc. So land combat can happen, and if you're willing to make your own scenario (as in the above) you could certainly design it to include land combat as a central aspect.

The new DB update from 1.14 seems to be a scenario designer's dream if they're looking to develop stuff from the Vietnam war using CAS and such there are tons of new infantry units included.

If you find any others that work or if you design any let me know, I'm also interested in fights that integrate land combat. It was a lot of fun in the first Chains of War scenario seeing my artillery blast enemy units apart shell by shell.

(in reply to Roby7979)

Post #: 13

RE: Land Combat? - 2/24/2018 9:39:32 PM

ParachuteProne

Posts: 207
Joined: 8/2/2004
Status: offline

Biggest thing I'm waiting for in ground combat is for one unit to be able to slow/delay another unit.
Right now an advancing unit can blow on past an enemy at full speed.

That and the ability to load/ unload a unit at a base.

(in reply to fatgreta1066)

Post #: 14

RE: Land Combat? - 2/26/2018 2:03:13 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

If I was going to add one thing to make the land combat model better, the first thing for me would be terrain effects. The reason is that it'd also change the air combat portion of the game. It's one thing to drop bombs on tanks in the desert. It's a whole different thing to drop them on tanks in the jungles (during Vietnam the air strikes were often of questionable effectiveness because the targets were hidden by trees). It's also one of the things that makes people on the ground so important, they can often see things that aircraft can't.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

Biggest thing I'm waiting for in ground combat is for one unit to be able to slow/delay another unit.
Right now an advancing unit can blow on past an enemy at full speed.

That and the ability to load/ unload a unit at a base.

(in reply to ParachuteProne)

Post #: 15

RE: Land Combat? - 2/26/2018 2:24:17 PM

Primarchx

Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

Another biggie for ground combat (and air for that matter) is the incorporation of terrain types. As it stands the ground is a topographically-accurate expanse of empty ground. It would be cool if we could incorporate terrain 'zones' of various types in the Scen Editor, each of which modifies spotting distance/difficulty.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 16

RE: Land Combat? - 2/26/2018 2:31:21 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

Another biggie for ground combat (and air for that matter) is the incorporation of terrain types. As it stands the ground is a topographically-accurate expanse of empty ground. It would be cool if we could incorporate terrain 'zones' of various types in the Scen Editor, each of which modifies spotting distance/difficulty.

That'd be very much how Shrapnel Games' BCT worked, which I think is a good source of inspiration for Command's land combat model because it deals with a similar scope (the ground units are similar in size) and is a similar style game (ultra-detailed real to accelerated time simulation). I also really like how they deal with chemical/biological weapons, breaching and mines. One of the most frustrating things in the world in that game is when you finally breach an obstacle or minefield, then they dump a load of scatterable mines to plug your breach and make you breach it again!

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 17

RE: Land Combat? - 2/26/2018 2:42:55 PM

Primarchx

Posts: 3102
Joined: 1/20/2013
Status: offline

Yeah, I think user-defined terrain types would be better, and vastly more feasible, than anything organic. Like photo-overlays, you only really need accurate terrain types in areas of interest - the rest of the world can remain featureless. It would be cool to not only have terrain 'areas' but terrain 'lines' of various widths for things like roads, rail lines, rivers and the like.

(in reply to SeaQueen)

Post #: 18

RE: Land Combat? - 2/26/2018 2:45:10 PM

SeaQueen

Posts: 1451
Joined: 4/14/2007
From: Washington D.C.
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Primarchx
Like photo-overlays, you only really need accurate terrain types in areas of interest - the rest of the world can remain featureless. It would be cool to not only have terrain 'areas' but terrain 'lines' of various widths for things like roads, rail lines, rivers and the like.

You could do that in BCT, only the "lines" were just very narrow areas, really.

Also agree, that user defined types would probably be better. There's so many different terrain effects. I once had a great conversation with an officer who served in (among other wars) Desert Shield. He explained how there was a certain type of desert ground which was crusty and hard on top but loose and sandy underneath. The effect was that armored vehicles trying to cross it would get stuck, and just push a bunch of sand around. They used those as obstacles and covered them with direct fires. You'll never capture all the variety of terrain one might possibly encounter, so it's best to just leave it up to the scenario designer to do their own research.

< Message edited by SeaQueen -- 2/26/2018 3:27:32 PM >

(in reply to Primarchx)

Post #: 19