quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

Simulation of a land fight is a tough thing to do, particularly for the detail focused COMMAND crowd. I do it as a day job and it takes huge effort and a lot of folks to get it right.

You've got all the simulate-able variables such as; weapons and sensors, armour and ballistics, terrain and weather, ground conditions and logistics, road networks and civilian/humanitarian traffic. Then you have the less simulate-able stuff; moral, training, initiative, leadership, fatigue, suppression and maneuver.

On a game of this scale you'll run into some significant difficulties: 1 Mech Battle group would have ~ 30 platoon size units (Mech, Armd, Arty, Recce, A-Armour, engineers, air defence, logistics etc) all with very unique capabilities. A Brigade would require several hundred entities, and other capabilities. To do this for real we run 3 different simulations, linked by some proprietary software and use a team of 250 mixed military, ex-military and tech types. And we still get complaints that its not real enough.

Currently land combat in COMMAND is abstract. Fine; the air and naval stuff is second to none. Name one single land combat simulation out there that is revered as 'The Best' at everything to do with land combat? You've got some that are fantastic tactical games (but need to be 3D), and you've got some great operational games and even some good strategic ones. Most are historic and don't try to simulate modern or even future systems. None are 'The Best' at everything - because they don't try to be.

I put it to that COMMAND is 'The Best' in the Modern Air and Naval combat genre. So it may be asking for too much to go beyond what is in the name. I'm an army type, and I really enjoy a good land based wargame - but I think that we should just leave well enough alone and settle for the game being simply 'The Best' at what the name says its about.

Tweak away at the edges but don't spoil the game - please.

Anyway my $0.02 CDN

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Just as a thought experiment, what do people want ground forces to do? What is your ideal end-state for them in Command as we know it now? Beyond adding weapons and vehicles and equipment.

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Just as a thought experiment, what do people want ground forces to do? What is your ideal end-state for them in Command as we know it now? Beyond adding weapons and vehicles and equipment.

For me personally I would like ground forces to be able to do all the things they do in real life.
On a large scale move into another nation and battle for cities and airports etc.
On a small scale insert special forces to raid (by land air and sea), engage in rescues, destroy specific targets etc.
That being said I don't feel the need to track every bullet and rpg round like we do in the other aspects of the game.
I simply would like it to be realistic in the end results.
One of the biggest challenges is you can have opposing divisions face off with little change in the front line or one side can falter causing the player to evacuate ports/airfields/cities etc.
In a typical scenario of 7 days there may be little change in a front line or it could be a huge change. (Thats when things get tense)
The devs have proven that they will make the right decisions in mplement it so I'm anxious to see what they come up with on a difficult aspect of the game.
I hope we don't have to wait too too long to see the end result whatever it is although I know it won't be soon.
I also wouldn't mind paying for the ground aspect to be added in a paid addon but that's another discussion.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Just as a thought experiment, what do people want ground forces to do? What is your ideal end-state for them in Command as we know it now? Beyond adding weapons and vehicles and equipment.

For me personally I would like ground forces to be able to do all the things they do in real life.
On a large scale move into another nation and battle for cities and airports etc.
On a small scale insert special forces to raid (by land air and sea), engage in rescues, destroy specific targets etc.
That being said I don't feel the need to track every bullet and rpg round like we do in the other aspects of the game.
I simply would like it to be realistic in the end results.
One of the biggest challenges is you can have opposing divisions face off with little change in the front line or one side can falter causing the player to evacuate ports/airfields/cities etc.
In a typical scenario of 7 days there may be little change in a front line or it could be a huge change. (Thats when things get tense)
The devs have proven that they will make the right decisions in mplement it so I'm anxious to see what they come up with on a difficult aspect of the game.
I hope we don't have to wait too too long to see the end result whatever it is although I know it won't be soon.
I also wouldn't mind paying for the ground aspect to be added in a paid addon but that's another discussion.

But are you not really going beyond the scope of what Command Modern Naval Air Operations really represents?

Additionally, the developers plate is already very full and managed well of accommodating its player base and requests. Then there would be a dire need to detail the elevation/depressions of a map, more so than is already present for masking ships and aircraft. Then a need to design a ground combat AI that factors in even more things above and beyond large vessel resupply....small arms munitions could become overwhelming. What about water and food resupply and the logistics of representing how those are resupplied.

Don't get me wrong, I love ground combat simulators, but I think asking for ground combat to be added to an already outstanding simulator potentially asks the simulator to become a "Jack of all trades, master of none" in order to cover an additional aspect of ground warfare. There's way too many ground simulators available already. Let's just keep this one focused on what they are already doing outstanding with...Naval and Air operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Just as a thought experiment, what do people want ground forces to do? What is your ideal end-state for them in Command as we know it now? Beyond adding weapons and vehicles and equipment.

For me personally I would like ground forces to be able to do all the things they do in real life.
On a large scale move into another nation and battle for cities and airports etc.
On a small scale insert special forces to raid (by land air and sea), engage in rescues, destroy specific targets etc.
That being said I don't feel the need to track every bullet and rpg round like we do in the other aspects of the game.
I simply would like it to be realistic in the end results.
One of the biggest challenges is you can have opposing divisions face off with little change in the front line or one side can falter causing the player to evacuate ports/airfields/cities etc.
In a typical scenario of 7 days there may be little change in a front line or it could be a huge change. (Thats when things get tense)
The devs have proven that they will make the right decisions in mplement it so I'm anxious to see what they come up with on a difficult aspect of the game.
I hope we don't have to wait too too long to see the end result whatever it is although I know it won't be soon.
I also wouldn't mind paying for the ground aspect to be added in a paid addon but that's another discussion.

But are you not really going beyond the scope of what Command Modern Naval Air Operations really represents?

Additionally, the developers plate is already very full and managed well of accommodating its player base and requests. Then there would be a dire need to detail the elevation/depressions of a map, more so than is already present for masking ships and aircraft. Then a need to design a ground combat AI that factors in even more things above and beyond large vessel resupply....small arms munitions could become overwhelming. What about water and food resupply and the logistics of representing how those are resupplied.

Don't get me wrong, I love ground combat simulators, but I think asking for ground combat to be added to an already outstanding simulator potentially asks the simulator to become a "Jack of all trades, master of none" in order to cover an additional aspect of ground warfare. There's way too many ground simulators available already. Let's just keep this one focused on what they are already doing outstanding with...Naval and Air operations.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

quote:

ORIGINAL: strykerpsg

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

quote:

ORIGINAL: hellfish6

Just as a thought experiment, what do people want ground forces to do? What is your ideal end-state for them in Command as we know it now? Beyond adding weapons and vehicles and equipment.

For me personally I would like ground forces to be able to do all the things they do in real life.
On a large scale move into another nation and battle for cities and airports etc.
On a small scale insert special forces to raid (by land air and sea), engage in rescues, destroy specific targets etc.
That being said I don't feel the need to track every bullet and rpg round like we do in the other aspects of the game.
I simply would like it to be realistic in the end results.
One of the biggest challenges is you can have opposing divisions face off with little change in the front line or one side can falter causing the player to evacuate ports/airfields/cities etc.
In a typical scenario of 7 days there may be little change in a front line or it could be a huge change. (Thats when things get tense)
The devs have proven that they will make the right decisions in mplement it so I'm anxious to see what they come up with on a difficult aspect of the game.
I hope we don't have to wait too too long to see the end result whatever it is although I know it won't be soon.
I also wouldn't mind paying for the ground aspect to be added in a paid addon but that's another discussion.

But are you not really going beyond the scope of what Command Modern Naval Air Operations really represents?

Additionally, the developers plate is already very full and managed well of accommodating its player base and requests. Then there would be a dire need to detail the elevation/depressions of a map, more so than is already present for masking ships and aircraft. Then a need to design a ground combat AI that factors in even more things above and beyond large vessel resupply....small arms munitions could become overwhelming. What about water and food resupply and the logistics of representing how those are resupplied.

Don't get me wrong, I love ground combat simulators, but I think asking for ground combat to be added to an already outstanding simulator potentially asks the simulator to become a "Jack of all trades, master of none" in order to cover an additional aspect of ground warfare. There's way too many ground simulators available already. Let's just keep this one focused on what they are already doing outstanding with...Naval and Air operations.

What if another team was working on it and we wheren't drawing resources from the same pool?

Mike

quote:

I'll be happy regardless of how detailed it is as long as its realistic

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

Is that something that may happen ? or is it something underway ? :)
Sounds great to me as it will speed development.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

I'll be happy regardless of how detailed it is as long as its realistic

I think that this is the nub of the problem. Defining detailed and defining realistic. In many minds you cannot have realistic unless it is detailed. In other peoples minds, dealing with too much detail is unrealistic. Its a 'chicken & egg' question but it makes or breaks many games.

B

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

I'll be happy regardless of how detailed it is as long as its realistic

I think that this is the nub of the problem. Defining detailed and defining realistic. In many minds you cannot have realistic unless it is detailed. In other peoples minds, dealing with too much detail is unrealistic. Its a 'chicken & egg' question but it makes or breaks many games.

B

I agree, its gona be a tough one.
I should clarify my response in that by "realistic" I'm talking about end results not in detail and of course I'm only speaking for myself.
Back when I was young there was a board game called "Falklands War".
It was a combined ops game. On the land and air side attrition was by dividing down units.
a Battalion could be divided down to companies etc. There were special forces raids etc.
It was all quite basic but the end results of the battles made sense and were believable - at least to me.
If the devs thought they couldn't do it well I'm sure they would pass on it.
Ground combat is already in in a simplified form. Sounds to me like a 3rd party may take it on if I understand what has been said already.
As to those that don't want the ground side can simply leave that aspect out of their scenarios.

quote:

ORIGINAL: mikmyk

quote:

ORIGINAL: ParachuteProne

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

I'll be happy regardless of how detailed it is as long as its realistic

I think that this is the nub of the problem. Defining detailed and defining realistic. In many minds you cannot have realistic unless it is detailed. In other peoples minds, dealing with too much detail is unrealistic. Its a 'chicken & egg' question but it makes or breaks many games.

B

I agree, its gona be a tough one.
I should clarify my response in that by "realistic" I'm talking about end results not in detail and of course I'm only speaking for myself.
Back when I was young there was a board game called "Falklands War".
It was a combined ops game. On the land and air side attrition was by dividing down units.
a Battalion could be divided down to companies etc. There were special forces raids etc.
It was all quite basic but the end results of the battles made sense and were believable - at least to me.
If the devs thought they couldn't do it well I'm sure they would pass on it.
Ground combat is already in in a simplified form. Sounds to me like a 3rd party may take it on if I understand what has been said already.
As to those that don't want the ground side can simply leave that aspect out of their scenarios.

No ground combat team yet but there is always an option.

Obviously its our decision on everything entirely[:)]

Mike