How big are the maps compared to SBpro? Americas Army?

[Destraex]

PE maps are how big?

Operation Flashpoint big, can I do navex on them?
Or is it counterstrike oh sorry I mean 'americas army' all over again. Tiny maps and counterstrike play

How can they use that Americas Army game as a recruitment tool? The training is fun but the game has almost no relavence to anything but counterstrike.

[Ssnake]

20x20km² per scenario. The classroom version offers up to 80x80km², but that requires graphics cards with lots of video RAM for good performance. Keep in mind though that visibility is limited to 5km and less, so your students cannot see that huge mountain in the distance for orientation purposes...

[Blackmuzzle]

Ssnake, one way to render even larger visibilities at little extra cost would be aggressive terrain LOD - you can even scale the LOD per region to avoid flattening prominent terrain features like mountains. You can basically blow up the rendered area by the factor of 2 at the cost of a few hundred extra polygons - and you can use a very low mipmap level for the texture there.

Another nice thing is horizon calculation - you can literally have the far-away mountain in your view at very little extra cost.
http://www.cs.queensu.ca/home/jstewart/papers/tr349.html

Of course, all this is meant to simply make the shape of the terrain visible in far haze, and not for simulating a 100x scope looking at a patch of grass 15 kilometers away or something. Terrain LOD has the nasty side-effect that tanks would appear to "dive into" or "float above" the ground at times if viewed from very far away. You can of course enhance the LOD at the spot that the tank is driving on, thus practically eliminating the problem again. Then, the only limiting factor is the depth buffer precision, which of course has limits and leads to visual overlapping artefacts at extreme ranges. Since the magnification of the sights in SB Pro PE is rather limited anyway, I doubt that you'd get much trouble there though.

What do you think?

[Kamatz]

Yes, Destraex...the tanks jump around on the maps shouting n00b at each other while performing 1337 headshots and what not...

[Destraex]

THanks for the answers guys

Kamatz LOL at your comment ;) what the heck was Americas Army anyway. An attempt to draw the twitch shooter guys into the army with their l337 micros. hopefully they can jump as high as they can in bf2 to avoid bullets

[Kingtiger]

THanks for the answers guys

Kamatz LOL at your comment ;) what the heck was Americas Army anyway. An attempt to draw the twitch shooter guys into the army with their l337 micros. hopefully they can jump as high as they can in bf2 to avoid bullets

Uhm, its gonna be a HUGE chok for those poor boys when they get in the REAL Army and realise they cant bunnydjump and avoind being hit by strafing sideways and firing while runing wont hit damn thing...

almost worth paying for see it :P

/KT

[smithcorp]

I'm hit! Wallhack!

[Blackmuzzle]

Isn't an RPG kinda like a wallhack too? ;)

[Kamatz]

I was uh...woodhacked by a bunch of infantry with a rpg a few days ago! Smack straight in the engine of my pretty little Leo1 :nuke:

The Leo1 was clearly not built to be shot in the butt by rpgs.

[Keiler]

The Leo1 was not built to be hit by anything :p
It was built to fire and maneuver and *maybe* stand a chance to survive something smaller than a tankcannon or fullsized HEAT warhead. ;)

[SandMan]

Well guys, it sadens me that no one says anything positive about Americas Army, yea the maps are small, and the in game text sucks as if your good your always called a hacker or cheater. But I have a clan there, "Iron Brigade" with 35 members and we always have fun, but really to compare it with this awsome SIM is really not fair!

[Kingtiger]

I had AA before, its a great sim if its played by soldiers as soldiers would play it. I joined a clan that was full of kids playing their CS stile but after a while I got them to fight as a squad together and that is a BLAST in AA. unfortunly.... if your squad plays as you should and the oponent plays CS stile you will loose the battle =(

[Destraex]

SandMan I guess a point is that the game is misleading as army life and combat is not like that game. Unless ut2003 and counterstrike are how wars will be fought in the future
The physics and initial training give a sample of what its like and I loved that part of the game, but multiplayer gives the wrong impression. Unless you are a swat team MOUT operations are generally not about two tiny teams of soldiers storming at the same time

Kingtiger I guess I just did not like spawning and being flashbanged straight away on some levels, or having less than 5 seconds to get into position. This is the sort of game where the l337 crew learn the maps off by heart and then shoot the newbies.
I enjoy patrolling in operation flashpoint much better. Much more real even deciding how to come into a large city and clear it is cool.

[SandMan]

Well we do have to remember it's a game :) as is this SIM, maybe much better than CS or whatever, and OFP is also cool, but there all games and you can't compare a game with real life, when you start trying you will learn hard lessions. I like this Sim best of all, even though I don't yet have the newest version, it still bets all that nonsecse FPS games have to offer ;)

[Bluewings]

if your squad plays as you should and the oponent plays CS stile you will loose the battle =(

This is a very interesting point which I 'd like to discuss . My view on the matter is quite simple : The actual training in most Forces lack two very impostant things : Mobility (rapidity of action) and freelancing .

I spent 7 years in the Commandos and SpecOps and I know the drill . The emphasis has always been in working together to archive firepower in one area or in one point in time .
This attitude has two bad sides :
#1: it relies on ONE commanding individual
#2: it is prone to take heavy casualties rapidly

1 --> Having only one "boss" slow down the entire group and inhibit personal initiative , which is SO important in asymetrical Warfare . One can perfectly leave the "Group" and act as a freelancer WHILE still being in permanent contact , thanks to today 's communication technology . Think "Organized Chaos" . A Group is very predictable , so it can be second guessed very easily and rapidly . Getting one "tempo" ahead of a spotted Fighting Group is as easy as 1+1=2 . How many time an entire Group gets pin-down by 2 flanking individuals ?
Think about it .
Furthermore , there are more ideas in 10 heads than in 1 .

2 --> a well placed area weapon (Grenade , flashband , RPG rocket , gas attack , etc) will decimate or render the Group combat ineffective for good .

My point is that today's Military tactics are dinosaur tactics . "Guerilla" tactics can win against a much better organized group , and even outnumbered 10 to 1 . It is why a bunch of "Chaotic" but well trained Mercs will win 9 times out of 10 against a diciplined Commando Group . I know :wink:

What happen in Counter-Strike or in "paintball games" can be describe as an "Octopus" tactic where a disciplined Group is facing multiple attacks on multiple fronts . It gets overwhelmed very quickly .
It has to be noted that bringing these Tactics into a Sim-Game like SB brings victory 8 times out of 10 .
Reflect on this ... :roll:

It is why playing/fighting "loose" has enormous advantages . Here , I clash with ideas preached by people like Renegade , Sherman and the likes (in 2D) . Darkangel is guilty of the same symptom when he wants to "force" the community to use the software in a more "military manner" , which is rather surprizing when the Man is always talking about "Chaos theory" ...

When I was in the Forces , I 've always been seen as an "indisciplined" soldier , even if my records shown outstanding results .

Feel free to disagree and make a case , I 'm listening .

Cheers . :3starSK:

[Ssnake]

The tactics you suggest work well in games because computer-controlled units rarely mis-identify targets. In real life you could easily be mistaken as enemy, and therefore armies try to minimize confusion.
It also seems like guerilla units worldwide suffer higher casualties than the "dinosaur tactics" applying armies, even though I admit that armies need to win decisively to achieve strategic victory whereas guerilla usually can accept high loss rates. Inconclusive battle results, even local or regional defeats do not necessarily lead to strategic defeats, so Kissinger's old dictum seems to be valid still:
Armies lose if they don't win.
Guerillas win if they don't lose.

But this statement really focuses on the strategic level, not tactics. I totally agree with you however as far as the importance of mental agility throughout all levels and ranks is an important force multiplier in battle.

[Destraex]

My point sandman is that many games are much closer to representing what real life is in the American Army than well.... Americas Army ;)
But your right, it is the marketing steamrollers that want to nab the twitch kiddies.
I know you cannot compare games to real life, but you damned well better try to make them as real as you can. You can take lessons things from good sim, perhaps not real life perfect but better than nothing.

Bluewings do the people you were against have at least some semblance of organisation and local knowledge? I would like to see them try that tactic in a major battle in open terrain. Infantry formations are much more loose in these areas
You are talking about house clearance in urban areas, and I agree with your mindset here. In an urban environment enfilade fire and area damage weapons can cause major damage to closed groups. In an urban environment troops tend to block up too much to stay in contact with each other. Because this fighting is basically chaos then I think anything goes. However this style of fighting means anybody is dead anytime anyway and I do not enjoy recreating it. House to House is always going to result in high casualties no matter what tactics you are using.
So yes squads\sections should try to space themselves. I agree here but am not sure about actual smaller squads when attacking
If technology permits good communication then the more spacing the merrier

WHat tactics do you favour in the bush or open terrain?
Also are the guerillas attacking or defending. I would like to see them attack in one man teams.

[Kingtiger]

hum yeah. there are things I just dont understand how the Guerilla tactic can win some cases. they dont bother for securing flanks, they rush like they wish, throws grenades randomly and no support for eachother. It really beats me how a force that arent controlled could win a fight! :S

and "Furthermore , there are more ideas in 10 heads than in 1 . "

Yeah. and its the last thing you want in a combat situation. Ive been out for squads where no-one things like the squad leader and think "we should do this, not that" and in the end the squad was wiped out (sim training with BT-system) because they had no plan when the enemy force showed up and where still arguing how the defence should look like, and at the same time, the squad occupying the area next to them tooked out 2 CV9040s and and forced the last one to pull out because they where strictly led by a squad leader. So I do not agree with you BW on that part. but on the rest I do agree with you, a small squad that dont behave like espected will win.

Like Lt Romlin sayed to his defence during a plt manouver where his whole plt was wipped out by me and 3 more men was "4 morans running around in a forest without diciplin is impossible to nail and defeat with a platoon, if they had been a squad hold together We would have got them"

But we 4 was lead by me, and fought 2 and 2 and have own sectors in that wood to cover, and I decided to do hit and run attacks on the CV9040s after they had entered the wood. So there was no 10 heads are bether then 1 thing there.

But when a 2 man team like that is detected they ARE wiped out, 2 man against a Combat vehicles armament and the mounted squads MGs and hand weapons have no chance once they are detected.

Cheers KT

[jrcar]

Actually our Doctrine is changing towards this style of war, provided technology (Like blue force tracker) can help stop misidentification. The words used are "agile" "dispersed" etc etc. This does require high training, but it is how Australian troops fought in the later stages of North Africa and in the Pacific once they got a bit of experience.

The fact the computer games help with this type of warfare is one reason why they are increasingly being used in Australia.

The problem is you need educated, "smart" soldiers, your combat arms guys need to be bright lads, not unmotivated conscripts. Works well for our culture, if we can pay enough for the "smart soldier" to stay with us and not become an investment banker :)

cheers

Rob

[bewing77]

I could see how in a small scale pitched infantry shootout a "loose" team might prevail, just like in shooter games. But in a real battle situation there are alot of other factors. You don't want to let the enemy slip past you, and you do want to keep their general area oof operation known. A chaotic battle means that small enemy units can easily slip behind your lines, attacking support units and hindering your retreat, and that you will have a hard time keeping track of where the enemy are, leading to confusen and possibly fratricide. Also, you rarely fight pitched battles. You only commit to an engagement if you think you can win, and you do this by amassing your force and achieving the objectives with minimal casualties:

In a computer game, if two teams face off, whiping each other out, until one team has only one man or tank left, that team is victorious. In real combat that would be unacceptable; either team should have disengaged when casualties started amassing. You don't just have to attack and take an objective, you need to do it while making sure that your team is able to defend that position and to continue fighting tomorrow, otherwise you have just thrown away that team in vain.

Also, about command. Sure, 10 minds might come up with better ideas than one. BUT 10 minds may also come up with 10 very different ideas, and agreeing on them might just take to long. The idea of military leadership is that it is often more important that a decision is made and action is taken than that the perfect decision is made. 10 minds might also act on their own, and while that might achieve results in some situations, it may also be totally disastrous in some. And let's not forget that strict orders is also a way to maintain control in extreme situations: Less combat hardened troups are more prone to making poor decisions when bullets start flying. By giving them strict orders to follow, and confidence in the one who issues the orders they have something to fall back on. More experienced troops are often better equipped to maintian a cool head, and in my experience they are often allowed to do this, as long as the act in the interest of the COs plan.