Special forces & JSTARS

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 07 2003

Im reading this post as it developes and trying to make up my mind .

Im not really sure if we need invisible units/units that are not actaully on the map- now that there is a fuzzy system for spotting.

There are things i like about it, and things i dont.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Oct 07 2003

On 2003-10-07 17:59, tkobo wrote:
Im not really sure if we need invisible units/units that are not actaully on the map- now that there is a fuzzy system for spotting.

They would be on the map like civ2 spies, they would be great scouts you could put into regions when your not even at war with them.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 07 2003

I dont think ive played civ2 .
I have one civ game stuck in a corner behind my modular computer furniture where i tossed it( i really didnt like it much).But i dont remember which civ it is and am not willing to break down the cubicle(again) to see.

To me,exactly how fuzzy sight works will decide my stance on this.
If for instance a unit entering a hex with an unseen unit auto attacks the unseen unit than id probably go for intangible units.
Like the concept discussed in the terrorism thread where the units can actaully dissappear off the map and reappear.Thereby avoding extended attack by the enemy.

However,if the unit even upon entering the hex of an unseen(fuzzy) unit cannot attack it.Then i see no need for intangible units/or units that can leave the map.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 08 2003

Okay having recieved some answers to how fuzzy sight works ,i also say that some of the special forces should be visible only to the player who owns them(unattackable by normal standards).

However this will make a few problems.
The one that concerns me is that small team special ops units are in serious danger if discovered in real life.
They will have to evac real fast or face anniliation.This should be reflected some way in the game.
So,if we do get some special forces that work this way,there should be some way to "uncover" or imperil them.

I would also suggest that only some of the special forces work this way.
Select the "top" Special force units for each region of play and have them work this way.The rest would work as you (the devs) have already outlined.
Just remember to stay away from windows and to NOT silhouette(sp)yourself in outdoor conditions for a while after the game comes out.Some of those s.f. guys might get annoyed about NOT being picked as the "top" unit for thier region in the game P

Redshadow · Post by **Redshadow** » Oct 08 2003

Come on developers,

You now have Ashbery, Tkobo and (on the lesser end of the scale of importance) myself all agreeing on this feature. That means you know its got to be good.

However, we do hit the same barrier mentioned earlier. TIME! (no...not the magazine). I know you guys still have a lot of work to do on SR2010, and we're not helping by demanding you add a hundred new things every five minutes.

Frankly, I think this is not exceptionaly important. If you can acomplish this by the present release date (which i hope to God is still no later then Q1), then by all means go ahead. But if this is going to be a major hassel, I just dont think that it is worth it. SF are not as important as eventually actually finishing the game!

~Red

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Oct 09 2003

I think that debate fleshed out some concensus that for realism small and large formations of special/ elite forces would be in the game. If only it wouldn't mean a later release date. So that brings me to the next question. Let's say the developers, in their schedule, can't change the special forces much, then on the world map do you guys think tha special/elite forces should still be represented as batalions rather than the larger divisions that might ordinarily be the smallest unit on world map game??

And thanks for the debate!

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 09 2003

I'b be okay with that.I dont have real issues with the way the devs have it planned now.I just think it could be better if there were some units that work the way Ash put forth.
If it can be done WITHOUT moving the release date back-great.
If it can ONLY be done by moving the release date-and the devs decide to do it-fine also.
If it cant be done without moving the release date and the devs decide against it-fine also.

For times sake,i think they should look for some way to make the "specail" special forces units use whatever system/game rules the terrorist units will use.That way 2 birds -1 stone.

Ashbery76 · Post by **Ashbery76** » Oct 10 2003

They should do special forces like in the real world or change the name to elite forces..

LORD_BUNGLA · Post by **LORD_BUNGLA** » Oct 28 2003

Well persoanlly i think u should do this. Say u have the normal SF which is available to everyone and if your country has an SF that is famous for doing something, they get a bonus, like destroying or captuirng buildings, using chemical warfare, taking out missile silos, covert assisiantions, etc.

Shutzen · Post by **Shutzen** » Oct 31 2003

Just a note on the SF issue. I spent 6 of my 9 years in the Army under SOCOM (the rest in the 82nd). I think what you have for the game is sufficient. Maybe not totally accurate, but it's a game and gameplay is sometimes more important. Two points though... first, many countries outside of the US and Europe have Spec Ops guys and I think they should be available to the mass majority of countries. Maybe Army SF ("green berets") can be limited to a couple of countries, but many countries have Ranger type elite units. For example, even small countries like South Korea have some pretty hardcore Spec Ops guys (not to mention North korea and their massive unconvential warfare capability). I know there are some diehard "realists" on the board. That's cool, but I think gameplay should be primary. My second suggestion concerns Spec Ops support. Having JSTARS available would be cool and the utmost in cool would be paying some extra money for Special Ops insertion platforms. The army has CH 47's. Rangers and SF usually go in on MH 47's (Spec ops versions). The cream of that crop would be the MH-53 (Air Force). Making a distinction between the CH and MH versions (higher cost, lower detection value) would add a lot to the game with very little effort. I would love to see it. Other than that, keep up the good work and good luck with finishing it off.

Post by **Balthagor** » Oct 31 2003

Actually, that's very interesting about the MH distinction! I had noticed that when I was doing the different Blackhawk versions and I actually added the MH-60K Pavehawk as a lower profile (less detectable) Special Forces Insertion helo. I like how it works so I will add MH-47s and MH-53 to the list as you've asked. They will be in the "transport" category. Are there Russian/Chinese or other country counterparts?

dust off · Post by **dust off** » Oct 31 2003

The spec forces helocopters sound useful for game.
I have a concern though. When inserting spec' forces into enemy territory will we be able to 'turn off' the unit from making that hex our territory. Otherwise the coloured border changes will give spec forces position away.

tkobo · Post by **tkobo** » Oct 31 2003

^
^
^
^
^
^
Yea, what he said

Post by **BattleGoat** » Oct 31 2003

It is in our implementation rules to allow units to travel through territory without capturing it. Just not done yet.

LORD_BUNGLA · Post by **LORD_BUNGLA** » Oct 31 2003

On 2003-10-31 08:05, Balthagor wrote:
Actually, that's very interesting about the MH distinction! I had noticed that when I was doing the different Blackhawk versions and I actually added the MH-60K Pavehawk as a lower profile (less detectable) Special Forces Insertion helo. I like how it works so I will add MH-47s and MH-53 to the list as you've asked. They will be in the "transport" category. Are there Russian/Chinese or other country counterparts?

mi-17PH or something like that. I know the variant has a "p" and an "h" in it

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: LORD_BUNGLA on 2003-10-31 19:45 ]</font>