Leaderboard

I've finally fully upgraded my CM:BN game and I, naturally, just had to update my UI one final time. Simply 'updating' got out of hand rather quickly and we're now looking at a complete overhaul to bring the entire UI up to 'Red Thunder UI' standards. There are still several behind-the-scene elements to tackle, but here's a preview of what's coming (click the pic for the original, much less blurry, image). By the way, I could still use one more tester! Who's game?

"Its alrigth honey, we can try it again later"

I have finally got some time to look into this. Despite being an uncooled device it is not clear to me that the TIM 5000 is necessarily less capable than the Catherine FC. It does have a lower resolution, but it sees further into the infrared spectrum than the Catherine FC and has a more powerful zoom. Catherine FC Spectral Band: 8-12 μm Field of view (FOV): Wide FOV : 9° x 6.7° Narrow FOV : 3° x 2.2° Electronic zoom (x2) : 1.5° x 1.1° Image resolution: 754 x 576 TIM 1500 Spectral band: 7.5 - 14 mm Format 640 x 480 28 mm pitch Field of view (horizontal) Wide 10.1°; Narrow 3.3° Electronic zoom 2x, 3x, 4x

Comes back to the "niche product" argument. It's just not likely to become diverse beyond the above since they/we are the ones who find the game interesting/absorbing/etc. An analogy is me talking about the Cricket World Cup to the rest of my office. No matter how I extol it, explain it, sell it, talk it up, etc. those fools just don't appreciate it.

Program an AI bot to go spread the word, you can do that in your spare time.

Are you <several dozen attempts deleted because could be considered a personal attack> kidding? The AI in CM1 was, well a joke. OK perhaps that is a bit harsh - no, no it is. It always did the same plan and half the time the plan was not particularly good either. In a QB I suppose it could be made to work fairly well. But if you factor in a QB with more than one scripted plan available the scripted plan method smokes it. In a scenario it just cannot complete with the scripted AI we have right now. A scenario designer can create AI plans that take into account terrain features, objective priorities etc. and match the forces chosen for the AI groups. It is theoretically possible to create an autonomous AI that can do all these things but that is a crazy amount of work. If BFC spent a fraction of that work in adding new features to the current AI scripting (additional triggers if/then paths) plus some editor improvements, scenario authors could create an even better experience at a fraction of the cost of your fantasy AI. You are just dreaming and you are way off base. Spend your time convincing BFC to augment their existing script based AI. Since they actually want to go in that direction you will have more success.

Actually agree with all the above, but note triggers are still part of the script. More triggers with different variables would be fantastic. For example right now triggers are based on actual movement of a unit. Would love to see for example a trigger based on spotting a unit or if/then options. I am sure folks could likely think of dozens more. Getting them though is a whole other issue. I have no idea what is feasible in the coding.

No, it does not. It comes down to BOTH of those arguments. The airspace would be lethal for both the A-10 and the Su-25. Nevertheless it is likely that Russia would still be using the Su-25 and would pitch them into the battle in lieu of any better options. The US has better options and so would use them. You are pigheadedly trying to apply reasoning that is only valid for one side as if it were equally valid for both. It isn't. Different nations have different motivations, assets, and options - go figure! Local air superiority or just local air parity. Even the Germans in 1944 occasionally managed to create pockets of time and space in which their beaten airforce could conduct CAS missions. Pnzr, one final point: whenever you find yourself in a position where Kettler is your most vocal support, you really, desperately need to re-examine your assumptions.

The description above is an interesting glance at just the most rudimentary AI and essentially not far removed from what is already in the QB AI configuration, but then look at how the suggestion breaks down unit "types". In only the most rudimentary form does that exist now. Vehicles and infantry. The suggestion is first to create group types that do not exist and then assign patterns of behavior to them. BF's programmers are not lazy. Take a look at the effort to introduce UAVs. It is cool they are in, but there is a lot given up in their implementation that runs counter to most everything else in CM. Adding different unit types and behavior and then applying AI behavior specific is far from simplistic. Just the work to alter AT and Inf gun behavior has been a difficult process and they still do not function at all in an attack formation, just one of the many weaknesses in QB behavior. Anyone who thinks that this effort to produce even an incrementally better AI wouldn't bankrupt BF is just not facing reality. BF is not going to go years without income to add something that from what little the poll shows wouldnt even net the same amount as a base game for a new family. Contrary to expectations, the BF team does have their own bills to pay, expenses of raising families etc etc. Our wish lists are not ever going to trump that.

..I take that as you are interested Ian?

Looked into this, and things are generally working as they are supposed to, although the system itself is a bit odd. Squad weapons like LMGs and marksman rifles are retained, but they don't replace remaining weapons in the squad, but are instead added to them. As you can see in your last screenshot of a Russian unit above, it is a "Ldr" not a "Gunner" that has the PKP. In this case the gunner has been eliminated, and the leader has received the PKP, causing his own rifle to go to his back (because the PKP is prioritized for use). Also note that when you deploy in editor, it can take a few seconds before troops switch to the retained weapons they acquired (if the retained weapon has priority for use over their original weapon). The double carbine oddity in US squads is probably caused by the M4A1 ACOG option for the marksman rifle (i.e. the marksman rifle is retained regardless of whether it is an M110C or an M4A1). One problem I did not is that gunners in both Russian and American squads are frequently ending up with the retained marksman rifles (M110C / SVD) on their backs, which basically puts the rifles out of action despite their retention and probably overburdens the gunners. I will report this.

This is my 1643 post.

If you mean a replay of the whole battle, that is one of the most often requested features and so far hasn't turned up - and probably won't for the forseeable future. If you mean replaying the last minute, that is there in WeGo but not in realtime play. Real time has no possibility to rewind and view stuff again at all.

I guess this going to work with CMBN- CW-MG Ver 3.11 game engine 3? "Edit" Never mine the above question I see down in the corner what it covers. Looks great. Regards Lane

weapon2010, Combat Missioners? Had to happen sooner or later, I suppose. CM does, in may ways, have religious attributes, not least of which is the fervor of its adherents. There is ritual purification (hitting the toilet/head/lavatory before beginning). There are sacrifices (beer, chips, etc.) and propitiation (promises to mow lawn, clean gutters and such, plus agreeing to go to dinner with her mother) of a separate, jealous deity. Confession ("My tanks were getting shot up, and I forgot to walk the dog!") Sometimes even absolution. ("I forgive you, but you have to take me shopping and out to dinner") Neither let us forget proselytizing. We'll tell anyone who'll listen about CM. Even those who may not want to know! What's that? CM missioners aren't clergy? They're not?! You say they're people who play CM? Gotta go! Regards, John Kettler

Bulletpoint, Not exactly. Absent the opportunity to view high quality gun camera footage frame by frame, I'd be very hesitant to place much stock in parts of the narration. We can't see who was in the field or how many there were, but the pilot isn't going to go shoot up some Italian farmer plowing away. Given the amount of firing we saw, and it was a lot, it seems to me there's a distinct possibility, though not stated, infantry was caught moving in the open. Shooting up German vehicles parked practically at the house is fair game, as is bombing the house, for enemy occupation negates the prohibition. There may've been something with those other houses that was, well, off. There are distinct differences between the way civilian life looks from the air and the way military life looks. That may've been what underlay the attacks we saw. It may've been, as the movie line goes, "too quiet," therefore suspicious. There may've been intel the Germans were doing something like this, too. I can assure you, though, US pilots didn't go whizzing about shooting people and things willy nilly. All other considerations aside, every time you pulled the trigger, it activated the gun camera. The intel types and the CO went over that footage with a gimlet eye, and woe betide the pilot who blazed away and couldn't explain why. I was going to post a couple of pertinent vids, but my data rate just imploded. Can't get the vids to load at all. Not enough bandwidth, apparently. Regards, John Kettler

Wow. Very nice. Looking forward to using this.

Pleased to see you had to update your UI one final time Clicking the full image displays the detail very well and your update looks great. Your out of hand rather quickly... complete overhaul will be enjoyed by many upon release. UI mods are literally 'in your face' all the time ... while you play the game. Looking at your UI mods makes for a very pleasant experience. Thanks, Buzz

Simply brilliant, as expected from you. Looking forward to release!

Thanks Dennis! As a tester you just need to have a set of eyes and play the game. Then you keep a lookout for anything out of place. You may also offer suggestions to improve stuff. If you're up for it drop me a mail!

Its already been explained many times that BFC doesn't have the budget/time for these major changes like to the AI, Stagler you said you might be making 200,000$ soon, why not send that BFC's way?

Amazing work, mate. As always. Looking forward to getting it. If you still need testers I´d like to help out - but I´m not quite sure what I should do as a tester? Cheers

Coming this weekend, Part 2 of my Rifle Platoon Leader series: Platoon Scouts This post will cover: Platoon Scouts - purpose Scouting and Platoon Movement Techniques Scouting Techniques in relation to: Close Terrain Open Terrain Scout Movement Cresting a Rise Flank Scouts Here is a small snippet from the upcoming post. Enjoy, and watch my blog for this post either Saturday or Sunday.

What's that, sorry I missed it while googling "games that Stagler has designed". Try as I might I couldn't get any matches. Damn search engines are screwed up cause it is obvious you are cranking them out all the time.

WHY ARE WE USING ALL CAPS? This actually came up in a very lengthy discussion in a different thread, but the short of it is the SU-25 in all practical sense is just as vulnerable as the A-10 (it's not super-sonic, and the agility of a fully loaded strike platform is marginal), and whatever Russian ability to prevent NATO penetration of Russian air space exists, they're still vastly outnumbered by the NATO fighterswarm as it is. The question asked by serious observers has been "how long will it take NATO to achieve air superiority over Russian forces?" never "can the Russians achieve effective CAS?" And to that end, to argue the very modest difference in capabilities of the SU-25 somehow makes it immune to quite possibly the most lethal air force ever assembled, and still very robust larger SAM systems (not to mention it's not like the various Ukrainian ADA platforms simply vanished) is just stupid. The A-10 and SU-25 operate more or less in the same threat window, with the same level of vulnerability, and neither would be committed in contested airspace outside of as part of a massive strike package for a short window (Codename Duchess gave a great breakdown on what this looks like in reality). Also what sort of uberdouche give themselves reputation votes?

In practice the only thing the TOW is supposed to be used on is tanks, and tank-like targets. Anything less than a tank is something the 25 MM will eat up. You see them get shot at buildings a fair bit in Iraq, but that was more of a lack of any other use for TOWs and availability of platform and munition than a standard use.

part 3: https://youtu.be/rj1-PrFNd9c

Wow, I just made that video last night and it's already on here? Sweet. I edited that up really quickly (Read: Sloppily) late at night, just for something to post on my communities forums. If it's something you gents like I could make more in the future with tighter editing. - Onion

Tank Hunter, Thanks for these. I think having the latest and the greatest sensors gave the US the edge on detection time, but at the price of a small accuracy loss when rush shooting. Looks like the Chieftain guys weren't having a good day, particularly when you look at what that Chieftain gunner says at the other link regarding his CAT experience. The consistent German and Netherlands apparent sensor edge with the Leo 2 is evident in the equally consistent 4.1 second slower Leo 1. Nor is this delta a national difference, for the numbers also apply to a non German unit in both cases. I strongly suspect the German did a lot more live fire gunnery training than did the Canadians, and their poor showing was something of a NATO and national scandal. I would've been surprised, though, had German gunnery been poor, Historically, the Germans have been excellent gunners (see, for example, German naval gunnery at Jutland and scored here (p 756 et seq) by the British themselves as on par or better than theirs. Nor was that an isolated case. There's also Big Bertha, the Paris Gun, Anzio Annie. I'll stipulate to the Panzer aces of WW II. At heart, they're all about being meticulous about gunnery. I'd say the traditions, thorough crew training and firing experience showed up unmistakably in the stats. Besides, if having the GSFG and the East Germans across the border doesn't motivate you to excel, what will? LOckAndLOad (How I wish you'd picked a handle easier to type), I linked to Chieftain gunner because I had absolutely zero notion, less still knowledge, the Chieftain could be fired that fast, with at least part of the course being firing on the move. This is a tank which is firing two part ammo, after all. Also, depending on what year of the CAT you selected, the way teams got to the competition changed more and more to resemble typical crews than the best of the best which characterized the early years. Regards, John Kettler

John, You're right this is from the CAT competition. Here is the data I have from the book Team - Tank - Time between Detection and Hit - No Of Hits - Hit % USA - M1 Abrams - 10.2 sec - 44-45 - 93% The Netherlands - Leopard 2 - 11.9 sec - 46 - 96% West Germany - Leopard 2 - 11,9 sec - 42-45 - 91% West Germany - Leopard 1 - 16,2 sec - 45 - 93% Belgium - Leopard 1 - 16,2 sec - 41 - 85% UK - Chieftain - 13 sec - 38 - 79% USA - M60A3 - 14,1 sec - 37 - 77% Canada - Leopard C1 - 16,2 sec - 34 - 71% As you can see UK did not excel in any way, their detection times was decent but hit probability was not so good compared to top tier. What's interesting is comparison between Leo tanks, look at the times, it seems that those are what you could expect to get from Leo tank since it does not differ from country to country, hit % however is another story. Canadians had 71% in Leo 1 while the Germans had 93%

This is me having a go at Duelling Shashkas against the AI. Or alternatively, Dance of the Laser Warning Receivers. Absolutely loving it.

You're probably closer to historical if you never use the TacAir. Good choice. Or you could use Point missions. They hardly ever go awry.

Part 1 of backs to the wall. A small force of paratroopers and Ukrainian mechanized infantry hold a factory complex against a massive Russian attack until an armored company team can arrive and relieve them!

Hey I have re skinned the 101st Airborne Uniforms, Also put Ranks on... I haven't done the Equipment yet. The Helmets and Uniforms are EZ but i have re skinned them and put camouflage on the helmet. There will be more types of Uniform colors with ranks for you to choose from Including the 82nd Airborne. here's what I have done so far...

SPOILER ALERT ////////////////////// ///////////////////// Instead of using demo charges 2 Para takes the front door just to prove they can. (Or maybe they are running low on demo charges ) 2 Para locates and secures objective Suspect Compound #2.

part 3 (final) of mission 3: Good point, I forget about this!

part 3:

I figured if you were a LTC you were probably a junior officer in the early 90s. I am aware that I blew through indirect suppressing suspected SPAA positions vicinity the construction company - but it's a priority for me to suppress any, even on a whim, so that the fixed/rotary wing can roll in hot. I am expecting to be attacked by platoon+ sized armored CRPs at my OPs and possibly a company sized FSE before the main body arrives. So i'm expecting unpredictability! Also I am wary about using the UAS without SEAD completion. I'm planning on playing through the rest of the mission tonight so we'll see how it goes.

Part 1 of mission 3:

Pnzrskrtwrfr, If CM:BS were set in Montana following an invasion by Canada supported by North Korea, you might have a point. In that case, the US would probably throw everything including the kitchen sink into the fight, feeling they had no choice since they were about to be overwhelmed by crazed kimchi-wielding Canucks. Meanwhile, in this corner of the multi-verse, the US is not fighting for national survival, and can chose what assets to pitch into battle. And in this, or any other comparable optional fight against a first- or second-tier opponent, it is more than a little unlikely that they'd pitch in the A-10 when the USAF can instead use F-16s or -18s, or whatever, to deliver the same effects in safety. The Ukraine and the USS.. er, Russia don't have the same choices.

My friend, welcome to battlefront forums. Where the past is always the future. Literally.

This is a vid I found via a Ukraine War search, and while it doesn't show any combat, it shows a great many militarily interesting things: a heavily camouflaged CP with CO in it (him in cammies with what I believe to be latest digital camo helmet cover), complete with panoramic photo of area to front, range card, fire sector markers and such, full-on fighting trenches, AFV fighting positions, MTLBs with tall pintles with MGs atop them, trucks towing mortars, a possible T-64, BMP-1s and a 2S1. HD footage of wonderful clarity. Sky is dark gray, and there's a brooding feel, too. As best I can tell, this is two parts making one program. What I find especially notable is how well these AFVs blend with the background, despite monotone paint jobs. Also, other than a little wind noise, when the T-64BV? (has remote controlled rooftop MG actively moving about) tanks are on the move in the second vid, there is no stupid music playing, only engines and environmental sounds, including birds. Likewise with the BMPs. Maybe someone can take advantage of that for sound mods? These tanks are pretty quiet on the move, but neither are they racing about. The BMPs are noisier than the tanks, and their tracks squeak. A further point of interest is that when the CP displaces, right behind the Komandir's MTLB is another one. With a MANPADS guy standing in the open hatch ready to go while the MTLB is on the move! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-c35kRXK7pM#t=29 Regards, John Kettler

Haha. The 90s called, they asked if they could get any tips on game design from the future. I told them not to call here again it was a waste of time.