Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/26/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Bil Hardenberger

    Bil's Floating Icon Mod

    I know there have already been a few of these released, but thought I would show a preview of what I have been toying with... These are based on the US Army's FM 101-5.1 .... with a little license taken to make them clear at any distance. This image is an overview of the first AAR map I was playing with @Baneman.. yellow are FOW icons of course. This set includes special colors for each nation... ...in this image I have selected a Bradley Platoon, which if you remember was playing red in this action. The icons remain the color I chose for the US side (Infantry Blue) while selected.. they will be red when not selected. FOW icons showing a selection of different unit types... very easy t tell them apart. All nations use the same FOW icon set... so no clues as to nationality until you fully ID a unit. The following image illustrates Syrian infantry.. also note the Blue infantry.. that is one of Baneman's irregulars and was on Blue.. Ihave included an inset of that icon selected, showing that when playing blue, Syrian units will highlight green. BMP-3 (with one infantry unit selected) showing the darker red Syrian highlight: On the blue side...highlight insets show a British vehicle (khaki) and a German IFV (gray)... And finally, the overview I started this post off with, but with one US Platoon highlighted... Coming soon.. probably this weekend. Just need to run them through some thorough tests. Bil
  2. 3 points
    In the particular case of the video below, I don't see how the unit is thinking only of itself based on the knowledge it has available to it when it runs back toward the enemy a second time instead of down the road or behind the wall. It simply doesn't make any sense given the in-game situation (e.g. the unit is aware of enemy contacts North). Would you agree, or am I missing something? Battlefront wrote: "However, we have been at a point now, for a while, where it's getting harder and harder to find reproducible, addressable corner cases. That's good." Agreed. And the discussions in this thread may have contributed to the identification of a reproducible corner case in the Wilcox scenario. If it's not sufficiently addressable, then that's not good, but only mildly not good. I realize that expecting a video game like this to be completely free of errors is not realistic. As a customer and proponent of the CM franchise I will continue to poke and prod with evidence, reason, and an open mind in an attempt to contribute to the improvement of the game experience.
  3. 3 points
    I bagged a Leopard! Not in and of itself extraordinary, but I didn't take any casualties from it in the process! A small achievement, but an achievement nonetheless. @Vikingo I'm running with Reshade, using an Ambient Occlusion and some colour correction. See the previous page for a link, though I've tweaked my settings since posting.
  4. 2 points
    The_MonkeyKing

    Vehicle reaction time

    We were instructed to not use laser rangefinders when possible. Because of time you lose by using it (around a second or two) and the new detection systems. CV9030s bushmasters APFSDS-T rounds are so fast (near flat trajectory) that you can set the guns range to 700m and hit any AFV sized target from 0-1500m when aiming center mass. We called this "battle sight".
  5. 2 points
    That is your assessment. Troubleshooting however relies on factual information so if it is not behavior introduced in 4.0 that would be relevant from a code perspective. I.e one does not need to look for something introduced as new code. You are not in a position (nor am I) to say if there is a change in TAC AI behavior that Charles might want to look at but as Ian and I are two of the people you would expect to submit as a ticket to BF we do need to define what it is we might be submitting. We do know there were changes relative to responses to arty fire for example. If we know that this behavior was evident prior to 4.0 then there is no chance that whatever was done on that isn’t having an impact here I am certainly not going to open a ticket on behavior in 3.0 however I do need to know if this is new behavior or not It seems from chops that it may not be therefore....... the ticket we might open won’t cite this as new behavior so it becomes a “simpler” issue of looking at the TAC AI versus the TAC AI 3.12 versus 4.0 So does it seem relevant now? 😁 or I could just say f**k it if folks are gonna blow me off and just ignore it. Honestly I think Ian was justified in his remark as your last comment makes it look like my simple question puts me in the area of people not “contributing to a solution”. I find that fairly offensive as I was simply asking a question to see if we could clarify a bit of a discrepancy as to his comment and yours. As that is apparently not cooperating with your expectations on contributing I will bow out and leave you to it.
  6. 2 points
    The_MonkeyKing

    Vehicle reaction time

    My experience comes from being a CV9030 gunner. Let us start with a very real live example. CV9030 company is moving along a road surrounded by dense forest. Enemy contact is possible but not imminent. The company is "traveling" so mounted and expected to move somewhat quickly. Leading CV9030 is moving slow enough to be 100% ready to open fire instantly, the gunner is constantly "pre-aimed" to the next corner on the road ext. and the gunner will engage on his own initiative. So let us say a meeting engagement happens. What happens in the lead tank? - Gunner sees the enemy AFV and opens fire. - Commander knows without words what is happening (gunner shooting + direction the gun is pointed) and acts out his part of the script. Says to the intercom: "reverse, fast!" and flips a switch that pops smoke. Gunner gives a report as fast as he can while/after shooting: "IFV, destroyed" - Commander informs the platoon/company radio shortly: "contact, heavy" (heavy meaning mechanized force) Also sometimes lead tank intercom is directly connected to platoon radio so the information is as fast as possible and if the lead tank is lost the information is not. - Commander gives the driver instruction on the reversing (left, right, hard left...) - Commander and driver have packed up a short distance to the side of the road and the commander gives "dismount, left" order for the dismounts. Same time more information to platoon/company radio.
  7. 1 point
    As I recall, Steve once said Battlefront was not interested in doing a game on something that never happened. Now some of you will say CMSF never happened, but at the time it was developed the setting was still in the future , so CMSF has been, as they say, "Grandfathered in" as an exception now. Black Seas is also still a future setting. Any way I just wanted to enquire if Battlefront's position on NATO vs Warsaw Pact has not changed and is likely to never be in the cards. There is still a lot to do for the existing families and completing the Ost Front after all which is a desire for Battlefront. And can I call for a bit of restraint in posting your favorite setting wish in this thread please?
  8. 1 point
    Mattis

    Vehicle reaction time

    Like already mentioned map size and the quicker communication and command play a key role why everything plays out faster here. Also most of the time in real combat operations there are no air or cavalry conveniently around the corner to provide support. You may stir up a hidden nest, call in support, and then hit the deck for several hours before they come to solve your problem. Also many things in CM die alot faster, especially infantry in buildings or other cover. To visualize this: There was a night where nearly an complete operation was hold up because of incoming small arms from a five-story compound in high density urban territory. Hours of shooting at nothing and dark spots that may be somebody peeking or just NOD shenanigans, thousands of round were put into this building but they simply denied to stop shooting. Cavalry was called in and also put another pack of heavy ordnance into that building (many buildings don´t collapse that easy), even calling further support was considered. Silence. Then order to enter the building, enemy gunshots erupted on one of the higher floors. Again on hold. Took another half on an hour to find a solution in order to pacify it and nearly another half hour to clear the rest of the building and situation (which takes seconds in CM). Turned out that this building was occupied by only two individuals armed just with one AK and one RPG and alot of ammo. They´ve managed to hold up company sized elements, cavalry support, and futher to delay the operations of other elements for half of the night. Imagine this in urban environment where you have dozen of such buildings. Real warfare can also involve an unbelieveable amount of waiting and also "camping" to put it in video game terms.
  9. 1 point
    IanL

    Vehicle reaction time

    I think it comes down to information and attitude. In CM the player has all the information at hand right away. Even if you have to click around to get all the details. IRL for any decision above the platoon people have to talk, explain and discuss at least a little bit if only because there are multiple actual humans that need to be coordinated. In the game we need none of that. The attitude of the pixel soldiers is the other big factor. Most humans spend a large amount of time taking care of their buddies. Once the pressing issue of someone shooting at you in the moment is taken care of people want to know their friends and colleges are taken care of. Not to mention when the bullets start flying those loosing the firefight don't want to stay in close contact - whomever is loosing the firefight is going to break contact and regroup. Then those that are moving forward are not going to just run across that field right away. They have no idea if the enemy is still there hidden away - we do. I think IRL there is a lot more shooting at where the enemy used to be to make sure before jogging across the field. I suspect there is little jogging either.
  10. 1 point
    ncc1701e

    Newbie DAR/AAR: ncc1701e vs JoMc67D

    MINUTE 6 My plan, if I can call that a plan 🙈, is developing. The squad is taking position on my right wing to probe the village. In order to distract the enemy, I am asking my HQ team to pop smoke to obtain a reaction from the other side. I would like him to ask himself the question of what I am doing. I am secretly asking myself the same question. 🤣 Assaulting with a ratio of 1:1, I am sure that I am doomed.
  11. 1 point
    SlowMotion

    Vehicle reaction time

    Yes, playing a 3 day battle using one minute turns would make gamers fall asleep Despite this time compression, I think CMSF2 and the other newer CM games are a great gaming experience.
  12. 1 point
    tpr

    Vehicle reaction time

    Definitely. One crew may aquire and kill a target in matter of seconds the other may struggle to do so. So many circumstances, you never know. Also you´re probably right with the asumption that operations in CM play out fast. Some of the scenarios you´re playing would in real life not take hours but probably days and also the casualties rates in many CM sorties weren´t acceptable at all for many real commanders. I think this is a welcome abstraction for us gamers. Still CM is the closest to the real thing when it comes to ground ops.
  13. 1 point
    SlowMotion

    Vehicle reaction time

    It seems to me that because of this lethality most wars/conflicts on this century have been such where the other side is clearly weaker. Older gear, worse training etc. Whether it's air warfare or land based, the good gear rarely meet. So we have little actual experience of how well those things really work against same level opponent. BTW: Syria's situation may be changing now that Russia has brought newer technology. Anti-aircraft, electronic warfare etc.
  14. 1 point
    Video 1 looks like the Indirect Fire bug that @HerrTomhas alluded to. The unit takes 1 casualty and suffers about 70% suppression and drops to the morale state of 'Nervous'. The unit leader is the casualty, but the assistant takes over who also has +1 Leadership. Can a hand grenade cause the Indirect Fire bug? Video 2 looks like a typical auto evade when troops in the 'Rattled' morale state become Pinned. I cannot comment on video 3 as I don't have any information on the unit status. When I see my troops in CM behave in a way different to what I expect, I can typically 'roleplay out' the situation so as to be less dissatisfied with the result. It is hard to make that case here in either of the first 2 vids. In vid 1, the unit does not panic, nor does it suffer from being led by an incompetent. The unit is merely dropped to 'Nervous' and still has a capable leader fronting it up. The unit is also aware of 2 enemy contacts to the north. I would therefore find it difficult to roleplay out the situation that developed and would come to the conclusion that something was wrong with the TacAI. In vid 2, the unit is Rattled and (probably) Pinned whilst moving. The auto evade kicks in but again, I find it difficult to roleplay out that they would run back into the fire that was coming at them. Again I have to conclude that something here is wrong. Having said that I have never witnessed a situation in any of my own games that I have not been able to roleplay out, but I've also never witnessed the Indirect Fire bug demonstrated by @IICptMillerII. That's not to deny it exists, just that I've not seen it in a game I've played. I do not have the Shock Force 2 demo.
  15. 1 point
    sburke

    Electronic warfare in CMSF2

    No and you should not. You would never know in real life whether you actually jammed an unknown device. The red player is able to identify if the device isn’t working but I don’t believe they can identify if it has been jammed. I played around with some of the units looking at IED behavior and basically there is no way to relax your sphincter. 😉 I wish there was some chance to spot an IED and at least make an effort to avoid it. There are ways to do so as an editor by having the IED in a touch point or even by having no IED but having a suspicious spotting, but the actual IED carries no possibility of being identified...... unless it blows up.
  16. 1 point
    Mattis

    Vehicle reaction time

    He definitely knows what he is talking about, which is a rare trait in the internet. Also there is no reason instantly start fiddling around with your stopwatch just because you´ve seen a random Steel Beasts video. It is perhaps the most definitive tank simulation but still far from reality, at least the version for the private sector. For example a military grade joystick may give better results than a lagging mouse simulating this joystick, also the override... I think it isn´t potrayed completely correctly but damn close. Then imagine a fellow that probably spent countles hours with a virtual simulator, in the life tank with sim equipment, and then in life fire excercises. Beside this not all tank features especially newer inventions and confidental ones are represented in Steel Beasts L2A4, C2, and the other tanks there. Furthermore most commanders wouldn´t call out a slow HEAT round for a >2k meters moving APC target like SB´s AI does there but just stick to the high velocity KE-based rounds like APFSDS. You hear occasionally stories about the danger of overpenetration without causing any damage but these people have no clue. Hits are highly likely mission kills. Yes it will overpenetrate but you and your friends inside that APC definitely will notice when a 120mm KE says hello when passing by and you´ll consider twice if you continue your journey if you´re even in the state then to do so.
  17. 1 point
    A Great Line from SPR: "Where's the Rally Point?" … "Anywhere BUT HERE!" And so it goes in CMSF2.... as the title of this thread mentions: Rarely. Sometimes all we can do is patch up our differences rather than the game, and hope for a New CM Tomorrow. I VOTE for that
  18. 1 point
    Soviet tanks will be very welcome! And what kind of decals are you planning on? I like your work, 2125, and it's good to see talented modders join the community. Your welcome may have been a bit frosty (for understandable reasons to be fair), but we can use fresh blood here. In my opinion your work is top notch!
  19. 1 point
    ^^^ Great vid. The team should NOT have gone back around that corner into the beaten zone. Of course, one big issue is the lack of "memory" for our pixeltruppen. However, I'd think a "?" or hard-contact would be something to leverage to force them not to run that way. Meaning, if that team "knows" there is an enemy there, the team should avoid that enemy (increase distance or keep LOS from occurring or get out of LOS by the quickest means). ...and then prioritize moving towards the friendly edge.
  20. 1 point
    IICptMillerII

    Bil's Floating Icon Mod

    Looks great Bil! I especially like the OpFor icons. I’ll likely mix and match your icons with IanL’s as I am quite fond of his BluFor icons. Thanks for posting these!
  21. 1 point
    stikkypixie

    Demo crash

    I changed my NVidia profile like @Lethaface suggested and so far no crash.
  22. 1 point
    domfluff

    Bil's Floating Icon Mod

    Oh yes, I'm aware of why you did them that way Bulk-changing things like saturation with irfanview or something should be pretty simple - when you release the mod I'll give it a poke and see if there's a setting I'm happier with.
  23. 1 point
    Download "Winter 44 GER units 1.7.brz" and "Winter 44 USSR units 1.6.bzr" and unpack.
  24. 1 point
    Michael Emrys

    Demo Feedback

    But tend to be very indecisive in choosing a direction to move. Michael
  25. 1 point
    ncc1701e

    Demo Feedback

    They are fearsome and very difficult to destroy. Snifff. 😕
  26. 1 point
    Homo_Ferricus

    Demo Feedback

    Ahh the elusive Siamese Abrams. Didn’t realize these ever made it into production, let alone combat testing
  27. 1 point
    Could this be an auxiliary effect to the fleeing implementation in engine 4? It's possible that we never really saw this happen because fleeing (without losing command, perhaps?) is more common? Anecdotally, I've found myself disappointed in the choices the TacAI makes when it does the "self preservation" pathing mid-turn (as opposed to broken/transparent icon running). It occurs to me that I don't really pay close attention to what the broken units are doing...
  28. 1 point
    Some facts to go with all this fascinating punditry. Firing the 152 mm gun/launcher on the Sheridan WOULD decollimate the infrared beam transmitter from bore axis, killing ATGM capability. This was because of the shock loads on a very light chassis and was reported in ARMOR magazine in the late 70s or early 1980s. Never saw any such discussion regarding the much heavier and stoutly constructed M60A2. What I did see were complaints about what a beast it was in terms of maintenance, what with all that advanced tech. Shortly after the Berlin Wall fell, Armed Forces Journal, a big deal defense magazine, published a brief but harrowing report of a key finding from a recovered Soviet war plan for Europe. Hope you're sitting down. It envisioned the use of no fewer than 200 tactical nuclear weapons (strategic weapons held in reserve as a deterrent) and being to the English Channel in two weeks. Memory hazy as to CW, but I recall no mention of BW. Would further note the Russians had 'mask breaker" agents to defeat respiratory protection and new gen CW weapons combat tested in Afghanistan--Novichok (recently in the news) and a super powerful knockout agent called Blue X,. The last was used in Afghanistan for sure. And let's not forget the tricothecene Yellow Rain munitions. Don't buy the bee poop nonsense. It doesn't cause whole villages to projectile vomit blood, which is but one of the grisly effects. The Russians didn't trust the Poles as allies and didn't at all relish the thought of the Poles being in a position to strangle their all-important rear and transshipment point (rail gauge conversion) where reinforcements and supplies came in from Russia. Suvorov/Rezun says this was the view when he was in the GRU working in the GRU HQ for the Carpathian Military District, and I've seen it elsewhere. Meanwhile, we in the West were concerned about the significant force increment and modern equipment the Poles contributed to the overall effort, including highly capable SOF equipped to do Skorzeny type false flag ops while equipped with the right vehicles! What was the only NATO (including US) ground force unit that scared the Russians, per Suvorov/Rezun? The BAOR. The GRU was so obsessed with it that when a TOP SECRET message from agents of the Carpathian Military District reported two Chieftains had been seen on a certain bridge, but the agents failed to note direction of travel, GRU there sent a blistering admonishment regarding this, for it was vital to know whether the tanks were being added to or subtracted from the BAOR's force strength. Finally, as I've said many times, if BFC is going to do a Fulda Gap game, it is essential that the armor-anti-armor situation be correctly depicted. As I've noted previously, we were grossly deficient on both ends of the equation. LAW was obsolete, likewise Dragon, even TOW until mod after mod was fielded. In fact, the classified assessment in 1984 was that the only two weapons we had that could reliably defeat Russian MBTs frontally were the Hellfire and the mighty Maverick. On the other end of the scale, we discovered that in the early 1960s, in response to the T95 we didn't build), the Russians had developed and deployed HEAT munitions which would defeat that MBT's silceous cored armor. CIA's assessment in 1985, and which was briefed to some 200 defense contractor threat specialist personnel, was that the HEAT round recovered from PT-76s (using the same gun as the T-34/76) could get a frontal kill on the brand new XM1. Lots of gasps in the auditorium over that one. Felt nauseous. We also discovered that static firing cannon launched Russian HEAT munitions was a bad idea. Why? It had to do with the way the warheads were designed to take advantage of the impact kinematics, resulting in performance understatement of some 40%. Memory fuzzy on the missile side of things. This list isn't complete by any means, but I think it important to note that Shtora has proven to have significant effect vs. even TOW 2 in Syria. That being the case, I shudder to think what it would've done to stock TOW. In a nutshell, we were in a horrible situation in armor-anti-armor at a time when we were counting on our tech to get us long range kills to thin the horde, but the Russians had the cards to win the ground war, and that was their General Staff conclusion. But if you read the debriefings of top Russian defense officials, they didn't attack because of our strategic superiority. There was also the small matter that they were reading our mail in real time, thanks to the Walker-Whitworth spy op which gave the Russians key settings for crypto gear recovered from the USS Pueblo by Russian crypto specialists who went to North Korea. Said ex-KGB Major General Kalugin flatly of the situation, had war come "We would have won." Regards, John Kettler
  29. 1 point
    Yes, I was going for something with a little attitude. However, funny you say this... I am almost finished with a new theme that shows men running into battle. Stay tuned....
  30. 1 point
    I see no reason to be so aggressive against @IanL. He has tried to replicate your issue directly in the "Passage at Wilcox" scenario. Having so many variables to consider, it is perfectly normal that one cannot see the same thing. That is why those pathfinding issues are hard to understand in order to solve them. Firing the editor, I was hoping to have less variable in the loop and going directly to the issue in the less amount of time possible. I think I was lucky, that's all. I am not sure this is exactly the same but yes sometimes I see something weird. Hope this will guide the guys in the good direction for understanding the root cause.
  31. 1 point
    I was a little suprise from Erwin answer, cos he is normaly always very kind and give always a good word to help peoples...but everybodys have a bad day sometime, and is true that we recieve from couples of weeks agos, some strange message, in China Corean or Japan...some strange behaviours that we have to pay attention. About Thief2125 I will say big thanks to be present on the forum and let us access to the big work , polite to ask if he can use a mod already done to make himself some modifications, I m sure appreciated from each of us, this is the kind of guy that we need with Oleksandr and all the futures news modders, to bring "a sherry of the cake" of ours favourits games series from BF, and I m sure there is more to awating in these kind of new members, wait and see...
  32. 1 point
    ncc1701e

    Newbie DAR/AAR: ncc1701e vs JoMc67D

    MINUTE 5 Well, I was wrong. Not a single shot was fired last turn. No new contacts were discovered. My squad in reserve is approaching the main line. I will merge the two-man scout team with its squad next turn. Now, given the sound contact I had, I am sure now that @JoMc67 has some troops inside objective number one. So, basically, I have no choice. I must attack. I have decided to use my reserve squad to try a flanking maneuver.
  33. 1 point
    MOS:96B2P

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    Ah, very good. Hmm, this is what I'm afraid of also...................... Well, in single player, if the player was controlling the unconventional forces and the AI was controlling the conventional forces I guess it is still workable.
  34. 1 point
    domfluff

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    I can't find a way to do that - that might well mean that the only way for the AI to take advantage of Uncon stealth is to use "Ambush 75m"-type orders, and to try to fight from static positions, or move between them only through covered routes, out of LOS.
  35. 1 point
    domfluff

    CMSF irregular thoughts

    Sorry, I'll try to re-word: I went into it assuming that the Civilian density would be the main thing controlling spotting distance. Whilst this is true, this is not the only factor. A Crack combatant team Move-ing on "None" density can walk up to two spots distance (i.e., 1x 8m square in between them). A conscript combatant team on "None" cannot - they get spotted much earlier. The same conscript team on "Very Heavy" *can* walk up to two spots away. Need to do more tests to puzzle out the details, but factors have to include: - Civilian density setting - Unit experience - Actions they take (these were Moves, running, deploying weapons, crawling all give you away). It's also not clear if terrain is a factor - there are no buidings in the above scenario, so that can't be a prereq for Civilian density, and no paved tiles. I wouldn't be surprised if roads were though.
  36. 1 point
    Beat me to it, saved me some time posting that, thx. Just to add, page 62 of the CM game manual.
  37. 1 point
    I have uploaded three videos to Youtube regarding the pathfinding problems. Links are pasted below. I have also started a thread that might get us some idea as to whether there is actually a coding solution to this problem.
  38. 1 point
    I would love to see a Fulda Gap game (as well as a 1973 Yom Kippur game as well) but am fully aware that development of either would not be possible for at least the next 5 years or so. I do hope that one day it'll happen though. As always, obligatory +1 for Fulda Gap
  39. 1 point
    IanL - Do you have a response to my question? I asked whether you agree that this is a bug now that I provided video evidence. I'm interested to know your thoughts on this given your experience with CM (e.g. you have over 12,000 posts on the forum).
  40. 1 point
    Hi, all. I just realized that my old mod for CMFI/GL never ported to the new CMMODs III. You can download the file here. This mod replaces the default floating icons in Combat Mission: Fortress Italy (CMFI) and its Gustav Line module. These stylized icons are based on the U.S. War Department’s 1943 Basic Field Manual FM21-30 Conventional Signs, Military Symbols and Abbreviations. The icons have a slightly three-dimensional appearance so that they look like counters from traditional board-based war games. And, when the icon blinks (i.e., the unit is selected or wounded), the unit’s national flag is displayed. Detailed instructions included in the zip file explain what each symbol means and how to use the provided files.
  41. 1 point
    DougPhresh

    CMSF2 Release Update

    The demo is fantastic. That Alamo scenario is tough! I mostly play quick battle in the newer games, since battalion-level scenarios on huge maps are somewhat rare. I remember SF having some really good scenarios and campaign missions though.
  42. 1 point
    Buck72

    The state of CMSF2

    "don't let other people's posts discourage you" I don't think it's other people's posts that are discouraging - I think it's the general apathy and disdain with which Battlefront treats it's customers. In this day and age of instant communication it is ludicrous that news flow is almost non-existent. Having bought all the WWII games and all the add-ons, I am now at the end of my tether awaiting - in particular - the long-promised and yet still unprovided patch. I would suspect that many have already thrown in the towel and will not be returning. I may shortly be joining them.
  43. 1 point
    contrails

    Hi-res horizon

    I've stitched together a custom horizon texture at 2x the resolution of the original textures. Sampled from pictures of the ukranian countryside some pictures of it in action: https://imgur.com/a/vg0eTJH a subtle difference, but the more pixels the better, right? hope you beautiful people enjoy http://www.mediafire.com/file/mj48x5pesk89g6s/cmbs_horizon.zip/file
×
×
  • Create New...