PSY

Yes

A Russian module would be great!

I really like both CoH and CMSF. They're very different games. Obviously from a realism standpoint CMSF wins hands down, but CoH is still a lot of fun, even if it's not realistic . I think for a standard RTS-type game CoH is probably on the high-end in terms of requiring thoughtful use of tactics. Anyway enjoying one does not preclude enjoying the other.

How is the Stryker's battlefield electronics package doing? I vaguely recall hearing about teething pains early on (might have been predeployment or I might be confusing it with another non-Stryker related system), but haven't heard anything about it one way or the other since. Is the FBCB2 generally considered a success?

I almost spit out my coffee on that one Becket.

FWIW I'm enjoying the game a lot in its present form. Too be sure there are some improvements I'm hoping to see -- my biggest issue right now is vehicle pathfinding. For me personally if the game received no further changes, I would still feel like my money was well spent. Obviously as you can see from the forum, there is strong disagreement on that with some people pretty happy with the game and others very unhappy.

I think the problem is with the unload, not the pause. As I understand it, the squad only unloads when the vehicle completes all movement commands. CMSF has no way of telling which pauses indicate the squad should onload and which ones shouldn't. Consider you might just as well tell the Stryker to pause for 30 seconds then move to the building -- in this case you'd be pretty upset if the squad unloaded during the pause before the Styrker headed to the building. Try clicking on the movement endpoint next to the building and issue an unload command on the endpoint itself, rather than when the Styker is selected. That might work -- that's how you give facing directions at different parts of a vehicles path. It could also be that the behavior you want simply isn't supported yet and you'll have to leave the Styrker at the building until the end of the turn.

I've heard the argument bandied about that Stryker tires are actually an advantage, because if a tracked vehicle throws a track it's immobilized. The Stryker tires can run while flat, and the vehicle can continue moving even if some of the tires are lost. Tracks are clearly better for off-road and for turning radius, but tracked vehicles may actually be more likely to become immobilized. I don't really know one way or the other, but am curious as to how some of you with actual experience would evaluate this argument. Care to comment?

Well it's a trade-off. There are a lot of things in CMSF I like much much better. In particular I really like the single tracking of soldiers, I think that makes a huge difference. Even though the CMBO/CMBB/CMAK armor models were gorgeous for their time the squads composed of three 9' tall giants all marching in step always broke the immersion for me. Certainly along the squad representation dimension, CMSF is both more realistic and more aesthetically pleasing. I'm willing to accept a trade-off some other features for the 1-to-1 squad representation. Given the fact that computers are only going to get faster, future CMx2 games like CM:WWII will only get stronger, and they'll be built on a more solid modeling foundation than the old CMBO/CMBB/CMAK.

Just tried it out. Wow, that's pretty handy birdstrike. Thx.

I completely agree a roster would be great. I think you'll find though that Battlefront is, in general, very anti-roster. There was some talk about possibly adding it at some point, if they had enough time, but it's never been a priority with them, and they have some philosophical issues with having a list of units and IIRC particularly one which is clickable and takes you immediately to that unit. At least that's what I remember from CMBO and CMBB discussions on rosters some years back.

Not sure if this is what you're experiencing, but with the A-10, I've definitely seen it shoot and then the status on it change to "coming around for another pass" (in the ART/AIR info window) followed by another hailstorm of bullets. That might explain what you're seeing, or it could be they're just randomly picking a direction each turn.

That's what I'd have thought. Since you say it is so, I'll have to go and have another look, but it didn't seem to be the case. I mean during playback in WEGO mode BTW. </font>

If your unit is selected, you should see a red line going to the unit which is targeted. If your selected unit is directing artillery fire you'll see an orange/yellow line going to the artillery target. If your selected unit is directing an airstrike you'll see a blue line going to the airstrike target.

I actually really like the interface. It did take some time to get used to, as I've been playing lots of RTS lately (mostly Company of Heroes and Dawn of War). But I've concluded a standard RTS "left-mouse click, right-mouse move, shift-click to add to path" interface just wouldn't have worked for CMSF. CMSF has a much richer command set and holding down the SHIFT constantly to add a command while trying to select one of the many movement options would have been a mess. CMSF both provides more movement and combat options and requires more finessing to combine movement options than a regular RTS. I think the tabbed interface works very well. It clearly defines what I can and can't do simultaneously -- for example, targeting and movement are on different tabs and I can do them both simultaneously. Ultimately I've found the UI to be very clean and very straightforward. I'm playing WEGO, so I can see how someone playing CMSF realtime might have to put a lot of time into learning to use shortcut keys, but I'm mostly happy using mouse clicks with an occasional keyboard shortcut. The vehicle pahtfinding could definitely use some work, particularly in tight urban situations. But I'm confident Battlefront will put some resources into fixing it. I'm not sure what graphic issues you're referring to, but I am very pleased with CMSF's graphics. As long as I keep the settings all cranked on full I think it looks very nice for a wargame. It doesn't look as good as Company of Heroes, but it compares very well to any other realistic wargame out there. Overall even if no further fixes occur, I feel like I've gotten good value for my money -- particularly as I realize that realistic tactical simulations are a niche market and Battlefront (or any other serious computer wargame company) will never have the resources of a Relic or Blizzard.

I like the Artillery model, it seems very straightforward and powerful with lots of good options. I've been trying to figure out the relationship between the FSV and the FO. Does the FSV by itself have good ability to act as a spotter? Is the FO at his best when he's in the FSV? I've had situations where the FSV can see the target, but the FO inside the FSV can't seem to see it, even if the vehicle is "Opened Up". I assume in this situation, I should use the FSV as the spotter? Or is there a tradeoff between speed and accuracy in this case.

I like that suggestion. One thing which you may or may not know about, which helped me a lot is using the number keys to change camera angles: '1' gives a low-low angle, '2' slightly higher ... '9' gives a high level almost 2D wargame type perspective. I generally stick to '3', '4', and '5'.

In my experience infantry can get through if there is rubble, but not vehicles.

For WEGO should we plot an Assault to 1st Floor, and then chain/link a second Assault command from 1st Floor to 2nd Floor command after that and so on, or are we better of Assault to 1st Floor, wait until end of turn, then next turn Assault to 2nd Floor, and so on.

There seem to be more small-size UAVs available now at least at the battalion level. In the 2nd campaign scenario you actually have the battalion commander present on the field, so presumably you should have access to at least some battalion-level assets. Not sure if he continues to be present in followup scenarios as I'm currently still in the midst of the 2nd scenario.

I think he's talking about the ones in the middle left of the silhouette pane, directly above the name/type of the unit (for example, directly above "M109A6 Paladin" or "A-10 Thunderbolt").

I had a full health squad assault a building with one terrorist-type in it on the 2nd floor (can't remember if it was a regular or elite version). He must have dropped a grenade or something, because the next thing I knew there were four dead US soliders outside the door. We did take the terrorist out, but 4-1 casualty ratio is not good.

I think it has something to do with the strength of the artillery unit. Just a guess, but I think it matches the data. Mortars have red x's, 155s have two green pluses, Apache have one green plus. Another thought, maybe it is a combination of the strength/effectiveness of the unit along with the number of tubes in the battery, since both the 155s I've used and the Mortars I've used have options to use 1 or 2 guns when selecting a fire mission.

I've only played campaign scenarios, but I can definitely tell you I've had a lot more than 1 man wounded. Just to give you an idea of where I'm coming from, I've played a considerable amount of strategy games (Turn-based stuff, not RTS) over the past 20 years and am probably a minor-level grognard (I play and enjoy Matrix Games, for example, and own several ASL modules). I am not having an easy time. I won the first scenario with a Total US Victory, but took a lot of casualties doing it. I think I'm about to lose the second scenario -- lots of casualties, and not going to be able to take all my objectives. (*** could be considered minor spoilers ***) In the first campaign scenario, I was doing pretty well moping up forces outside of the main fortress complex with almost no casualties, but as soon as I entered the fortress area I had several squads completely wiped out -- IIRC final reckoning ~30 US casualties. It was a US Victory, but certainly not a cakewalk. Second campaign scenario is in progress. So far I've lost two Strykers from RPGs including one with a Platoon HQ and two MG Teams mounted. I had a squad completely wiped out while trying to assault a building, and another squad almost completely wiped out going from one building to another. Most of the rest of the squads in my company have taken casualties. I lost the Strykers because I wasn't cautious enough. But in the case of the squad loses, I had other squads supporting their movements with fire on nearby buildings and was trying to play cautiously. Partly I think I just need more practice, but also I think MOUT is just tough, and casualties will be taken. The worst part is I think I'm well on my way to losing the scenario. I've only taken one of three objectives and I'm probably down to only 1/3rd of the original time left.

Look at the vehicle silhouette in the Unit Details Panel at the bottom of the screen, you should see a list of small circles just below it. Circles on the left represent crew members, circles on the right represent passengers (if any). If a crew member is healthy, it should show up as a blue circle. If the crew member is WIA it will show up as a gray outline with a black dot in the center. If no crew member is present (i.e., if crew has bailed out or presumably KIA) it will show up as gray dot. (See page 43 of Battlefront Version of Manual).