Skwabie

I understand a Leo2a5(+) is even more dangerous in that position? and a Chally 2 has best all around armor despite slightly worse AP pen and mobility? Or does the newly added M1A2 SEP have increased turrent armor compared to previous M1A1s? (i'm just curious for info..)

Slim and Warts, thnx for the support. I stress that simply put, exposed vehicle crews should be treated exactly like infantry. Only that instead of "cower", they "sit back" or "hunch down".

seconded!

Nice changes! Can load them save games now.

you can't really compare the f-22 to -15 since there's a generation gap between them... something like super-cruise.... means it gets you somewhere fast; it expands your missile's engagement envelope while collapsing the bad guy's; it gives you more energy at the merge of a dogfight. so for example a "100 mile range" missile launched from a -22 will most likely be different vs launched from a -15, as the former will fly much further due to the platform's speed. after launch the -22 can turn around and run away from the bad guy's missile much faster as well. i remember there was a 100:1 dact result and there could be truth in that besides usaf propoganda. also low vis is very important, the f-15/16/18 series have real difficulty facing sa-10 and above which are about to spread to various countries. they can still deal with them, but it requres a big systematic effort so it really ties up resources.

Awesome. Re-making this campaign w/ different TOE atm and play-tested the 1st mission. Very nicely done, coupled with triggers I get a real sense of urgency to extend the attack yet not extend too much to leave open flanks. In the 1st mission how did u deal with the 3 T-34s in the woods close to setup zone.. dismounted infantry assault or drive the PzIVs into the woods? Also there should be a 6th mission "Crushing the Third Corps"? That's the one where you get to fininish leftover opfor units from all the previous scenarios apparently.

^deleted. doesn't convey the emotion without the foul language!..

yeah. But then I probably want a pair of F-16/F-35 for SEAD... Tis could be a 'be careful what you wish for' situation?!....

I think we've had this problem for quite some time: halftrack and AFV crews getting killed by bullets, because they're unwilling (for AFV commander and HT gunner) or unable (HT passenger) to duck their heads under hails of bullets. I propose we introduce a suppression mechanism for exposed vehicle crews similar to infantry, but instead of reducing them to the state of "cower", vehicle crews will be prompted to "sit back" into their buttoned positions when under suppression. When the hails of bullets have stopped, they pop back up by themselves, with no player intervention: just like with cowered infantry. AFV commanders do button themselves up currently, but it is way too late. It looks like the game engine do not exert the same level of suppression to AFV crews compared to out-in-the-open infantry, as their suppression level only goes up when hit by a large enough cannon round. But for an unbuttoned TC or gunner, they should be treated like exposed infantry. And yes we can already do this for HT gunner and AFV commander with manual control, but apparently it is not in a timely fashion when a turn is in progress, and it is tedious when there're lots of vehicles under your command. For HT passenger, the space in the back of HT is cramped, so it would be uncomfortable for the riders to always hunch down. But they should... under bullet fire. When the bullet fire stops, they pop back up to stretch their limbs, which makes sense. And maybe it can even be copied to tank riders in CMRT. At least hunching down reduces their target cross section when getting shot. The details need to be hashed out for sure. Most obvious one: suppression level usually applies to an entire squad, but how to apply it only to the commander/gunner. Maybe the game engine can assume a split squad between him and the rest of the crew when an unbutton command is given... or something like that. It certainly requires some effort to implement this but I really hope BF can consider it for the next engine upgrade.

Who is the culprit?:confused:

What! This fora is so nostalgic I'm liking it a lot. But... seems the IP bans are getting rather outta hand. Oh well, in with the new. Congrats BF.

^nice one ian.leslie. I like reading these player tactics, more please if anyone's got it.

Thanks gents. I think the guideline is AI is dumb on vehicle pathing and player control is always preferred... Really wish CM one day has co-op so we can share more on these subjects with a purpose.

On the rare chance this does happen. Add an extra waypoint. Or add more for good measure. And to avoid traffic jams, use 15 seconds pause intervals before their movements. If vehicle is mobility limited (like Half tracks) or on rough terrain extend pause to 20secs. Just some basics I reckon.

I've uploaded a few campaign remakes before and would like to do a remake of blunting the spear. One thing special about this campaign IMO is the concept that units you destroy in one scenario will not come back to haunt you again in the following ones, otoh the ones you left alive, will. And so this gives the battles an extra layer of meaning, which is awesome and I'm liking it a lot. However as both sides is consisted almost entirely of core units, it is becoming rather tedious repetitive work, i.e. re-placing every unit manually on the map, especially for the red side. At the moment I have done 2 scenarios and there're still 4 remaining. So guess this is addressed to BFC and the scenario authors of Blunting the spear, if it's at all possible to share the core unit file of the campaign, so that we can make some spin-off campaigns and have some extra replayability. Wanted to ask this long before but was under the impression that it would facilitate foul play in multiplayer. However coming to the knowledge that campaigns are single player only, I thought why not pop the question as it won't harm the MP community. Thanks in advance for your reply.

Far as I can see, there wasn't any hard data to begin with, as this issue is not like armor thickness values and such. But since BF migrated the ww2 titles from CMSF there was some left over data there. Suppose the original spotting values for modern tanks are 1, how much less do you think it should be set for ww2. 0.4? 0.8? It is a judgement call. And so far as I'm concerned "operating as expected" is in line with the majority of BF's customer's preference. And since the majority of the customer base favors infantry, and at the time of adjustment Market Garden was on the horizon, it just provides more incentive to bump up inf's ubran fighting ability. Should the spotting capability be de-tuned. Of course. By how much, I don't think it is very clear. And then in the process the spotting and, close fighting, against other tanks are also de-tuned. So we have interesting observations like this and the whole problem of TCs unwilling to button up and getting killed: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=118098 Mind you I'm not aiming to reverse the de-tunes, being aware that going against market demand is a pointless act. However it does not lessen my belief that tanks have been down-graded too much. And I will continue to raise voice on other future issues... if time permits that is.

Are you sure they had it in that fratricide incident... Earliest report I got with Buff's Litening use is 2003ish.

Thanks for the info JonS. It is understandable for me as B-52 doesn't even have a targeting pod, so it's ability to independently identify targets is rather limited. They later did hang a Sniper TGP on the B-1 Lancer and apparently for good reason... If the pilot looked at his TGP imagery thought nothing of it and pickled it woulda meant a bigger system f*ck up i reckon.

Michael Emrys, the jack of all trades logic actually makes sense. Scientific advances are a given, but more importantly it saves cost. Principally it is no different than using a single type of main battle rifle for your entire army. Logistics, support, training etc can all be streamlined. When put into operations it means more numbers available for a required task, be it AA or AG. Tactically it means mission flexibility. There've been cases where CAP aircraft diverted to make gun runs to support ground troops or strike aircraft jetting their bombs to fending off enemy fighters. The lines between aircraft types will get more and more blurry for sure in the future. Granted in the cold war days, the huge budget allows using different aircraft types but now money really is the limiting factor. You'd rather spend it developing the entire "network" instead of single "nodes". Combined arms is really not only for land warfare but a universal concept. Oh haha snap! This is a good one, looks like a classic human error at its best. You'd think with the Link16 and whatnot the whole 9-line procedure can be greatly expedited but then this happens... Something needs to be done to prevent it. Is there a link for the actual event or does it belong to the hush hush?...

Indeed. Got a bit of CMRT Angriff action tonight to dust off the ww2 rust, edited the infantries in scenario editor and it was quite a nice experience. I got buttoned up tanks taking out AT guns, Su-122s and even infantry to the sides and rear. Ofc infantry support is always provided so they can share spotting info. Losses are high with 24 dead, 2 tigers lost and 2 HTs but the ruskies surrendered. Weren't too many places for inf close assault tho, long as the tanks stay away from woods and buildings and always have friendly inf nearby they're fine. My green normal motivation squads out performed my expectations to say the least, 1 squad lost 4 guys and kept fighting. Gonna keep trying this setting. All in all a good one and i'm back to ww2.

SkyNet:eek: It is interesting that this forum where armchair historians congregate have such an appetite for science fiction:o More seriously though I think the problem with UAVs is their ability to perform complex tasks like a manned AC, atm they just seem to do recon and limited CAS. I'm guessing datalink technology hasn't yet provided enough bandwidth to offer the remote operator too much control yet. And the AI sentient UAV is... well in "Stealth" with hot Jessica Biel..

ian.leslie, I don't think there's much point in keeping this up because 1 the issue has been argued to death and 2 without hard data it's going to become a bit pointless. I'd just say tank spotting has been tuned down too much, not really against infantry but more importantly vs vehicle targets, but hey that is my own perception. If BF ever allows data modding for single player mode that would be great for all, so each can tailor to his own taste. Right now arguing over a few data values in the game engine is really tiring, which goes not only for tank spotting but most other debates I see here. I leave the issue to you history grogs.

right 76mm and kevinkin, what are you envisioning that's different from Broadswords' idea may I ask. Far as I can see one will still have to find a human oppo or develop extensive AI plans and then play it out by oneself.

Well I got a couple ideas... one is player only control a "Kampfgruppe". What ever battle this KG encounters is played in tactical CM level. Other battles are handled by 2D dice rolls. The player can still control other friendly forces but only on the op layer. Another is more complex. A campaign where each unit movement is tracked in real time and combat resolved with real time dice rolls, instead of turn based. And there're no hexes. But on the op layer, instead of depicting every solider/tank as a single unit, a battalion is considered a single unit, with its morale/ammo/supply constantly tracked and updated. The player can dive into whatever battle he wishes for the tactical battle. And so you can have on map heavy artillery and the like.