Your 'must address' issues for next patch?

[19Kyle72]

Hello All;

If possible, I'd like this list of our most desired changes for Combat Mission Shock Force to be a collection of bugs/behavior/graphics issues that we all would really hope Battlefront to address in the next patch. Hopefully it's not too late to have these issues included, and/or they've already been solved and we just don't know it yet.

These issues may have been reported in their own separate threads, but let's try to make it easy for Steve and company by compiling them here.

GAMEPLAY:

(1) Humvee gunners should not button up so quickly when encountering small arms fire. The gunners are absolutely vital to preserve the vehicle and its crew. Right now, it seems like they hear a single round snap by and they're dropping immediately down into their Humvees for protection. Perhaps this could be remedied by placing armor along the sides of the turret?

(2) However, the crews manning the technicals seem too devoted to me. Those trucks have ZERO armor, and yet, time and again, I'll see round after round AFTER round hosing them, and they just stay manning their positions. This behavior seems implausibly beyond being fanatical. It's hard for me to imagine that if the occupants of the cab are killed, that the gunner will keep standing behind the technical's weapon. I just wish that the Humvees gunners were half as devoted as the insurgents are!

GRAPHICS

(1) Broaden the paint scheme for the technicals. Again, just to increase the sense of immersion.

(2) A model for the troops when they're wearing NVDs.

(3) A model for the aircraft executing the airstrikes.

(4) Wreckage models for aircraft, so that scenarios are created based on rescuing downed aircraft, and/or making it a mission objective that if an aircraft is shot down on the map that every effort must be made to reach it to recover the crew.

(5) Tracer rounds are colored to reflect the shooter's affiliation: green for Syrian/insurgent forces, and red for US/British forces.

A few of these changes have been asked for by quite a few members. Please, let's get some of these issues addressed in the next patch.

Thanks for your time and consideration!

[Redwolf]

I think #1 is the old real and BFC-acknowledged thing in here.

[Paper Tiger]

For a 'must address' list of points, it's a very short list and quite an unusual one too...

With regards to the Humvees buttoning up, perhaps you might want to consider keeping them a tad further back from the action than having them too close to small arms fire. I know that this is not always possible especially in MOUT operations but it doesn't seem to be too unrealistic behaviour to me. After all, the vast majority of Western soldiers are a bit less willing to risk their lives as recklessly as say a Technichal who may be truly convinced that he's heading for an eternity of pleasure with 40 perpetual virgins. Hell, if I could convince myself that that were REALLY possible, I'd be much braver too.

I'm not disagreeing with your point though. It's quite possible that you'll see this one tweaked at some point in the future.

With regards to the Graphics settings, I suspect you're referring to the lack of variety in the technichals, i.e. the same bog standard vehicles? Modding will help a bit but it wouldn't hurt to have another couple of car models in the game. It would be nice to have more than just the yellow taxi and the 4x4 pickup. Perhaps for the NATO module perhaps?

NVD goggles would be cool. It would be REALLY nice if you could get that in the game. This would require reworking all the original soldier models though so it is quite a lot to ask for. But if you don't ask you don't get...

It's a pretty safe bet that you won't get aircraft models in ANY future patch or CM title. While I agree that it would be cool for WW2, I don't believe that modern era fighters and helos get right down in there where you'd see them in the mission but stand off. But since they added the air and helo sounds to the game, I don't feel a lack.

Tracers have come up before. Not sure what the outcome of that discussion was.

[SD Smack]

While I agree that it would be cool for WW2, I don't believe that modern era fighters and helos get right down in there where you'd see them in the mission but stand off.

Everything except for the OH-58. Those guys try to fly under the MRAPs they escort all the time! But I agree with you I highly doubt that BFC will add aircraft models into the game (as they have stated before). But, it would be cool!

Steve-o

[MikeyD]

"(1) Broaden the paint scheme for the technicals. Again, just to increase the sense of immersion."

Hah! This seems to be your lucky day! See my MikeyD camou pickup mod post elsewhere on among the topics.

About Humvee gunners. How long a gunner should risk his life topside is "personal opinion" that BFC may or may not agree with. But with the Brit module there's going to be a LOT more exposed mg gunner on wheeled vehicles. What's the chance 'universal' mg gunner behavior might get tweaked to accommodate the Brits? I don't know of any tweaking on their part, and I don't know which direction it would go. But chances are something might change with the patch/module, however slightly.

[silverstars]

I think what he meant by aircraft models was more along the lines of a large flavor object of a down craft (wrecked Blackhawk, Kiowa, what have you) for rescue-type missions.

[Peter Panzer]

Well Kyle, I have been putting forth the issues below long enough to know that the only individual who considers them to be "must address" is myself. Good to see I am not the only one who thinks the M1114's/MTVR's are hosed though.

Machinegunners do not orient properly

Unlike the other members of their team, machinegunners do not orient properly when assigned a face command in v.1.11. Likewise, if ordered to "Target" in one direction during a turn and then ordered to cease fire and "Face" another direction in a subsequent turn they will not do so until issued a new "Target" order.

Infantry on rooftops remain impossibly invisible

Roof-mounted weapon station gunners undermodeled (M1114, MTVR)

M707 recon HUMVEE lacks an in-game LOS tool and "Target Arc" capability

Incomplete M16A4/M203 Model

REDFOR AFV crews lack their unique unit portrait (infantry is substituted)

AFV weapon use oversimplified (Target Light, Target Heavy)

If these issues, some of which have existed for a very long time, were remedied in v1.2 I would be thrilled.

[MikeyD]

About AFV weapon use being oversimplified. You could make that case with the absurdly over-gunned BMP-3. But AFV weapon use is mostly handled 'under the hood' by the AI anyway. The AI decides hvy mg, light mg, coaxial mg, pintle mg, HE main gun, etc. Its not that there's no distinction between weapons, just that the details are out of our control. So 'oversimplified' might be the wrong phrase. Perhaps 'over-automated'? Then come the issue of multiplying of specialized UI commands.

[Thomm]

What I would like to see in CM:SF:

* Peeking/fighting around corners

* Better editor interface (flavor object management being priority)

* Targetable smoke grenades [said to be in 1.2, bravo!]

Best regards,

Thomm

[theFightingSeabee]

* Pop ups showing who killed what and how.

* Fix mouse clicking on buildings. Almost broken!

* Use the RED button as a pause.

* More emotional voice acting.

[19Kyle72]

Wow!

This is QUITE a list so far!

And Peter Panzer, wow, those are some MAJOR headaches you've listed here.

I forgot to add something that I'm pretty sure happens in the game: aren't aircraft attack runs limited in the direction they can attack in? For example, if the player's units spawn in the west, the aircraft will almost always fly into the area of operations from the west, even if that means it can't hit a target that's covered on its west flank but not on its east? Am I imagining this, or what?

And if I had to beg for aircraft models, if they're not depictable in the air, then at the minimum, please supply us with their smashed up remains for rescue missions.

Every detail mentioned here seems more than worthy of being addressed.

[Paper Tiger]

And if I had to beg for aircraft models, if they're not depictable in the air, then at the minimum, please supply us with their smashed up remains for rescue missions.

Well, you can ask for them but, be honest with yourself Kyle, a smashed aircraft flavour object is not really essential to a wargame played at this scale is it? Since Shock Force was first released 20 months ago there have been frequent and passionate calls from forum members, myself included, for more flavour objects to be added to the game with no result. And there were some really good ideas suggested too. You'll simply have to find some other way to simulate your downed aircraft/helicopter in the game.

Now Pete Panzer's MG facing bug is more likely to get fixed. I was able to replicate this bug myslf very easily so I've filed a bug report for you Peter. It's in BFC's hands now. That doesn't mean that it will get fixed though. We'll just have to wait and see if it makes the v1.2 list of fixes.

[19Kyle72]

Yeah, I've backed up others' requests/asked for the downed aircraft models myself like 3-4 times now. One can keep hoping. I mean, how does one substitute a flavor object like a bench for a Warthog? Maybe the benches need to be collected together in the shape of a plane? ;-D Yup, that'll work for sure...

Also, is there any word on whether or not THIS will make it into the patch or a future release?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_(vehicle)

Considering how frequently I'm starting to see photos and videos of the Cougar in operation in Afghanistan and Iraq, it seems to me that there should be more than a few around in operation against Syria.

Or are our forces going in "not as the military we want, but the military we have?"

Just wondering...

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Linkey no worky.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cougar_(vehicle)

[kosta]

Cougar would be great, maybe they are not used in the opening days of a war, which are simulated in the game (mostly), I don't know. But there are scenarios that play after the occupation, too.

(1) I would like to see Makarovs (the pistols of red vehicle crews and officers). Yet their shooting is simulated, but they aren't modelled, instead the soldiers (graphically) have rifles. The panels show M9s instead of Makarovs.

(2) The possibily to let "acquired" equipment in the vehicle, if you don't need it. For example you equip a stryker infantry squad with many javelins and then most enemy armor is destroyed and you want to move the infantry squad over a long distance. Since carryig 4 javelins slows down it would be better to let them behind in the Stryker, again.

[birdstrike]

Big YES! to more varied technicals.

We don't really need more models, just give us the ability to use more than a single skin texture for these already in the game, like with the infantry models.

Well, of course I wouldn't mind if we'd have a dedicated "civilian vehicles" unit for purchase, as stationary objects without drivers (like some of the the blue Humvees already in teh game) and closed doors.

[Yair Iny]

What we really need is a civilian variant humvee, preferably black and stretched. That way we can play "USMC vs. Rich Hollywood types in LA" scenarios. Hell, I used to live in LA, and it isn't that far from being a desert

[19Kyle72]

Thanks Elmar for getting the Cougar link to work.

Personally, I haven't found any information on whether or not the Cougar is going to totally replace the Humvee. But what I have read (with Gates ordering another 3,000+ of these guys) and its effectiveness at saving our troops' lives, well, it seems pretty apparent that if they're not going to outright replace the Humvee, they're definitely going to have a substantial presence on the battlefield. To have them now completely missing from this game would be more than a little strange.

And I forgot to add to my own list enabling the troops to lighten any extra gear that they've taken. This "little" thing proves more than a little irritating after loading up on more equipment than one needs, and it's unnecessarily tiring the men out.

[SD Smack]

Two things I would like to see implemented would be fire and the ability to exit troops. Haven't seen if this will be done in CM:N or not. Nothing more satisfying than watching a building catch fire then turn into a raging inferno!

Steve-o

[Paper Tiger]

Nothing more satisfying than watching a building catch fire then turn into a raging inferno!

Really?

[SD Smack]

Really?

hehe....well maybe not.....

[kosta]

referring to hcrof in the thread "syrian smoke":

Some Soviet vehicles use their diesel engines to create "defensive smoke". That would have an impact on combat.

[nikita320106]

jast copy from my older thread)

whether is possible every_first_report from the list:

about contact

about losses

about under fire

about independent AI targeting

about moving

about heavy target(like tank or apc) down

would sound on whole map over radio filter

similar like artillery chatter)

It could add some situations_awarness for player) and some not_fake_radio_chatter) like combat_room _atmosphere

)

and yes) Im real-time fan)

[Peter Panzer]

MikeyD:

How long a gunner should risk his life topside is "personal opinion" that BFC may or may not agree with.

Well, yes and no.

Would it be acceptable for a roof gunner to be suppressed in a similar manner to his unmounted counterparts? Possibly. Unfortunately, that is not what happens in v.1.11. Even a few near misses, regardless of range, will cause them to button up. Again, that is just not what happens in reality. V1.10 had their behavior simulated quite well. Presently, we have to deal with an extreme, which makes M1114's, CAAT Teams and MTVR's rather compromised in their offensive/defensive capabilities.

But with the Brit module there's going to be a LOT more exposed mg gunner on wheeled vehicles.

Absolutely - and for all of you guys pining for the French countryside during the summer of '44, guess what your SPW and M2 gunners are going to do the first time a virtual round whips past under the current model?

Its not that there's no distinction between weapons, just that the details are out of our control. So 'oversimplified' might be the wrong phrase. Perhaps 'over-automated'?

Truth be told, I know there is no chance that a "Target Light/Medium/Heavy" option will be introduced in v1.2, however I thought I would tack it onto the list as it is something I and others have commented on several times in the past. For that reason I won't get into it again here.

Paper Tiger:

With regards to the Humvees buttoning up, perhaps you might want to consider keeping them a tad further back from the action than having them too close to small arms fire. I know that this is not always possible especially in MOUT operations but it doesn't seem to be too unrealistic behaviour to me.

Range doesn't matter man, try it out yourself. Gunners button up as far out as 500 and 600 meters after two or three small arms rounds in the vicinity. That simply does not reflect reality. Furthermore, abandoning the primary weapon station when your team is under close contact is exactly what you do not want to do. I have cited numerous, real life examples of gunners facing a hell of a lot more than a controlled pair manning their stations and fighting.

I am not calling for impervious robots, but v1.11 is far too extreme and restricts an entire class of vehicles.

I was able to replicate this bug myslf very easily so I've filed a bug report for you Peter.

Thanks! That was very kind of you - I appreciate it!

Kyle:

And Peter Panzer, wow, those are some MAJOR headaches you've listed here.

I have been at this for quite a while - some are arguably more major than others.

CMSF has been an odd gaming experience for me, it isn't solid enough to keep me immersed, but it doesn't suck enough to make me say to hell with it. I am holding out for v1.2.

As Paper Tiger noted, you (we) have a more probable chance of seeing corrections to existing elements of the game rather than the introduction of new vehicles and such. I would love to see REDFOR MANPADS teams and ZSU's, but I digress!

Kosta:

The possibily to let [leave] "acquired" equipment in the vehicle, if you don't need it.

Yes. I have mentioned the desire for an "Unacquire" option as well.

[Pvt. Ryan]

Or maybe the ability to exchange/share ammo between squads. It would be weird to have one unit go into a vehicle to unload a javelin and then have another unit go in to get it.