theFightingSeabee Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 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. Yes! That should have been on my list as well. And I'd love to be able to multi-select all the ammo I want on the list then say 'Confirm' or something, instead of having to select something then click 'Acquire' again every time. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kosta Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 no reloading when ordered to run - For example when a javelin team fires a missile, the soldier who holds the lafette reload although he is shot at. I can't prevent him from reloading, but want him to run or crough away and take cover. It would be great if troops stopped reloading such "big" weapons when ordered to move. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dietrich Posted May 18, 2009 Share Posted May 18, 2009 I find that the smoke Syrian AFVs put out is minimally effective. As I understand it, the denser and broader the smoke cloud and the closer said smoke cloud is to the vehicle it is intended to screen, the better. With a BMP launcing smoke mortars 150 meters to its front -- and on a relatively narrow frontage, an enemy unit need only be a bit to one side of the BMP's facing to be able to see past or partially through the BMP's smoke screen. But, as has been pointed out in another thread, this is more a matter of doctrine than of wonky coding, so I guess I'll just have to be even more careful in deploying and maneuvering my BMPs than I am with my Strykers. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Peter I have to confess that I'm not really qualified to comment on Humvee's behaviour under fire as I've hardly played a mission as the US side for over a year and a half (and on those very rare occassions when I do, I play missions with the heavier hitters). Unfortunately, this behaviour can't be reported as a BUG though as it's 'working as designed'. I think the current argument is that the average CMSF battlefield is a FAR more lethal environment than most US troops are facing in real life in order to give the BLUE player a challenge. The vehicle crew's motivation will also affect things. So it might (remembering the opening sentence of my post) be more the scenario designer's 'fault' than the game engine. This requires a more careful argument to get it changed so I'll run a couple of tests and raise the issue on the Beta forum. Most of those guys are American anyway so I'm sure they'll take this up with more fervour than I could possibly muster... (I'm Scottish) Edit to add... Actually, if you could point me to a scenario or two where I'll see this behaviour, I'd be grateful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Memory leak? bug? in editor. I'm chomping at the bit to make a huge (mapsize) scenario. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peter Panzer Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Paper Tiger: I have to confess that I'm not really qualified to comment on Humvee's behaviour under fire as I've hardly played a mission as the US side for over a year and a half (and on those very rare occassions when I do, I play missions with the heavier hitters). Not a problem. Frankly, I have suspected this of quite a few folks - I welcome your candor and desire to get things right. I prefer Cavalry units, so inaccuracies surrounding light armor and recon vehicles (no in-game LOS tool for the M707) tend to get my attention. As MikeyD and I discussed briefly, with the introduction of UK teams and eventually WWII era crews using similar configurations this issue is not going away. Unfortunately, this behaviour can't be reported as a BUG though as it's 'working as designed'. I agree. My outsider theory is that new self preservation behavior was added for AFV crews without taking into consideration the ramifications for M1114/MTVR gunners. Buttoning up under fire makes very good sense for a TC, but it is exactly the opposite of what '1114/MTVR gunners are expected to and must do to ensure the survival of their team. The vehicle crew's motivation will also affect things. A logical presupposition. It is also incorrect when applied to v1.11. A highly motivated veteran will behave the same as the greenest boot. As noted previously, range does not play a role either, nor should it in reality. The US military trains its combat personnel to acheive fire superiority when in close contact so as to fight through an ambush and manuever for advantage. All we get in v.1.11 are virtual doggies and jarheads filling their pants consistently under practically any and all conditions. This is disasterous in WEGO. So it might (remembering the opening sentence of my post) be more the scenario designer's 'fault' than the game engine. Negative. See my last point. This requires a more careful argument to get it changed so I'll run a couple of tests and raise the issue on the Beta forum. As I have said in similar circumstances in the past - fair enough. Thank you for devoting the time! Actually, if you could point me to a scenario or two where I'll see this behaviour, I'd be grateful. Unfortunately, I exclusively "roll my own." In other words, the first thing I do upon installation of a new module or the like is delete all of the scenarios and campaigns and create my own "Hotseat" engagements. If need be, I do have a very simple, small "test" map I use to observe these issues for myself. I could set it up with a USMC "Escort Platoon" and a squad of REDFOR infantry and e.mail it to you. Of course, it would be nothing that you could not replicate in five minutes time on your own to be honest. Please let me know how you wish to proceed as I do not want to create unneccessary work for you. Then again, with all of those campaigns you have authored you may be a bigger glutton for punishment than I am. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Kyle72 Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 Here's some more items that I experienced last week that need to be addressed: 5-7 grenades being chucked at the same zone, within seconds of each throw. Via Fraps, I recorded one of these episodes, and I have a difficult time not chuckling whenever I rewatch the segment. I have no issues with 1-3 grenades being thrown at a time, but to see 5-7 grenades tossed at a time, into a tiny region, with no break in between so that the soldiers can assess the situation, is more than wasteful, especially when frags are so hard to come by. And by the way, are frags really supplied in such a tiny quantity, even in the backs of Strykers? This has been brought up before, but I just wanted to add my two cents to the issue. Plotting waypoints should be easier, and by easier, I mean that the waypoint should be "pegged" close to where the arrow is at and in the direction intended, but far too often, it is not. I started a post seeking advice on minimizing the amount of time that's wasted deleting/repositioning/deleting/repositioning/deleting/repositioning/deleting/repositioning just to get the waypoint in the vicinity and direction one desires. In principle, I certainly don't have an issue with the invisible action grid superstructure, but it seems to me to be far too inflexible when it comes to accepting waypoints. Honestly, this issue eats up the overwhelming majority of my time when I play the game, and it frustrates the tar out of me. Is it possible to have light fire, or medium fire, implemented? This seems to be especially important for vehicles when they're supporting. It's alarming just how quickly rounds are chewed up by the machineguns, when all I desire is to throw down a smaller quantity, such as when the machinegun teams are able to lightly fire. Why isn't this feature available for the vehicles? The ability to define zones for artillery strikes is far too limited, in my opinion. It's frustrating to want to call in antipersonnel arty into a large yard that's bounded by buildings, yet because the officer can't see the entirety of the yard, only a small portion of the yard can be defined as being within the target zone, even though one can generate a fairly accurate picture of just how big the area has to be by observing where the perimeter of the surrounding buildings are (and that's if the buildings aren't desired to be struck). Time and again, this restricted zone is far smaller than the obvious edges of where the buildings are, and I highly, HIGHLY doubt, that officers PRACTICE such a tightly regimented procedure. I don't know if they're SUPPOSED TO follow such a conservative set of strictures, but it's beyond implausibility to me that they're such "angels" about it. Fences & Gates: if there's one type of object that seems more than reasonable to expect to see more variety of, it's fences. Chainlink that's waist high, tall chainlink with barb wire on top, tall chainlink with razorwire on top, etc., etc. Also, gates of all sorts are needed, and they need to be offered in a heavily/moderately/lightly locked state, locked/unlocked/partially opened state. Now, these states don't have to be modeled explicitly, but should be available for the scenario designer. I believe that this suggestion has been offered up before, but after loading up a number of scenarios, I too have come to the conclusion that the presence of fences and gates are more than a little justified. That's it, for now. Oh, and did I mention how much of my time is wasted by replotting errant waypoints? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sfhand Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 I believe Steve has said movable waypoints are going to happen soon (although I'm not sure he has said it recently, which leads one to wonder how it could be soon). I've got my fingers crossed... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted May 26, 2009 Share Posted May 26, 2009 Handgrenades are a funny thing. The Army gets a little bi-polar about them and sometimes bans their use entirely (but 40mm+ grenades are still okay). I don't think they would be hard to come by in CMSF's context, but I can't imagine there would be a box of them laying around the inside of Strykers and Bradleys and stuff. I could be wrong, of course, but I would see issue of grenades being down between tactical engagments. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Kyle72 Posted May 26, 2009 Author Share Posted May 26, 2009 The Army has, at times, banned the usage of frags? What in the world? Is this to minimize civilian casualties in residential areas, or...? Now, what good does that do other than sounding good and noble? I've read a number of accounts that it's not unheard of that when one goes clearing out a building just to fire one's rounds through the walls in advance of actually stepping through an entrance. Needless to say, I'm sure that such "sight unseen" behaviors would result in innocents getting hit. So, you know, nobility down the crapper but one makes sure that one's comrades and oneself are still alive. If frags are used to clear out an area before stepping through it, then the principle of not using them to reduce civilian casualties is a useless cause anyway if shooting through walls is also a procedure being routinely practiced, even if it's not supposed to be done. Also, wouldn't eliminating the usage of frags make it all the more tempting to open up one's firearm in such a manner, and thus, in the end, not reducing the odds of causing civilian casualties anyway? I can't get my head around this one. If you can explain the theory behind it, I'd appreciate it. Thanks for informing me that the plan is to include moveable waypoints. What a brilliant, natural, and long overdue solution. I love just the idea of it, and can't wait to see it implemented. Actually, I can wait, and I may just do that till 1.20 is out, as the waypoint system as it now stands is such a frustrating time killer for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Well, technically it was Multi-National Force Iraq who banned fragmentation grenades, but it's really all the same. This happened in, oh, late Spring/Early Summer of 2005 and was for the reason you mentioned. I guess they figured that flashbangs were common enough to make frags as an entry safety device (so to speak) redundant and unnecessary. Now, as I said, M203s and Mk 19s were entirely kosher; and I got an ARCOM for dropping a 2,000lb JDAM in a neighborhood block to kill 1 guy; so, obviously there isn't much logic. When I went back in 2007, there was no issue of hand grenades, but their use wasn't as common, so maybe the ban was a temporary measure to get commanders to restrict their use, I'm not sure. The whole ROE issue in general is very screwy. You have to ask the President for permission to fire via SINCGARS, but you can call whatever redlegs or fasties you want for pretty much any mission you and your commander can come up with. As with anything else, my experience isn't indicative of The Army Experience as a whole. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
19Kyle72 Posted May 27, 2009 Author Share Posted May 27, 2009 Wow. Thanks for sharing your experiences Clavicula. And I understand how what you've experienced should not be construed as being consistent across the theater of operations. I've had several friends serve in Iraq, and it's truly amazing to me just how different their experiences were, and just how differently their experiences affected them. The bassackwardness of these rules of engagement is pretty mind blowing, and difficult to fathom. I'm actually surprised that I guesstimated the reasoning correctly, but this would be only "sensible" if the policy was consistent across the board with all procedures, which, of course, it's not. Thanks again for your input. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Clavicula_Nox Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 It's also entirely possible that the ban was restricted to us (either the AO or the BCT); there is absolutely no way I would know, either way. Without any way of penetrating the fog of war and knowing what else was going on in-country at the time, I can say that we had some issues regarding civilian casualties and fragmentation grenades, so it is a distinct possibility. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LukeFF Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 Bradleys: will they finally use their 7.62mm MG when given a Target Light command? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wodin Posted May 27, 2009 Share Posted May 27, 2009 I'd like to review the units at the end of the battle to see how many kills each unit got. Loved the feature in CMBB and CMAK. Any chance of a return? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Not for 'CM:Shock Force' in any of it's future modules. However, Kill Stats are on the list for WW2 and, I'd imagine, subsequent titles. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theFightingSeabee Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 That sucks, PT. It's too bad it won't be put in. It's one of those major things I noticed and missed the very first time I fired up cmsf. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Well, you can never say 'never' with regards to BFC. I remember that even Steve was surprised when the Blue Bar came back in v 1.11... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 28, 2009 Share Posted May 28, 2009 Did anybody mention improved burning vehicle effects already? Those still stick out! Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wrath of Dagon Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 The only thing that really bugs me is that M1's seem to ignore RPG's, recoiless rifles and such. Shouldn't any threat to Bradley/Stryker be considered a priority by M1's since they usually accompany? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
De Savage Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 It would be nice to add doorless option to map 3d editor for balconies. Then we can make nice looking hospital/office entries. Second floor would look much more real with only windows, but I can't remove door there... Screenshot: 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silverstars Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Did anybody mention improved burning vehicle effects already? Those still stick out! Best regards, Thomm Yeah, if nothing else if they could just have a "Burnt" skin for the vehicle model when set ablaze. It would at least lessen that "Campfire stapled to the Hull" look. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomm Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Yeah, if nothing else if they could just have a "Burnt" skin for the vehicle model when set ablaze. It would at least lessen that "Campfire stapled to the Hull" look. I guess that this would require considerable amounts of artwork, so I would not go that far. But I think that even slight tweaks (such as the smoke particles starting with a larger size inside the hull, not as small points on the hull) would give distinct improvement. Best regards, Thomm 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
birdstrike Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 It would be nice to add doorless option to map 3d editor for balconies. Then we can make nice looking hospital/office entries. Second floor would look much more real with only windows, but I can't remove door there... I second that. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paper Tiger Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 It would be nice to add doorless option to map 3d editor for balconies. It's a nice idea but have you considered how the game's pathfinding AI would react to it and the potential for problems ? It seems to be a simple enough request but do you think this 'special effect' is worthy of the precious coding time that would be necessary to implement it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.