aka_tom_w

this may be a suggestion or hint that v1.06 is on the horizon and beta testers have it now for testing purposes. FWIW

I hope you saved the old scenario with the low walls because you can bet when v1.06 rolls around your first stab at that scenario with low wall will work fine then IMHO FWIW

We'd actually only invade to get the benefits and compensation We just want the war with the US so we can benefit from the reconstruction contracts and get all new infrastructure at the expense of the US

Merry Christmas to all from Canada. (White Cold and Snowy Christmas here too, -Toronto.)

It may well have been a VERY funny line from Team America (a hysterically funny movie BTW) but the reference should be considered inappropriate on this forum. sorry

"Infantery dies to fast in this game." this is not a statement of fact (it is an opinion as you may have guessed there are PLENTY of differing opinions floating around here, but at this time I would say we are a little short on facts and statistics ) There are two sides to this issue and one of the sides are combat veterans that BFC listens too closely that have first hand experience with small arms in real life combat situations. Those folks are difficult to disagree with and make a case for change. Infantry dies too fast in this game, is a gross over simplification of what could be multiple compounding factors, all of which could or might be adjusted (likely EVER so slightly at first) with the hopes of improving the game to make it more like a combat simulator and less like a video game. FWIW (we hope) [ December 22, 2007, 11:55 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Hey! Maybe BFC's next project: Combat Mission: Paint Ball! That sort of sounds like fun!

Thanks Steve, yes, those are interesting real world stats for a 6 day period. [ December 22, 2007, 11:25 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

No worries about that If we do something it will be set before a game starts and can not be changed during the game. Not that I'm all that sure we'll add it. I thought it was a good idea for the simple reason that battlefield lethality these days is extremely high, which makes mistakes punished pretty harshly sometimes. That might be fine and realistic, but for some it might not make the game fun. Philosophically I don't have a problem with a reasonable amount of latitude if done right (i.e. labeled as such and not tweakable once a game has started). Steve </font>

Good to hear! No, the 50 hour number is a total for the game. </font>

have you seriously played v1.05 for 50hrs? :eek: the crew survivability is up in v1.05, I would humbly suggest you test it some more. Trust me, its better now

To me this hits directly at the issue that this is, after all, a game. Players would probably be ok with winning a battle while only inflicting a handful of casualties and causing the enemy to rout, but when your platoon becomes combat ineffective because it has suffered 4 to 8 casualties people are going to scream. </font>

Its new as of v1.05 (i.e. the yellow line)

OK I am not so sure 50m is a good starting point. Now I could be wrong about this, but at 50m if a squad of 9 guys ran across the 50 yard line of an NFL foot ball field and you put an AK47 in my hands semi-auto, firing three round bursts, I would bet even I ( I would consider myself a reasonable shot, but I have no police or military training what so ever) could hit at least one of them before they got across the field. (I have never actually done that, of course, but it might be fun to try, so long as no gets hurt ) So my point is a squad of nine well trained soldiers opens up on a 9 man sized targets running laterally across their position at 50m there will be some hits for sure IMHO. Now the same 9 guys firing at the 9 man squad running across their field of fire at 200m (thinking 2 NFL Football fields down range) should be a WHOLE other story, the result there should be MOSTLY supression with a low odds of a hit. The real question is what is "low odds" 1 hit in 10 shots? or 1 hit in 100 shots? or 1 hit in 1000 shots? Its also possible I have no idea AT ALL what I am talking about, given breath and depth of military knowledge and first hand experience that routinely shows up here in these threads like this. (From soldiers, veterans and experts with first hand experience.) [ December 20, 2007, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

you bet!

I am not sure of this but if it is possible to isolate these specific factors (IMHO) for patching or fixing or tweaking purposes in the game engine but this what I see as out of whack: i) First shot accuracy to acquire and hit a moving target (that might be two issues) ii) Meaning moving man size targets at 200m are not given enough "credit" in the game system for being harder to hit. iii) More Chaos less calmness under fire. iv) Sniper units could be more accurate Good point here: More things like chaos and blind fire, and spray and pray, and soldiers simply not firing by pretending to just reload while seated with their back to the wall on the roof, (just not participating in the fight) would all add to the realism IMHO. If the first round volley did not connect or hit (at ranges 100m and over) with such accuracy and lethality at medium to long range (more suppression fewer actually hits) there is a chance the target might have a better response or reaction to shoot back or find cover uninjured. Its possible many of the complaints have to do with close range Urban "street fights" where close range, poor tactics and fully automatic weapons combine to increase lethality to much much higher level then might be expected. I would suggest the accuracy at close range in Urban environments (less then 100m) does not need to be fixed, UNLESS you would like to argue that and Soldiers (US or Syrian SF) with body armour should die less and end up with yellow bases far more often, but this aspect of the simulation might be OK now too. ) I believe it is possible that a little bit of fine tuning (where possible) can sort out some of these issues. I think Steve is right on target with these comments and issues: [ December 20, 2007, 07:52 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yes, it would be nice to get that feature back in. </font>

I think Steve might also be suggesting: "A group of you guys get together (and sign Non Disclosure Agreements), make a whole bunch of things (models, data, maps, etc.) with our help, and the product is then released as a Module." then everything should be fine . [ December 18, 2007, 11:46 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Yes, it would be nice to get that feature back in.

Does anyone have a test file or save game or test scenario that clearly illustrates an "accuracy overmodeled problem" that is a sure thing and repeatable?? There are a lot of issues in this thread, Jason C mentions cover status at length. But for me its the 200m+ shot that hits guys running in the open on the first volley or first round that gets me, or the Syrian unit that picks off the head of an opposing unit at 178m with the first round volley as they crawl over a crest line or berm into LOF. :confused: :eek: [ December 18, 2007, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

good find I would bet CM:SF is close that values if not identical

This works now as of V1.05 if you were thinking of buying the game.

bump

instant gratification FWIW

Great to hear it. Feel free to try bigger scenario's it should be fine in TCP now.