aka_tom_w

improved how? Hunt works fine as it is now, it should be called movement to contact, but when hunting the reaction to incoming fire is not near instantaneous.

yeah but, my response would be something like "you have to play with the hand you've been dealt" bearing in mind from a tactical point of view, strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight. So I can't fault the fact that it is a military simulation of a potential (but not at all likely) military conflict between 2008 era US forces and 2008 era Syrian forces, so from the point of view of a simulation its just about bang on. For a really fair fight there are some Red and Red scenario's out there and if anyone wants to try their hand at it, Blue on Blue scenario's can be designed too. (how much more game balance do you want?) If you want to talk about game balance the single most unbalanced weapon system in the game is the Javelin and only the US has it, and depending on how many are in the game, it can become quite unbalanced very quickly, but once again: "Strategy is the art of avoiding a fair fight." - Anonymous. [ December 16, 2007, 12:38 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I played Chance Encounter as the Red in v1.05 and had one Victory (fairly easy) and then got mauled by the Blue AI the second time around. The Red units are for sure more brittle and if the situation starts to turn bad for them they all seem to cascade down into shaken, routed or just plain useless in no time at all when the going gets tough then you can't really recover, in Elite FOW they don't really ever come back from routed, their just done for the duration. (Just an observation, I don't thinks its bad or wrong, but its hard to win in a fair fight with Red infantry units if they get scared).

I am not sure how hard this would be to do (probably pretty tricky to pull off well) but it would be nice to see a little more random chaos in a firefight, by that I mean unaimed fire, and soldiers refusing to fire, blind fire (extra animations needed for spray and pray AK fire when the Syrian irregulars puts his rifle over the low wall and empties the magazine blindly toward the unseen enemy) and that kind of thing.

it was not on the list of things at were fixed

The patches speak for themselves with respect to customer service IMNSHO

that means there is only texture for all tracers, if I am not mistaken.

That might be a factor but I think the markmanship we see in the game is very often of the highest level for all most all units in most situations against any number of targets. I sort of feel like every soldier that pulls the trigger of his weapon has "US Spec Ops, Delta Operative" poise, skill, patience and level headedness, written all over every round they fire. [ December 16, 2007, 11:23 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Its the first round or first volley or opening round accuracy that gets me. In all reality its possible that one soldier who is a marksman AND very lucky would get a first round head shot KIA Kill in the situation from 170m if it happened one time in a 100 (1:100 odds) I would not complain, but as Ken mentions, that kind of first round kill happens routinely in the game evidence of something like that can be seen in most fire fights IMHO. FWIW

cmmods.com enjoy Hammertime v4 is a BLAST if you have not played it yet!

BUT, that is more realistic in modeling real world ballistics is it not? I have no problem with modeling the now slightly longer M4 range, AND the fact they don't really hit anything very often at max range. That works in the game as it should in reality now I think. But the first volley target acquisition, aim, shoot and, hit drill is too mechanical still IMHO. Foot units running in the open should not be completely mowed down with the opening volley. Its the first round accuracy for small arms against moving targets I would like to specifically take issue with in the simulation as it stands now. I think there is some room for improvement there.

Thanks Snake Raper, great comment: Yes, I think this is the biggest challenge, to make the simulation feel like it is not just a endless series of combat resolution die rolls referencing hit and damage tables and charts. (I think they are working on it ) This issue of "based on an arbitrary number" could be more randomized, (based on a random variable) to try to make each encounter or fire fight unpredictable and somehow introduce a real life combat flavour of variety with more misses, more spray and prey and more individuals simply choosing not to fire their weapon. (on both sides). Thanks for the insight! [ December 16, 2007, 07:36 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

I think they will call it v1.06 and my guess is it won't be months in production.

I think so.

I am not sure I understand Budge4's issue, but what I might suggest if you need the "Blast" order to mouse hole through buildings connected wall to wall with no connecting doors. That's the way it is supposed to be (I think, if I understand your observation correctly) you need a blast team or a blast order to make a hole from one building into the next, then order the Assault order for the squad to go through the hole made by the blast. Did I understand the problem or the issue correctly? :confused: Basically the assault order cannot be used to make a hole to connect to buildings that are not connected, but you can do that with the blast command. right?

corrected thanks Elmar

yes, v1.06 should address the low wall LOS thing and a few other little things I think. [ December 16, 2007, 06:20 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

or wait there is v1.05 demo on the way sometime. Play that THEN buy the game, or just buy it now and "trust us" you won't be sorry BFC has promised a v1.06 quicky patch soon [ December 16, 2007, 06:14 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

can you replicate the issue and save it as a save game?? If so, someone (like me) would be happy take a look at it. the save game is the foundation of all beta testing and without a valid save game to EXACTLY demonstrate the exact issue you are referring to its hard to try to fix it. my e-mail is in my profile. (I will check my junk mail for your response) thanks

once again, I would like to suggest if this issue was as easy or simple to resolve as that: " the proposed fix is to move exactly along the player given path" it would indeed already work that way in the game. (really) So it doesn't, and there is probably a pretty good reason, the first one that comes to mind is simple kinetic motion physics. IMO FWIW

I agree with this completely, another way of putting it is that the issue is a result of an unrealistically high expectation that the game will know what you are thinking as it tries its best to observe the rules of physics and interpret your orders while "thinking" about TAC AI issues like self preservation in the face of an opposing threat. Hey folks there is A LOT going on here and to be fair pathing works pretty darn well now! OM is right on here: " it's the ability to plan that's needed, rather than AI to handle it for the player. " Step up to the plate and plan your way points along the path in anticipation that the game will NOT put your AFV in the exact square meter or along the EXACT path that you have chosen. I think the Eagles said it best in their last tour (I know it was over a decade ago) "Get over it!" Improvise, adapt and overcome, the TAC AI and pathing are pretty darn good as it stands right now. Sorry to sound so "harsh" about that, but there is only so much the game can do for you, and its just about at max efficiency now IMHO FWIW.

OK... There have been a few claims that small arms accuracy is over modeled in the game if I understand the previous complaints in this old thread correctly. Is there any noticeable difference in v1.05? Is any one still looking at this now? I raise this question now because I am still very open minded about how the game "feels" in this area and if you feel strongly one way or the other (its about right, or accuracy is over modeled) maybe you could post your v1.05 observations in this thread. as per: and Phillip C. says: [ December 15, 2007, 01:44 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Issues raised in this thread should have been addressed in v1.05 if you are testing, you might look for it.

Its not an unreasonable suggestion. I think it would necessitate a further refinement to the "self preservation AI" and they have to be careful not to take too much control away from the player or next thing we know there will be no brave units we can order to advance under fire when that is what must be done. I do however agree with the suggestion to look at "fall back" as a TAC AI option and tweak the self preservation AI a little to allow the TAC AI to automatically execute a fall back or take cover order Good point.

Mark Ezra who programmed the AI plans for Close Encounter made several alternative AI plans for each side so Close Encounter should be a good example of a fun scenario. While testing the patch in beta I played Chance Encounter as the Syrian's and found the US AI plan to be clever and well executed by the TAC AI. In the tests I played the Syrians twice and won handily the first time, but then played again (overly cocky in the glow of my earlier victory) and got torn to pieces by the US AI the second time. My units were so badly mauled I had to surrender or ask for ceasefire about 15 mins into the scenario ) Remember, the in game TAC AI only interprets the more "strategic" AI plans laid out in the plan by the scenario designer. The better scenario's (and you can't really tell unless you choose to crack them open in the scenario editor) have at least two or more AI plans laid out for each side so you can replay the scenario and not get the same response or AI plan twice in a row. (which is cool when it works that way if designer has laid out more then one plan and programed the scenario response properly.) There are several scenario designers that are good at this, off the top of my head anything by Rune or GeorgeMc (of Hammertime fame) or Mark Ezra (Chance Encounter) usually meets this standard of multiple plans. [ December 15, 2007, 09:31 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]