Sgt Joch

In normandy, 70% of infantry casualties were caused by mortar/artillery fire.

amazing work, can't wait to take a closer look.

so propose one! everyone is always saying the Israel-Palestinian conflict is un-solvable. Lets see if we can at least get the members of the GF forum to agree to one...

settling the ME problem seems simple enough when you are an outsider: -give the Golan back to Syria; -remove Israeli settlers from the west bank; -lift the blockade on Gaza; -provide palestinian refugees w. financial compensation and full citizenship to another country of their choice (other than Israel) in exchange for abandoning the right of return; -give east Jerusalem to Israel; -recognize Israel's right to exist; -have everyone (Israel, Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Fatah, Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) sign a Peace Treaty; voilà... ...problem solved. simple really...

As usual the international news media is having a field day in its rush to judgment. Based on reports of the operation, it appears the IDF was not expecting any resistance and things spun out of control: http://www.jpost.com/Israel/Article.aspx?id=177040 I also question the tactic of rappelling down at night single file on top of an angry group. A more classic naval boarding during the day would appear to be more prudent.

you can email it. I will send you a pm.

Davedash, Sivodsi, Meatr, could you post a screenshot of the UI of the units which are exhausted? maybe we can find a pattern of what is causing this. It could be an issue with certain pre-1.21 scenarios, the fitness level of the unit or maybe an odd combination of factors. I personally have never seen this problem.

just a few more thoughts, in real life, IEDs are very difficult to spot which is why they unfortunately account for the death of a few NATO soldiers almost every week these days. In the game, IEDs are, of course, simplified compared to RL. IEDs are different depending on the country and the terrain. As a general rule, IEDs in Iraq were more complex and sophisticated than what is found in Afghanistan. On the other hand, IEDs in Iraq were somewhat easier to spot, if you knew what to look for, since they could not be easily buried under paved roads. This is not an issue in Afghanistan were almost are the roads are unpaved. further reading: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/intro/ied-iraq.htm http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/15/world/asia/15ied.html?_r=1 In game, the most prudent tactic is to presume the Red player has IEDs or mines and that he will place them at chokepoints where your vehicles will go: i.e, roads, crossroads, entrance to a town/village, etc. Fortunately (or unfortunately, depending what side you are playing ), scenario designers rarely give the Red player the amount of IEDs/mines which would cause a real headache to the Blue player.

IEDs have a 10-20% failure rate to begin with and the cell phone/radio ones can be jammed by the BLUE player's vehicle IED jammers. The wire controlled IEDs are more reliable (10% failure rate) and they cannot be jammed. Of course, if your triggerman is killed before you activate the IED, all bets are off. One of the more frustating aspects of playing as RED is when your IED fails to go off when you have a BLUE vehicle parked right on top of it.

The 1:1 infantry model in CMSF does not model real life. No commercial sim on the market now or in the foreseeable future could model real life. There is still a certain level of abstraction in CMSF, just as in every other sim which has ever been made. Anyone who plays the game on a regular basis will see this. Infantry units bunch up a bit too much, but the HE effects were toned down to account for this. Regarding combat, I dont think anyone has shown that the overall effects are worse than what we saw in CMx1. I still play both CMBB and CMSF and did not see any evidence of this. In fact, in most situations, combat works better in CMSF because of the finer LOS/LOF calculations, relative spotting, separate morale/suppression calculations, etc. The pathfinding in urban battle works infinitely better, since infantry in CMx1 did not physically exist in the 3d world. You could order a CMx1 infantry unit to go through a town in a straight line and they would simply walk though walls and ooze their way to the other side. In CMSF, you actually have to look for a real world path: alley way, door, window or "blast" one open for yourself. Once you start to analyze it logically, 1:1 modeling was the unavoidable next step in the evolution of CM and in its own way, as groundbreaking as the 3d modeling of armor units in CMx1. Is it perfect? of course not, but it is an evolution from the legacy CM engine and will only improve in the future. Having said all that, I agree that CMBO, CMBB, CMAK, CMSF are all fine games. They all have their qualities and faults and are all enjoyable.

good post. a few more thoughts, 1:1 representation is not just a graphical change. In CMx1, infantry does not, for all practical purposes, exist in the 3d world. Infantry is treated as in a 2d wargame, an entire infantry unit is seen by the program as just a single point. Your infantry unit interacts with "terrain" as a 2d unit would... so many movement points to enter a road, woods or buildings with a combat modifier for incoming fire depending on what terrain hex it occupies. It also has the effect that terrain does not really exist for CMx1 infantry. You can have an infantry unit enter any hex, except impassable terrain, by paying a certain number of movement points. Infantry can walk through walls and enter buildings whether there is a door or not and can fire at enemy soldiers through a solid wall. In CMSF, infantry exists as fully 3d. Each soldier exists in the 3d world as a separate entity, basically a mini-vehicle. This has many effect, for example, soldiers need to go through a "door" to enter a building. They need to look through a "window" to spot enemy soldiers or fire at them, etc. The major change brought about by 1:1 was much more to allow infantry units to interact in a more realistic way with the 3d world, at least as far as movement, pathfinding. This may not be as crucial in a rural map, but makes a big difference in an urban environment. It is, of course, not perfect since issues still remain (i.e. men bunching up, lack of formations, etc.) but IMHO, is a distinct improvement over the infantry modeling in CMx1. The huge continuing following for CMx1 is not supported by the numbers. So far, CMBO was the biggest seller for BFC. Sales dropped off for CMBB and dropped off yet again for CMAK. Sales of CMSF and modules is close to the CMBB level. CMAK had all the qualities which the CMx1 diehards say they want, (i.e. CMx1, WW2, western front, cherry-picking QB w. random maps), yet had the lowest sales of all. Yes, CMAK is still popular in various CM gaming clubs, but the fact that several hundred gamers are still playing CMAK is irrelevant if BFC does not earn a substantial profit.

I checked out the "few good men" CMSF campaign "operation patriot swords", it looks very nice. It's nice to see more sites are now catering to the CMSF multiplayer community. At "World at War", we also have a CMSF section with a dedicated forum, ladder and tournament.

since they were ordered in the late 70s, I have always seen them referred to as CF-18.

ah yes, I posted my answer in the wrong thread. Is the Brad stationary or moving? Normally, when the elevation angle is too great, the editor produces a "cliff" tile which is impassable by vehicles.

true, but as you say, the experience level of troops can be altered by the scenario designer to reflect previous military experience. many factors in the game determine accuracy of a particular weapon: visibility (day/night, clear/hazy), experience level, morale/suppression state and leadership modifier of leaders in C2. Added to this are certain "fuzzy" modifiers so you do not always get the exact same results. On a more general comment on the accuracy of RPGs in game, I have been playing through the first mission of the TF Thunder campaign in the base game, testing various aspects of 1.21. The red forces in that mission are reserve syrian infantry which I have been pounding pretty hard with artillery and suppressive area fire. So far, 25 turns in, they have fired 20-30 RPGs, often at stationary vehicles and 100% of the shots have missed.

It not a bug or a quirk, but one of the inevitable compromises that are made in any combat simulation. Putting in min/max gun elevation is straightforward, the issue is more programming the AI to be aware of it and work around it. For example, say a T-72 wants to fire at a squad on top of a building, but cannot because of max gun elevation. A Human player will know he has to back up the tank or move it to a higher elevation somewhere else so he can take the shot. How do you program the AI intelligently so it can take these decisions? The lack of min/max gun elevation is only a problem in rare occasions. There was a thread on this a while back: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90522&highlight=gun+elevation

Steiner14, there is no need to dump the entire CMx2 engine just yet. We are always willing to look at issues or improvements to the game. Noxnectum said he would post screenies which will give us a clue as to whether there is a problem or it falls within the normal game parameters. We have all played the game extensively and I can't say I have noticed many odd issues about LOS/LOF, other than the ones mentioned earlier round buildings. If there is a problem here, we will look into it.

you may want to look at this thread where the issue was discussed in more depth: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=89370&highlight=artillery

The only real difference is that in "elite", you see all friendly units and in "Iron", they are subject to FOW/C2. It has no real effect on game play AFAIR. When the game was first released, the top level was like the current "Iron", but players wanted to have the option to see all friendly units, which was why the new level was added.

Syria has RPG 29 and they are in game, but I have not seen numbers on the Syrian inventory in RL.

I prefer "general" against buildings. It will take down the building and the troops in it. "personnel" will airburst over the building and only affect enemy troops on the roof. "armour" is more geared towards taking out AFVs. There was a thread a few months back where this was discussed in detail, although I can't find it now.

guilty. I think the posts here all pretty much sum up the problem and tactics. Very poor visilibity+good defensive position=attacker casualties. Assuming you cannot simply bypass or use artillery, another thing to keep in mind is the importance of being patient. Moving units in short bounds and then waiting motionless several turns/minutes to see if they detect anything. Units can detect by hearing as well as sight in CMSF.

welcome aboard. make sure you are patched up to 1.21. You could also try your hand at the "TF Thunder" campaign to give you a feel for the game. if you have any specific game related questions, feel free to ask.

I found this on RPG hit probabilities, apparently from a 1975 U.S. Army test: I presume the shooter was a soldier with military experience. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RPG-7 I don't know if anyone has data which is more recent or on point, but it seems consistent with what we see in game.

on RPG accuracy, don't forget that when you go up against Syrian regular forces, that the game assumes that they have had basic military training and they know how to operate their weapons. A direct comparaison with the experience in Iraq is misleading. Most insurgents had no military training and did not know how to properly operate the weapon. You had many instances where users would forget to arm the round before loading it so that it would not detonate on impact.