hoolaman

I think choosing not to do this at any stage of CMSF's three year lifespan is a poor one. Many QB force selections have been unplayable since day one, especially on the small side (16 humvees to take a village and nothing else!?) the qb's might have been a lot more well received if there was a useful number of good random force selections.

Not so passive, the sensors on the roof are fitting with some serious hardware, such as FLIR viewers and laser rangefinders/designators. The sort of eyes you might expect to find in a tank or a dedicated fire support vehicle. I've always found the performance of these things fairly diappointing though, for the reasons mentioned above, and because they don't seem to be much better at spotting than anyone else.

I'd imagine there'd be no difference in the actual weapon stats, you'd just see a L110 but the gun would still fire and behave like a M249. Still it sounds cool for some purely cosmetic swaps like USMC vs US Army. And unless I'm missing something, copying a texture to the name of another texture is not very revolutionary, that's how modding works.

Exactly. If Bren Tripod AA Teams were in the game and you couldn't run with them, the game would be sooo broken.

Given the current field use of both Javelins and TOW missiles as highly expensive HE grenades fired at low value targets, they probably figured TOW mounted on AFVs were more than sufficient for lower cost.

What is the question?

You damn well should be able to run with it.

I think the analogy posted last time someone answered this question is this: You buy a hard copy game from a store, and two years later you sit on the disc and snap it in half. Do you go back to the store and demand they give you a new copy? There is a cost involved for both digital downloads and hard goods, an order of magnitude different, but still a cost. You got what you paid for (a copy of the game and a license to use it) and failed to back it up to a hard copy. That is the reason behind the policy anyway, and I have seen it elsewhere, where you get eg. three downloads and no more. The three downloads policy is probably a better approach thatn an arbitrary expiration date though.

By bolt-on, I just mean by the time this gets implemented, the game will very likely be considered "finished" as far as the basic simulation and and it will be something that is attached as an extra. This is all guess work btw. CMx2 was designed to allow for this multi-multi, we have friendly spotting and C&C simulations that don't have a huge amount of utility unless you look at them in terms of same-side multiplay.

It was tweaked up somewhere along the way, I don't think it is weapon dependant because I've had veteran reds get good kills too. Their effectiveness is definitely experience related.

I don't think there is any deliberate de-prioritising. But this is a large and technically complex bolt on feature that can be put off forever and there wouldn't be too many complaints, compared to say implementing game content like snow or SS Armored divisions or ostfront. For this reason I'd guess it probably will be put off forever.

Maybe because plunder varisty sounds more like a porno and doesn't make a cool word like market garden. I actually didn't know MG was two ops until I just read it here, so I guess it has caught on as a single name for a single op.

One workaround that would enable movies to be made of the whole battle is to allow save games to be loaded up or switched to "Scenario author" mode (with both passwords for PBEM files). This would give you a no FOW option to see what your opponent was doing. You could then make saves every turn if you wanted to or load up each PBEM file. But its not something I care about, there is usually only a couple of sequences of play that I wonder what the other guy is doing, and I have no desire to play a 40 min battle then watch the same 40 min battle again.

It's a PhD thesis, the whole thing is superfluous.

I agree, especially for heavy armoured vehicles. There is just no way for infantry armed only with small arms or grenades to attack and destroy a vehicle that is designed to withstand 155mm artillery. My link is to show a real example of amatuers doing serious damage to a Humvee. Real AFVs are not the same.

Ok, what does not cause a small explosion? A: MK19 HE fragments. What does cause a small explosion in game (even if it shouldn't)? A: US Marines M82 .50 inch Barrett sniper fire. All I know is that there is no way HE fragments fly more that a dozen metres from the explosion and even that is for big HE.

I'm pretty sure HE damage doesn't work like that in the game. Most likely you were shot by an unspotted enemy, which in the latest versions of the game means you will not see any tracers or any muzzle flashes to preserve LOS. If this is the case it obviously worked, your guy died never knowing what hit him.

It doesn't always need crack troops, but I agree if there is no capability it shouldnt be possible

WWI would look fantastic rendered in CMx2 engine, especially the tanks, I'd really like to see it, and I think it would be very do-able due to the primitive modern warfare, everything would already be simulated if you have WWII done. But I suspect stalemate warfare wouldn't be tactically so wonderful. You'd have to expand the artillery menu until it became the core of the game, and infantry would only be allowed one order and one waypoint - move. It's kind of crazy but I think it would be a fun little game for a brief time, and may even sell ok on novelty value.

That's my guess, or an acid flashback (equally likely).

The way the font lines were drawn kind of sucked. But if you could have persistent damage to terrain in the CMx2/N/SF campaigns that woudl go a long way. TheVulture mentions the El Derjine campaing which shows that you can do a similar style of linked operation with the current system, the first couple of missions of the Marines campaign are similar. The problem is buildings re-erecting themselves etc.

You did well, I remember finding this mission very very difficult, but then I also don't remember having aavs on this map, they must carry over from the previous mission. The lack of AT weapons was a real problem when the T62s came over the hill and I had nothing but a handful of AT4s.

One of the biggest issues I see with linked scenarios for a campaign is that it is very difficult to convincingly fight over the same terrain in multiple missions. I know it is a bit of a return to the old style operations, but I'd like to see: *Persistent damage to terrain on identical maps. *Persistent friendly/enemy unit positions after a battle on consecutive identical maps. *Have a special "touch" or "exit" objective that only triggers a particular mission in the campaign. (This has been hacked with points to artificially give a win/lose in the past). eg. [bATTLE {x} IF {Touch x}]. This allows the player to decide which direction to head in or whether they are stuck on the same map. Giving the player the ability to choose which direction to go allows an pseudo strategic map where you either branch left, right or stay where you are. Also: *Simple kills and casualties list with your named units at battle end. *A storyboard type de-briefing splash screen -created by the mission designer- to explain the results of a mission and where the next mission is heading and why you are heading on to the next one or not.

It's not inflationary if you burn the money.

All HE is "nerfed", grenades included.