Renaud

I played the demo all-infantry as an experiment, dismounted all the US crews and conducted a traditional WW2 style infantry attack. My AT support was javelin teams with cover arcs. The big discovery was that when giving all my teams/squads orders to go from point A to B across open ground, the teams would take strange diagonal paths at 45 degree angles to the direction of the waypoint and, AI being what it is, all the teams starting from the same general area would bunch up into the same paths. This reminded me of the computer-AI waypointing in CMx1 (infantry bunching up, no such thing as a skirmish line, vulnerable to arty, etc.). The huge difference here is that in CMx1, infantry issued orders by a human player traveled exactly in the direction of the way point, and would only deviate if they came upon something impassable, under fire, into mines, etc. CMx2 appears to put your squads under the control of a dynamic AI pathfinding similiar to the tac AI controlling the CMx1 computer player. This will be a big problem in a ww2 type scenario, in cmx2 currently the problem is minimized because you aren't likely to conduct this kind of dismounted skirmish line attack often. I would vastly prefer that infantry units simply head directly to the way point without pathing by the AI unless they run into impassible terrain or come under fire, into a minefield etc (just like CMx1). The current pathing doesn't seem to serve any purpose...the squads aren't moving from cover to cover or anything like that, just following invisible geometric paths. edit: if I had to guess, and I do, I would say this is an effect of the action point system which appears to be a grid across which infantry units must navigate point-to-point and are therefore forced to follow invisible geometric paths along these points on the way to the action point closest to the end of the waypoint. This would also explain why if you cancel a squad waypoint they are forced to scamble to the nearest 'action point', forcing a short unplanned move, possibly into a dangerous place (like the street). Vehicles don't appear to have this issue or be impacted by 'action points' at all, I presume this is because vehicles are 1:1 single objects, while infantry units are many:1 collections. LOS and LOF calculations using the action points are forced to calculate against the 'locus' of the many:1 collection and the locus must always be fixed on the nearest action point. [ August 17, 2007, 06:44 PM: Message edited by: Renaud ]

I suspect BF is working 7 day weeks and insane hours? Hats off to you guys. Too bad about that publishing agreement deadline, but I can sympathize. Sometimes I do the same, but my job is not fun at all...would be nice to do something I actually give a flip about.

A top attack ATGM (or any top hit for that matter) is going to almost certainly disable/destroy an M1 (or any other vehicle). There's only about 1" of steel across the turret top. If the topattack ATGM hit the front 30" of the turret top, maybe that would be soaked up since there's nothing there but armor. Regarding Mavericks hitting the M1, it's been done in order to thoroughly destroy a disabled M1. However the M1 stayed intact and you couldn't really tell anything additional had hit it (the tank was already burned out). Regarding large numbers of hits in a short period of time on the M1 front, the main danger would be cumulative damage to sensitive systems resulting in a combat ineffective M1. I don't believe cumulative damage to armor surfaces is significant or worth modeling within the scope of CMx2. Incidentally, I've read of no accounts of an M1 actually being destroyed from a front hit on a weak surface like the turret ring, mantlet or drivers hatch. In ODS/OIF situations in which the enemy was located within the frontal arc of the M1, the enemy rarely even got off a shot, much less scored a hit. Therefore we have no real life data on the effect of large numbers of frontal 125mm/ATGM hits to the M1. My opinion on this vulnerability is based solely on inspecting the tank armor from the inside/outside (the ring and drivers hatch are clearly very thin) and looking at the relative area of these vulnerable surfaces viewed from the frontal aspect. I believe a 125mm hit on the mantlet, while it might not destroy the tank, would disable the main gun & coax. I don't regard this information as significant in the real world since the real power and success of the M1 rests on aquiring and destroying the enemy before they can shoot and score hits. These vulnerabilities if real would only be exposed in hypothetical scenarios (like CMx2). One thing that would just about eliminate the chance of a hit on the turret ring or drivers hatch is firing from hull down behind a berm. This would be like fighting a hull down king tiger in CMx1...

There are videos of M1 armor tests floating around out there showing a clean penetration by a 100mm AT gun (fired point blank) into the crew compartment at a 90 degree angle to the turret side. It was a full-diameter hole with lots of daylight coming in (from the in-turret camera). I don't know if this is still true, but in OPFOR type training all simulated hits from any angle by AT3+ or 125mm on the M1 (or any vehicle for that matter) are considered instant catastrophic kills (using MILES). This is the only intelligent way to train: assume the worst. I do believe that M1's should be more vulnerable to damage from multiple 125mm or ATGM hits on the front aspect...there's just a whole lot of exposed and relatively fragile equipment poking out. The MRS, crosswind sensor, GAS, main site, CITV, tracks, MG's, gun tube, cupola, not to mention hits jamming the turret traverse/elevation. The possibility of 'critical' hits is not incosiderable, there is a big shot trap between turret and top front hull, a large and vulnerable drivers hatch, etc. Every frontal shot should have at least a few percent chance of taking the M1 out completely, at least triple that of damage to something. The thing is, we don't have any real experience of M1's receiving large volumes of hits on the front arc (or any arc). Generally, the M1's always hit fast and first before the enemy can find the range or even get off a shot. This was especially true in the 100 hours of ODS. Take the battle of 72 Easting for instance. I believe the M1 would fare far worse if hit with a large volume of ATG/ATGM fire on the front than is currently modeled in the game. We have to assume that experienced or well-trained enemy gunners will target the obviously vulnerable areas if they are close enough.

87-90: (19K) Eagle Troop 2/3 ACR Ft.'Bliss' (NTC 87,89, Reforger 88) 91: recalled to active duty for ODS, made it as far as Graf before the Iraqis crapped out.

Not to be contrarian, but sure they can. Take for example the Western powers in the years running up to WWII. Maybe we're all lemmings.

I always hated PBEM. ps: if you didn't buy it, what the hell do you have to whine about?

Well, 4km is 2.4 miles so that is more than long enough for a 1.5 mile long airstrip. So i'm not sure why you are having to scale anything down. I do wish the map size was limited by total square-km, not an arbitrary 4x4km square. In other words, why can't I have 16 square km in any shape I want, such as a 2km x 8km strip. Or a 1x16 strip for that matter. 4km on one axis is not adequate.

But you CAN chain a hide order to the last waypoint. You have to click the last waypoint (anywhere on the colored line) and then choose hide from the menu. Your men will hide when they reach the end of the path. Also when dismounting, use a movement command rather than the 'dismount' from the vehicle menu, then set that waypoint to 'hide'.

Nice write up! You should play insurgents next time...should be much tougher I would think.

Amazingly enough, Ghost troop reported that the Iraqi Brigade attacking them was fanatical in the extreme, literally in some cases dismounting and rushing them on foot. Deducting for what Eagle troop destroyed earlier in the day to the south, Ghost troop probably destroyed 60-70 tanks and a multitude of other vehicles and infantry that evening. Rogue187: yea, you'll probably need to do some more research over and above Wikipedia. That's one of greatest attractions of scenario design - learning a lot about the battles (quality design anyway). I've expanded my military library greatly in the past few years researching scenarios for CMBB (expensive but worth it). Yep, ODS 91 scenarios would be largely one-sided...but as Runyan99 noted, you can balance with penalties and other such tools. In any case, they would have historical value. Immediately after the 73 Easting battle, a team from the Institute for Defense Analysis came out and carefully documented the battle which now exists as a detailed computer model in the bowels of the DOD somewhere...wish I could get my hands on that.

The missiles you see in the aquire inventory list are all that is available in that vehicle. You have to aquire twice, once for the launcher and a 2nd time for the missiles (1,2 or 3 at a time).

My guess is you would have to equip them ahead of time in the editor using the 'Aquire' command. However I heard there's a bug in the editor so you can't aquire (the manual says the command is supposed to be available though).

Here's my probably faulty understanding of the way it works so far... I think the deal is that the terrain mesh is no longer 1:1 with the LOS mesh. This sometimes results in shooting through graphical stuff, or being blocked by stuff which is in the way (no LOF), but you do have LOS, such as repeatedly blasting the same destroyed tank partially in the way of the actual target. I think unit locations and fire points on the map are limited to a fixed grid of 'action points' which correspond to the LOS mesh (not the graphical mesh). This is why, when you cancel a move, you see a short quick-move which you cannot cancel which is created by the system to get the unit onto the nearest 'action point'. So be careful not to cancel that last 'slow' crawl move or your guys suddenly stand up and quick-move to the nearest 'action point' (possibly ocated in the middle of the street) with painful consequences.

Wow, the grenades fly out a lot farther than I remember. The ones I remember fly up and forward and blow up in the air, kinda like the Leopard grenades. Those brown ones have gotta be the new IR blocking smoke (red phosphorus or something). I was with 2/3rd ACR: NTC 87 and 89, reforger 88, reserve armor battalion TC in ODS 91. Smoke of all sorts was still OK back then I guess.

Wow, great info, thanks.

No horses...also no hamstertruppen and I so wanted that. Anywho...the crew bailing and re-entering is great. I did notice that a crew can only re-enter your originally assigned vehicle which is hopefully not an engine limitation. This will be great in a future WW2 version - abandoning and re-manning guns too hopefully. They will need to add the ability to pick up important weapons which have been dropped intra-squad. Right now if the guy holding the javelin sight becomes a casualty you are boned.

I've not had a problem with the groundmount AT-4's, but they can be a tad picky. Buggers like to fire at javelin teams too, and can take out the whole team. The BMP AT-4's are more reluctant, but I did knock out an M1 with one from a hill top-attack/side-shot. This is from demo play.

Awww...to bad. I guess someone burned up so they disconnected them. We used them a lot at Ft. Irwin for years with never a problem (that I experienced or heard about). We never had to clean anything - maybe that's why someone finally caught on fire lol. Diesel has a really high flash point - you can put a match out in it (don't try at home). It does use a lot of fuel though, not a minor consideration on this gashog.

I feel ya. All them negative vibes. So i'm trying to spread the love as well. *woof woof cmx1-x2

Hi Kalvera. I think many CM fans have been mislead by the CM "x2" references over the past years. I might be wrong but I don't think Battlefront ever said this would be a progressive refinement of CMx1, in fact the message I got was 'get ready, this is going to be very different'. What we have here is a brand new engine, not a progressive refinement of the old one. Sure, I would buy a progressive refinement of CMx1...I don't need 1:1 representation or real time (which is what necessitated all the radical departures from behavior we have grown familiar with in CMx1). So we have to deal with a fairly different approach to play and all the other problems of a new engine. I for one am amazed that something like this game has actually seen the light of day. Every other wargame I see out there today is FPS/hitpoint based, or 2d hexes/top-down based. I love both those types, but they can't approach the fidelity of CM series. TOW is the closest...and not surprisingly it's published by BFC. Personally, I can still feel the CM heritage in the demo, though it's going to take a LOT of fine tuning and refinement before this engine is ready for WWII. I believe they chose not to do WWII first for this very reason: give the engine time for refinement and perfection before attempting the beloved WW2 era which I know Steve and Charles have a particular affinity for. And also to try something new and which might excite interest and bring more folks into the wargaming fold.

Good points everyone. Runyan: I think designing a materially balanced scenario won't be that hard. All US equipment is highly vulnerable in flank and top attack. Imagine a scenario in which a Stryker or Cav unit is temporarily cut off in a wadi and faces attack from every direction with air support limited by high winds and sandstorms...mmm..the tactical possibilities are endless. It might possibly require 2 versions of the scenario, a straight historical recreation with appropriate AI programming and placement, and a HtH what-if version. When you study the historical situation, you see that the Iraqi's were in hot water in so many different ways...they were being attacked rapidly from the rear and completely by surprise, while retreating from the main US force. Like a hammer and anvil. There was a heavy sandstorm during the early hours of the battle which cut US vision down, but appeared to more seriously affect the Iraqi vehicles. The Iraqi's that day were definitely fanatical, particularly the brigade attacking Ghost troop that evening. Their mbt crew skill level is hard to judge, because most were not able to get off a shot. *jens198: Awww...I can't give away my sources before I make the scenario! The scenario briefing will have complete references...

Don't buildings block vehicles? But yea, blocking vehicles but allowing infantry is an important designer tool. once water gets added in that'll be another impassable terrain, if not in this release then in a future add-on or expansion. A 'rough/boulder' terrain impassible to all vehicles is not that uncommon in arid terrains and would be a nice addition. Like the rough in CMx1. Also, some type of desert soft sand terrain which is impassible to all vehicles would be nice (or simply bogs vehicles). Deep mud is important in desert environments, depending on the season, and can bog any vehicle known to man (especially the Abrams).

The M1 pop-smoke grenade modeling is nice but very different from the reality. Someone has probably noted this, but I couldn't find it in the forum so just in case I will point it out as well...I know you are a stickler for details! related thread: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001237#000022 The M1 can fire smoke in 2 seperate volleys of 6 grenades per volley, 3 grenades firing per launcher per volley (so you should be able to pop smoke twice without having to get out and manually reload - a lengthy operation which I can understand not modeling in cmx2 as it's out of scope for a tac engagement). Each volley instantly creates a visually impenetrable and large hemisphere of smoke over and in front of the tank, but also complete enclosing the tank. The grenades go off in the air about 20 feet high. Also, the M1 used to have a engine-based smoke generator which worked by showering the exhaust grill with vaporized diesel (2 gal/minute) creating a truly monstrous could of smoke behind the vehicle, similiar to the dust trail modeling but thicker/bigger/longerlasting. All this depends on wind speed/direction of course, the effect of which is nicely modeled currently. Note this is info from the 90's but the grenade launchers look exactly the same so I really doubt this has changed. I don't know if the engine smoke generator is still in service. It was an integral part of M1 fuel system so I would guess so. You should be able to find a video demonstration, i'm too lazy at the moment and I think i've described it pretty well. I believe this is probably true of the other smoke-gren discharger equipped US vehicles as well, but can't be sure.

Wow, I remember this gem clearly and it must have been what 6 years ago. Hi Franko!