ARRPEEGEE

Yes! I think the 'standard' size of a QB map should be 1kmx1km. Not saying that it's fun to make large maps (although you can save some time by making huge 4kx4k master maps and pair them down in the editor to 1km chunks-giving you plenty of scenarios for one map) Small maps are even worse for CM:SF than they were for CM. Everything's just so much more lethal, and accurate. Not fun at all.

Will v1.03 add the ability to change monitor refresh rates? Couldn't see that anywhere.

I think it'd be good to hitch the 'destroy' scoring option to the civilian density parameter. It'd function as a multiplier (i.e.heavy x5, sparse x0.1, etc) on top of the assigned destroy point value.

Another trouble spot worth looking into is buildings. Troops inside buildings seem to be able to target through walls more steadily and often than those outside buildings...It's like they're given an LOS benefit for height, no matter which floor they're on.

Well, IDF would add a golan/lebanon front to the hypothetical Sryia conflict, and it'd be relevant from that standpoint, but, I'd imagine there'd be too much red tape to cut to get an IDF module. I'd buy an IDF module. USMC is going to be a good add-on. I'm looking forward to UK/NATO, really. I want to compare/contrast the Stryker 'family' of LAV's in Canada, Australia, and NZ.Some Afghanistan scenarios will be good.

This is why I personally don't accept the notion that it's more "realistic"-Unless you're attempting to simulate a WW2 Imperial Japanese style of C2. It assumes that the company commander has to personally assign things as basic as facing to each and every soldier under command, and that no smaller unit has any eyeballs, ears or initiative.(and a short attention span, to boot) I mean, you could argue that using any other camera than '1' with the camera not locked on a unit is unrealistic, but..it's not. And neither is pausing.

I don't think the inability to pause for orders makes it more difficult, or realistic-It just makes it tedious-when the battle really starts to get thick, I tend to get low framerates, and it takes for-e-v-e-r to get to your recently arrives reinforcements,etc..you spend more time panning, rotating and clicking than you do masterminding the battle. Sure, if the game could run 60fps in a battalion sized battle, I probably wouldn't mind as much. As for the realism, naah. Overtasking makes play more unrealistic, not the opposite. Performing a co-ordinated attack or maneuver with anything larger than a overstrength platoon is pretty difficult, so, co-ordination is usually the first thing to go-sad, as it's pretty much the foundation for tactical maneuver-so much for more realism. I suppose the best policy is-if you don't like orders pause, don't use it-remove pausable orders from the difficulty setting entirely, and make it a seperate option-why punish players who want to play at veteran without pauseable orders, eh? same goes for elite. Some really want to play elite with pause. Should be an option...Or, make the game run at 60fps in a company sized firefight. And besides, you can already give artillery targeting orders while paused in v1.01, so....elite is already totally 'unrealistic' anyways!..Ok, sarcasm aside, call it what you want, just add the option. [ August 03, 2007, 10:11 AM: Message edited by: ARRPEEGEE ]

interesting topic. I don't see anything in the manual about not being able to give orders to C2-less units, or delay. Basically, the manual says that an out of C2 unit won't recieve or give relative spotting info, and given troop quality, has an increased chance of going shaky and orders freezing. I think you might be mixing the concepts of C2 and relative spotting. Elite difficulty applies relative spotting to friendly and enemy forces. c2 does work within the context of relative spotting in terms of sending contact info down through the units in contact, but dosen't dictate what units are under player control. I don't think a system like that would work..Try it out in a game (don't click on any unit unless you can see it after starting the clock on the command unit) and you'll see why that system just wouldn't work... A command delay, now, wouldn't be a bad thing, but I suppose the increased risk of going shaky makes up for that? [ August 03, 2007, 08:23 AM: Message edited by: ARRPEEGEE ]

I'd like to be able to withdraw units on friendly map edges, and re-instate exit zones. It'd be even better to link withdrawn units to scoring conditions (i.e.: syrian player withdraws X%, US player X points) I'd just like to have some options..Every scenario you play you tend to end up with garbage troops and vehicles.I'd like to send them back to fight another day, not force them to fight and die. Exit zones would be handy scenario design tools (i.e.: drive through ambush zones and exit map)

I'm skeptical too, some military hardware sites list them as having a small number, who knows? One would assume they'd probably try and buy some before may 2008! Oh, what about this unit? Where the heck is the 60mm mortar? what's the story on that?

two pages and no one nominates the BMP-3? It's a nice (on paper anyway) little IFV.Good armor,100mm gun,30mm autocannon, and fires AT-10! Pretty cool design, like the CV90, really accentuates the FV in IFV And, on top of that, the Syrian RG formation supposedly has them..I'd like to see that definately.

I hope pausable orders on elite make it in. Real time has won me over quickly, but no pause for orders on elite detracts from the fun, and dosen't really make it harder, just forces you to micromanage. That and the monitor refresh rate setting..60hz is killing my eyes. but, obviously, pathfinding and wall LOS are the big kickers.

play Al Amrah for some good MOUT infantry action! Well, I haven't checked it, but I'd assume that with regular squads selecting an assault split probably divides the breaching charges and other special weapons, so, it probably does have a use. About the AT gunners, I'd say that was just a bug-I'm sure that will get squared away sooner or later. I just wish it wouldn't take my saw away!

the MOUT/Assault squads are really cool. the split function gives you two breach teams (tl/gl/rfl)and one fire base (sl/2saw)..That's alot of assault options in one little squad...The assault pairing puts one of the saws in the breach team-that must be a morale booster!

Ahhhhh-now I get it. I looked at MOUT squads in the editor: On a 'standard' rifle squad, you'll split into fireteams (which is correct) On a 'MOUT' squad, you can split into 3-3man teams(split), OR an 'Assault' team of 3 door kickers with all the C4 charges, and a 6 man base of fire (Assault) That's pretty darned cool..So, the manual is somewhat correct, there IS an assault split, it's just that you need MOUT units.