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.

I think (assuming) 'assault' comes from the 'assault' movement command, where the squad bounds by fire teams. At least that's how I understand it. As to the goal of splitting, well..I suppose that depends on the tactical problem at hand. [ August 01, 2007, 07:17 AM: Message edited by: ARRPEEGEE ]

yep, that's two standard US fireteams, I've never really heard of a US formation with massed SAW's, but who knows? I think the idea is that both fireteams have equal firepower (1saw/1gl/2rfl)effectively equalling their value as maneuver units. The odd thing about that is that the squad leader is on A, and both fire team leaders are on B..odd I didn't read that section in the manual, though.

THis is a tough one..One one hand, it makes no sense to have to send the mmg back to the stryker for more 762 when the squad right next to it has plenty, and on the other hand, the possibility of detaching one AT section and rounding up 8 javelins and going rambo on everyone..As long as there's a limit to what a section can carry, what a squad can carry, etc. I'd settle for being able to just 'acquire' anything on the Syrian side for the right now of it - but..looks like that's getting looked into-nice.

That's the issue-The AT section, I believe is supposed to build a team around 'heavy' atgm's.(Jav/Rpg29)The AT4/RPG18 aren't really the sort of weapon that is seen as an AT priority. As long as you get an AT4, I'd find it managable..Now an AT squad with no AT4 would be a bug. That being said, there are really some puzzling equipment choices when it comes to equipping AT weapons..In the usual cases I see, not only does the Non-AT MOS guy equip the javelin/AT4, it's usually the SAW gunner!! I don't think I want one trooper having all my squad's firepower, now... On the Assault split, I dunno, It looks as if it breaks the squad into two fire teams, which would be doctrinally correct for US teams.. [ August 01, 2007, 06:26 AM: Message edited by: ARRPEEGEE ]

bump- I hope this is getting looked at for the first patch. Maybe it's the way I play, but this one's giving me fits. Just give me some extra small arms, 762 and rpg7's and I'm good.

The BMP's don't seem to carry any dismount squad ammo as it states in the manual(p65). (ammo listed in white on the details/reports panel) This might seem trivial, but twice now, in QB's I've run out of ammo with all my dismount squads..I've doublechecked to ensure that it isn't a unit status setting, they just don't carry any by default, it seems. The pictures in the encyclopedia section of the manual don't show them as carrying any either, so must be an old bug. [ July 30, 2007, 03:39 PM: Message edited by: ARRPEEGEE ]

thanks, I figured there had to be a way to get screens. [ July 30, 2007, 10:25 PM: Message edited by: ARRPEEGEE ]

Hi, *one thing I've found helpful (and you might too) is liberal use of 'area target'..They really unload on an area, and is especially good with Syrians, as they start flinging RPG's as fast as they can load them..it seems that area target is more lethal than target for units in the open, sometimes. Maybe area target is the 'missing' suppression fire? *I'm really happy with the sound design in the game(good job), there's a few old explosion sounds that are a bit over the top (javelin)...but....Where, oh where is the CAS sound? you know, I'd actually find that helpful-Not just fun..Just so's you'd have an idea of what just caused that crater..It's sort of confusing as it is now.. *little pathworking bug, units with a target selected don't seem to like reverse movement much. *Is there any way in the editor to select an exact type of vehicle? or just keep re-selecting regions/date and units randomly? *Is there any way to acquire special weapon systems (javelin, in particular) from other squads-living or wounded? It'd be extremely helpful for the guy with the CLU to be able to get a few tubes from the team with the dead AT guy! **On a related note-where can I get more ammo for my Syrian MMG's? *how do you take a screenshot? please tell me you can-without any 3d party stuff. finally, just as an idea-I can forsee the need for maps becoming as great as the need for scenarios (you can always just buy units)..I'd suggest that anyone making scenarios save the map(and making big master maps never hurt, you know) before you build units and AI-I guarantee that people will really, really want maps.

actual soulutions? got those, but, what about illum rounds and flares? Seriously, though..No problems with it, I'm sure it'll be good, but-one thing I want to hear more of is improved 'platoon' commands-More pure armored battles in NA, and I'd like to see more group move commands to keep the suckers in formation with less click work.

Italy, etc, all should work OK as the engine is now, although some of the Gothic line fights might look a little funny, but, for North Africa, I think some extra concerns need looking at: a)LOS-the prospect of entrenched defenders mowing down countless compaies of attackers over 'flat' terrain with no LOS block dosen't sound too fun at all..I'd like to see improvements in terrain cover, at least to model slight breaks or rises in terrain, and those dust clouds better be LOS blocks, too! Wrecked armor and alive armor would be good to act as LOS blocks and cover, but..don't see it happening. b)digging in-I'd like to see a new approach to improved positions, as was mentioned before with gun pits, etc..one other big improvement would be dug positions for vehicles that are exitable, or drive up and fire positions.. c)This one gets it's own category: 88's fire from the mount, and are semi-mobile for a change! This one looks small, but, is just too important to pass up.