thewood

So under fire from a HMG from maybe 500 - 700m they would just stay exposed and more than likely get killed after a time. Why not have open topped APCs then if all you want is more eyes and barrels. In the end, I am looking for BFCs comments on it.

So there is no way to force them to button up?

I see what they do, but how are they supposed to behave? I just can't get them to button up. Is that realistic? I have MG fire coming in at 300m and they get killed most of the time.

I saw that discussed, but haven't seen it. I was hoping over the last week someone from BFC might step in and put the answer to bed about what should be happening. No matter what I do, short of egressing the squad, these guys die from MG fire.

Any word on this? Searching the forums, this issue has come up more than a few times and I haven't seen anyone able to answer it.

There are 300M people in the US with densities in a lot of areas where there is literally miles between houses. No cable company or phone company on there own will run a broadband line so 5 people can download porn.

My sister has sat hook up and its great as long as no one else in your area has it. What you really need is something like a private network (Canopy) backhaul. I would think a big company like BFC could swing that. I can get you a deal at Moto.

I know the general location of where Steve lives and like over 50% of the US population, has NO access to anything better than dial up. My mother lives in Northen Maine and the phone line quality is so poor that even dial is almost unusable.

One other point here is the difficulty in telling the difference when a button is puched or not.

We do miss Dorosh. Can BFC put him back in for 1.06.

I'm surprised no one mentioned Canadiens

I agree that you can always find pathing issues no matter what. But, the scenario I sent Steve has some issues from pathing with a tank heading out being given a waypoint 300m away and then driving maybe 45 deg off the waypoint, getting 40m at least and then turning its flank to its direction to correct and then coming at the waypoint 10-20 deg off the original angle. This is in completely open and flat desert. Even 100m from the waypoints I plot, the tank starts to do a jig back and forth like its seeking the endpoint. I may be doing something wrong but I have used this same scenario over 50 times and it does the same thing, some better, some worse. Its not like I am contriving some completely unusual or physically unrealistic situation.; I have a tank, I plot a waypoint 400m somewhere in the 30 deg front arc and tell it to move on flat barren land. I'll let Steve tell me what I am doing wrong, if anything.

I think asking the critics and supporters is also key. Demos can sometimes hide flaws and bright spots. I would never push anyone to make a decision on the CMSF demo alone. Even with 1.05, I don't think it shows a lot of the good points and tends to make some of the bad points stand out. You may want to fish around other sites like wargamer and SimHQ and check whats going on there for discussion or look at the archives.

Steve, email sent

The main problem with the facing command issue is that in WEGO, as soon as I cancel the arc command, 9 times out of 10, the tank rotates its turrent to the other target. I have not tried chaining them, but even then, for a short time you lose target lock on the first target. It may take awhile to get the email to you. The saves are each 2-3M in size and there are 7. Do the math. I also never understood why face was a combat command, I would always think of it as a movement command.

Steve, I reposnded in the 1.05 opinion thread that if someone can show me how to post files, I have 6 or 7 save turns that show both the quirky pathfinding for my T72's and the non reaction of Strykers.

Just noticed for the first time that you can't use the face command when target arc is active. Am I doing something wrong or is this true? clarification: this is for turreted vehicles. I have a tank acred to the side but want to turn the front slightly to another threat. Couldn't do it.

I've never posted a file. How do I do it. I am not proud of this scenario. It was originally built to test infantry vs. Stryker action. I took out the infantry and put in a 72. It also the same scenario where the T72 heads of 45 deg from the only waypoint about 400m in front of it. Maybe I can kill two birds with one scenario. It was just a flat map with some trees in the center played WEGO Hotseat. I have never played this one RT.

Come on that is way too easy. Any male can recite Airplane!. Try references to History of the World Part 1 or Young Frankentein.

I have to kind of agree with Adam on this one. A thread asking for opinions and then he is taken to virtual task for expressing it. You guys attract more attention to the negative opinions by making a big deal about them.

Yes, Stryker responsivesness to enemy infantry took a small step forward in 1.04 and a huge step in 1.05.

That's because CMx1 didn't have deceleration modeled, nor was the system all that strict with physics of speed/distance to alter course. So what you see in CMx2 is the direct result of simulating real life vehicle physics instead of having a rather major abstracted model as we had in CMx1. It's amazing how good pathfinding can be if it only pays attention to player's input and terrain without regard to the laws of circumstantial physics Steve </font>

I know this is heresy in this forum, but what was wrong with how CM1 did it? It generally followed my path unless a real unpassable obstacle got in the way. I never saw spinning or wandering off a path for no apprarent reason. It did have collision and traffic jam issues.

Here is my post from another forum. I just had an open, flat test of Stryker reactions. I had a T-72 move closer to them. I gave it a straight line to within 100m of the Strykers. The 72 actually turned right for over 20m, then curved back to the left about 40m, getting about 40m closer to the Strykers. It then went from a straight line about 20m to left and 40m in front of its start point. From there it went straight to its destination. I have no idea in the world why it would do that. Looks like some kind of over correction going on. The 72 was pointed straight at the Strykers when the command was given. If a Bradley was there, it would have had several good flank shots.

I drove the 72 to within 150m. It got its track nailed by a 40mm heat round that immobilized it. It did not fire a shot. All Strykers with .50s openned up at around 350m. Never once deplyed smoke, retreated, got nervous, nothing. At 150m I had the 72 open up. After two kills, one Stryker got rattled. The rest just sat there until death do them part. I did notice one odd thing, the .50 armed Strykers all stopped firing at 72 when it went immobile at 150m. Never openned up again. Weird replay issues though. Ammo counts got pretty screwed up on the 40mm Strykers. Also tracer animations stoped replaying on all Stryker weapons on about the third turn in replay. I could have driven the 72 right next to the Strykers and they would have kept plunking away with no other reaction. Even the infantry scattered around the Strykers never seemed to be very concerned about the carnage around them.