thewood

Please explain to me how I can get a squad to a crest and get the squad to bring weapons to bear. I have a hard time believing that 2007 US Army infantry team would not bring the majority of its weapons on line. Right now 1 - 3 guys get to the crest, get fired on, the rest of the squad hangs around "spotting" 3 or 4 meters down the hill.

I was responding to an actual comment and trying to defend the beta testers. I haven't seen you do that yet. While I appreciate mapmakers work, slamming beta testers that are limited in their ability to respond, regardless who "owns" a thread deserves a comment.

I played it on one of the first PC's installed at a fortune 200 company I worked. Came in on weekends to do it.

It was actually BFC's fault for not giving you a realistic timetable. We all know the reasons, but its still BFC's responsibility.

I will come back to this though...is the lack of participation in a firefight a design or a ratioalization by fans trying to explain it away? I don't know the answer.

Yeah, it seems like we have 15 people guessing at an answer to this, but no way to tell what's really happening. One other thing you mentioned that is a pet peeve of mine, especially as a WEGO player, is lack of firing initiative. I'll darned if I see more 10% of my units fire at infantry on their own at first sight. After 2 or 3 minutes, It may go to less than 50% if the enemy stays in sight. [ September 28, 2007, 08:15 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

SO what you do is give those split squads massive command delays, make them unresponsive, take away C2, etc. Oh wait, we don't have command delays.

So are Syrian squads chained together? Do they never send a couple of guys over into and building and say, watch that road while we watch this one. This may be a case of the OOB dictaters are a little too much in charge. Make it like CM and give them very harsh penalties for doing it, but let them do it.

Its even easier...never let a squad be in more than one action spot. It would be even easier if you represented the squad by an icon made up of a few figures that represent the squad, say just three men. That would be perfect! This post was meant to funny... well, not really... yeah it actually was... or was it...

I vaguely remember this being talked about early on. It's because "can I see it" has to be asked every moment, by every unit, towards every other unit. "Can I shoot it" on the other hand only is asked when called for. (you or AI give targeting order) The way I understand it the "can I see it" is asked so frequently that it is asked twice. A first CPU friendly ballpark estimate of whether or not you can see it on a grid basis, and if yes, the LOS check will be more fine grained. Aside from that issue another reason why the LOS and LOF diverge is ofcourse that calculations of the straight LOS is different then the ballistic arc for LOF. The worst of the LOS/LOF problems you are seeing are probably bugs and are being and/or have been addressed. But I think there will always be some fudging involved, I'm afraid. It may be worth pointing out that even in it's flawed state it's still better then CMx1. Remember the 15cm round smack in the middle of a squad not killing anyone? </font>

The + thing is backwards! How did you find that out? I never even gave it a second thought, but may explain a few things I have observed.

But I think enemy individuals can spot your action spot but you can't shoot because you can't see its action spot. Or The enemy can see your individual and kill it, but your action spot can't its action spot, therefore can't shoot back. My headache is back.

Here is something that I posted in the targetting thread: It lays out my thoughts: Garm, I have been asking that question off and on for weeks now. There is a thread right next to this one that is, in some ways, asking the same thing. I understand that spotting may play a role. In other words, just because someone is shooting at you, doesn't mean you can see them. I am guessing that what may be happening here is a team is shooting at your guy, but most of the team is behind a hill. One or two guys are at the top. One of two things may be happening: 1) LOS is traced to the center of the enemy squad/action point so you can't shoot back, even though you can be shot. 2) You haven't truly "spotted" the enemy unit. You may have LOS, but some random spotting factor is keeping your guy from actually acquiring the enemy. I am hoping its #2, but am concerned its #1. #2 is a leap forward in tactical 3D wargaming (Even though POA2 has been doing it for years in 2D). #1 is a fatal design decision. To understand what I am saying, you have make sure you can look at the difference between LOS and actually spotting a target. LOF is also in here somewhere.

Garm, I have been asking that question off and on for weeks now. There is a thread right next to this one that is, in some ways, asking the same thing. I understand that spotting may play a role. In other words, just because someone is shooting at you, doesn't mean you can see them. I am guessing that what may be happening here is a team is shooting at your guy, but most of the team is behind a hill. One or two guys are at the top. One of two things may be happening: 1) LOS is traced to the center of the enemy squad/action point so you can't shoot back, even though you can be shot. 2) You haven't truly "spotted" the enemy unit. You may have LOS, but some random spotting factor is keeping your guy from actually acquiring the enemy. I am hoping its #2, but am concerned its #1. #2 is a leap forward in tactical 3D wargaming (Even though POA2 has been doing it for years in 2D). #1 is a fatal design decision. To understand what I am saying, you have make sure you can look at the difference between LOS and actually spotting a target. LOF is also in here somewhere.

Actually, this makes a lot of sense, since spotting does not kill, but firing does! The correct question, IMHO, is: if LOF is indeed traced individually, why do shots through terrain occur? Hopefully, because it is a bug that will be fixed in 1.04. Best regards, Thomm </font>

One more thing...If I have a squad with one soldier sticking past a corner, that one soldier can be shot by the enemy? Does this happen to the AI? If I see one soldier sticking out of a corner, can I target him. Does the LOF or LOS go to him or the center of his squad's action point? Can the AI react to this. I want to know.

The Falkands comment is the stuff I talk about with these forums all the time. Taking a flaw/feature and trying to, after the fact, rationalize it as a design decision. I am skeptical that the parade ground formation of CMSF squads was designed to reflect the realities of modern wasfare. I have had the same problem with ridges...I can get one or two guys up to the ridge, but if I try to get the squad positioned across the ridge, the entire squad goes over the top and gets wiped out. That's when enemy fire is coming through the ridge 6 meters below the top. What I still do not understand is how you can design a simulation at this level of detail and have diverging spotting and firing lines.

My understanding is that LOS and LOF do not always match. LOS is from the individual, but LOF is tha action point. Is that correct? If so, is that realted to what we are seeing with the infantry.

The only thing I feel bad about in this whole thing is that CMSF went into the bargin bin so fast. Not a good sign for someone like Paradox wanting to keep investing money in CM.

So let me make sure I understand this...I am just looking for clarification: We can expect area fire to snap to the action point regardless of LOS to a portion of the 8 x 8 grid? We can expect fire to deviate from staright line to hit the action point? We can expect that squad members can be shot without any possibility of LOS to the enemy? I am not asking to be a PITA, but to understand the specifics of abstraction and whether I invest time in CMSF or CM1. btw, I've had 12 two brothers beer and may be incoherent.

Oh good, I thought I was doing something wrong. It has been driving me crazy.

You are wasting more time posting about being annoyed at wasting time. </font>

My main issue is the amount of time I spent screwing around with CMSF. Steve kept saying we didn't get it, and I kept trying to get it. That is the time I feel I'll never get back. I have limited time for my hobby. I was flying back from China right after the release and played CMSF for the whole trip. I wish I had done something else. This was 1.01 so to me I spent most of my time trying to figure out what was a bug and what was a feature. In the end, its not the $60, its the time I feel I have wasted. I do have some fun with CMSF, but it is more frustrating than fun now.

So what? I knew that I'd probably pay more when I pre-ordered directly from BFC. In the end, I actually paid the equivalent of 68 US$, since I had to pay additional customs surcharge. Do I regret it? No, I like the idea of directly supporting a developer who has provided me with excellent products in the past. Is CM:SF everything I hoped for? No. Am I having fun with the game? Sure I do. Do I feel ripped off? Definitely not. It's not that BFC decided to suddenly cut the retail price of their product just to piss you off. </font>

I thought Paradox wasn't allowed to distribute CMSF in North AMerica? I could easily be mistaken. The funny thing is in CM1 forums Steve proudly railed on about shady and demanding distributers and how BFC(BTS) was changing the model. I now think BFC has gone back on one of its mantras and having to relearn some hard lessons about big distribution.