thewood

I have seen this occasionally, but may happen more and I never noticed. It seems like the team is trying to organize itself, but to me, if you use quick or fast, it means move NOW! Move, or maybe even quick should be more organized and have the extra time and space.

I'll say one thing, BFC's concept of marketing is unique...denigrate your own product to the point people will only buy the new one.

So, eat my towels then!

I think the man has it...great find. I'm sure tat one should go in the FAQ.

Steve is the next course "Violent Communications". I'd like to witness the final.

The center dot thing begs the question of how individual soldiers decide where to be within the 8m. If the center of a squad is behind a ridge, but an outlying soldier is at the top, should the enemy be able to engage just the one soldier? Maybe its a stupid question, but I am a little confused.

Speak for yourself...ah, what were we talking about?

I used to know Steve's wife from a previous job and can tell she probably wasn't one of thosw laughing.

I have a headache

Yeah, I stopped playing after the first campaign was completed. I felt like I was solving a puzzle. I tried my hand at building a scenario. It was a disaster. Never got it to do what I wanted. I went back to CM and generated a few random battles and never looked back. I've still followed the game to see if 1C can get its act together. Maybe it will. What's most interesting is CMSF has come out in about the same state as TOW, maybe worse. But I find myself playing it anyway. You know why, map editor, scenario editor, Quick Battles (somewhat nuetered). Within a week of release, there were a dozen user scenarios out for CMSF. I don't think we have a dozen overall for TOW.

I would think instead of writing the long answers over and over again, it would help productivity to look at the repetitive questions on the board, answer them once, and sticky it.

I actually don't see the problem, conceptually, of just allowing a pick and choose for units. Let us assign HQ and live with the consequences. All it does is make the customers job a little easier more enjoyable.

Actually, it is scattered all over the forum and in little dribs and drabs. It would be good to have some of these questions answered in one spot. I think its called a FAQ. Because of the confusion with bugs, manual not matching game in some areas, complexity of the game, and differences from CM1, I think its needed to help both old CM hands and new CM people get through the game.

Also keep in mind most of the AK's were locally made and would pretty poor out of the box quality compared to what Syria could bring to bear.

I'm hoping someon from BFC eventually stops by to tell me what changed between 1.01 and 1.02 that lowered the AI's willingness to fire the .50 in the Stryker. I have both versions installed and Strykers fire immediately at threats in 1.01, but they rarely fire any weapons in 1.02.

Its not just know the script, its knowing that will only use arty in the openning of the battle. Is that correct.

Hereston, that is exactly my complaint right now. Is this a bug? How can you ever do a hull down if the crest is see through to the AI? Action ponts, Smaction points, whats the point of all this visual granularity in a squad, if the terrain doesn't match the level of granularity.

Its called Steel Beasts

That's not just a Canadian issue. The US is really not on a war footing back home either.

The thing that bothers me more than reviews is the harsh treatment CMSF is getting in some wargaming forums. While there are some positive voices, I am seeing people who are normally raving about the CM franchise really not very interested at best, or down right hostile after playing the demo at worse.

I see the same thing on ATGM fired from BMPs in 1.02. I have not seen a single round hit a Stryker if there is even the slightest rise in gound to the target.

I think are of the problem in Wadi Scouts is that the scenario designer relabled some of the names of the Strykers and it is not as clear what they are. I am going back to check them out.

In 1.01, the .50 open up immediately on the visible bunker at 650m without my intervention(they kill them all in 1 minute and that's another issue). Now in 1.02, I have tell them several times to open up and even then some of them don't do it. Is the part about the recon Strykers in the manual? I haven't seen it. Otherwise, how the heck does BFC expect us to know this. Okay, nevermind, just found it. If I tell the Recon unit to fire, will it automatically unbutton? Does anyone know? That may be the problem with some units not firing when I tell them.

I have a couple of issues: How do Strykers use their weapons. I have found no correlation between buttoned and unbuttoned. Do they have remote weapon systems or not. To claify, in 1.02, I never see Strykers use thier .50 without me commanding them to use them. And even then, they sometimes don't do it. How do the grenade launchers work. I have to almost threaten the TC with a gun to get them to use them. Why are there always two guys sticking their heads out of the hatches in back. I have never seen them button while mounted. In real life, this must not be a popular position. Why do they sometimes back up when I give them a straight ahead move command. This is supposedly open terrain. Why won't the commander ever button up on his own under fire. In WEGO, I lose commanders all the time to this before I can intervene. As thick as the manual is, why isn't any of this info in there. Am I the only stupid one or are other people having these issues. Maybe my frustration is speaking, but this is supposed to be a game about Stryker teams, yet, I find them almost unsable as a support weapon systems for infantry. I'd like BFC to clarify some of this. Take just 30 seconds away from the Stryker arguements and answer some questions that help your customers play the game.

That's fine, as long as you and Dorosh keep learning American, we'll be happy.