Fat Dave

Hi guys, Keep us posted on how this goes, i am curious to see if you can get this LAN head to head battle up and running. I have had no success...and the lag and other strange crashes drove me to madness...1.10 is meant to improve this. Cheers

Ali-Baba, I hear you loud and clear CM2 has such huge potential, but we aren't there yet. I miss the human challenge of wego TCP/IP. It was all I ever played as I felt that this was where the real tactical challenge lay. I am hoping we'll get the text messages, kill lists, and some form of wego TCP/IP play back into CM2 one day.

of course, stable and reliable IP/TCP play would be a pre-requisite for this...and so far, this is not the case for most players. CM1 did this almost perfectly, it was reliable and the autosave function made crashes tolerable. According to the 1.1 patch, IP/TCP play has been improved, I can't wait to try this out as IP/TCP play against a human player is where the challenge lies for me.

Damn Moon...these little teasers of yours....how are those Marine screen shots coming along?

Easy on there Echo old boy Sure there are issues that remain, but having followed the development of this game I am absolutely positive these things will get ironed out. Have faith in Charles et al to get this sorted. The recent news regarding the improved AI for infantry which will come with 1.1 (Marines) will go a long way to improve this crucial part of the game.

Yes, I noticed this 'escape manouvre' also, and I believe this was all done 'we-go'. If you look closely you can see the 'preview - watch action' tag. This sort of evasive action would be a great improvement to the current 60 seconds of agonising and screaming 'Do something!!!!' as the boys are getting creamed

I just want to chime in and say I also feel that the blast effects are currently too strong - especially when 'trenches' are involved. Last night, after re-running a small battle consisting of entrenched Syrian troops vs attacking Syrian troops, I saw a BMP use one shot of it's main gun (75 mm I think) to kill - all red dot - 14 guys! Admittedly, 9 of these were in the open and about to reach the cover of the trench the other 5 were already in when the shell hit. I couldn't believe my eyes...all those crosses. OK, if it had been a 500lb bomb, fair enough...but a BMP main gun? Bad luck once again perhaps? The guys in the open I can deal with, but the boys in the trench? They should have received some cover bonus. Anyway...

Adam1, I feel your pain sneaking up on an Blue AFV feels like the odds are stacked against you. The vital seconds it takes to 'see' an out in the open Blue AFV will usually be enough to get you killed. An old hunting friend of mine once told me that it was the getting in position bit that was the hardest part of the stalk while the actual taking of the shot was the easiest. At the moment I feel slightly 'cheated' when the stalking has been done, only to fail by not 'seeing' the Blue target when it matters

I decided to pay closer attention to the effects of the A-10 cannon run on trenches in the open, especially after Yankee Dog's comments regarding the absorbtion of the cannon rounds into the dirt and the skipping effects. Well, depending on the angle of the attack the trenches held out well. However, on one pass it left a trail of 7 slowly fading red-crosses out of about 15 odd men who were unfortunate enough to be there. This was more what I had expected. Damage aside, the dust cloud after such a cannon run is minimal and is gone far too quickly. I believe the amount of dust and the time it lingers should be increased. The conditions were dry and wind was set to none. Anyway, here's hoping for a more structured test to clarify a few minor issues

I had a similar experience with a non-reactive T-72 that had spotted a moving Bradley in the open at about 300 metres. Despite the full spot, it sat and watched it for 10 seconds or more. The side on Bradley stopped, turned and then fired off a TOW - which missed, exploding close behind the T-72. The reaction of the Red tank? Nothing. The crew were 'spotting' yet apparently didn't see the danger close, nor did they pay much attention to the huge explosion of the first TOW. No shot fired, no reversal no smoke - it just sat there 'spotting' while the Bradley calmly adjusted and fired off it's second TOW which did not miss. Bad luck? Or some weird spotting issue? With the BMP's I have had terrible experiences. It really is hit or miss when you bring one of these into the fight. Even though as a player you know the rough position of the enemy vehicle you intend to take a shot at, the frustration levels rise as you carefully hunt your BMP into a position where you think it should be able to see its target - clear line of sight, no smoke, no trees - only for it to sit there, desperately spotting with clear blue target lines and get hammered by this unseen 'cloaked' Blue AFV. Is the vision really that bad in these things? And why can't they open up exactly?

Hmm, it certainly looks pretty powerful Having seen numerous clips showing A-10 cannon passes, not to mention the recent YouTube British A-10 close-call in Afghanistan, I would still expect some serious death and destruction in any area worked over by its 30mm cannon. If not directly hit (Christ, I'd hate to see what that looked like) surely the flying bits of stone, wood etc would create a fairly lethal environment for a nasty couple os seconds? I can see if troops were adequately dispersed then yes, the potential for absolute destruction would be minimised somewhat. However, if you see how a Syrian squad forms up in a trench, where grenades can take out 2-3 guys if you are unlucky, I would expect a serious (and on target) 30mm cannon pass to chop these guys into rags. At present I am not seeing a lot of that happening

After a few test runs with the A-10 in its 'light' support role (where it will use its cannon on several passes before obliterating the target with a bomb) I have observed the following. Firstly, on an entrenched position in the open, the casualties are surprisingly light. The cannon fire would lash a given area but I have yet to see (what I would expect) an entire squad get obliterated. At most I would lose 2-3 guys in one pass. Given the state of trenches at present, I had expected to see an area hit by cannon fire to be rendered into absolute shreds. Second, the dust created by such a cannon pass is minimal. I used very dry conditions and although dust would be created by the impacting rounds, it was not large in volume and dissapeared very quick despite the 'no wind' conditions. From what I saw, it would be gone within 10-15 seconds. Are we perhaps seeing the A-10's damage capability deliberately toned down as to not give the Blue side complete dominance of the battlefield once this bad boy shows up? For me at least, I feel the feared A-10 lacks punch when using its cannons. Sure, when it drops a bomb, its devastating, but I had hoped for more instant destruction when the 30mm barks up

I'm in...surely the masses can't be wrong on this one

Cheers for that bit of math Birdstrike What is your take on the damage model of it's cannon? Should we be seing immense dust clouds obscuring the target for longer than a few seconds after a pass? At the moment it feels like it lacks a bit of punch.

Sure, having that distinctive ripping sound would make for a more immersive gaming experience, but isn't anyone else a little underwhelmed by the actual in-game damage done with this massive 30 mm gatling gun? Visually it looks very nice, but I sort of expected a lot more damage, certainly against structures and soft targets. After watching several videos of several close call A-10 gun runs I am inclined to think that not much would survive this sort of strike. Out of curiosity, how many passes could an A-10 make while firing 'standard' bursts of its cannon?

I have to agree with Ali-Baba on this one. As I mentioned in my earlier post, the beauty and absolute addictive quality of CM1 multi-player match-ups is what made this game so exciting for me. I never played against the AI much (except to try out different offensive tactics) and it was versus another human where the game really stood head and shoulders above anything else. It consumed 5 years of my life Once CM2 is able to play out reliably against another human opponent (there are still some minor irritations in PBEM) I am sure it can be as popular as CM1 multi-player once was Until then, I hope Battlefront et al will keep up the good work and not lose sight of this crucial part of this game.

Hi Thomm, I agree with you regarding the US vehicle crews, they fight like 2 pissed-off Jason Bournes, hard to kill and fearless. Definitely too powerful in my opinion. David

Childress, Hard to tell if you are being serious or not but do you think that veteran soldiers, armed to the teeth, and in relatively good fighting positions would simply throw down their weapons and throw up their arms in the face of an enemy AV? Given the fact they have also been given 'high' motivation I reckon they would fight until either destroyed, or rout away. However, in saying that, it would be nice to have the surrender behaviour re-included. It did add more 'realism' into CM1 when certain units, faced with overwhelming odds simply surrendered. Of course, the ones that turned fanatic were always a wonder to watch

Hi Taki, I do agree about the difficulty in withdrawing/retreating men. I liked the ability in CM1 to be able to give them a withdraw order, albeit with a moral hit, enabling emergency re-positioning and no delay whatsoever. Unfortunately, trying to reposition men - who are either under fire, or about to be - means almost inevitable destruction, which if you think about it, is pretty realsitic. Withdrawing men, with some semblance of order under fire is one of the most difficult things to accomplish (so I have read) so I can imagine that this shouldn't be just a 'chose the order and it will happen' solution. Again, using my trench strong point scenario as reference, I found it near impossible to get guys who were being shot at to try and get out of LOS and LOF. The LOS blocking zig zag trenches, which I had created specifically for this fall back/retreat scenario, only made this a more frustrating experience as currently the AI doesn't seem to be able to negotiate them properly i.e men will expose themselves by running in a straight line, up and above the relative cover of the trench to reach the new waypoint. Once this is improved, and if not fully pinned, I think the boys might get to live a little bit longer

Hello again, I have just read Jason's post on trenches and if they are modelled directly after what a trench would be in 'real-life', then yes, I would have to agree that the level of protection offered by them in their current form needs some serious adjustment. Instead of thinking of them as 'real' trenches, it helps my immersion in the game if I see them currently as hasty fighting positions, shell scrapes - a hole dug quickly to provide the bare minimal cover - and nothing more. If I didn't, then yes, I would be slightly concerned Sure, these hasty fighting positions certainly don't give much protection from any form of artillery barrage, but again, they are better than nothing. Regarding the seemingly excessive cowering of all 9 men when they take (what I believe to be minimal fire) does cause the hands to go the head, followed by screaming, cursing and a general increase in blood pressure. I guess I'm having difficulties imagining all 9 vets hugging dirt when there is danger close while they are in 'technically' better positions of cover. Thomm, I had a chance to run a few games set with a clear night sky. I can't say I noticed any marked improvement in my Syrian night spotting ability. I know it isn't very scientific but I still found I couldn't rely on my veteran 9 guys - despite taking sporadic small arms fire - to sit up and take notice when the small numbers of dismounted units (or surviving crew members) were approaching. At night these milita/regular Syrian units couldn't find their own asses with both hands Anyway, as long as it's not at night, I am having a lot of fun trying to design some sort of successful Syrian defensive set-up which can take a short medium prep artillery barrage and then a full blooded Cavalry charge. Should trenches be improved over time, this would only make this scenario even more exciting. David

I ran a few more 'tests' mixing up the RG and the SF units with mixed results. In most cases I was losing my men and eventually the position to the awesome power of the Bradley's firepower, so the US units closed in and killed the suppressed Syrian units while they cowered. Not an unexpected result. However, when the Bradley's were stripped away and the US infantry needed to cover more ground they were spotted (and stayed spotted) quicker and dispatched more or less how I expected. I did not see this happen before then. I will try with the full moon sky conditions with 'normal' Syrian units and see if they fare a little better as Thomm suggested. Thanks for the replies and suggestions. The depth of the detail is staggering when one really digs a little into it David

Well I just tried the same scenario at 0700 and the difference is remarkable Not a soul survives the close trench encounter. My faith is fully restored The NVG's really do change the whole picture. I Should have tried this out earlier instead of screaming blue bloody murder as my lines were rolled up. Great game. Cheers David

Hi again, Thanks for the replies. Will see what happens when I advance the time to earlier in the morning, but what puzzles me is that the Syrian line of sight isn't too bad i.e when I draw a target line across areas where I know the US attacker will have to cross I get a nice blue line. Misgha, the motivation was high, I wanted them to really 'have a go'. Does this wholly explain the 2-4 man superman units that get my boys to cower so badly? Cheers David

Hi Guys, I've been playing with the editor lately and I made myself a little zig-zag trench strong-point on a piece of slightly elevated, but open piece of ground. It is at night and overcast. I basically wanted to see how several entrenched, veteran Syrian units with some adhoc ATGM support would bear up to a 4 Bradley Cavalry troop rush. I gave the veteran experienced Blue AI 4 separate 'dash' orders right up the perimeter of the trench strong-point, coupled with a 'dismount' followed up with a troop 'max assault' order into various parts of the surrounding occupied trenches. I was hoping to see an aggressive (and rather reckless) AI come charging in and a lot of close quarter destruction, reckoning that my entrenched Syrian veterans should easily be able to hold their ground while cutting everything to ribbons with their RPG's and assorted small arms. I let the ATGM teams select their own targets, and after positioning them accordingly, let the TACAI look-after my entrenched digital soldiers. Well, after about 20 plays the results were both surprising and extremely frustrating at the the same time. If I was very lucky, all 4 Bradleys would be cooked up at varying ranges by the mix of Kornet and RPG fire. If this happened I could usually hold the position, but even with all the Brads knocked out, the outcome was never certain. What amazed and frustrated me was that any crew or troop unit that survived their Bradley's destruction would -seemingly without any problem- advance, assault and clear trenches which were literally packed with veteran Syrian units who were aware of approaching danger. I watched in disgust as time and time again a 2 strong vehicle crew or 4 strong Cavalry unit would run through what looked (and sounded) liked withering AK fire to calmly get within grenade range and begin to systematically clear out full trenches with grenades and small arms fire. For the record, the US units are veteran level. Despite the assaulting number of US troops numbering no more than 4 per unit (often this was less) they would regularly make their way up to the trenches grenading and shooting up my full strength veteran Syrian squads, who despite their numerical advantage and entrenched firing positions, were forced into pinned and cowering status with every burst of gun-fire. Not just one man would hit the dirt but all 9 vets, reduced to cowering at the bottom of the trench while faced with only 4 or less assailants, who were in open ground nonetheless. When these small, heavily outnumbered and out-gunned US units make it into the Syrian trench, the outcome would usually be an entire dead Syrian unit, seemingly blind and constantly pinned. I would watch and slowly but surely, one by one my red units would take unseen fire, take casualties, not return effective fire (or return fire at all) and finally vanish as the last man went down. Only after the ceasefire button was pushed would I see that more than 10-15 veteran Syrians had been taken out by a 2-4 man execution squad. Watching the Blue question mark icon, which would sporadically flash and tell me it was a US unit advance and gobble up Syrian squads one by one reminded me of Pac-Man. Now I realize that the US has an advantage over the Syrians when it comes to training and overall marksmanship, not to mention their body armor and advanced optics on their M-4's, but something just didn't feel right here. Is it because of the night setting? Are NVG's simulated for all US infantry units? I feel I had the better positions, I was entrenched and the boys in those trenches had seen combat before, but more often then not, they were helpless in the face of these supermen. I don't want to sound like a sore loser, nor do I want this to be seen as knee-jerk reaction to repeated losses against the AI, but after multiple re-runs of the same action, the result would invariable be the same - a US victory against seemingly impossible infantry odds. The US victory would be near 100% assured if any of the 4 Brads survived the early ATGM strikes, and this I can live with; their optics, cannon and machine gun combination should be enough to shred any fixed defense eventually. What frustrated me however, was the repeated mass-cower of veteran Syrian infantry units against numerically inferior opponents as they took (seemingly) minimal amounts of fire. How much fire can 2 M-4's spit out? Surely 9 AK's would smother that in pure lead volume alone? Had they been up against Stryker MOUT squads - a couple of SAW's and 9 guys - OK, this makes a big difference, but against 2-4 guys (some of who are surviving vehicle crew members) surely not? I'd appreciate it if anyone could firstly convince me what I am seeing is not only possible but 'realistic' enough to be part of this incredibly detailed and great war game, or secondly, agree with me that something might need to be tweaked to give a more realistic feel to this sort of situation. Cheers David

Unfortunately, these types of multi-player anomalies seem to be seriously limiting the amount of real time human vs human match-ups. The engine itself is a work of true coding genius, but the networked play, either accros a LAN or via the internet, obviously needs more attention. Having predomiminately been a TCP/IP quick battle WEGO player of CM's 3 earlier masterpieces, there was initial dissapointment upon learning of its non-inclusion for Shock Force, but the real-time live play option did provide for a 'beer and chips in front of the PC facing a human opponent' type of game. To learn that this is not yet working optimally means a longer wait while it is improved, but I do have faith that it will eventually perform as it was envisaged. Playing against another human across the internet is what made CM so addictive for me, I just hope this will also be possible with the same level of satisfaction with this amazing new engine. Looking forward to playing more of this superbly detailed and beautiful looking game. Cheers David