c3k

Hmmm, I've heard about this... All your troops need to do is gain a higher motivation level. Then they can take the Panzerfaust rounds and slap them hard against a rock, or their helmet (or their buddy's helmet) and _lob_ the rounds at the enemy. C'mon BF.C, it was done with 60mm mortar rounds, can't it be done with Panzerfaust rounds? Good find. Ken

Simple: Release CM:Normandy.

A few quick tests have shown that the collective wisdom appears correct. I used US Army squads and sent them over a knife-edge ridge. Awaiting them on the other side of the hill were some BMP-3's. (Now, THERE'S a machine with some firepower!) One BMP-3 per US Army squad; each squad had a lane to advance through separated from the other squads by tall walls. The assault squads shared their SUPPRESSION status. If the assault team took massive casualties (Oh, wait. They ALL did.) the base team would have the suppression meter pegged and gain a PINNED. The split squads did NOT share suppression. When the forward team met the BMP-3's (no one lasted more than a few seconds), the base team did not get suppressed. The MORALE issue was a bit more complex. The base teams (non-assault element) would get "nervous" or "rattled". The COMMAND issue is also a bit more complex. A more refined testing methodology could tease out those elements. However, it appears that there is no benefit to be gained by using ASSAULT, at least regarding defensive qualities. There may be spotting or firing benefits. Using HUNT supposedly confers an advantage to spotting enemy when compared to using QUICK. In a similar manner, there MAY be some offensive benefit to using ASSAULT. All that my quick test has shown is the difference in suppression status between ASSAULT or SPLIT. Regards, Ken

I'd guess it'd depend on exactly HOW dirty that laundry is... Ken

Please see my new thread where I've posted my test results, here: http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94051 Let me add this: I think BF.C has made a great game. If the simulation aspect is off (which I am addressing), that does not mean the game aspect is off. I understand the need to nerf artillery. However, the artillery model does not seem to be internally consistent right now. I'm sure BF.C will chime in if they feel the need.

Gents, There has been some (ahem) talk about troops on rooftops and their resistance to artillery. I was recently fortunate enough to have been invited to General Land Warfare Testing Center's artillery range. There, they allowed me to run some tests on their East Anglia range. The MOD was kind enough to lend the use of some 105mm guns from The Queen's Light Prancing Into Battle With Skirts Atwirling Royal Artillery, as well as some thousands of rounds. I would be remiss if I did not mention the catering, provided by Mrs. Fabersham's sandwich shop. The test would not have been possible without the hundreds of Syrian volunteers, graciously provided by Mr. Assad. They were quite motivated, at least at the beginning of the test, and their presence made the test the resounding success it was. (Our staff psychologist did advise us that the test subjects might lose some enthusiasm once the test began. Due to his sage advice, we took precautions to ensure "cold feet" did not render the test worthless. His suggestions led to the tall walls and alligator filled swamps around the impact zones.) The test itself was conducted against several different target sets. They were: - Infantry on walled rooftops - Infantry on unwalled rooftops - Infantry on the 2nd floor of a 2 level building - Infantry on paved ground - Infantry on dirt - Infantry in rubble (from demolished 2 level buildings) Each target set contained a platoon of Syrians (Fanatic, Elite, well-led, fully supplied). Each platoon started with 27 men. (They did not quite finish that way.) Each target set was targeted by 2 tubes of 105mm, linear, 32 or 33 meters long, medium, medium, personnel. (Except the target set INSIDE the buildings, on the 2nd floor. They were targeted in a similar fashion, except the fuzing was set to "general".) This meant about 20 to 24 rounds of 105 came down in approximately 200 seconds. The target sets were 16 by 48 meters long. (2x6 map squares.) They consisted of 3 buildings, adjoining one another. The target lines went from the far left of the rooftop to the far right of the rooftop. I ran dozens of iterations. Here are the average number of survivors (with standard deviation). - Infantry on walled rooftops - 13/3.5 - Infantry on unwalled rooftops - 13/3.5 - Infantry on the 2nd floor of a 2 level building - 23/3.5 - Infantry on paved ground - .5/.7 - Infantry on dirt - .4/.7 - Infantry in rubble (from demolished 2 level buildings) - 2.75/1.6 Conclusions: Walled vs. unwalled rooftops make no difference to survivability against airburst 105mm shells. In each case, troops on rooftops maintained cohesion and fighting ability despite 20 or more impacts along a 100 foot line. The survivor number ranged from 7 to 21. Firing 105mm against troops on rooftops will cause approximately 50% casualties, but will not negate the defensive qualities of the troops on a roof. Troops INSIDE a building, on the top floor, are basically immune to artillery. The average number of survivors means that 20-24 105 shells, fuzed at GENERAL, create 15% casualties. 105mm is ineffective against troops in buildings. Infantry in rubble gains a SLIGHT advantage against airburst 105's compared to troops lying down on pavement or dirt. I can make the scenarios I created available. I have not yet tested 81mm or 155mm. I know that causing 50% casualties is not minor, but compare what happened to troops constrained to the same footprint in open ground: essentially no one survived. Yet, rooftops confer a 50% survivability chance (whether walled or not). I am aware that the game may model rooftops which are not smooth. Mideast roofs have stairwells, dips, mini-walls, water heaters, oil tanks, etc. However, if you then take the desiderata on a roof and compare it to a RUBBLED BUILDING, which one should provide more cover? I would suppose rubble; compare rooftop numbers to the rubble numbers. Rooftops provide a greater than 400% chance of surviving compared to rubble (13:2.75=4.72). This seems wrong. The total ineffectiveness, tactically speaking, of 105 artillery vs. troops INSIDE a building seems off. The buildings were 2x2, with 3 of them adjacent, creating a 2x6 with internal walls. One squad was in the north 2x2, one in the south 2x2, with the 7 man HQ and 2 man RPG element in the central 2x2. Hence, 9 men per 2x2. Each building was hit with 20-24 shells, fuzed GENERAL. The only protection the men had was the rooftop (walled). An assumption can be made that each 9 man group had 6 to 8 105 shells detonate directly overhead. Toss in a few longs or shorts; that leaves 4 to 6 105 shells MINIMUM impacting on top of them. Even point detonation should allow for some rooftop penetration. My takeaway: Do NOT lie down on pavement during an artillery strike. Do, however, set up inside the top floor; you will be essentially immune to artillery. Do setup units on rooftops if you need the LOS; odds are they will have enough survivors to be quite effective. Thoughts?

Well, I now have reason to KNOW it's fixed. A single run through of a night quick battle on a city map; explosions, fires, autocannon, all lit up exactly as you'd like it to...using an nvidia 8800GTX running driver v260.99 on Vista64. Thank you!!!

LOL! I didn't DARE post about 1.32! But, now that it's been mentioned...

Yes, the 6870 has been issue free. However, as you state, the 1.31 patch should fix the nvidia bug. Kudos to BF.C. I'm still running the 8800gtx (it will probably be replaced and migrate to another machine), but have not tested it to ensure the patch fixed the lighting issue. (I have no reason to think it isn't fixed.) It now comes back to picking a video card based on factors OTHER than night battles in CM. Crossfire 6870's? Sounds like fun. Regards, Ken

I can just imagine the BF.C guys smugly smiling over all the goodness contained in v1.31 while they ate their Thanksgiving turkey. You just KNOW that it was ready yesterday!! Thanks guys! Now, let us all know: how the heck did you fix the nvidia light flashing? Ken

Another instance: 81mm, medium, medium, personnel, area target against a 1x1 level one building, rooftop with walls. It has an MG team deployed on the rooftop. After leveling a tall wall adjacent to the building, multiple bursts directly over the SMALL rooftop area, the MG team is unsuppressed and able to conduct effective (casualty causing) fire at a range of greater than 300 meters. That doesn't pass the smell test. Compare that to my ELITE, +2 leadership sniper team (Brits) aiming at a survivor crewman from a BMP. The BMP crewmember is 167 meters away from my ELITE sniper. He is known, he is visible, he is not facing the sniper. 4 shots later, still no WIA/KIA. My sniper was not under fire, had not moved from his position for 5 to 10 minutes, was rested at the beginning of that time, and had no other targets, was also confined to the crewmember by a target arc. (There was a low wall NEAR the crewmember, but a TARGET LIGHT line did not intersect the wall.) 3 barrels of 81mm airburst raining down on a machinegun for 1-2 minutes of barrage allows the machinegun to kill 3 moving targets at 300 meters, and wounded the 1 survivor, while an ELITE sniper cannot hit the big melon-headed prone crewmember at 167 meters. Methinks a tweak would be appreciated... Thoughts? Ken

Gents, [/sarcasm] I've been posting here for awhile. I've always thought this was a forum about BF.C's games, but I was just struck by a compulsion to buy a replica watch. Does ANYONE have any idea about a link to a replica watch seller? [/sarcasm off] No, I don't want a serving of zengwhai with my dumplings. Sheesh.

Very nice!

Gents, Right now the game allows friendly fire to go through friendly vehicles. LOS for both enemy and friendly can pass through vehicles. That's all well and good. Sometimes I take advantage of the asymmetry, but I rationalize it by thinking the friendly unit has a great keyhole location. This behavior is well documented and the reasoning behind is very well supported. Flavor objects are similar, in that they do not affect LOS, but they do affect LOF (or, if they don't actually modify LOF, they offer ballistic protection benefits which result in the same protection). Hence, those nifty sandbag revetments designers SLAVE over (have you ever tried placing all those sandbags yourself? My mouse finger aches at the memory...), afford REAL protection. Now, it's time to tie those two facts together...with ZOMBIES! Do bodies afford protection? In a battle I'm playing, one of the forces is taking horrendous casualties. The dead and wounded are, literally, stacked on top one another. The few survivors are sprinkled amongst them. In a putative zombie scenario, this could be quite important to model. Absent the living undead, and ignoring snarky comments about the homo-erotic "300" and their wall of bodies (FOR SPARTA!), there were enough instances of forces using the dead to bolster their defenses that perhaps it could be modeled. Soviet human waves spring to mind. (As do Chinese attacks in Korea.) Now, we have had the odd call here and there for cows, goats, sheep, and ox (strangely, yaks have been forgotten) to be modelled in CM, with the advantage of using them as bovine, caprine, or ovine cover. What about homo erectus? Or, perhaps a bit more pointedly, homo supine? Do casualties afford cover in a manner similar to flavor objects or vehicles? Ken

Ditto. Now pass the turkey.

Time to line my pixeltruppen up and see if I have any volunteers for a "potentially" dangerous test. Er, mission.

I don't know about CPU, but every LIMB would need to be tracked. Legless corpses dragging themselves toward your men! Limbs flying through the air! Water would need to be modeled. We all know zombies don't need to breathe. Sound files would need to incorporate a wet squelching sound (for obvious reasons) as well as the sub-vocalized eating sounds made by feasting zombies.

I use ASSAULT in WeGo, but only if the situation warrants it. I may be wrong, but don't assaulting units get a morale boost? You can't get that boost with split squads, since they can't ASSAULT. Having said that, I do also split my squads. It all depends on if I think the morale bonus will be helpful. Ken

Thank you! For some reason, late last night, none of this seemed to be working. Now it is. I blame the alcohol... I thought I'd forgotten some arcane editor command and couldn't dredge up any memory of it, nor could I find it in the manual or the forum. Amazing how you can't find what doesn't exist! Regards, Ken

Okay, I purchase a Platoon at +1; all parts of the platoon are at +1. If I go to the right screen (purchased) all I need to do is select the unit and whatever has ALREADY been set as a soft factor gets applied? Or, can I change the soft factor, and whatever it is when I UNselect the unit gets applied? Grrr...

Guys, Total brain-fart moment here; I know how to set the level BEFORE purchasing a unit. The drop down menu is cool that way. I have forgotten how to adjust unit soft factors AFTER purchasing, in order to have different ratings within a unit. Say I select "Leadership +1" for a platoon. However, I want the HQ to have a +2 leadership rating. What do I need to do? Thanks!! (Yes, I searched...)

Bringing this back up... I just had the following occur: A Syrian squad inside a 2 level building, measuring 1 x 1.5 action spots. Attached to that building is a 1 level building measuring 1 x 1 action spot. There is a Syrian platoon HQ in that. My stiff lipped Brits did the following: a 3 Gun 105 section, medium, medium, general. Another 3 Gun 105 section, medium, medium, personnel. A 3 tube 81mm section; medium, medium, smoke. Yeah, a little shake and bake, CMSF style. I did all that...TWICE. Do you have any idea how many 105 shells rained down on those two little buildings. WHAMO!! Both buildings totally collapsed. The bombardment continued! Imagine my surprise when my stiff lipped troops rushed forwards through the smoke and dust within SECONDS of the 105 bombardment ending, and were wiped out by the surviving Syrians. Half the Syrians survived. Not only did they survive the bombardment, they survived the collapses. Then, in the rubble, they survived the REST of the bombardment. Finally, just seconds after the last shell landed, they were weapons up and ready. WTF??? A bit of suppression would help. In a similar vein, I had 105's area target some rooftops. Medium, medium, personnel. The airbursts were ineffective vs. the ATGM's up on the roofs. This occurred many times throughout a battle. Airbursts (105 and 81) are not effective vs. rooftop troops. I think that artillery effectiveness has been overly-nerfed. Savedgames are available... Ken

Nah, the best will be CM:Z. Yeah, baby, zombies are trying to bite yo' ass! Can you and your team drive through the city without being devoured? Ever wonder what all those movies would've been like if the protagonists had been equipped with some REAL hardware? Drive your Abrams over to the city cemetery and just watch the fun unfold! CM:Z!! It must be!!

Schrullenhaft is an outstanding forum member when it comes to resolving these issues. I'm sure he'll be along shortly. I cannot solve your problem, but I am posting to let you know that my CMSF running on Windows 7/64 runs without any issues. It's not a compatibility problem with the OS. (Nor am I running it under XP mode.) There must be some other software interfering with the game executable. The immediately obvious would be an antivirus/firewall which doesn't like CMSF. Sorry for not pointing you to a definitive solution, but W7/64 and CMSF do work. Good luck! Ken

Which brings to mind the NEXT title, to whit, "The Elbe: When Tracks Collide: East Meets West: Patton's Fury vs. Stalin's Steel!" Oh, you mentioned something about Charles' work schedule as if 2 months here or 2 months there or a different 2 months yonder mattered. The solution is simple: never let him stop working. Never. Ever.