c3k

The Nyala can hold up to eight passengers, but the interface only shows 4 of them. Is this the only vehicle which does NOT show all the passengers? If so, any chance of tweaking it so we can see them all when loaded? Related to that, the dots used to show the crew/passenger capacity change around. If it has an 8 man section, all 8 dots are filled and grouped in a single 8-pack group. If I only load a half section, I get 2 groups of dots: the 4 forward crew dots filled, then a passenger set of 4 dots, empty. With 2 men, it's 2 crew dots, 6 empty passenger dots. Ditto on the dots with 1 guy; 1 up front, 7 passenger dots. I have not studied the CM:SF implementation of crew and passenger dots. If a spot NEEDS to be occupied to operate a weapon, would it be better to separate it out with the driver's dot, and leave it that way? That would provide a visual clue to the player about a needed position. Finally, it looks like there are firing ports in the windows. I thought I'd read that BMP firing ports could be utilized now (I may be misremembering); if so, could the Nyala firing ports be activated? Nyala thoughts: I've only used the Nyala in one scenario thus far. The lack of an inherent driver makes it tough to reposition or support the dismounts. I've been splitting off the 2 man antitank team from the section and using the 2 men to crew the Nyala. That allows it to reposition. Additionally, the second man seems to be required in order to use the weapon mounted up top. (I'd LOVE for a non-moving Nyala to allow the driver to operate the RWS, but I have no idea if the internal setup of the vehicle would allow that.) Additionally, the ballistic protection seems very weak. Small arms fire penetrates and causes casualties. (Unknown enemy firing, but the sound contact seemed like an AK-47/74 (uncons).) I think the Nyala is probably best suited for patrolling Ulster, not moving into enemy territory where the full panoply of modern weaponry may be in use. Thoughts? Ken

Sorry for the misspelling. In my defense, I've had two very influential mentors who are, indeed, StanDbridges. To Normal Dude: you have achieved your objective! Prior to these Nato scenarios I would not be satisfied with anything less than a total victory against the AI. That just seemed to be the normal "passing" grade. I think a total victory in the Nato scenarios would be much more highly prized. Thanks for your work; I'm certainly enjoying it! Regards, Ken

phil standbridge, Agreed: the designers seem to have incorporated the same learning curves! The defenses make far better use of Syrian force's strengths. The testers are doing a great job of quality assurance! "Thanks" to both designers and testers. The challenges you've laid out are quite, um, challenging. (Regarding the scenario you mention, again staying away from spoilers, I achieved the same victory level but I did reach the primary objective BEFORE the time ran out. The cost was borne by my much higher number of K/WIA and destroyed vehicles.) Ken

I'd love to see captured soldier gain a "PW" icon over their head, much like the "!" icon for men who have broken. The icon would fade as the prisoners disappeared. Bonus points if the "PW" were shown in black and white stripes! - Points for PW's determined by scenario design. - Designer's option to tell player whether they get points or not. - Morale tracking for accepting PW's or not. (Enraged pixeltruppen gun them down.) - Repercussion for seeing your buddies get hosed when they surrender means YOUR guys won't accept surrender anymore. - Possible intel benefit simulating quick battlefield interrogation; subject to lies. (The "?" which appears may or may not be real.) - Obviously more points for higher rank (or scenario designated capture target); More intel "?"s for higher rank. (Don't let your Colonel get caught!) All cool... Ken

Aaaaarrrrrgggghhhhhh!! The game is BROKEN! This is the WORST THING EVER!! Okay, now to get serious: Normal Dude is correct. This was occurring when the balcony does not have a door. Like he mentioned, it LOOKS right, the men ACT correctly, so this seems like a good workaround in the editor. (With a door onto the balcony and a FACE command towards the balcony, my men go running outside to peer over the edge.) Thanks for clarifying that. Ken

Woot! Moon, don't you let up on those beta testers! Sure, there's a whole lotta goodness on these disks; but,if you let them think their efforts are appreciated, they may start to slack off! Crack that whip! Bemoan their lack of productivity! Wail about their inability to spot glaring errors! Do NOT let them know that they've been doing some great work. They may sit back and think they deserve a beer. Or two. Then where would we be? To the betas: thanks. Ken

Sure, the Shilka is a bucket full of fun, but something's missing from it.... Ahh, I believe the one ingredient missing is the veritable rain of shell casings being ejected along the ejection rails! C'mon, imagine the pile of brass which would build up! One of the cool details BF.C has crafted is the brass flying through the air when your troops fire. Any way we could get that for our Shilka's? (Also for that sweet 20mm on the Marder?) Ken

BF.C, Better balcony behavior brandished by bold battling bastards in buildings! My men no longer crowd the balcony to shoot. They stay inside the building. Thanks for tweaking this. Ken

I think this is right on a grey area. If your toops SEE an enemy, should they NOT fire because the glass MAY be proof? Or, should they fire, knowing that there should be a morale hit to ANYONE who's the obvious target of rapid small arms fire? Not many would stay in a state of equanimity, perfectly trusting in the glass, while under fire. Would I PREFER that the assistant antitank gunner had withheld his fire? Absolutely! Do I have ANY idea how to delineate the TacAI's behavior so that in SOME circumstances he should NOT fire, but in others he SHOULD? No, I do not. Is the bullet-proof glass actually modelled? Only testing will tell... I think a better FIRE order would be the way to solve this. And yes, I have several threads on that (some dating back a few years), but that's a different kettle of fish. In the meantime, although the behavior is not what I would want in that exact circumstance, I shudder at the thought of a future situation when my 2 man antitank team is in front of, say, a tank which has the commander up and manning his machinegun. In that case the assistant had better open fire. In a few days I'll try to test various bullet-proof glass specs. Ken

Thanks for the responses. A little more sleuthing has revealed... ... the armored shutters on the BRDM in question (heretofore to be referred to as BRDMiQ) were positioned closed on right side (commander's windshield) and open on left side (driver's windshield). So, indeed, the driver was visible through the windshield. The next fact picked up came from a variety of sources, but I'll just post a link from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BRDM-2 ************ Driver's and commander's stations are in the front of the vehicle, driver is positioned on the left and commander is positioned on the right. Both of them sit in front of the bulletproof windscreens which provide them with primary view of the battlefield. When in combat the windscreens can be additionally protected by twin armoured shutters. ************ This, and other corroborative passages, show that the glass is supposedly bulletproof. Obviously, the term "bulletproof" is subject to quite a lot of technical assessment and interpretation. So, my pixeltruppen saw the driver and fired at him. The bullets sprayed off the armor around the window. I don't know if any rounds impacted the windshield. The driver was unharmed, to the best of my knowledge, with Elite difficulty setting (he may have been wounded or panicked; he's dead, now.). I am still miffed that he fired early, but now I understand why. Being the munificent commander that I am (in fact, my troops frequently refer to me as "Ken the Munificent" due to my benevolence when leading them. They know that their deaths pain me more then it does themselves. ), I have therefore decided not to send that assistant gunner on a suicide mission. He is grateful. As Wodin posted, he was a bit trigger happy. Yet another doff of the cap to BF.C Thanks, Ken (the Munificent)

akd, You have a good point. But, if I stop to use the editor (right now, at least), I fear what will happen to my men! I'm in the midst of assaulting the Aleppo airfield. What? You want me to go back to HQ to test a... THEORY?!? Good God, man! Stop _thinking_ and get back into the fight!

phil, Yes, "All Flights Will Be Delayed"; was the BRDM you sighted (no spoilers) OPEN UP? E.g., did you see an enemy crewman? Or is the BRDM-2 able to be perforated by 5.56mm rounds fired by the G-36? If it had exposed crewmembers, that would make sense. Mine did not have any open hatches. If the BRDM-2 is vulnerable to the G-36, well, that would also make sense. Regards, Ken

No, the hatches were all closed. No enemy soldiers were visible.

Good question. I just measured the engagement range. It was 88 meters, frontal aspect. Reloaded savegame and re-executed turn without changing any orders. Again, the G-36 equipped assistant opened fire first. (Note that there were two BRDM-2's parked next to each other. The Panzerfauster ( new word ) fired on the rightmost BRDM-2, the G-36 equipped rifleman fired on the leftmost BRDM-2. (The rightmost one was not visible to the team in the first run through.) It still doesn't seem right. Their behavior destroys the surprise inherent in the ambush/opening salvo. Ken

Hey, NATO is fun! Whew, now that that's out of the way... Playing a battle (savegame available), German mech infantry going up against Syrian mech infantry. My overwatch units spotted a BRDM-2 in a compound. Sweet. Right around the corner I have squad with 3 PzF3 rockets. I split off the anti-armor team. (This is where BF.C gets it so right!) I gave a HUNT command with a COVERED ARC towards the BRDM. The WeGo turn unfolded... My two men crept around the corner of the tall wall and spotted the blissfully ignorant BRDM. The BRDM was facing right at them, buttoned up, oblivious to their danger! It would be a test of will to see which unit would spot and fire on the other one first! My anti-tank gunner placed the Panzerfaust3 on his shoulder. Steady, steady... His assistant began firing on the BRDM-2 with his G-36. WTF?? 5.56mm ricochets flew everywhere. The BRDM-2 opened up with its 14.5mm Dshka. The Panzerfaust missed. The antitank gunner got chewed up by 14.5mm slugs. The friggin' assistant ran off into the desert sunset. Why would a landser think that his G-36 was an appropriate weapon against a BRDM-2? No one was visible. The vehicle was buttoned up. His buddy, the guy he was the ASSISTANT to, you know, the antitank gunner with his antitank weapon lined up and ready to go, was next to him ready for the kill. All for nought. Is this a hyper-aggressiveness newly created for the Germans? Is it a v1.30 TacAI behavior? Is it a behavior which could be, um, tweaked? I suggest we NOT have rifles fire on armored vehicles which are about to be blown up. Does this sound good? (Savegame available.) Thanks, Ken P.S. I _still_ think that NATO is well worth it and v1.30 is very well done.

Ammo sharing just helped out in the NATO:Alamo battle. I had two ground mounted Milan 3 teams. One had 0 missiles left, the other had 2. In the last second of the turn (WeGo), the 2 missile dropped, inexplicably, to 1 missile. The two teams were in adjacent, or nearly so, tiles. Thinking I'd found a bug, I saved the game. Dreams of free BF.C products danced through my imagination. In the first seconds of the next turn the 0 missile team became a 1 missile team. The benefit was that I now had 2 teams capable of firing, rather than 1, wait for it to reload, then fire again. I did not notice any status change other than the missile icon in the units' information screens. Very slick. Regards, Ken

Has anyone else noticed this? It seems that when my units take a heavy morale hit, such that they are pinned/panicked/routed/etc, so that they are OUT OF COMMAND due to combat results, not command radius, their unit icon gets transparent. Pretty cool. It is a nice adjunct to the flashing icon when casualties are induced. Or, has this always been there and I just never noticed? Thanks, Ken

Ditto on Alamo. I admit to playing it twice already (and second time to, um, "adjust" one of the turns through judicious restart of a savegame ). That is one tough scenario.

(...echoing sound of Erwin slapping forehead...)

Mine has to be the Panzerfaust 3 (the Improved Tandem-warhead, 600 meter range IT-600 variant). That is one impressively fun weapon to watch my pixeltruppen use! Laser rangefinding ballistic computer sight? SWEET! I don't think they could've stuffed any more explosive fun into that engorged warhead. Mayhem ready to let fly! I'm purposely loading up my men with rockets and sending them into insane locations so I can induce more fireworks. Mission objective? Hah! My mission objective is to fire off every PzF reload rocket in my inventory! What have you discovered and why does it register on your fun-meter? Ken

add another kudo... Thanks guys, Ken

Agreed: The command/status should change to read that the vehicle is transferring ammo from stores to ready rack. This will hold true even more so with the larger loadouts with WWII tanks and how rounds were stored all over the hulls. The turret traverse/reload should be AI controlled with player override. Imagine your Bradley taking itself out of the fight at the wrong moment. Something along the lines of the infantry crew served weapons DEPLOY command. ??? Ken

How about a bonus INTEL feature for capturing the enemy? Finding a hidden bunker? Revealing what unit is located in the barn? Etc? (As well as a point bonus, if the designer so chooses.) Ken

Yeah, a lot of fun right out of the box. Yummmm.

Ditto! I noticed those grenades in-game about 15 minutes prior to this thread. Great timing.