c3k

Oh, I'd love to have more ability to LIMIT certain uses of weapons. See my various threads on Bradley coax vice M242 use, sniper team security elements opening fire, Tow missile use, and M1 weapon targeting. I have also tossed out a few squad related threads. For all _my_ desired tweaks (emphasis also on "desired" and "tweaks"), this is a great game system. I'm sure CM:N will be even better. (Part of the fun, kind of, is the angst of having your troops fire off the toy you wanted them to save, or, almost worse, watching the replay and cursing because they DIDN'T use the toy!) Ken

Aye, but he's smart enough NOT to be on the balcony!

Oh, indeed, it must be very complex the way it's modelled. (I think I said that upstream.) I just wish the GAMEPLAY part didn't need to be learned by spilling the virtual-blood of my poor pixel-truppen. (Oh, I can hear their anguished cries from Valhalla!) I've noticed that reinforcements appear out of command, regardless of HQ. (Not exhaustively tested. This may only be true sometimes.) Why, if they marched up together? Keep testing, stoex. Thanks for sharing your discoveries. Ken

I recall hearing (sorry, no source) about an M1 mobility kill due to ZU-23-2 hits penetrating the engine compartment. I can't even recall which highway/urban area. Again, not definitively sourced by me. Ken

A lot of good info here. Thanks.

Indeed, it IS in the manual. I've posted some relevant parts at the end of my post. My point, which I failed to make clearly, is that the game shows chain of command as either red or green (missing or established, respectively). The FORM of the communication with the higher echelon is shown in the User Interface. The UI will show up to 3 of the most effective forms of communication. It shows it by using pictures. The pictures are a big eye, a distant torso, a shouting mouth, a radio, a computer screen, and a pda. Now, I assume a pda will inform a blue unit of distant enemy contacts better than not having a pda. However, I do NOT know if just a pda is BETTER or WORSE than an eyeball. Since I can have 3, maybe an eyeball, a mouth and a torso beats a pda? I don't know. Does a mouth beat a torso? That's where I am confused. I am also confused about what I can do to change my communication status. How close does it take to get an eyeball? How much better, if any, is an eyeball than a mouth? What difference can I see in the game if I try for a mouth instead of a torso? I am not clear how the various icons affect gameplay. I am not clear how I, the player, can CHANGE the various icons. (Pandur just let me know that a red HQ has the ability to gain radio comms if they're in a vehicle. I've played since the game was released and I never noticed that. Nor, frankly, do I know how much that benefits the red player.) None of the objective differences are in the manual. Edited to add: Don't let this sound like I think the game is broken. I only mean to highlight that the manual does not explain a lot of the detailed workings (perhaps on purpose), nor are they immediately apparent to the player. This is part of the steep learning curve. Having the manual explain the workings a bit better would help. I can understand an eyeball beats a radio. But, I could ALSO understand that a radio could beat an eyeball. I could understand that an eyeball has different effective ranges (crop fields, different rooms, etc.). This is a complex game. This particular part of the game is also complex. ***************************************************** 7. Chain of Command - displays the parent formations of the unit. A green icon indicates that the unit is currently in contact, while a red icon indicates that the unit is out of contact. 9. C2 Link - the Command and Control (C2) link shows the available means of communication for the selected unit. Up to three of the most effective methods are shown. There are two primary components of C2: communication methods and control procedures. Each is enhanced by the other, and each is degraded by the other. In practical terms, this means a break in communications reduces the ability for the force to function properly, but good communications don’t matter if the commanders can’t leverage the information to achieve an advantage. As a general rule, US forces have excellent communications equipment and procedures. There is a lot of redundancy, which makes it harder for US units to lose C2. The Syrians, on the other hand, generally have poor-quality equipment, rigid procedures, and very little of both. Their C2 is considered “brittle” even when it is functioning, since it starts out on shaky ground and can only possibly get worse as the battle progresses. This gives the US an inherent advantage, or “force multiplier” in US military speak, since it allows fewer troops to do more things over a wider area, faster, and with greater unity of purpose compared to the Syrians. This should not be surprising since the US military has spent many billions of dollars over many decades to achieve this advantage. C2 methods are divided up into three different groups and displayed in the Unit Info Panel: 82 Combat Mission The methods, from left to right, are: Visual - Eye Contact (LOS, short- and long-distance) Audio - Voice Contact, Radio Contact (differentiated by type) Satellite - FBCB2 (US vehicle only), RPDA (US infantry only) Like any sort of chain, the Chain of Command is only as strong as its weakest C2 link. Having all three methods available to a unit at the same time allows for the best possible results, while having none at all means a break in the Chain of Command. A break means the higher and lower parts of the chain are no longer connected and therefore unable to communicate with each other. This can have disastrous game results. Maintaining C2 Links The more types of C2 links units have, the better chance they have of maintaining connections. Just remember that not all C2 methods are of equal quality. Range is quite important because the farther away units are from each other the greater the chance they will experience breaks in communications. The inherent fragility of the method is also important since some are inherently more robust. All units have the opportunity to establish Eye and Voice Contact, but to do so means keeping units fairly close and in plain sight (LOS) of each other. These are the most reliable, robust forms of C2 possible. Unfortunately, from a tactical standpoint, having units bunched up is generally not a good idea, nor is it even necessarily physically possible. Radio Contact is the most basic technological means of overcoming these problems, however, radios are tricky things to operate effectively as distances increase, and good radios are quite expensive. As a result, the Syrians have few radios at their disposal, while the US have one for every unit. If these methods fail, either due to distance or interference, the Syrians are out of luck, since they don’t have a backup system. The US forces, on the other hand, have two very powerful tools at their disposal: the FBCB2 and the RPDA. The vehicle mounted FBCB2 system is connected, via satellite, to a central computer system that takes input from all the othervehicles with FBCB2. Think of it as a specialized computer connected to the Internet with built in GPS (Blue Force Tracker, aka BFT). Each vehicle with the system is automatically tracked and updated on a digital map shown on all the FBCB2’s screens of all the other vehicles. Therefore, not only does the crew of the vehicle know where it is, but also where all of the other vehicles are. Better still, commanders can enter information about enemy units (type, position, heading, current activity, etc.) so everybody using the system can see the same thing. The other significant feature it has is the ability to “text message” anybody with a FBCB2 system, regardless of where they are in the Chain of Command. This offers a means of communication that is, in some ways, superior to radio contact. Since FBCB2 is satellite-based it is largely immune to the interference factors of Visual and Audio methods. Dismounted units have an RPDA (Ruggedized Personal Digital Assistant) at their disposal. This is basically the same sort of PDA that people carry around with them all over the world, but with the advantage of being extremely tough. The new models of RPDA are, for game purposes, portable versions of FBCB2, with nearly the same capabilities.

Pandur, You bring up some points which, frankly, are beyond my understanding partly due to how your post is phrased, but partly due to my lack of knowledge of red command relationships. Due to the UI, I rarely have any idea whether my actions have any effect on the command status of subordinate units. Sure, every now and then I notice a mouth or an eyeball, but I really don't know if one is better than the other. Neither have I EVER noticed red command being improved if a red HQ is in a vehicle. I commend you for noticing that. Frankly, I assume the game rewards HQ being near to units. I try to keep platoon HQ's near squads, but I have never taken the time to investigate what it means to have platoon HQ's in command with higher HQ. Nor have I taken time to find out what mechanism is needed to make that occur. I would like a better in command status display and a command system where the mechanism is more visible to the player. Say, totally off the cuff, if I click on a red HQ, their command radius is displayed much like an artillery strike zone: a transparent overlay. Additionally, if a command vehicle (or any vehicle) would extend that zone, that the vehicle flash. Or something. Right now I check on the unit's red dot/green dot status and sometimes peruse the weird icons under the suppression meter, but I don't know what the icons MEAN regarding unit abilities (is a PDA better than a little eyeball? Is a big eyeball better than a mouth?), nor do I know how to change the red dots to green (higher HQ comms) or vice versa. Ken

Do my eyes deceive me, or are those transparent magazines modeled in the screenshots? Wouldn't it be cool if they ammo level in each magazine visually changed as the weapon was fired? Just sayin'... It's looking great. Thanks for the update. Ken

Did I just sniff a bone??? Thanks for the info. Ken

Two quick notes: Your inclusion of the 240B team doesn't mean much. You're tossing an orange into a test of apples. Now, it you'd like to see what a 240B team can do, test several (all with the same number of men; some have 3, some have 4). Have one fire off every round of ammo they have. Use the TARGET command until they're empty, even of grenades. Have one team as a standard start loadout. Have a third team load down with every round of 7.62 they can carry. It may take multiple vehicles. Now, test the three teams. (A similar technique should be applied to your rifle squads. Empty one out of all ordnance and ammo. Have one standard. Have a third loud out with every rocket, missile, grenade and 5.56 they can carry.) Second, your test lets them rest when they get tired. Why? Push 'em till they puke, then push 'em some more. The test should show that the loaded units tire more quickly, take longer to recover, and don't cover as much distance. Ken

Shrug; maybe. The difference being the fine-tuned nature of the terrain. Right now do we have trenches in which units can walk upright? Then, when wanted, can they move to the edge and fire from them so that their torsos are not exposed? Narrow creeks or gullies? What started this, to me, was the manner in which the editor places walls in the center of a terrain. That way the elevation on both sides of the wall is the same. If you could vary the terrain height on either side you would gain some model fidelity. As always, there is a cost. The time spent on modifying the code, etc., has been deemed not worthwhile by Steve. That's fine. (Hey, even if it wasn't fine, that's the way it'll be.) Purpose made fortifications? Tell me more... Ken

Okay, (sorry to drag on a topic which Steve has said is closed to changes): 9,10,7,7 : That is NOT a terrace. The 3 meter difference 10 to 7 means a unit on 7 cannot see or fire at a unit at 9. The next example also give a little hummock with that 10 elevation. Neither one achieves what I was trying. I had tried a 2 meter difference, 10,10, 8, 8, with a wall on the first 8. That didn't work. If there were a terrace, the terrain would be 10, 10, terrace, 9, 9. Men at 9 could see and fire on anyone on the 10 level. If fired upon, the men at 9 could HIDE and be totally covered. See: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File%3ABattle%20of%20Wanat.jpg?uselang=en Look just over the helmet of the rightmost soldier: that kind of terrace predominates in the cultivated hillsides common in the Afghanistan valleys. This is minor. The subset of terrain which requires/uses a stepped characteristic versus a slope is quite small. However, they do include sunken lanes, trenches, raised railway beds, firing platforms behind walls, actual terraced terrain, etc. Steve has weighed in on this, so it is up to players to work around it. Regards, Ken

Not really. I started with trying to get 1 meter terraces. A one meter elevation difference will never yield a wall (cover from uphill). A wall will give cover, albeit different than a crest blind spot, but it also will cover the other side of the wall. A terrace would not. Melding that idea into firing platforms such that ___|-- So someone standing on the -- side could see over the wall, |, to the ground, ___, would allow fortifications. Raising the ground side so it was even with the top of the wall allows for trenches. The widths would then allow it all to morph to roads/railroads, sunken or raised. In all, these are only 1-3 meter elevation differences with the requirement that they be steep. Shrug. Ken

Steve, Steve, Steve. It's not a lot of work. I just checked in the editor. All you need to do is move the heavy black wall bar from the MIDDLE of the square over to the EDGE of the square. (Hint: change the thin white font on the edge of the square to a large black font.) Sheesh. Game designers and programmers always try to make you think that this stuff is hard! Thanks for looking in and answering. Ken

Of course, none of this even touches on the differences between nationalities. Units formed from cohesive pre-war communities, rotation policies, replacement training and nurturing, largest unit to which one feels loyalty, etc. Ken

Oh, stop flaunting your betaness! The rest of us must wait for our CM:N goodness... Ken

Yes, the roads do self-level, but not nearly enough to create terraces or trenches; especially with firing platforms along the sides. Sunken roads would be possible with what I'm describing. Currently the sloping algorithm creates cliffs if adjacent elevations are too far apart. What I'm suggesting seems to be more like a user placed cliff. If the user could also specify one or both of the elevations while maintaining a "cliff", that would open up user created trenches and sunken lanes. As well, the ability to create raised roads, would exist. We could even start looking into the world of dykes. Or dikes. Having walls exist at the EDGE of a tile would be a subset of this idea. A user created abrupt elevation edge, be it a wall or a cliff, would be a nice addition to the map editor tools. Ken

Bah! The military promotion system is keyed into parameters FAR beyond the level of this game. For the enlisted, they need to pass specific tests (and of course they have limited windows in which to take these tests), there is time in grade, performance reports, etc. "Oh, you stood watch and fired your weapon? Isn't that what you're _supposed_ to do? More importantly, when was the last time you participated in unit's United Way drive?" Promotions would be a gamey gimmick. As would be medals. Awards are based on several criteria, not least of which is the rank of the individual. (FWIW, a good buddy was in basic training up at Ft. Benning with the 82nd when Panama kicked off. A few days later the platoon sergeant had everyone toss their names into a helmet: the names he pulled out got some sort of medal. The Army had decreed that every unit would get a certain number of medals, regardless of participation. It made it simpler.) In addition to rank, witnesses are important. Is the individual a "good" soldier or is he a "headache"? The U.S. military also seems biased to give medals, not based on mission accomplishment, but rather based on showing humanitarian commitment to your buddy. "Killed a platoon of baddies? Good for you! Extra chow." "Run into a street under intermittent, un-aimed, single shot fire to drag a buddy who twisted his ankle back under cover? What a hero!" (Very sarcastic, and I am writing to illustrate a bias, NOT to attack those who have been under fire and been awarded for their bravery.) Regardless of the merit of either way to give awards, what does that have to do with this game? Most awards take MONTHS to wend their way through the system. And woe betide the individual whose unit CO thought his particular brand of bravery deserved a silver star: the HQ staff exists to sculpt ALL the awards properly. Perhaps that private's silver star would make the major's bronze star a bit lackluster. Tweak the awards as necessary. Anyone who thinks promotions and awards in a game have ANYTHING to do with reality needs to serve in the military for several years. Now, kill stats? Bring 'em! German style close-assault badges? Why don't we have them already? Did I mention kill stats? Regards, Ken

Folks, Just thinking aloud, as it were. Currently walls are placed in the center of a terrain tile. That's dandy for a lot of purposes. However, I was trying to make some terraces and realized that a wall which allowed an abrupt elevation change would be nice; a retaining wall, for example. That would require a wall be placed on the EDGE of the terrain tile. (As well, the underlying elevation algorithm would have to recognize the wall and adjust the sloping function.) Another use would be to create a firing platform behind the wall. Imagine a 2-3 meter tall wall. Behind the wall is terrain 1 meter taller than the rest. Men could stand on the firing platform to gain LOS/LOF over the wall. If they wanted shelter, a crouch (HIDE) or step back would give them the cover of the wall. A buried wall, such that the top of the wall is level with the ground, would thereby replicate a trench (with firing platform, if desired). The crux of this would be the ability to have TWO DIFFERING elevations on EITHER SIDE of the wall. Thoughts? Ken

June 6th, 2011!

Hmmm, this sounds like a familiar issue. If you post this over in the Tech Support forum I'm sure someone with better abilities than I have will come along with a useful suggestion. In the meantime, I suggest using the search feature with "Night Stalkers". Not trying to be snarky: if I remembered/knew what the resolution to this issue was, I'd post it. Good luck! Ken

Interesting. First, I support the idea of the OP regarding the ACQUIRE function. Otherwise, you overload your men. (The only solution is to find a piece of dirt to TARGET LIGHT until the ammo counter is where you want it. ) Secondly, my tests do not confirm what toxic.zen stated. vincere posted his results, above. I ran my tests at least a year ago, perhaps longer. There's a thread about them somewhere. In my tests, it took some time, but there was a difference. It seems that everyone in game can hustle about for a bit. It's what happens AFTER that "bit" that matters. The overloaded units end up with no stamina; their FAST disappears, their recovery time is abnormally long. FWIW, my tests were many versions ago. Something may've changed. However, this is an area that Steve commented upon and BF.C seems to be on top of. I'd run more tests before coming to a conclusion. Regards, Ken

Interesting articles. The danger is, as just posted, assuming that past trends equal future certainties. If I knew I was engaging a force which only had effective small arms engagement ranges up to 200 meters, I'd ensure my weapon and men were effective at 201 meters and break off any fight which closes in. Yeah, easier to do on a whiteboard than in real life, but every decision has a consequence. If, in general, small arms do not contribute anything to the fight (a gross simplification of the argument), why not give every member of the section extra 40mm grenades, LMG ammo, and just a personal side arm? That way the effective weapons (grenade launchers and support weapons, be they LMG's or heavy barrelled rifles) get more ammo. In the recent Iraq fighting, what has the average engagement range been? There's been a lot of door to door action, so that makes it around 10 meters? At some point, it the range dimunition argument needs to stop. Also, a tiny weapon ignores the psychological dimension. It feels good to carry a club to a fight. (Sure, YOU feel good with your club, I'll carry a handgun.) But a weapon with some size and heft adds an intangible level of confidence over one like the MP-7 pictured. (This has NOTHING to do with objective effectiveness; this focuses on operator subjectiveness.) Good stuff, nonetheless. Thanks for the links. Regards, Ken

Looks like it MAY have been purposely disabled by firing after draining the hydraulic recuperator. Check the muzzle even with the gunshield. I don't see any impact damage from incoming HE/AP.

Thanks! Ken