c3k

Indeed. Patience is a virtue. Adding to some nonsensical thread which tries to "push" CM:N would not be very productive. Therefore, I add my voice to those whose silence is deafening. Our silence will be the shout which forces BF.C to produce the game when it is ready. Our solidarity shows our individual resolve. Ken

Having thrown several (not many, just several) frag grenades (and some other non-HE types) I am very convinced of their efficacy for disabling combatants - IN THE REAL WORLD. I am NOT convinced that CMSF models them correctly for the game. Emphasis on "the game". Given the tight infantry formations which are unrealistic, the grenades should, IMO (H or otherwise), be nerfed a bit. Ken

When you say "sniper", do you mean "autonomous enemy bullet absorption unit"? If so, I think they work quite well. I move the AEBAU nearby known enemy units. Then, I order them to either HUNT or SLOW towards a position giving LOS to the enemy. Of course, I use FACE or COVERED ARC as well. As soon as they get into a concealed location with LOS, that's when they begin their function. While they're busy absorbing the enemy firepower (which they're quite good at, although limited by the small size of their unit; BF.C, any chance of creating a 13 man sniper squad?). Anyway, while they're absorbing, I use my line infantry (hopefully with short-barrelled weapons) to take the 400 meter head shots. That works for me. Ken

I refuse to be a party to any thread which discusses the waiting for CM:N. Ken

Gents, I'm having a nasty close quarters fight in some dense woods against a dug-in enemy. Their grenades are absolutely gutting my men. (Um, literally.) Here's my understanding: CMSF has men bunched up a bit more than would be realistic. There's NOWHERE near 5-10 meters between men. Instead, the members of a team are usually cheek by jowl. That's fine. I'm told that artillery and small arms are nerfed a little bit to make up for that crowding. Hey, that makes sense. Yet, hand grenades are volleyed; you don't get one, you get a dozen incoming. They are more deadly than air support. I have lost count of how many times a single grenade takes out 4 of my men. So, are grenades too effective in the game? Thanks, Ken

Remember that HUNT is really MOVE SLOWLY WHILE UPRIGHT UNTIL FIRED UPON THEN FREEZE. With that in mind, QUICK with ordered pauses and covered arcs is much more useful in MOUT. Good luck.

Moon, First, just to assuage any hurt feelings, have I mentioned that you make good games? (Whew, don't want the designer to sulk!!!) I have not re-read the briefing. What I remember is that I have 3 objectives; first, and most importantly, NOT to be seen. You even hint/state to use restricted cover arcs to prevent opening fire on the enemy. The next objective is to gain the OP's in order to ascertain the enemy's dispositions prior to the next battle. That tells me, and apparently others, that the terrain objective will lead to gaining the intel. In short, if I get my men into the designated spotting positions (gaining the OP victory locations), I will be rewarded with intel for the next battle. Obviously, that's not what you meant. Shrug. As you state, even a "little" victory is all that's needed to move the narrative forward. I think the need to ID enemy units DURING the battle, and NOT necessarily getting to the OP's, could've been communicuted to the player more clearly. For what it's worth, you battle concept opens up a huge opportunity for scenario designers. Infiltrate to x positions. If, say, 1/2 or fewer of x positions are gained (due to victory point determination) or you are spotted (high points to enemy for your casualties), then the next battle starts with you having limited, if any, intel and the enemy is in prepared positions with reinforcements. However, if you gain over 1/2 x positions with no casualties (successful infiltration to good OP's), you start the next battle with a much higher intel percentage. (Adjust enemy's readiness level accordingly.) That's a huge benefit. Your design shows how to expand the envelope in that manner. Thanks, Ken

********SPOILERS************ I regard this one as unwinnable. The briefed sniper observation points are too far away to get to in the time given. I played through twice. Playing WeGo, with plenty of saves and mid-game restarts, I actually bettered/cheated on one of the plays. I split my men up into as many units as possible. I plotted the best way to get one group to each observation point, allowing some groups to "touch" a nearer observation point on the way to the next one. There are not enough groups to cover each observation point. There is not enough time to get to the furthest observation point. Avoiding ANY casualties, and occupying as many observation points as is physically possible gets either a draw or a minor/tactical victory. I _think_ the briefing is one of those "cutesy" we'll tell you one objective, but grade you on another. I _think_ the real objective is to identify enemy units, NOT gain the OP's. So, you're not infiltrating, you're actually observing. After cheating my way to fulfill the briefed objectives and still not gaining a total victory, this gets tossed in my "broken" file. In that one, I withheld fire, did not engage any enemy, and touched or occupied all but 2 of the OPs. Ken

stoex and TheVulture: well done! Thank you both for taking the time to use illustrations to show this issue. I hope BF.C takes note. Ken

Ryujin has it about right. At setup grab as much gear as you want to burden your troops with, then immediately dismount. Hide the AAV's behind some cover... 300 meters to the nearest enemy should be considered "danger close". Ken

Yes, but is the flammability of thatched roofed houses correctly modelled? THAT is the only question...

Huh! I was able to only get a minor victory (if that!). I don't think it's physically possible to QUICK your teams to each of the CP's; only a few are in range given the time limits. Ken

A bit of a change in the movement commands may help. Here are my suggestions: OLD - NEW Fast - Regular Quick - Moonwalk Move - Saunter Slow - Grovel in the mud for 5 meters and exhaust yourself Hunt - Saunter until fired upon then freeze (because the T. Rex can only see motion) This is what gets me through the worst of it. Okay, c'mon! A bit of pointed humor, perhaps, but meant with the best of intentions. Ken

Thomm, Glad to be of service! (Of note, in one of the books I'm currently reading, there are multiple eyewitness accounts of WWI infantry leaping across trenches, despite over 60 pounds of gear in their rucks. A tight, narrow trench is a good trench.) Regards, Ken

Hours away from Ft. Bragg. (Although, I have visited - Pope - many a time. Lots of nights in Fayet-nam.) I'm out west, a small town between Winston and Charlotte. Thanks for recognizing the tongue in cheek comment I posted. (Sometimes there's a wee bit too much sensitivity.) Ken

Of course, tanks are designed specifically to go OVER trenches. That would be a must-have. Then, to counter the tanks, we'd need specific anti-tank ditches. Ken

Ah, but simulating CAS is beyond the scope of this game. On the other hand, simulating the fickleness of Zeus hurling thunderbolts upon your opponents is very much simulated: it's called "Air Support". Much like invoking a god's wrath, your wishes and desires are "interpreted". How the god responds, if at all, is up to his whim. Be grateful you're not turned into an insignificant insect for the hubris of even thinking a god will do your bidding. (Okay, search under my user name for "GUI", "User Interface", and "Air Support". BF.C has left a LOT of room for improvement... Ken

Steve, Thanks for the information. Ken

Very true. Time and motivation are the key...

Being in the midst of totally reformatting one of my computers, I find that I value purchased disks even more than I did before. A copied digital key is fine...if you zapped copies onto other computers. A disk will always be there for you.

Thank you, CPT Mike, for stating this!! I have wanted something like this for a while. I despise gaining the objective with over an hour left in a scenario, then having to wait for the scenario to end. This would be a great boost to the game. Ken

hcrof, Trees and shrubberies giving too much cover has been addressed. See my Entmoot thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74625&highlight=trees I believe v1.21 corrected some of that behavior. Ahh, here it is.... Terrain •Roads are smoother when traversing rough ground or steep slopes. •Large rocks (flavor objects) are more of a deterrent to navigate over. •Flavor objects tilt to fit slopes when necessary. •Trees are less resistant to damage from heavy artillery. So, that does NOT show a correction to HE fired from vehicles. Nor does it address heavy machingun/autocannon rounds. Shrug. Hopefully CM:N will have trees and shrubberies which are much more easily destroyed. (I'd love to be able to have a platoon of halftracks shred a small copse of trees with their .50's, leaves and branches flying, gradually increasing their LOS deeper into the woods.) Ken

It's been reported earlier: if you call in SMOKE, it magically changes ALL rounds available into SMOKE rounds. The reverse is not true: if you have some SMOKE rounds, but call in HE strikes, the HE will continue until depleted, but you will still have your SMOKE rounds left. I haven't heard of any fixes. Ken

Will it become possible to fire INTO areas without LOS? If I see smoke billowing up, will my CM:N men be able to shoot through it? Obviously accuracy would be poor - to non-existant. Thanks, Ken

Lanzfeld, I know exactly what you're talking about. The flurry of grenades from the "stack up" point outside the building tend to sail over the top of the building. If it is a single level building, many, if not all, of the grenades explode on the roof. The troops ignore the windows. I would LIKE to see Target Light into a building from the adjacent action spot create the ability of troops to use the windows to fire and throw grenades into the building. Yes, this is a shortcoming. I do not know if this also occurs with multi-level buildings. Ken