c3k

Hmmm, MY understanding is fuzing: Personnel=airbust; general=contact; armor=delay. So, for destroying units IN buildings, armor is the better selection. I was told this on a previous thread, I really don't have horse in this race. Ken

Steve, Thanks for the update on the surrender coding. That sounds like a good compromise. (Not that I could suggest a better idea!) Right now, units under fire who rout get a "!" icon overhead. Likewise wounded get a "+". I assume there would be some symbology present for surrendering troops. (Otherwise, how would the capturing player know that they've surrendered?) What symbol are you guys thinking of to convey this? Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, but when you're surrounded and out of supply, just try to EAT your truck. Now let's see which army is smarter... Ken

Ditto, thanks for providing a fix... Ken

Not to insult anyone here, but if you really were a GOOD AI programmer, you'd already have programmed an AI to do your day job for you, thus freeing up your time to work for BF.C. Ipso facto, anyone actually WORKING as an AI programmer really can't be all that good. Ken

Thanks for the screenies and the update. Ken

One way: have the one man take a round for the team. Have the 3 man team perform buddy aid. They should grab his ammo when they're done. It's hard decisions like that which make being a commander so difficult. ( Pity the commander; that bastard taking the round got off easy! ) Ken

+1 to allowing the player's computer to determine maximum draw distance for ALL terrain types. Woods and trees are only one facet of this issue. Roads are another. Ken

To zwobot, from the BBC article linked above: "Developed by Crye Precision, MTP is developed from the firm's MultiCam pattern, currently used by some special forces units. " Spot on with the ID. (Okay, a poor pun... ) Ken

I have an image of a bunch of the AQ huddled around a laptop at a table near a marketplace. As they're hacking the datastream they recognize the very same marketplace they're sitting in. Finally, as the image zooms in on them, they all turn around and stare upwards, smiling and waving, mouthing "Hi, Mom!" Kind of like football fans when they see themselves on the big screen. It could be arrogance; it could be cost cutting; it could be ignorance. Or, it could be a pre-planned method of infesting the hacker's networks with a cleverly designed trojan. Or not. Ken

Remember, some helicopters with NO ammo can still strafe; for some indeterminate number of passes. It's the lightning of the gods. Don't try to understand; just be glad they sometimes come when you call. Ken

What type of ordance? Why, just look at the user interface: they carry 40mm grenades. Sheesh, that was easy. Next question please. That is the gist of the complaint about the user interface regarding air support. Oh, the other part is, "which column of 40mm grenades stand for which type of attack?" Ken

Only useful for units which have dedicated smoke shells for their weapons. As far as I know, that is limited to British platoon HQ's with their 51mm mortar if it has smoke ammo left, and the Challenger with the same ammo requirement. Fire up the editor and grab some of each. See if that is what you're looking for. Ken

I disagree. Minefields can be located using today's technology through a variety of remote methods. IR imaging can show underground mines. There is a temperature differential between undisturbed earth and buried items (shallow, ~12" depth or less). Ground penetrating radar reveals mines. Photo recce shows units burying mines. Intel reveals minefields; map data being transferred through a military chain of command is vulnerable to intercept. There are, no doubt, more methods. Ken

Beyond the engineering, a simple solution would be an explanation of what the frick is going on when the engineers "Mark Mines". And, more importantly, what has happened AFTER they've "Marked Mines". What does the yellow sign mean? Can I move _through_ that action spot? Can I only enter it? If I can move into or through it, am I constrained to only one path? Can I only enter it from one direction? If there is a safe path, can we have it marked with white outlines? That would make it look similar to path tape being laid on the ground. Is the yellow mine field safe for infantry AND vehicles, or only one or the other? Ken

souldiez' post is THE definitive article encompassing mine clearing operations. What he has described is exactly how it usually works for me. Ken

Well, for that matter, granite is radioactive. And if we're being pedantic, we could include bananas; each one contains enough radioactive potassium to give the eater a 1 millirem dose. DU is a heavy metal. Any heavy metal which is ingested is bad. That's why we don't like mercury in our fish. Ken

Toss a hearty "+1" on this heap o'love from me. Yeah, I've got a lot of threads hereabouts; they're ALL meant to help (or get a laugh). Hats off to BF.C and all they've accomplished. Thanks guys. Ken

The 120mm gun system sounds like a breech loading mortar to me. That actually sounds better than the 105mm MGS Stryker; no recoil problems, more ammo, much better HE effect. The drawback is you lose some penetratrion, which shouldn't be an issue for an infantry support vehicle. Javelins are there for the enemy tanks; the 105mm needs a lucky break regarding target aspect to expect a kill vs. modern Soviet tanks. So, all the 105 can offer over a breech loading 120mm mortar is a bit of bunker penetration. Ken

A tweak I've been hoping for (but will most likely never see) would be to make the color of the various movement options actually match up between vehicles and infantry. For example, slow for infantry may be 1 m/s whereas slow for a tank may be 5 m/s. This makes it difficult to coordinate movement. In my dream world, the color of the movement option would represent how fast the unit goes in absolute terms, not the speed capability of the unit in relative terms. Using the color spectrum from red to violet to represent speeds from slow to fast would be my idea. If green= 2m/s, for example, that would be the color of the "MOVE" button for infantry, but it would be the color of the "SLOW" button for a tank. That way I can KNOW that if the two units start in close proximity and I give them their respective orders, they'll stay in pretty close proximity throughout the turn. It cannot be implemented easily due to the manner in which movement orders affect the combat stance of infantry. Right now, MOVE is more like a chow hall saunter. If you used MOVE in an area near the enemy, you're asking for your men to die. Less spotting, no use of cover, etc. It is not just a speed selection. FWIW, Ken From here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=72973 back 2 years ago in September of 07...

I demand the BTR-4 be included in the next patch. This game is, wait for it,... fundamentally flawed, without it! Okay, all kidding aside, that thing's weaponry LOOKS pretty damn serious. CMSF2? Ken

Nice post, nice test. I can only answer the RPG rocket question: yes, you can pick up rockets for the RPG during buddy aid. Ken

However, be aware that vehicles can squeeze through gaps between buildings and walls which are visually FAR too narrow for the vehicle. I'm not sure how small it can be, but I've seen British Warrior IFV's get through gaps approximately 4' wide (obviously a rough estimate). Then it's hell getting them out of the walled in area back through the gap. The best way to do this is place a destination waypoint in a nearly enclosed courtyard. Let the TacAI get the vehicle there. Ken

Dietrich, nice link. Of course, I looked at it as US war-fighting propaganda of the, "don't worry about their MG42's, men. Here's an easy way around them. Hah! They use too much ammo and have to change their barrels" sort. It seems a combination of information, pychological shoring up, and tactical tips. IMvHO, I think MG's in CMSF are undermodelled. In some cases, they're too accurate. Burst after burst hits the same spot (or two). The unspotted enemy between or near the impacts may take a (slight) morale/pin decrement, but remains safe from the bullets. The concept of sweeping fire is absent, as is dispersion. There may be reasons for this effect; see the above comments about squads being unrealistically bunched together. Ken

Steve, I guess this means you linked to this from my response to the OTHER thread... Glad this is being looked at. Thanks, Ken