c3k

Gents, Something I noted while playing one of the UK scenarios: I'd set my 2 sniper teams in the upper floors of two buildings. (Yeah, they used the friggin' balconies - they won't last long.) Anyway, one of the teams spotted some Syrians on a rooftop with a grenade launcher. The range was approximately 400+ meters. The sniper fired once with his rifle, then switched to his L85. There were more Syrians left. There were no other closer Syrians. This may be similar: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88322&highlight=sniper Savegame available. My recollection of the event may not be perfect...but I only noted it because I'd read something similar here. I don't know if the sniper algorithm should be tweaked or not. Should a sniper use his long-range gun for targets at 400 meters? Thanks, Ken

Hukka, Welcome! This game is VERY good. Try it in WeGo and post back here with your thoughts. WeGo alone may be the way to play which will best appeal to your preferences. Regards, Ken

I'm firmly in the category of needing to learn how to use these things. In my last go, the only Scimitar which survived the first 20 minutes of battle was the one which bogged down in a ravine. Otherwise, I seem to be particularly adept at using them as burning markers denoting enemy fire zones. Ken

Steve, Thanks for the info!! Ken

More trucks would be cool. Convoys would be nice. Ken

As stated, with the addition of the highlighted movement squares, coupled with a careful direction of approach and speed of approach, finalized with a facing command, these types of actions have just about disappeared from my gameplay. In fact, I really can't remember the last time I had a guy do something THAT bad. Of course, it could be explained by Jenkins' sudden desire to get to a better position "over there" and he did not undertake a proper risk analysis or wait for section leader approval. At least, you can be confident he won't do it again. Regards, Ken

Might I suggest that you peruse this thread? http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74625&highlight=tree Enjoy!! (And, please, note the date. At this point, v1.20, I am VERY happy with this game. There is room for improvement, but it plays very well and pulls me in for far longer than I want!) Regards, Ken

Wiggum, As you've discovered, the User Interface (UI) for support has a lot of room for improvement. The number 2 does, indeed, mean 2 cannons. The symbol to the right of the cannon is the reaction time... From a bold green "+" down to a bold red "x". Try different units to see which unit has the best reaction time. (Actually, that may be more accurately called "access". Meaning, it has the ability to call up the chain of command to the support unit. In the game, better access gives shorter reaction times.) NO ONE knows what the green dots mean!! Yeah, the manual says it's reaction time, but obviously, the icon next to the number really shows that. If you just used that support unit, the green dots will be replaced by red. It's confusing, it's not explained well, and it doesn't seem to show useful information. Someone else may help. The bar graph (circled in pink) shows two types of ammo. The left graph shows High Explosive. The right graph (with two bars in picture) shows smoke shells. Air strikes are more difficult to interpret. It SEEMS that the availability of a mission (Heavy, Medium, or Light) depends on ammo. The bar graphs seem to depict Heavy, Medium, and Light ammo in order from right to left. No one really knows what weapons they represent. The best thing is to set up a test scenario and play around a bit. (Or use a savegame.) Good luck! Ken

Somewhat relevant... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83192&highlight=air+support

Let's not forget this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86297&highlight=air+support

Wiggum, I'm here to help... Here is how you can figure out your artillery and air support options: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84222&highlight=interface Good luck!! Regards, Ken

A couple of relevant threads.... http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83949&highlight=interface http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=86401&highlight=interface There are more. Thanks, Ken

I thought it would be nice if "someone" would give this thread a bit of a BUMP... Thanks, Ken (Looking forward to sorting my scenarios at Christmas.)

+1. Looks very impressive. Ken

Ah, I disagree: WeGo is OBVIOUSLY the dominant mode. I only play Real Time at home, amongst my home network, with VERY small battles. The meaty stuff gets done WeGo style. Ken

The best thing with kill stats over a campaign is the underlying ability to track an individual unit through the campaign. By obvious extension, that also means that a unit's actions through a battle will be tracked as well. This opens up many possibilities. The gaining of experience is one of them. (As is increasing shell shock, battle shyness, etc.) Ken

Ahh, "...planned for more than a year..."? Well, I was going to post this TWO years ago!!! Point to me. Just glad to hear you're working it. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, a VAST amount of the pleasure I enjoyed while playing CMx1 revolved around QB's. I highly valued the ability to pick any force I wanted. As much as I valued having my opponent do the same. Sometimes it led to totally one-sided actions. Hey, that was fun, but we usually just restarted. A techie version of rock, paper, scissors. Limiting choices to parent formations and subordinated attachments would remove that element of joy. My .02 Ken

I agree with a lot of the sentiments here: the current campaign system seems to have a lot of possibilities (which aren't being fully utilized) and it also has a lot of room for improvement. To me, the single greatest missing element is that I feel NO attachment to the units I command in a campaign. I mean, the force is so different from one battle to another, that it just feels like a string of battles with no relation to one another. To increase my emotional connection to my troops, I'd like to SEE which ones I've been commanding in previous battles. That information is available, but, frankly, I don't bother writing down that 1st squad of 2nd platoon of 3rd company of 4 battalion was in the previous battle. There's too much minutia. And too many units. Instead, I'd LOVE to have a visceral, visual piece of feedback. Like this... Every time a unit (squad/team, individual vehicle) has been in a previous battle, it gains a star (or a bar, or a dot, or some OTHER simple visual counting icon). This symbol is shown somewhere on the unit interface. That way, when I click on a squad, if I see 5 bars, and it's down 2 members, I can say, "Wow! These guys are my veterans. I'm gonna see if I can keep them alive. They've earned a bit." (5 bars means it's survived 5 previous battles. This would be their 6th combat in the campaign.) Notice that I'm not talking about increasing experience, or battle-hardness or anything else. I'm not advocating changing the unit's abilities. Just adding a visual indicator to show me that I've played with these pieces (fought with these men?) in earlier battles. That'd be a better emotional tie-in. Pull me in!! Don't keep me distant... Thanks, Ken

This is EXCELLENT news! Regards, Ken

BF.C, I don't know whether you guys tweaked the TacAI a lot, but my men are certainly acting MUCH better. Yeah, yeah, they're saddled with me telling them what to do, but now, when I tell them to QUICK across a street which I think is clear, but isn't, they do the right thing. As soon as the first rounds hit, they stop by nearby cover (vehicle and wall), return fire until the enemy is suppressed, then resume the movement order. Nicely done! In a similar manner, my Challengers are more prone to ignore my COVERED ARCS when an enemy is spotted. (Of course, the charred remnants of three Challengers right next to them may give them cause to question ANY order I give, but still, well done!) Thanks, Ken

I loved the "cherry picking" in CMx1. I never got into the 80mm armor vs. early Soviet 76mm guns so I would be invulnerable kind of stuff. Instead, like it was stated above, I enjoyed the angst of trying to compose a balanced force with one or two "game changers" which wouldn't cripple me. I can't see how you could purchase units like that and NOT have points. In the same vein, if we're limited to "forces" (pre-made up of individual units), how can you purchase balanced forces if there are no points with which to assign them a value? If you do assign a value to a force, why not to a smaller force, down to assigning a value to the individual squad/gun/tank? Regardless, I HOPE that BF.C continues to listen... Improving QB would be fantastic. Thanks, Ken

Earl Grey, well done!

Sure, look at the book "Thunder Run". Names escape me and I'm a bit busy (or lazy?) to run down and find my copy. However, the armored unit's top E, an E-8 or E-9, is pictured in the act of performing the epitome of his role. He's standing at the rear of a tank firing his M-16/M-4 across the engine deck of a stopped Abrams at close-in enemy. While he's doing this, a junior E is kneeling behind him wrapping a field dressing around the E-9's bullet-holed leg. Pure testosterone fueled warrior example to his men in the midst of combat. The picture is worth a thousand words... Perhaps not what you're looking for? Regards, Ken

Gents, I've done a LOT of research in this area. Amazingly, BF.C got it exactly right with CMBO regarding which tanks fought against the US. There was only one! It was the famous "Panzer 808". You may continue...