c3k

UPDATE: Gents, I was suffering from the dread white shell casings. Oh, did I say "was"? Indeed, "was". No longer. Nvidia based evga 8800gtx; since I've been running the latest WHQL drivers, v182.06, the shell casings have been correct. Update and see if it works for you. Regards, Ken

Elmar Bijlsma; supposition tested and disproved. For what it's worth, I thought you might've been right. The test: I took a bunch of sniper teams/squads to a local firing range. Both US Army and Marines. (I was unable to get any .50 cal equipped snipers.) They started with SEVERE ammo levels, but there were a dozen or so fully supplied Strykers nearby. I TARGETED some range buildings. I continued until there was not a SINGLE shot in two consecutive WeGo turns. They seemed totally dry. I then took one group of snipers and gave them 3,000 or so rounds of 7.62 ammo (linked, MG ammo as you implied). The other group only got 5.56 ammo. (I had 4 groups total; two each Army(M110) and Marines (M40).) I then TARGETED a building at about 200 meters. (When I chose a target much further away it induced some delay in firing. Plus, no one with a 5.56 weapon would fire at a target at 1,000 meters. The closer target was used to ensure every weapon with ammo would fire at the target.) In all cases the following behavior was displayed; Teams with ONLY 7.62 ammo had ONLY their snipers fire (M110 or M40A3). Teams with ONLY 5.56 ammo had ONLY their M4/M16's fire. This seems to prove that the ammo caliber is sensed/used by the game. I'd like to try the same test with an M82 (.50), but despite choosing over a dozen elite sniper squads I have yet to get one. Any ideas how to get it equipped? Thanks, Ken

Re Steve's example: There are many real life clues to fire origination which are absent in game. For example, the Sherman 1 which he says gets knocked out; is it "rocked" by the hit? Which side took the impact? What flew off? Is there an exit hole? The "crack" of the round? The "whoosh"? All these should give someone whose life is dependent upon these clues a little bit of a guess as to the location of the threat. Of course, sometimes these clues are missed, or absent. However, there is a little more to the equation than Sherman 1 had LOS/LOF to/from the ATG and was knocked out. Sherman 2 had no LOS/LOF, therefore should not know where the ATG is. Thoughts?

Gents, I found an ammo distribution anomoly. Playing the Marines campaign, the Pooh battle: at start forces include a sniper team (M82 .50 cal. equipped). All this occurred in setup phase. I moved the 6 man squad INTO a LAV. I ACQUIRED 1,000 rounds of 7.62 ammo. The ammo bar went full up. I split the squad. The 3 man team with the M40A3 had full 7.62 ammo. The 3 man team with the M82 ended up with a single red bar of 7.62. The 7.62 did not get distributed: the M40A3 team kept almost all of it. Next, I took the 3 man M82 team and loaded them into a LAV. They ACQUIRED 1,000 rounds of 7.62. The ammo bar was full. I placed these men on the ground outside the LAV. Finally, I loaded the M40A3 3 man team into a LAV. I added the M82 section in the LAV. (Remember, both individual teams had FULL 7.62 ammo at this point.) By clicking on ACQUIRE, doing nothing, then clicking on the LAV, I forced the two teams to recombine into a squad. Yes, it had a full 7.62 ammo bar. I put the squad on the ground. I SPLIT TEAMS. Fun stuff: the M40A3 team had a full 7.62 ammo bar; the M82 team was back to its single red bar. Summation: M82 equipped sniper teams are unable to hold onto their 7.62 ammo when sniper squads are split. Question: What ammo does the game assign to the M82? In real life it uses .50 cal. ammo. In game, our choices are 5.56 or 7.62. If it uses 5.56 in game, this may not be bug per se, but the TacAI giving the 7.62 ammo to the weapon that uses it, the M40A3. If so, it seems less than optimal, taking an EXTRA 1,000 rounds; the M40A3 sniper would have over 2,000 rounds for his bolt action rifle. Good hunting! Has anyone else noticed this? Edited to add: the sniper squads with dual M40A3's do not show this behavior; the ammo seems to be split evenly no matter how many recombinings/squad splittings occur. Also, as almost always, savegame available.

I agree with akd's analysis: adding delays to execute target/facing/firing orders at waypoints does not seem to be a viable solution. A delay PRIOR to commencing the very first in a string of movement orders would be practical. The more complex the order, the longer the delay. If I want to create two movement orders to move from A to B to C, I would have two options. On Turn 1 I create a command, "Move to B, Move to C". The delay would be incurred. Or, I could do this: Turn 1 creat a command "Move to B." The delay would be approximately half of the previous. Then, Turn 2, "Move to C". The 1/2 delay would again be incurred. That way the total delay is approximately the same whether I break the move in parts or just do the whole movement. Thoughts?

I don't want to put words in Steve's mouth, but my understanding is that a blanket delay for ANY area fire is out. I think Steve proposed (I do not remember if he even said it was doable!) a delay for area fire ordered against an out of LOS action spot. Drusus suggested a refinement to make the delay in that case only applicable to heavy weapons. Is that your understanding?

This is great news! Thanks for throwing a bone...

Hunter, Thank you and the rest of the team for the time and effort that you and they have put into this. Ken

I think we're talking about the following: Area firing on an OUT OF LOS target. You want to shoot on a clump of bushes (or building) which your unit cannot see. Only then would there be a delay. Once you advance into LOS of the desired area target, your unit would hesitate to fire. If you want to area fire on a building, you can still do so. Either with a delay (as proposed), or advance into LOS and THEN area target it with no delay. No exception required that I can see. The idea proposed by Drusus is to make the area target delay specific to heavy weapons. Edited to add: thewood makes a good point. A lot of times in cmsf, I am able to locate an enemy firing location only through the launch signature. I do not even get a "?" at first. I have lost many vehicles, red and blue, to enemy ATG assets. Perhaps, in WeGo, my ability/proclivity to pause right at impact (when my vehicle is destroyed) and then fly around the field looking for the tell-tale smoke puff should be limited. If I do not have a unit in LOS to the smoke puff, why should I see it? I use that smoke puff as my area target to suppress the ATG unit. My point being, without the smoke, I would have NO idea where the unit was. The smoke appears even without any friendly having LOS (that I am aware of).

"Thunderbolt II", a biography on Creighton Abrams has a revealing anecdote. As COS of the Army, he visited a unit in Germany and was taken to the combat range by the "best" tank crew. They had earned that designation by going through the range and hitting the most targets at the best speed. They showed him how they did it. He was furious. He had them go back to the start and then, instead of zipping pell mell from one target to the next, he told them to imagine a Soviet was trying to kill them. That an RPG launcher was behind each bush and obstacle. He then showed them how they did it in WWII; slowly advancing, shooting up everything in sight with their machineguns. (Creighton Abrams was the tank battalion commander who led Patton's relief of Bastogne in WWII. He knew something about real combat.) Salient points: the profligate use of machinegun fire on possible enemy positions. (Not heavy weapon fire! See Drusus' comment.). Combat experience vs. school solution. Etc. Side comment: "marching fire" was recon by fire by infantry, esposed by US doctrine, and Patton, at least, was a big proponent of it. That's off the top of my head. I think we should differentiate between small arms and other types of weapons when considering the area fire question. Regards, Ken

I think your analysis/example is pretty tight. Option #2 is my preferred option, given the choices. The details would be problematic and cause the most angst. How much a of a delay? How is it based? How variable? Would a quad .50 have the same delay as a Tiger II? (Turret slew rates, visibility, training, experience, comms, command bonus, etc.) Drusus, above, brings up an interesting point; delaying certain weapons may be better than delaying all weapons. Let the exposed commander fire the .50 at the clump of bushes. Hmm, what about coax? If there's no delay on the coax, does allowing the tank the ability to point the turret right at the pak40's location constitute a gamey workaround? If so, what about covered arcs? Would it be gamey to advance with the covered arc centered on the Pak 40's location? Would you try to induce a delay for that? (I hope NOT!). In sum, yeah, a variable delay for area firing on a location out of LOS at the beginning of the turn/movement would balance the equation back in favor of the defender. Ken

YES! Horses in Normandy! Now we just have to have Steve commit to cows. This will be great!

Best tactical use of armor: 1. Plot your moves. Be aggressive with your armor. 2. Save game. 3. Execute orders. Watch which tanks get blown up; where are they when they get hit? Where did the fire come from? 4. Quit game. 5. Load save game. Don't move your vehicles where they just got blown up. Change orders to area fire on anti-tank unit locations. Seriously, play, play play. You will get a feeling for the tempo and distance. You WILL lose assets. That's the nature of the beast. Enjoy, Ken

It depends: these have been hashed before. My prime case against area fire delays involves a squad leader making an astute on-the-spot decision to fire on a likely position. A mandatory delay restricts that reality. Secondary case: unit 1 sees and fires upon enemy in a house. Unit 2 has no LOS to enemy, but sees unit 1's fire on the house (maybe they're in an alley to the side). No Unit 1 to Unit 2 LOS or comms. Yet, unit 2 should immediately be able to join the firefight and light up the house. Your delay eliminates that. Etc. So, your delay idea does not solve the problem. It substitutes another one. But then I don't make these games! Ken

Hmmm, absent Rexford's sorely missed knowledge, I would think the GAU-8's abilities are due to finding weak spots rather than the odd chance of impacting in a previous hit. With the rate of fire, the barrel movement, aircraft vibration, etc., the odds of hitting the same spot twice seem remote. But, spraying a hundred or two rounds of penetrating anti-armor rounds against a tank's engine deck seems a surefire method of destroying the engine and possibly igniting it. There may well be some penetration of the fighting compartment as well. To me, it's the top attack/rear attack aspect coupled with the weight of fire which produces the kills. Regards, Ken

Whoa! So, Steve, reading your last post, does that mean dead horses will be in CM:N? Off to swap recipes.... Ken

Yeah, what he said... I think they (BF.C) are constantly improving the system. As long as our feedback has a channel to the developers, we're in a better position than most game communities. It's obvious that Steve hears our concerns; they may mirror his. Regardless, I'm sure CM:N will be an improvement over CMSF. (CMSF, v1.11, is a MAJOR improvement over CMSF v1.01. So don't take that previous statement to mean I'm denigrating what CMSF represents. Of course, I'm still eager to see the improvements that v1.20 will bring!) Hidden defensive works, if possible, will be a huge leap forward. (Where's Mao when you need a good quote?) Ken

Peter Panzer, No verification yet, but your questions are forcing me to take a much closer look at IED's. The closer I look, the more confused I'm getting... More later. Thanks, Ken

Thanks. Now stop feeling all warm and fuzzy and get back to work figuring out how we can hide our foxholes and trenches in CM:N! Um, just because a bug is found/fixed, will the next patch include it? Oh, when will that be? (Totally transparent attempt to find out when we can see 1.20.) Regards, Ken

D'OH! <forehead smack> Thank you.

Steve, Once again, thanks! Despite my tests, I was unaware of a grenade dampening effect - either intentional or not. For anyone: how do I make a tank "knocked out" at the beginning of a scenario? Thanks, Ken

Steve, Right now when a shell hits the ground, you can look under the map and see the particles falling into the nether-regions. If we have foxholes with men sticking up out of the ground, will we be able to see their legs dangling under the bottom of the maps? Of course, that'd bring a whole new gamey dimension into battlefield recce; just get the "mole camera" into action underneath the map! Thanks, Ken

Lid: is there a difference if a "lid" (or camo net) is terrain based or vehicle based? I know that your reasons for disallowing terrain lids are based on computation workload. But, it seems that that was purely an approach predicated on terrain. Meaning, everything in that approach was a piece of terrain, or a terrain mesh data point. My thought is to get away from making it a terrain item. The lid (camo net) can function like a vehicle insofar as the programming is concerned. Yeah, a vehicle with exceptions and special properties. Right now, if the Blue team has an Abrams on the backside of a hill, I simply cannot see it. If it's on top of a brush tile, all I see is brush. I'm talking about turning that on its head. If the "lid" is on the backside of a hill, all I can see IS the "lid" (camo net). I cannot see the trench underneath. Until, that is, I gain the top of the hill and get LOS to the "lid" then it is ID'ed and disappeared. All the spotting routines would be identical to the current methodology of spotting vehicles. The terrain action spots would not change. Drawback: a gamey player could plot movement points everywhere until he found one that disappeared. So what? Anyway, is it possible to use a "lid" (man, I really like "camo net" better - it gives a more accurate feel), and have it function like a vehicle rather than change the terrain system? Thanks.

Great gadzooks! While we have both Adam and Steve here, um, how about my "Camo Net Vehicle" idea? Yeah, it needs a bit of flesh, but it has this attribute: the terrain mesh is not distorted or changed. Since I posted it an hour or two ago (or 4 pages or so), here it is again: So, the trench is there. The mesh shows the trench. BUT, the "camo net" overlays the trench such that the enemy player can't see the trench. The "camo net" is treated as being visible until such a time as it is spotted. Hence, the vehicle spot routines get used. They just get flipped on their head; once the camo net is in LOS, it disappears. This can be used for bunkers. Bunker get spotted as they are in CMSF; the terrain deformation under them gets the "camo net" treatment. Spot one, spot the other. Or is this all totally impossible? Ken stikkypixie: exactly! It's not a perfect solution, but it would have the effect of HIDING the existing defensive works. If it can be done...

I don't know about flavors, but I've noticed three types: Black: primarily Red forces Brown: self defense smoke grenades by Blue vehicles - IR blocker. White: artillery (Blue?)