c3k

Expanding on what I meant from above... Given that the terrain mesh must be identical for both sides and trenches, etc., deform the terrain mesh, why not approach the task of hiding the trench from a different direction? The terrain mesh cannot be changed. Instead of messing with terrain, ADD a unit. I was thinking more in line of a type of camo netting. A camo net which smoothly covers the underlying tile. Call the camo net a "vehicle" for in-game purposes, or for this thought experiment. The difference is that the spotting rules would be reversed. As long as the "camo net vehicle" is NOT in LOS, it is visible. It, in effect, hides the underlying terrain mesh. Once a friendly unit gets LOS to the enemy "camo net vehicle" it becomes UNSPOTTED; it evaporates. Permanently. Sure there are problems there; floating icons being the most obvious. My point being, don't try to change the terrain mesh, just try to hide it from view. Use a non-terrain based methodology. Thoughts? Ken

Steve, Thanks. How do you make a vehicle Knocked Out in the editor? I've just tried to do that, but I must be missing something. Thanks, Ken

Played Abu Suseh (sp?) LAN style. That's how I learned how to use IED's. Playing it solo, vs. Red, I learned how devastating IED's can be. The manual has some info on them. They need operators. They're not mines. So, without seeing what you're seeing, two thoughts come to mind: One, you've killed or disabled the IED operator (perhaps out of LOS); Two, the scenario designer did not give the IED operator the correct orders or placement. So, designer missed or your specific gameplaying disabled them. Am I close? Thanks, Ken

Why not have a "vehicle" which is a flat square, oh, say about 8m x 8m, immobile, and very flat? With different skins, VERY close to the terrain skins... And the "vehicle" can park on top of the existing mesh. When LOS exists to the "vehicle" it, err, disappears. No mesh-messing; just vehicle modding...

Okay, instead of waiting for Steve, I ran a quick test. I got a squad each of Red and Blue. I placed some Red vehicles in the way. Oh, this is what it looked like: :) Sure enough, as advertised, it was one way. Now, don't get all upset... Steve has explained his reasons before. Search 'em. I actually support those reasons. For those of you who have any remaining angst over this, take a gooood look at that picture. I had to use the scenario editor 3 times to get this to work. With just one tank in the way, Blue was able to inflict casualties and pin the Reds (Blue still took hits.) I had to pen up the Blue until the tanks were empty and the crews corralled safely. I mean, does anyone think a situation like this is really going to happen? I'm posting this to stop the inevitable whining about how unrealistic one-way LOF is and show how specifically the situation needs to be tweaked in order to make it a factor. Plus, it was fun... Thanks, Ken

I'll kick this into a new thread.... (Edited to NOT do that. Steve just posted, above, with an explanation. He and I crossposted.) Edited to add this: Steve, I've seen fire bounce off vehicles. Without running a test to verify, my memory tells me it was small arms ricocheting off enemy vehicles. You've given a cogent reason why that happens; LOS is NOT blocked by vehicles, but LOF MAY be. Hence, my men SEE an enemy and fire everything they have in a fruitless attempt to hit them. No problem, no gripe: your reasonings for that seem quite sound. Do you know if blocking fire can only affect friendly fire? Given the situation where "B" is a Blue squad, "T" is a Red Tank, and "R" is a Red squad; B---T---R B can see R, opens fire, but every round is blocked by the hunk of iron which is T. That is my understanding of the system. Am I correct? Now, can R see B? If so, is the fire from R blocked by friendly vehicle T? Or, is this a rare case of one-way LOF? (I'm not trying to open a can of worms.... Just curious.) Likewise, if we replace squads with tanks, would a Red Tank, "R", be able to fire through friendly Red Tank "T" to hit Blue Tank "B"? Thanks, Ken

Adam, I did just that. I'm 152% sure it does. Abrams area TARGET, move my infantry into the impace zone. Red circles. Now, the blast/fragmentation effect caused far fewer casualties than I would've thought, but I did take casualties from 120 HEAT. No casualties from machinegun fire. Bradley 25mm autocannon firing HE-I caused NO casualties. That surprised me. I actually had my men running back and forth through the impact zone of 3 Bradleys firing their cannon. No casualties. An oddity: I placed an Abrams, a Bradley, and a Squad like this: A --->S->B---X The Abrams, "A", fired at "X". Area TARGET. Several shells impacted X such that the ONLY WAY they could've gotten there was THROUGH Bradley "B". (My goal was to force a friendly fire incident on the Bradley and see if that caused casualties to the squad which was right where the impact would be.) NOTHING HAPPENED: THE ABRAMS SHELLS PASSED HARMLESSLY THROUGH THE BRADLEY. I know small arms fire is affected by, at least, enemy vehicles. This bears more testing... Regards, Ken

Gents, I've just checked and the mediafire links are working. Let me know if you cannot get the file. If that's the case (unable to download), let me know another hosting site. Thanks for the interest/support. Regards, Ken

Quite simply, if I can't hear the "ting" as a Garand ammo clip springs out, the game will be totally ruined. Totally! How could you expect me to use realistic German tactics if I can't hear the Ami's running out of ammo? Oh, and you'd BETTER allow me to play as the Americans and let me have a player order that says "drop an extra ammo clip so the German THINKS you're out of ammo". Or else the game will be ruined! Seriously, thanks for keeping us engaged with what's going on. Regards, Ken

flamingknives; zip and email not possible. At almost 32meg, it's too big. If the file is still unaccessible on mediafire, I'm open to uploading to another hosting site. Any suggestions? Lethaface; upstream I have a quote and a link with savegames to this same thing in v1.10 - twice. Others have posted about this (JP76er?) in the thread I linked which directs you to the CMSF Tech Support forum. Ken

Flamingknives: I'll upload another copy. It (mediafire) shows me my file, but when I tried to download it, it said that there was no server available to host it or something. Right now I have another window open and I'm in the midst of the upload. It's 31.98mb; I'll post a new link when it's up. Elmar Bijlsma: yeah, the consistency is odd. If, say, a truck in the game would occasionally veer hard right, I could accept one of two explanations. Either it's a bug, or BF.C has simulated the known, but rare, condition where the Oshkosh manufactured differential siezes up due to the wrong weight of oil and that always results in a hard right turn. In the same vein, if Javelins have a failure mode which is being simulated, just let us know. Ahhh, the upload is ready. I copied and renamed the file "Bug - Javelin 2.bts" and the mediafile upload applet informed me, after 15 minutes of upload, that the file is already in my account. So much for renaming it. However, it gave me a different link for sharing. Here it is: http://www.mediafire.com/?sharekey=96e7cad887274d5dab1eab3e9fa335caa50a47fa2b8fc191 Let me know if that works. Have you tried the ones from v1.10? Just the download would be helpful, even if it may not work under v1.11. (edited to add: the above link goes directly to my mediafire CM folder. It has 5 files in it. The "Bug - Javelin Misfire.bts" file is the one containing the replay.) Thanks, Ken This link is STILL being shown... http://www.mediafire.com/?z2qzmyimydm

Elmar Bijlsma, It is rare for me. I initially ignored it, except that in v1.10 it happened 3 times in the same scenario. Then, weeks later, someone posted about it, and it was VERY similar to my examples. That got me sensitized to it. Like you said, it is very rare, but it is too consistent in the way it is wrong for it to seem correct. That said, I am open to the fact that this may be some purposeful simulation of a known Javelin error. Or it's a game bug. Ken

flamingknives, We may've just cross posted. Look upstream a couple of posts - just after your previous. Let me know if you're using the updated links. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, just checked Mediafire and both sets of files have the same sharing options. Here they are again: http://www.mediafire.com/?zeczgmcn00d http://www.mediafire.com/?z2qzmyimydm (I notice that the above links are different from the ones upstream; neither have the "/Bug" added on. That seems to be an artifact of trying to link to the object AND have its title. The proper file names were "Bug - Javelin..." The mediafire link with title seems to've appended the "Bug" part as part of the file. Sorry; I didn't proof it.) Ken P.S. Looking at the links for the v1.10 errors, the same problem seems to've occurred. The filename got melded into the link, making the link invalid. Here are the correct links; http://www.mediafire.com/?irwyxz2tln2 http://www.mediafire.com/?ymczmmnhda0

Gents, Here is more information. (Flamingknives, I've posted links to the two files in question at the bottom of this posting. As well, I've posted links to a previous iteration of this issue in the body, below.) This is from October 3rd, 2008, in this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84056 Note the two files embedded: they should still be available. They were v1.10. Maybe they can be loaded/run in v1.11. Maybe a BF.C/Beta Tester member has v1.10 available to run error checks. If so, here they again: http://www.mediafire.com/file/irwyxz2tln2/USMC Blues For Allah jav misfire.bts http://www.mediafire.com/file/ymczmmnhda0/USMC Blues For Allah 012B jave malf again.bts As to the latest one, which I've posted pictures of upstream, I've just uploaded them. They are available at mediafire.com. They are each about 30 mb. One is the replay; it is titled "Bug - Javeline Misfire". The other is the immediately previous command phase; it is titled "Bug - Javelin Misfire, Orders Phase". Here are the links: http://www.mediafire.com/file/z2qzmyimydm/Bug - Javelin Misfire.bts http://www.mediafire.com/file/zeczgmcn00d/Bug - Javelin Misfire, Orders Phase.bts Both of the above are from the USMC campaign, "Semper Fi, Syria!", the second battle; v1.11. Thanks, Ken

Chainsaw, Thanks. I've got the replay and the missile definitely gains altitude above the target line before dropping down. That does not mean that your observation is wrong; you may very well be right on, however, my team fired a second missile which worked. So, any drop below the target line error is not consistent. I concur that in that I have not seen it in top attack mode. Anyone else? Thanks, Ken

This page, http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/ac/equip/gau-8.htm gives a penetration of 38mm at 1,000 meters. 69mm at 500 meters. 244,775 Joules Muzzle Energy (430 gram API round, 1067 m/s muzzle velocity). 240KJ is nice. (The M1's M256 cannon firing the M829A1 round has the following characteristics: Muzzle velocity of 1680 m/s; penetrator mass 8.165 kg. This yields a muzzle energy of 11,522,448 Joules; 47 times more energetic than the GAU 8 API round. (Note that the improved M829A3 penetrator should be in service and has better penetration/high velocity). ) These websites were also useful. The second is a paper on a non-DU penetrator. (Note that the radiation effects, decay, and other concerns regarding DU are totally non-scientific. The effects due to metal exposure, such as would be gained by breathing lead vapor from standard firearms, is a different issue. Any metallic vapor inhalation is harmful. The radiological nonsense is repeated verbatim in many websites. It seems to be cut and paste time. (Please note the dosage obtained from eating a banana compared to handling DU.)) http://www.economicexpert.com/a/GAU:8.htm http://www.dtic.mil/ndia/2001gun/Tasson2.pdf

Perhaps the ANGLE doesn't matter (as measured from ground to air). An angle of 3-10 degrees may be all a low level A-10 can gain between pop-up and run-in. However, the FACING of the enemy tank should matter...significantly. A low-level run against the front of an MBT should only inflict secondary damage; targeting, optics, etc. There should be little to no chance of penetrating the frontal armor. If the ANGLE of the run-in is changed (meaning the facing of the tank the A-10 fires upon) then there should be a much better chance of damaging/destroying the target. Runs against the REAR should be an almost sure thing. Surprisingly, one would think an orbiting A-10 which spots a target would actually manuever to achieve that goal. As well, a spotter calling in an A-10 would possible relay that information. A while back I asked about being able to specify the Air Support axis by using the same system that Artillery uses to specify a Linear Target. Shrug. Regards, Ken

hcrof, You are correct! That is a lesson my little men often shout back at me; "Stop shooting over our heads!" I will sometimes ignore their feeble little pleas. Sure, when they're hiding near some trees and my tank fires HE ahead of them, sometimes the shell explodes against the trees. That should motivate the rest of my men not to stop and try to hide from the enemy! Forward! Always forward! Besides, the next couple of HE shells usually clear the obstructing trees. I will often wonder why those puny men insist on picking the wrong spot to stop. They reap their reward. That forces me to create more men. The burdens of command.... Ken

I use the measured application of suspension of disbelief. Meaning, when my supporting troops are hosing down the location which my assaulting troops are entering, I imagine that the supporting troops are lifting their fire to avoid the assaulting troops. Perhaps aiming at far windows, other doors, etc. Anywhere BUT where the friendlies are. That works for me. As for explosives, my understanding is exactly as stated above: immunity to friendly grenades, but susceptibility to any other wound mechanism, be it blast or fragmentation. Hence, TARGET LIGHT for locations to be assaulted, not TARGET. Ken

Yeah, It seems nerfed. It seems a little tweaking would put it more in line with expectations. Having said that, I don't have any personal experience flying A-10's, let alone running an ops analysis of effectiveness, so my expectations may not be in line with reality. Although, I would expect a competent pilot to run-in on the target on the proper orientation/axis. That may be the core of the problem; or, penetration data may be off. Did you notice the run-in axis? Did you change any variables to see if you could change the run-in axis? What was the run-in axis in relation to the target vehicles? Thanks, Ken

Gents, I'm linking to a thread over here http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1124509#post1124509 which discusses this. Basically, a javelin will sometimes miscue/misfire and impact at 43 meters. (It may be slightly more or less. The distance is dependent on the slope of the terrain in front of the launching unit.) I have had this happen to me 3 times. Here's a nice slide show... Hey, bad guys in that house are hosing our buddies! Let's show 'em we care... What about those guys in front of us? Don't worry, they'll be fine... On the way!! My bad! I'll get the next one right! Forensic analysis... All kidding aside, I have seen this three times. I have pictures, I have a savegame of the orders phase, I have a savegame of the replay phase. (For the above pictures.) All this was in v1.11. The other 2 times was in a USMC fight as well. However, that may've been in v1.10. They were targeting enemy in a building. I do not know if they were known enemy, suspected enemy, or just area fire at a building. Points of commonality for all three: Impact at, or extraordinarily close to, 43 meters. USMC Javelin teams for all three cases. Firing at enemy in buildings who may've been unknown to the launch team. If this is supposed to simulate some sort of failure mode of the Javelin, that would be nice to know. If it is unintentional, well, then there's a good bit of evidence here to troubleshoot it. If there's anyone who wants the savegames, post here, and I'll go ahead and upload them to a file sharing site. Thanks, Ken

Gents, It has happened again: Javelin aimed at target (on level ground) some 300 meters distant. Instead the missile impacts at 43 meters. (The bonus was that I had a squad deployed about, oh, 43 meters away from the Javelin team. Ouch.) So, I have a savegame of both the orders phase and the replay phase. BF.C/Beta Testers, does anyone want them? Is this issue recognized as an issue? Or, is it infrequent enough that it falls into the "noise" portion? Of course, if there is a known failure mode of the Javelin that is being simulated, that would be nice to know. Is there a dud rate/failed lockon/errant flight failure which is being simulated by these 43 meter impacts? Thanks, Ken

Gents, I need to submit my Cobra squadron pilots (as a group) for a unit commendation. How do I do it? You see, they've been supporting my Marines during the present conflict in Syria for several months. I need to document how well they've been doing. At present, by rough count, they've responded to over 100 calls for close support. During those calls they have exemplified the skills taught to combat aviators: I calculate that they have destroyed well over 6 dozen abandoned taxicabs and at least 5 dozen abandoned pickups. Their single-minded determination to destroy the enemy's transportation infrastructure is something the Apache pilots try to emulate; if ordered to "Light" area target they will NOT waste their missiles on tanks. Those empty pickups and cabs are the target! Trenches? What do they contribute to the enemy war effort? Exactly; it is the deadly cab or pickup which is the key to success in Syria. Right now, in ports around the world, President Assad has personally intervened to have ammo and weapons removed from the cargo holds so the high value vehicles can take their place! /sarcasm off Okay, seriously; is there ANY chance of tweaking the air support code? An area target should be regarded as a weapons hot zone. If the pilot sees a tank, fire a hellfire. If he sees a some infantry activity, throw a few Hydras or several seconds of cannon fire (TacAI choice based on terrain and enemy). Right now those trucks and cabs are very effective at sponging any air support. I ask this not for myself: I ask this for the innocent cab drivers trying to get a fare and for the fun-loving pickup truck owners. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Bocage blowing: what you just mentioned seems like a very good idea. Using a system similar to IED's would allow the pre-game simulation of prepping the side of the bocage. This would be better than a pre-made gap since the defender won't know that there is about to be a hole in his defenses. (My sources state that units rapidly adopted the practice of welding pipes to the front of a tracked vehicle to make the demo hole. The vehicle would just jam the pipe into the bocage, back out, the engineers would sling the pre-made explosives into the hole, and "Bang", up goes a big gap. It wouldn't take but a few minutes, start to finish.) Regards, Ken