c3k

Rekka, thanks for the test. After the blast did the sappers stay there, move away, or move through the blast? And was it only on a wall or did you try on a building? Thanks, Ken

I agree with JSB; the distance/LOD cutoff is too close and too sudden. Trees disappear at a specific radius, as do trenches, etc. My setup can handle more - let me choose the display distance. I hope this improves in the future. Ken

Apocal, Thanks for the feedback. I disagree with your view. Playing Red with some arty: if I select medium/medium I have to wait up to 17 minutes for incoming. If, after the rounds land, I realize that the area I selected is too large for medium/medium to be effective, I can only adjust fire. What does that do? It can only shift the impact. If I want more rounds, I cannot click "Continue until I shout myself hoarse telling you to stop." No, I've got to go through the entire process again, to include an additional 17 minute delay. That's wrong. An intuitive, visual, feedback BEFORE the first rounds come in would improve gameplay. Thanks, Ken (And I've had many a beer with real FO's - in fact, just lately it was two nights ago - and there is NOTHING in this game which is "realistic" about how an FO would call in a strike. Oh, and that's fine by me. I would not pay a nickel for "CM:FO Trainer".)

Hmmmph. I won't be satisfied until I see bees buzzing around those flowers. Showing realistic bee behavior. Get back to work.

Apocal, Thanks for the manual reference for rounds per mission. I have run missions (maximum) which used 70 rounds. Now, I am not an artillery FO. I assume an FO's training and experience will guide him on his decisions on what specific parameters are desired for a given mission. I have none of that training or experience. This would provide that feedback. As for any real world system providing this capability, that isn't a factor. This is a game. Hopefully it is a game which can be FUN and REWARDING from the first button click until the game is set aside years later. Why should a customer have to play for many, many hours to gain this knowledge? Thanks, Ken

stikkypixie, How close? And will it work with exterior building walls? Interior building walls? Thanks, Ken

Wow, those look good. I like the infilled graphics showing yellow or red status. It shows better than an appended exclamation point or an outline. Thanks, Ken

Gents, I've already posted about my ideas to give the player a better grasp on how many missions can be called in, the ammo used, the ammo left, etc., here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84222&highlight=artillery Now I've thought about this some more. Another gap in the artillery UI is at the impact end of the mission. Or, to put it differently, what will my mission give me on the map? If I call in a SHORT/QUICK on an area target with a diameter of 200 meters, the result would be far different than the same mission on an area target with a diameter of 20 meters. How can I, the player, tell what I need? Have no fear, I am here! Right now we can have these types of targets: What I would like to suggest, is to add the number of impacts which will occur in that zone given the options the player selects for the mission. For example, if I choose a Quick/Short I will get a certain number of rounds. (Hey, right now I have NO idea how many, but that's what my idea at the linked thread addresses.) So, if I select an area to be targeted, and I have a known number of rounds coming in, can't we tie the two of them together? That way I could SEE the density of what's coming in. Now, I DO NOT want to know the exact impact points (if it were even possible). No, I just want a graphical depiction of what my artillery mission looks like. See this picture, where the red dots are the number of shells coming in evenly distributed in the target area. Now I can see if I need to increase the duration or type of mission, or if I've called too many shells, or if I have the ability to affect more ground by increasing the target radius. Of course, the impact density is just a theoretical image. In game the shells will not hit just so. We all know that. Another possibility is, since I'm not an artilleryman, giving me some idea of how effective each shell will be. I don't know the casualty radius of, say, a 155 shell. We can show that with a ring around the impact point. Now I, the player UNDERSTAND what I'm calling for! Here's a picture: Of course these will be included in my personal copy of v1.2; right? Seriously - some sort of interaction with the player to improve the artillery UI would be great. My measles dots are one way of doing that. It is visual, it is quick, it provides instant feedback without overcontrolling artillery. Any thoughts? Thanks, Ken

Thanks for resurrecting this. I still think a BLAST timer (or something else) which allows a coordinated breach/blow and assault would be a great addition. I don't like the BLASTers having to be the ones that go through their hole first. I tend to lose my engineers rather quickly. I'd much rather be able to have them BLAST a hole, NOT go through it, then have an assault element from another squad go through. Coordinating this right now is trick, if it can be done at all. A countdown over the BLAST waypoint which shows WHEN the 'boom' happens would help. Of course, a timer over the other unit's waypoint (the assaulters) would REALLY enable coordination. Regards, Ken

The Marine's Manual, p. 18, mentions that the M32 launcher uses the "Hellhound" (synonymous with the HEDP per the manual) and the "Draco" thermobaric rounds. See the above links for more on them. I don't know if Army units in the base module have the same rounds. Regards, Ken

Dietrich is correct. The Stryker has 16 smoke grenades. The BMP-1 has 6. Experience has taught me that the Stryker can deploy smoke 4 times. The BMP-1 can only do so once. The grenade tubes are visibly empty after use. I do not have the patience to test every vehicle and every model of each vehicle to determine how many times smoke can be deployed. My remaining brain cells are far too limited in number to devote to remembering that information anyway. Now, give me an icon, or bright green menu item and that'd be a different story. Does anyone want to run the tests and post the results? Regards, Ken

Try this page: http://www.armystudyguide.com/content/army_board_study_guide_topics/m203/m203-ammunition.shtml Some more info here: http://www.thefreelibrary.com/The+infantry's+40+mm+punch:+new+designs+and+ammunition+types+are...-a0188276244 and here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb3031/is_/ai_n30958975 and, finally, here: http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/40.htm Regards, Ken

Gents, Part of this has already been mentioned. Namely, that the smoke from a vehicle's smoke dispensers should be launched in the direction the turret is facing, not the hull (obviously, this should only be true of turret mounted dispensers). Right now, vehicle SMOKE is tied to hull facing. This next bit may be common knowledge to the rest of you, but I've only just figured it out. If I plot a movement command for a vehicle, the SMOKE will be commanded to be placed at whatever the PRESENT hull facing is. That's not too clear. If my tank, for example, if facing EAST but I plot a fast move NORTH then I activate the movement segment and select SMOKE, it seems obvious that the hull will be facing NORTH at the end of the move. However, the 20 meter SMOKE target will be affixed to the end of fast move (as expected) but rather than facing NORTH (as the tank's hull and turret are) the SMOKE will be facing EAST. This holds true in all cases. The smoke will be ordered deployed in the direction the vehicle is facing at the moment the order is selected, rather than the direction the vehicle will be facing when it gets to that waypoint. It seems that the smoke may be deployed properly (in the direction the hull is facing when it gets to the ordered location), but the direction (and hence placement) is erroneously depicted. Next up is the number of smoke deployments. A Stryker (for example) has 16 smoke tubes grouped in 4 sets of 4. In the maintenance listing (crescent wrench and DAMAGE title) for the vehicle there are 4 Smoke launcher listings. At each ordered SMOKE deployment, 4 grenades are launched. (2 pair each from symmetric clusters.) Yet, the maintenance listing does not change regardless of how many are launched. (This is not in error: after 2 deployments all four clusters each have 2 grenades left. Hence, all 4 smoke launchers are still operational.) This same maintenance tab (DAMAGE) gives the player information about the load status of various weapons on the vehicle. During reloads or movement, the BMP's AT-4c is greyed out for example. How can a player find out how many smoke deployments are available for each vehicle? Thanks, Ken

Ahh, it's good to see that BF.C has finally implemented the TOT artillery request feature! That IS what happened, right? Ken

A Stryker 3 man platoon HQ exhibits the same behavior as the 2 man AT team. If they pick up 2 Javelins first, they are then prevented from acquiring the CLU. (Done in a new scenario created in v1.11.) I haven't tried any experiments to see if Javelins/CLUs can be taken from casualties under these circumstances; i.e. if a 2 man AT team with 2 Javelins provides medic aid to casualty with a CLU/Javelin, would the AT team gain the CLU/Javelin? MarkEzra - thanks. Regards, Ken

MarkEzra, Please read the prolonged test I posted about upstream a few. It seems that the number of men DOESN'T matter: that the preloaded equipment DOESN'T matter; that the order of acquiring gear DOES matter. Details (numbingly so) are in my other post. I suggest, respectfully, that you follow along while you read it. I used Abu Susah, realtime, setup phase to run my tests. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I thing Knaust1 has found something. I played around with 2 man AT teams (US) and then with full squads; I combined/split and loaded up with weapons in various combinations. Here's what I found. (All combining/splitting occurred outside any vehicle.) Let's start with the default 9 man Stryker squad: Nine men; Special Equipment is NVG's, binoculars, 2 AT-4's; 4 slots occupied. A two man AT team, split off of a 9 man US Stryker squad, starts with NVG's and 2 AT-4's. (The seven man remnant retains only NVG's and binoculars.) If the two man AT team then loads into a Stryker and ACQUIREs two Javelins first, it shows NVG's, 2 AT-4's, 2 Javelins. It then is limited to only acquiring 5.56 ammo; the CLU/Javelin is denied to it. 5 special equipment slots are occupied. Now, recombine that AT team with the rest of the squad, then split it off again. Now the team only shows NVG's and 2 AT-4's. The 2 Javelins are retained by the 7 man remnant. (What, is the CLU-less AT team going to throw them? So, it makes sense that they ditch them.) Next, the two man AT team (with only NVG's and 2 AT-4's) ACQUIREs a CLU/Javelin unit. This makes them LOSE one of the AT-4's!! They show NVG's, CLU, 1 AT-4, 1 Javelin. 4 Special Equipment slots occupied. The AT-4 is NOT retained inside the Stryker. It is gone. Recombine that AT team with the squad and then split off again (forcing equipment distribution). Now the AT team shows NVG's, CLU, 1 AT-4, 3 Javelins. 6 Special Equipment slots occupied. So, the AT team can use at least 6 special equipment slots. Why does the AT-4 disappear earlier (that would only be 5 slots)? Why can't the AT team acquire the Javelins/CLU in any order? Next set of conditions: I kept a nine man squad in a Stryker, loaded up with CLU/Javelin and 2 more Javelins. Then split the AT team. They had the same loadout as above: NVG's, CLU, 1 AT-4, 3 Javelins. (The 7 man remnant had NVG's, binoculars, and the otherwise missing AT-4.) So, Knaust1 has indeed found some anomolous behaviors. Regards, Ken

donnieitaly, I feel your pain. I started using Vista64 Ultimate a 18 months ago. It has some automated file handling processes which are significantly different from XP and these have caused me some confusion and difficulties. Once I resolved these issues it has been running extraordinarily well. The biggest issue was the automatic folder creation and installation routine for CMSF. Vista created TWO separate (but linked) locations for CMSF and duplicate folders. Some had files in them, some did not. This occurred when I chose the default installation options. A symptom of this is difficulty finding the savegames. I believe you posted about that. The solution I wanted had to keep all the CMSF files and folders in the same directory. What I did was totally erase the game from my harddrive. Next, I did a clean install, BUT I specified a NEW directory, C:\Battlefront. (Yeah root directories and all that. Whatever.) Now, all is good. Every file, folder, savegame, mod, update, download, humiliating defeat and bare victory are located where _I_ want them to be and where I can find them. Doing a clean install like that may help you. Good luck, Ken

no! Steve, this wasn't a complaint about the mk19, it was plea to have you expand this behavior to other weapons. I think we all _loved_ the firepower increase. Why did you have to fix it? Oh, the angst.... Oh, the thanks... Ken (P.S., to fix it, did you need to implement a HOLD command? )

Gents, This was reported earlier, but I can't find the original thread. Sometimes during RT play on a LAN, Mk 19's (and reportedly .50's) will have a shotgun like burst of fire followed by normal ROF. I can confirm this report as it has just happened. Since it was RT, no savegame. It was Abu Susah; Red team hosted the game, Blue joined. A Stryker was firing on the Syrians when this occurred - more than once - with its Mk. 19. Both computers are in the same room. I noticed that the hosting machine, Red, seemed to be at least 1-2 seconds AHEAD of the joining computer, Blue. This was obvious due to the sounds. I would hear an explosion from the Red machine, then, after the explosion, I would see one of my Blue squads launch a Javelin, take time to travel, and then I would see the impact and hear, subject to normal delay due to the distance of my camera to the impact, the explosion. This time discrepancy was consistent over the length of the battle and consistent over many trials. I mention this because the delay between the two computers may have something to do with the aforementioned shotgun effect. Perhaps it is an artifact of the "behind" computer trying to catch up? Gigabit speed switch, Cat6 wiring, gigabit NIC's. (However, Blue computer is 6 years old, so processor is far outclassed by Red, which is one year old.) Network speed is not the issue in timing; processor/computer speed may be. Perhaps this information is helpful. Regards, Ken

Thirded......

Steve, No offense taken; just the opposite. I appreciate your patience. As for my HOLD idea, just to show I'm trying to help, I've done a little coding. Here's a little piece of that code you can pass on to Charles: 00101100 Thanks, Ken

Steve, It sounds like we're trying for the same goal. Any hints how you're thinking about implementing this? Thanks, Ken

With HOLD on your HEAT rounds you would be able to do that without having to dump all those HEATs into the ground. See how HOLD fixes everything? Ken

Steve, I appreciate the your continuing engagement with us. Here's part of your response... Well, I think we BOTH agree an that! However, you also wrote... Errr, nothing I said cuts the TacAI out. In fact, I specifically mentioned that the TacAI gets total control, just as it does right now, whenever it spots a target which takes higher priority over the player's selected target. First, let me address the "tedious" portion of your quote, above. There is NOTHING I've suggested that would add a single step or change how the game is played right now, UNLESS the player wants to. Right now if you want to fire on a target you select TARGET or TARGET LIGHT and left click on the target. Then you go on and do something else. My idea has you do the SAME EXACT THING. However, if you do not want the TacAI to have total control over all your weapons/ordnance, then you can take an additional step and limit what the TacAI can use by implementing a HOLD. Example: My US squad wants to area target a building. I select TARGET LIGHT. See? It's the same. Now, I want my US squad to nail that building. I select TARGET. Yeah, baby! They light it up! Rapid fire, Javelines, AT-4's! You go! The same as it is right now. Oh, wait! I want them to light it up, but I really want to keep 2 Javelins in my hip pocket for later. So, I select TARGET...then I take the additional step for this specific target of HOLD on two of the Javelins. Yes, that's the extra step, but it's only because I want it for that target. Steve, you posit, Well, let me try to explain it again. I select target A and I use a HOLD to restrict all Javelins. Now, I can only use HOLD AFTER I've selected a target. Next, your T-90 comes into view. The TacAI is still operating. It chooses the T-90 as the higher priority target. That wipes out the target A which I'd selected. As soon as that target A is deselected, all HOLDs get erased. The instant the TacAI assigns a new target, there are no HOLDs! So, you asked what happens? The same thing that happens right now. Except, my squad will have some Javelins left to fire at the T-90 instead of wasting them on that empty building they were firing at just before the T-90 emerged. To emphasize: TacAI assigned targets NEVER have a HOLD. There are no extra steps for the vast majority of player interactions. However, you CAN add a step to limit what ammo/weapons are available to the TacAI for the target you have chosen. So, if YOU don't click TARGET or TARGET LIGHT, there are no HOLDs. Internally I envisage the HOLD as simulating an out of ammo condition for that specific weapon/ammo. That way the TacAI retains control of the unit and what it shoots at. As soon as the TacAI spots a threat/target which has higher priority (or should be shot at), it snaps a TARGET or TARGET LIGHT (just like it does now) on the new threat and that erases all HOLDs. Thanks, Ken