c3k

SlapHappy, Steve has responded to my earlier threads on this (search under my username and "HOLD"), so I'm not trying to belabor this point or try to beat up on BF.C, but here is a brief recap of my idea. Each time YOU, the player, select a target command you have the option of adding a HOLD to each weapon system. If it's an infantry squad, say you select a building as target and you have a CLU, 3 Javelins, and 5 AT-4's. If you use TARGET, you can then use HOLD on, say, 2 of the Javelins and 3 of the AT-4's. (Right click over the item and toggle HOLD.) Your squad will only be able to use, subject to normal TacAI discretion, 1 Javelin and 2 AT-4's - AND THAT RESTRICTION IS ONLY FOR THAT TARGET. If, while you're area firing with TARGET as I just stipulated, and an enemy tank hoves into view, the TacAI will compute the normal targeting priority. In most cases it will assign the tank as the new target. As soon as a new target is selected, all HOLDs get erased. The HOLDs are only in effect for the duration of that specific targeting command. Therefore, the TacAI will have available every weapon system the unit possesses whenever the TacAI overrides the player's targeting command. The process would be similar for a tank. You, the player, do NOT need to micromanage in anything in the vast majority of cases. If something unexpected occurs, signified by the TacAI swapping targets away from what you selected, all the limits get removed. The benefit? When you want to limit the type or number of special ordnance fired, you can do so. There is no need to program the many iterations of firepower combinations as a drop down menu. If I don't want the M242 to fire, or the TOW's, but I do want a heavy use of the 7.62 coax for a Bradley, I select TARGET and then HOLD the M242 and HOLD the TOW launcher. This was longer than I meant to post. However, with no understanding of how hard it is to code things, I think this idea merits review. (It's a compliment to the fidelity of the TacAI that I think it can be entrusted to properly resolve any unexpected targets which pop up. Well done, BF.C.) Regards, Ken

Hmmm, Sounds like time for the "HOLD" weapon command! I'm sure there's _someone_ around here who's put it forth before... Thanks, Ken

zmoney, In order for MG teams to use their tripod, you need to command them to do so. This is done by selecting the "Deploy Weapon" command. After the team is done moving, they will set up their tripod after a short delay (15-25 seconds or so). Good luck. Ken

Hmmm, Here's more information on this. (Note; I've run QB's under Marine's v1.11 with NO error, however those two were both US Army specified as the Blue force, medium size, attack, random Red.) I just tried, twice, to fire up a QB. Both times it locked up. Small, dusk, Random Blue attack vs. Random Red. 77% loading stalled out there for over 1 minute. The next jump in the loading routine took me to 84% both times. That's where it froze. After ctl-alt-del out (in Vista64) I saw an error message for CMSF's exe. It said it had run out of memory. I've got 8 gb installed and usable, plus 768mb of videocard memory. That's ram. Cache is windows controlled (something north of 200Gb left on the ol' hard drive.) Edited to add: I just tried again. The only variable I changed was the blue force. I went from Random Blue to US Army. That has enabled me to successfully start a QB. So, based on this data point, the option of using US Marines in a small QB may be what freezes it for me, under the givens I've listed above. Thanks, Ken

What??!?! Only 199? Lazy bugger, keeping the 200th for youself... Grumble, grumble... Does that fulfill the requirement to complain about all things CMSF? Thanks for working on these. If you've done them all, I am speechless. If others assisted, pass some praise their way. Thanks again, Ken

Gents, After MUCH searching, the best I could find regarding Syrian ranks is located here: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/is3009/appb.html It's not pretty, but it gets the job done. As Flanker15 posted, the chevrons are correct as depicted in CMSF. The charts located at the link are not very sharp, but they do give corresponding US rank equilalents to each Syrian rank, both officer and enlisted. (The link also has Omani and other ranks, so you must read the title of each chart!) Regards, Ken

Flanker15 - Thanks! Ken

Gents, I'm playing Perdition (THANK YOU, Papertiger), which is Red vs. Red. I have 4 MG teams; two Team A's and two Team B's. All four teams are led by a leader whose rank is represented by two chevrons. However, the Team A chevrons point UP and the Team B chevrons point DOWN. Is this some sort of Syrian rank convention? Obviously it seems like an oversight. Pictures are available if anyone wants to see 'em. Thanks, Ken

tc237: I'll see if I can dredge up where I read about these AAR's. Sorry, but no guarantees. They were buried in several books I've read on DS and OIS. The curiosity on nogs is more for night-time US performance without the tech. Thanks, Ken

Excellent idea! +1 from me. Regards, Ken

Martyr, I agree: during play would be a bit of a chore. My thought was only being able to edit these things in the, um, editor. Un-aquire (or dis-acquire?) would be an excellent addition to the orders roster. The debate then would revolve around the ability to drop stuff in the dirt or not, and if dropped in the dirt, would another unit be able to see/know about it and then pick it up? More angels..... Ken

Thanks! (and more for 10 characters)

Yeah, but there have been recent ops where that lesson went unheeded, much to the chagrin of the troops caught out. The laden/unladen aspect is something I tested a while ago. I'm just wondering if the cost of carrying the camelback somehow gave a benefit. (I've seen the wonderful mod which removes the camelback, but since that is just a graphical change, not an underlying simulation change, I don't think it would work for what I'm thinking.) It seems that there is no known benefit to humping that water in game. (Hmm, did BF.C consider the ballistics effect of rounds impacting the camelback prior to hitting the body armor?) Obviously, this is approaching an angels on a pinhead level. In a (very slightly) more important aspect, since there are various items that get stapled into the Special Equipment interface, the ability to DROP/DISCARD/DELETE them would be nice. For example, the misbegotten CLU: once your unit gains one, you're stuck. Or, if I'd like to fine tune the supply level of unit in the editor, it'd be nice to drop out some of the RPG rounds, or AT4's, or, as I stated up top, even the NVG's or GPS. Nothing critical, just an idea for the future iteration of the engine. Thanks, Ken

George MC, Thanks for following up. I've uploaded the savegame to mediafire. The link is: http://www.mediafire.com/?tzaym45dgoi The scenario is "Assault on Precinct 13 v2" available at CMMODS, created by MikeyD. As far as buildings being on different levels, I'm not sure what the common issue may be. As I stated earlier, I've seen this before in other scenarios. Unfortunately, I usually dismissed it. I'll keep a look out and see what other buildings have this issue. Thanks, Ken

If we could adjust the level of knowledge of enemy units a bit with varying difficulty levels, that would be an improvement. I think the instant knowledge of an HQ is a bit premature at Elite difficulty. In some cases, it may be correct, if radios are present, or the HQ unit is observed with HQ pennants. Otherwise, a generic soldier icon might be more realistic. So, add my vote to Dietrich's post. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Nothing earthshaking here, but I've been struck by a few US ops in which the troops left their FOB without all their gear since they expected a quick jaunt which would return them later in the day. When it didn't turn out that way, well, lessons learned and all that. Right now US gets night vision gear, GPS, camelbacks, etc. Would it be possible to delete some of that in a future iteration? For example, if I wanted to try a Blackhawk Down scenario, I would leave that stuff off. Again, nothing critical, just curiosity raising its visage. If nothing else, could the items in the Special Equipment window be modified in the editor (and by "modified" I mean "deleted")? (Do the camelbacks add anything to US troops? More endurance? Quicker physical recovery? Greater weight being carried? Or are they just eye candy?) Thanks, Ken

Continuing from above: The image I deleted is here: It does not add much. A savegame is available. The scenario was one I downloaded from the repository (Attack on Precinct 13) so the appropriate building information should be available within the editor. As for the concrete men issue, the image I retrieved when I went back to the savegame I made is this: As you can see, all the men seem to be drawn correctly. I can only surmise that my video memory corrupted the imagery, not CMSF. So, the only conclusion you can draw from this image is that it is not good to be a Syrian under my command! (Sorry about that, men.) Thanks, Ken

George MC: you are right, so here are some screenshots. (The process I use for posting screenshots I find to be a pain, so I don't do it unless I get some interest. It involves loading FRAPS, making a new folder, loading CMSF, taking FRAPS screenshots to the new folder, going to photobucket, uploading, then posting them here. Does that make me lazy? ) The first shot, below, is an overview of the typical mismatched roof. Note that I have seen this several other times in several other scenarios. I do not know if all the buildings showing evidence of this are the same type, size, or height. Next, this image highlights the corners. Note the sides are too long, whereas the front is too short: A closeup of the near corner: Now, here is an image of the side of the building which shows the overhang along the edge. However, I also want to bring to your attention the facade of the building in the immediate background. Note the rooftop wall and how it is mismatched with the front of its building! I've circled both elements in question. (I deleted this image since the forum limits us to 5 images per post.) And here is a slightly magnified view of the same: I hope this helps! Regards, Ken

Okay, if I labelled these as "bugs" would that garner any confirmations/repudiations? The roof issue seems more important of the two. Has anyone else noticed roofs which miss the walls? Both undershooting and overshooting occurs. Bueller?... Bueller?... Bueller?... Ken

Gents, I've noticed two graphics glitches. 1.) Sometimes roofs do not fully cover the walls beneath them. With the nature of the game being "what you see is what you get" I'd be willing to bet that the gap between the roof and walls would allow fire/observation. Picture/savegame available. 2.) I've just finished playing a game and I noticed that some of my casualties (I have LOTS to choose from!) are on a paved road near a shellhole. These men have become concretized; their textures have been replaced by the paved road. They are only visible with the crater as a background. Picture/savegame available. Obviously neither of these are complete gamebreakers. In fact, number 2 is extraordinarily minor. The first one MAY have an impact, but is more likely only going to be noticed visually, not in actual gameplay. I have noticed the mis-matched roofs many times, that is why I mention them now. Thanks, Ken

Nicely done! Thanks for the laugh. Ken

I want non-cowbell cows to be modelled as well. That would allow them to be mistaken for enemy contacts with all the resultant area fire, panic, charging cows, horns gouging running infantry, artillery called in, etc. Hmmm, time to get some fresh rations... Regards, Ken

I used to airdrop the old M551 Sheridan. It barely cleared the door in the back of the aircraft when it was loaded and it always exceeded the allowed gross weight. When that little tank went out, it usually took chunks of the airplane with it. Sometimes they were important pieces! Those were fun.

stoex, I feel your pain! However, your Mk I eyeball analysis may be off a little bit. As you've just posted, haze (or any other obscurant) makes a HUGE difference in night time visibility IRL. As well, all modern ops include percentage of illumination. The primary factors that play into that are moon phase, sky cover, ambient illumination. If you're in a suburb with streetlights, businesses, traffic, and house lights, I don't care how far out in a park or field you go, your ambient illumination is far greater than if you were in the boondocks. (Or if air strikes had destroyed the power grid and traffic was halted due to fear of death.) Given a total absence of man-made illumination, the only source of light would be stars and moon. (Or, when I play CMSF, the blazing wrecks of my vehicles!) Now, laying on ground and looking around in those conditions is pretty hard. If there are surrounding obstacles such as tree lines, higher terrain, dark buildings, etc., there is almost no chance of seeing the car you've postulated. Especially if the owner of the car has painted it a matte paint and ripped off the shiny plastic bits and reflective windows, mirrors, and sidelights, etc. Unless the vehicle is silhouetted against the night sky it will be close to invisible. Data point: I was leading a night march, clear sky, little or no moon, sparse pine forest, in Rockies, when I stepped off a 25 foot cliff. The cool part about the fall was the impact. I was so out of breath that I couldn't call out a warning. That was too bad, because I was then subjected to cushioning the fall of the number two! While he took his turn thrashing around trying to breathe, I was able to warn off the rest. The resiliency of youth! So, a relatively low illumination percentage meant that I literally could not see the ground in front of my feet. I think a lot of people think it's dark outside when they step onto their front porch and turn off the light. They are mistaken. Just thought I'd toss this out there to offer another perspective. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, as for fading, my understanding was that the "?" fades as a function of TIME. Some sort of observed activity creates the initial "?". If no more activity is observed, the "?" will gradually fade. If pre-battle intel yields a field of "?"s, then, if nothing else happens, they will all begin to fade. Yet, you can be pretty sure that someone is there. If there is an isolated spot of concealment, perhaps a house, alone in a field, and you have good observation around the entire field, then that initial "?" marking the house which then fades away, tells you that there is probably an enemy unit there which is biding its time. You can use this against your opponents. Make feints towards the edge of some cover/concealment. That will make some "?" markers. Then pull your guys back. Rinse and repeat. That will give the enemy a slew of "?" markers to be concerned about. Hopefully your men are nowhere near those markers while the enemy fires at them. Regards, Ken