c3k

Yes, there will be 808, 101, and 111, and 888.

Gents, This thread contains what I think are necessary tweaks to the CMx2 engine. Yes, I said "necessary", but by using "tweaks" I hope you understand that I mean them as improvements to a game engine which is very good. Why then are do I deem them "necessary"? Because the longevity of CMx2 is dependent upon its PLAYABILITY. I think these tweaks increase the playability and do nothing to detract from the accomplishments that CMx2 already represents. 1) A scenario UI revision. The manner in which a player chooses his scenario needs to be reworked. The strength of this game system is the amazing number of scenarios which can be created and played. Yet, there is no way to organize them, tell which one's been played, review them, give feedback on them, delete savegames, etc. For a more in-depth look, I refer you to this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=72661 and this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=76751. This single revision would be the greatest addition BF.C could make. (For the naysayers out there, I am in the midst of creating my own spreadsheet so I can track the items that've been listed in the threads I've just linked to.) 2) Air Support and Artillery Support UI tweaks. Both of these basically involve giving the player more INFORMATION about what is/will happen, not giving the player more CONTROL. Nothing I've suggested would change what happens, only the information flow to the player would contain usable information. For an in depth look, I refer you to these discussions: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83949 and http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83664 and http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84222 and http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83192 Again, these are changes to information, not control. 3) A weapons HOLD order, which would also include AFV weapons. Right now TARGET commands let any and all firepower loose. Your US squad will fire Javelin after Javelin until the TARGET line disappears. Their small arms will fire rapidly as well. However, there are instances when you don't want ANY Javelins to fire, but you do want the increased small arms fire which TARGET represents compared to TARGET LIGHT. As well, the issue with ATGM's being fired from AFV's instead of just the autocannon. Or, holding autocannon fire and only using coax machineguns. All these issues can be resolved with the HOLD command. The HOLD can only be issued after a target has been selected. As soon as that target is gone (destroyed, out of LOS, TacAI detects a higher priority target) all HOLD orders are erased. That resolves the issue of a squad HOLDing its Javelins while shooting at a building and then they see a tank. This idea is discussed here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83224 It has also been discussed, in differing versions, in other threads. 4) The lack of feedback up the chain when one of your units takes a hit or casualties. In large scenarios action occurs with no feedback to the player. The player is forced to poll every unit at the beginning and end of each turn (WeGo) and check for status change, such as suppression or casualties. All too often casualties are incurred in "quiet" sectors and the player has no idea when or where it happened. I've suggested having the unit icon flash a yellow "!" whenever the unit's suppression increases or a casualty is incurred (or if an armored vehicle is lazed, or fired upon). See this: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83193 and http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74868 I hope that some form of these ideas can at least be considered for possible inclusion. I have no idea what amount of work it would take or even if BF.C considers any of these to even be worthwhile. However, I obviously feel that these would improve the PLAYER EXPERIENCE with CMx2 without diluting the simulation environment within the game. Thanks, Ken

donnieitaly, Go to C:\(Username)\Appdata\Local\VirtualStore\ProgramFiles(x86)\Battlefront\CMSF\Savegames If it's there, good for you! Delete away!! Next, right click on that folder and drag it over to your desktop and select "Make a shortcut here". Now you've got a shortcut on your desktop which will put all those savegames a click away. Good luck. Ken

Hmmm, okay I've just booted up Abu Susah as Hot Seat, WeGo, Basic Training. I do not get FULL intel, nor do I see enemy movement commands. (I get much better intel, but not total.) Ken

BlackMoria, To add to what cmfan just wrote, to create an ambush you set a TARGET ARC command which only encompasses your planned kill sack. Then order those units to HIDE. They should stay hidden until an enemy unit enters the arc. If you set multiple units from multiple directions to target the same zone, well, then you've got a textbook ambush. Good luck. Ken

Savegame is your only friend in that case. Save early and save often! (Hmm, I hope you didn't make that mistake in RT?)

11) UN-acquire ammo/weapons.

I've played hotseat many times and never noticed anything amiss. Hence, my earlier question about difficulty level. I confess I've never tried basic training level so I have no idea if this complete level of knowledge is normal. (I'll try later today if I find time.) Regards, Ken

...and what was the difficulty setting?

ooh, ooh, or a HOLD command toggled for each weapon? See http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83224&highlight=hold and http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=72910&highlight=hold Those are ideas I've floated for some time. They've been ignored. Shrug. _I_ think they'd improve the game. Regards, Ken

MarkEzra, Once again, thank you. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, not trying to jump on any problem bandwagons, but I posted a link to a savegame regarding the issue JP76er brought up in the other forum. Standby while I search for the link.... Here's the thread http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84815 Another specific thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84056 Here're my savegame links, from that thread: http://www.mediafire.com/file/irwyxz2tln2/USMC Blues For Allah jav misfire.bts The other one: http://www.mediafire.com/file/ymczmmnhda0/USMC Blues For Allah 012B jave malf again.bts If there's a legitimate problem, I hope these links help. Thanks, Ken

Is the game engine treating rooftop locations the same as locations INSIDE buildings, as far as spotting is concerned?

Dan, Aye, perhaps I'll allow you that delay now that you've filled in those details. You may have future in this whole computer game business; keep it up. Thanks!

Hmmm, It seems that the only way to test this would be for you to take a machinegun up to the top of the cupola on St. Paul's and perform some spotting and firing "tests". Please let us know what the results are. Ken

You are ignoring how exquisitely sensitive the human is to any motion. The second (or less, I'm not totally up on physiological response times, but a quick internet search reveals 17 milliseconds) a pair of men come rushing out of the location you stated, with no other distractions, they would be spotted as long as they were in the field of view. Not necessarily the location being focussed upon, but just the field of view. That dovetails into previous comments made regarding pixeltruppen's absolute dedication to staring straigh ahead. Most soldiers would scan; does CMSF simulate this? Agreed that 50m would take about 5-10 seconds to traverse. (A 40 meter sprint by a professional athlete takes 4+ seconds. A laden soldier would take more.) 5-10 seconds of motion in your field of view is a ludicrously long duration of time to be oblivious to that motion. My question is, "Does the lack of spotting equate to a lack of seeing?" Thanks, Ken

flamingknives, Nice pictures and nice way of putting it in, err, perspective. Obviously the pictures do not quite show the true size of the people, however, you can easily extrapolate how easy it would be to see a pair of individuals at that distance with no other LOS hindrances or obstacles. That is the spotting conundrum: the inability of CMSF units to spot enemy units in clear ground. Firing on, and causing casualties to, a pair of enemy at 600 meters is a totally different issue. However, I would think three or four pairs of eyeballs looking towards the enemy would spot them immediately at 600 meters. Of course, my idea of "open ground" and the in-game simulation of "open ground" could well be quite different. If you toss some chest-high grass and minor undulations, then that "open ground" actually presents some concealment. Note that I still think the simulation of spotting when in buildings is fine, just open ground needs tweaking. Thanks, Ken

Taki, I don't understand your post.

Whoa! Dan, how are YOU able to get exact round count figures from your M240 test? Are you guys withholding some cool developer's tools? Obviously, this game is broken until we can all get that software! Thanks for running tests and posting the results. Nothing like data to cut through anecdotes. With two men running at the MG team in the building: why would it take 50 meters of running for the MG team to spot them? To put it in perspective, your 600 meter distance is equal to one and 1/2 track laps. If I am watching something at that distance, barring any LOS obstacles, I will IMMEDIATELY see 2 men running. It won't take 50 meters for me to see them. (Okay, toss in any kind of "fog of war" tweak, but still....) Perhaps your test showed a flaw in spotting? (Building to building with no fire or movement, spotting seems right. It's the movement in the open which seems to be a bit too hard to spot.) Thoughts? Regards, Ken

Gents, I've downloaded some compressed files from the repository and CMMODs. When I unzip them, I see the .btt or .btb or .cam files, as expected. Some also have additional files such as readme's, word, or jpegs. Now, the readme's and word files are self-explanatory. I can open them up and read them. None of them get put in my scenario or campaign folders. Should they? Finally, the jpegs: some look quite good and seem to be meant to be used with the scenario/campaign. Yet, I only copy the .cam or .btt/.btb files into their appropriate folders. What should I do with the jpegs? How/where do I put them so they can be integrated into the briefings when I start the campaign/scenario? Or, are they just wasted efforts by the designers? Thanks, Ken

I found something called 7-Zip to do this for me. The benefit is that it's free and you can add it to your right-click menu. Now, when I need to extract a file, I right-click on it and select 7-zip, extract all. Good luck, Ken

Pandur, I concur. The M32 usage seems abnormally low. I've just created a quick test scenario and, based on one run through, M32 use seems unsatisfactory. I used 2 USMC platoons against 2 Syrian Militia platoons. (Hey, I didn't say it would be a FAIR test!.) I put the Syrians in one of three locations: open ground, rooftops, inside buildings. The USMC were in open ground. Default scenario editor map, 320x320, Hotseat, WeGo. The Marines would NOT use their M32's in the opening phases. In fact, any grenadiers would use their M4(? or do they use the M16?). Regardless, the M32 disappeared. I then tried various target commands. Only TARGET would get them to use the M32. Even TacAI fire against known enemy, with no player induced commands, wouldn't initiate M32 use. It seems the player MUST select TARGET or the TacAI will not allow M32 use. I agree; I saw it, I have a scenario which highlights it, and it seems it's too radical of a change. Regards, Ken

Kilroy, Great idea! Oh, wait, I think I posted something about this previously... Yes, but now I can't find it. Grrr. Thanks, Ken

Thanks! (Does that mean I can add it to my v1.12 thread? ) As long as I have your attention, Charles, I'd like to mention two things: First, thanks for all your hard work. Secondly, um, about that ammo use thing - does the big jump in the ammo bars reflect the loading of M249's? If it does, and you're going to change the ammo bars to show TOTAL ammo, not just unallocated ammo, I would think that would fix the jump from occurring. Therefore, after this is fixed, the ammo bars won't jump, just get incrementally reduced as weapons are fired. Is this correct? Again, thanks. Regards, Ken

flamingknives; you may well be exactly right. My question (and it is so very minor, mere curiosity, not even a quibble) is why 5 bars at a time after a long time of firing and then an almost immediate additional 5 bars? Hmm, you may have just given me the answer: if 5 bars - or whatever the large increment was (it was NOT more than 5 and was probably less) - if that increment represents the large 200 round box on an M249, then, since the team had TWO M249's firing, perhaps the first increment disappearing was one M249 reloading, and the second increment was the second M249 reloading. If so, then the ammo bars do not represent TOTAL ammo availability to the unit, but unallocated ammo. Any ammo currenly loaded in a weapon is not counted (a 30 round magazine inserted in a magazine well would be considered loaded for this calculation). That would also explain the continued firing after all the ammo bars disappeared. If all weapons had a fresh magazine, the unit could pour firepower for a very limited time and THEN run out. (I had always considered the bars to represent total ammo state: if what I've somewhat postulated is true, then having a lack of ammo bars does NOT mean that the unit cannot fire. You'd have to keep track of the unit and see whether it's used its last load of ammo.) Regards, Ken