c3k

Guys, don't forget that all the internal clutter of the building is abstracted. There are beds, closets, tables, curtains, debris, refrigerators, hidden-bookcase doorways , chandeliers, internal rooms, etc., all over the inside of these antiseptic looking buildings. I don't think the REAL issue is the enemy appearing and having a spotting advantage over the ingressing troops. If the ingressing troops did NOT rush straight across to the furthest corner and keep their back to the interior, most of these instances of squad death would be minimized. If the ingressing troops entered and focused on the interior of the building, simulating a search and clear type of action, BEFORE moving to firing locations near windows, would that be an improvement? Regards, Ken

Gents, I'm running Vista64. (Okay, now, for all the naysayers and "I told you so" folks, post negative comments about Vista somewhere else. Are they gone? Good... we can continue.) I've found my CMSF files scattered into two different locations. They are: C:\Program Files (x86)\Battlefront\Combat Mission Shock Force\Game Files\Scenarios and, C:\Users\Ken\App Data\Local\Virtual Store\Program Files (x86)\Battlefront\Combat Mission Shock Force\Game Files\Scenarios The second folder with "Savegames" substituted for "Scenarios" is where all my saved games end up. In the "Scenarios" folder I have many of the original, and some user made, scenarios. Yet NOT A SINGLE USMC scenario is there; they are all in the first folder. Here are my questions: When I download new scenarios, which location should be the target folder? Why are the USMC scenarios not co-located with the other scenarios? Since CMSF scenarios all show up when I start CMSF (the file location seemingly doesn't matter) should I manually move them around to one or the other folder? A by-product of my various file searches has showed me that I have four copies of every scenario: one each in English, German, French, and Spanish. I have no need for three of them. Deleting shouldn't be an issue, but why are they all in the same folder? Thanks for USEFUL responses. (Hey, that was aimed at Vista bashers. We know they never really left!) Thanks, Ken

Bigduke6, That was very cogent and well written. I agree with your concerns. Regards, Ken

handihoc, that is true. Hence, in the US we will get the patch on January 11th. You, our distant cousins, will have to wait until November 1st. BF.C will, justly, reward those of us in the States.

Guys, are you really that clueless? First, let's look at what BF.C has decided to call the next patch: "1.11". Do you think that was just a random number? C'mon, has there been ANYTHING random about any of the CM series of games? Shatter gap? DU rounds? Bullet by bullet calculations? It's obvious to the more intelligent among us that BF.C used the number "1.11" to give us a hint about the release date for the patch. I, for one, will refuse to refresh this page until.......January 11th. Oops, did I let the cat out of the bag? Ken

sfhand; no, I thought this was (UAC) was occurring under any instance of opening the CMSF exe file. Disregard my post if I am mistaken. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I am in _no_ way a Vista expert, but I still have UAC enabled and I do not need to run CMSF as administrator. Regards, Ken

As Other Means said, I've successfully continued to use v1.08 in a campaign merely by renaming the 1.08 .exe file and creating a shortcut to the same, PRIOR to applying the v1.10 patch. Now I have two exe's: 1.08 and 1.10. The v1.10 has no suffix, it is merely CMSF.exe. The 1.08 is named (by me) CMSFv108.exe. When I want to use v1.08 all I do is select the shortcut to that .exe. I have not noticed any ill effects in the game by doing this. Regards, Ken

I don't know a fig about modern U.S. Marine recce doctrine, but the WWII German (and post-war) recce units were specifically known for their aggressiveness. Perhaps someone more knowledgable about USMC doctrine could chime in. Regards, Ken

To Sergei's complaint about forgetting to unlock weapons: In my posts, above, I have repeatedly mentioned that the HOLD command would immediately disappear as soon as the selected target changes. The target selection could be changed by the player: actively by ceasing to fire; implied by selecting a different target. Automatically by the TacAI if a higher-priority threat/target comes into view (and it is not outside of a pre-selected covered arc); if it is of high enough priority that a covered arc does not matter; if the the LOS is broken; if the target is destroyed. Hence, there IS NO WAY TO FORGET TO UNHOLD a weapon. Agreed that a real hunt (vice the "hunt which is move to contact) would be useful. Regards, Ken

Ahh, interesting: I play WeGo and tend to watch the initial, mandatory, replay from the overall view and then zoom into the parts where I noticed action/change in status. In that way I try to keep a grip on casualties and weapon usage. It is a compliment to the designers that CMSF supports various modes of playing. Regards, Ken

I, too, have white shell casings. Although, it seems that I don't have them ALL the time. I am using an 8800gtx. Ken

ASL Veteran, LOL! I had a similar and VERY frustrating experience with Vista and my CMSF savegames. I couldn't find them anywhere until I got some help from mates at this forum. One of the better pieces of advice I recieved was to create a shortcut on my desktop which targets the savegame directory. Now all my savegames are a single click away. Hope it helps. Regards, Ken

Thanks for the support. I know I've sounded a bit strident about this issue, but I (obviously) think that implementing some form of this idea would greatly boost the CMx2 series. For the record, the absence of a "HOLD" (or its equivalent) does not make CMx2 broken or fundementally flawed. As noted, this first came up when using infantry TARGET commands and NOT wanting to blow off all the special equipment, yet wanting the increased number of rounds on target that TARGET gives vice the reduced number under TARGET LIGHT. It was then magnified by my realization that the thousands of rounds of 7.62mm the Bradley carries are useless to the player until you run out of Bushmaster ammo. Some said I was making a mountain out of a molehill. My response was, and continues to be, that this is an issue affecting many other vehicles and infantry units. WWII tanks with their various machineguns being a case in point. As would the Grant/Lee; 75mm, 37mm, .50 cal., .30 cal. weapons all being represented on that vehicle. As to coding, I have no idea how difficult it would be! It seems to me that a HOLD on a weapon system could be interpreted by the TacAI as simply meaning that the weapon is out of ammo/broken/not present _for_that_particular_target_. As soon as the target changes (for whatever reason) all HOLD's are lifted, giving the weapon normal functionality under the TacAI. The biggest issue, it seems to me, isn't how to implement it for a HUMAN player, but how would the TacAI issue its own HOLD orders when playing against the computer? Any ideas for when the TacAI shouldn't use the "biggest boom" available to it? If others complain that this is too much player-centric control, the very way it would be implemented would give them the freedom NOT to use it. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Tossing in a self-promoting bump for the following reason: I have just joined/used the repository. (Hey, I will ALWAYS use CMMODs as well!) I downloaded 4 scenarios from the repository. I had not yet even unzipped them, let alone copied them into my scenario folder, when I'd received a series of emails from BF.C seeking my reviews! Err, you'll need to wait a bit. Then I realized that this would be an excellent way to cull reviews from users: allow the player to rate their experience as PART OF THE AAR SCREEN! Right after the battle, while it's fresh and you're sitting there, toss up a scoring screen; up to 5 stars, and a box for comments. That score would sit on your computer, until and unless you log onto the repository and ALLOW your reviews to be uploaded. That would allow BF.C's repository to seamlessly rank the scenarios based on score, frequency of play, etc. Thoughts? Ken

JP76er, Here is a link to a thread of mine which has a VERY SIMILAR (if not exact) problem: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84056 I've included picture links, etc. I hope this helps! Regards, Ken

I'd like to clarify something that Steve posted a little bit upstream. I will not speak for others, but one of the annoyances in CMSF may not be getting communicated clearly back to BF.C. Earlier, by Steve: I believe the big communication shortfall is this: authorizing specific weapons, and only those weapons is NOT the problem. The problem in CMx2 is that the TacAI fires TOO MANY of the weapons. Hence, my repeated requests for a "HOLD" option on certain weapons. The squad leader (who I play) could certainly control whether only one Javelin gets fired. Or, if the squad is told to TARGET, he could order NO Javelins to be fired. Yet, the game doesn't allow that. You either accept TARGET LIGHT or you TARGET and fire off all the rockets the squad is capable of. A HOLD order, which resets to a normal mode whenever the TARGET is cancelled or changed, would solve that. Likewise with the BMP-3 example that Steve mentions. Let me HOLD the ATGM. Or, for a Bradley, HOLD the TOW and HOLD the 25mm Bushmaster so that only the coax will fire. If the TARGET changes, all the HOLDs disappear. If my BMP-3 is told to TARGET some houses with no known enemy, I would rather spray them with machinegun fire than waste some of the other ordnance. Hence, I would HOLD the other weapons. In the midst of my WeGo turn, my poor BMP, busy spraying down the houses, suddenly spots a threat. Oh no! Let's call it a roving Stryker. Well, the TacAI already has an algorithm in place which weighs that threat. Hopefully my BMP-3 would drop the TARGET on the houses (assuming no cover arc which would be a tool to keep that fire going), and switch to the Stryker. At that moment, when the TacAI switches targets, all the HOLDs on the BMP-3's weapons would disappear: poor Stryker. That is how I envision that HOLD system to work. The default would be no HOLD at all; you select a TARGET or TARGET LIGHT and the game works just like it does now, in v1.10. However, if, after designating a target, you hold the mouse cursor over the weapon in question and right-click, a bold red HOLD would appear over that weapon. I leave the coding to BF.C (I could help with font styles and sizes and colors for the "HOLD"). This obviates the need for "Use Main Gun" and the issues Steve presents about that. It also keeps the game/UI moving in an easy direction. The default option is that no HOLD is used. ONLY in the specific cases that a player wants to retain some ordnance is the extra step of right-clicking used. And, that gets erased automatically on a target shift. I hope this clarifies my position on the debate about weapons use and somehow helps this series improve. Regards, Ken

No, not at all. Target Light means less firepower put out, no HE munitions. If you wanted heavy firepower without using your HE munitions, you cannot (for infantry). For vehicles, if they have an autocannon and missiles, Target Light means fire the autocannon only; no coax machinegun. Target releases the missiles. So, no coax at all unless the autocannon is out of ammo. With a tank, Target Light means machineguns only (those that are accessible to the crew in their present configuration, be it buttoned or opened). Target means main gun only. Regards, Ken

Er, unless the graphics are such that the game is compared to, and reviewed as, an FPS. In that case, it could abet the misrepresentation of the game experience and result in an unduly poor review. Of course, 2-D pieces on a hex grid would ensure EVERYONE knew this was a wargame. Regards, Ken

Dietrich, Silly you? Well, I submit (literally, I _have_ submitted this) that a better UI would INFORM the player about matters such as this. You should not have to be a modern weaponologist in order to play a game. Regards, Ken

ASL Veteran, You've hit upon some salient weaknesses in the game's User Interface which is a sensitive subject. If you're not an expert on modern weapons, the UI can be quite confusing. The solution, posted here by the representatives of BF.C, is for you to find out about modern weapons on your own. We can hope the UI will be improved. Javelins need a control/targeting unit as well as the missile. The simple reload missile is the Javelin. The control/targeting unit (CLU) PLUS a missile is at the top of the list in the Stryker. So, you may not have had a CLU. (Oh, the pun!) Also, as others posted, the Javelin is a point weapon, meaning you need a target, other than open ground, to fire it. Any item, once ACQUIRED, cannot be un-ACQUIRED. That is something you'll see threads pop up about every now and again. Ammo: indeed, knowing what weapon uses which ammo is important and is left for the user to determine using his own resources. There have been requests to add tooltips to the UI to assist customers/players who are not experts on modern munitions. I do not know BF.C's stance on that issue. The rest of the issues (combining, pathfinding) are MUCH better in the current version, 1.10. BF.C has dropped hints that v1.11 is going to be released in the near future. In its current form, the game is well worth purchasing (Unless you totally abhor modern combat, in which case you shouldn't have even tried the demo!). There is a STEEP learning curve; get through it and you'll be rewarded. Regards, Ken

And, perhaps most substantially but often forgotten, HOW DOES CHAIN OF COMMAND AFFECT FIGHTING? Currently I have no idea how being in or out of command affects anything. I simply ignore it. In fact, without constant referencing to the manual, I frequently forget what the four unit attributes are. (Tiredness levels are self-explanatory, but is fatigued worse than tired? I don't know...) That whole section of the UI is something I ignore. Oooh, let me say that again: That whole section of the UI is something I ignore. A tooltip would help. If I hover the mouse over that part of the UI, open a box which states, for example: CURRENT UNIT FITNESS LEVEL: READY. Then list the entire possible spectrum; Outstanding; Very Ready; Ready; Tired but willing; Gasping for Air; Fatigued; Can't lift a finger; Unconscious . Make it a vertical list and have the current status bold and highlighted. Then I, the PLAYER, would know where they are in the possible spectrum. Put a red bar at the limit they could achieve. Like, if a conscript, out of shape, squad could only be Very Ready (at best), then the list would be the same as above, but between Outstanding and Very Ready there would be a limiting bar and Outstanding would be in dull grey, signifying it was unobtainable for that unit. Similar UI for each of the other attributes. Oh, one more thing: let me DROP items I've ACQUIRED. Please. Regards, Ken

Hmm, search under "c3k" as thread starter. 1.) Lack of HOLD ability for special weapons within infantry squads, such as Javelins, RPG's, AT-4's, etc. 2.) Inability to get coax machineguns to fire from Bradleys and other AFV's, without using their autocannons. 3.) UI tweaks: focusing primarily on the obtuseness of the artillery screen which does not allow the player to know how long or how many shells will land or how many missions can be called in; similar issue with air support which obscures the types of weapons, how many runs are available, etc. All these would be known to the FAC calling them in. 4.) Peaking around corners. 5.) Room clearing BEFORE running to the windows.... (I know the game abstracts internal walls/hiding places, but an abstract room clearing if HUNT or ASSAULT is used to enter a building would be useful to limiting casualties/reducing reaction time to ambushes. But, it's still a good game! Regards, Ken

On the flip side, if the Germans are given an absolutely huge number of trenches, it won't matter if you know where the trenches are: the Germans could be anywhere within that system. Just a thought.... Ken

Getting back to what Other Means said a few posts earlier, "...And as you know the core of my argument is that yes, all the information is there, it's just not easily accessible..." I refer you to these threads: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84655 and http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74868 A bit of work on the UI would do wonders. The game is good, but the user feedback could be better. Broken? No way. So, if indeed there may be a some tweak that Steve hinted at earlier, I'd be VERY happy! Thanks, Ken