c3k

asm, It may not help, but, I'm running an 8800GTX, vista64 (hence the difference), and CMSF/Marines v1.10. I've got no problems, but my nvidia drivers are version 177.92. I'm aware that nvidia has released several betas on the way to the whql "big bang" release. I think they're up to 180.44beta and there are reports of 180.47beta around. Try a rollback to 177.92, or push up to the latest beta. Let me know if it works. Regards, Ken

Other Means, What an excellent thread you linked to! It covers some critical ground. I think the OP needs some sort of award. Please find him and bestow the same. Regards, Ken

Graphics: Ali-Baba; your screenshot shows one of the graphical problems with CMSF. The concentric rings of nearly flat objects break the immersion. A related issue is the ring of "level of detail" which requires flying across the terrain repeatedly to see what the terrain is like. Paper Tiger; your screenshots show the graphical strength of CMSF. Combining the detailed ballistics and simulations with visuals like that is a fantastice combination. Regards, Ken

Gents, Regarding the objective discussion, well said! That is part of the issue I keep trying to get my head around when I play a scenario: what am I supposed to do with that objective (take, touch, destroy?) and, how much is it weighted towards victory? I can see in a campaign where your units have an intrinsic value which is not needed for victory conditions. For example, I shouldn't lose points for 90% casualties in the first battle of a campaign because I will assuredly lose the next several battles. (Unless I have an endless pipeline of troops, in which case casualties are even more unimportant.) I can see an argument for having the objective information withheld from the player. I'd like to have the designer get the option of whether the player sees the value of an objective. Hence, my call for a toggle which would allow on-screen descriptors of the objective. If the designer deliberately withholds information, the toggle would come up blank or "classified" or some other place holder. Ken

Add my "yes" to this referendum. Ken

Yes, how much ammo is left, how many fire missions can be supported with that ammo, and how long will they last. Ken

Just add a scroll feature! Like, the one I've suggested for the scenario lists. Ken

MarkEzra; thank you for the yellow/green explanation. Agreed that the scenario notes can handle the role of explaining objectives. How much slicker if the color of the objective base communicated that information? The player wouldn't have to break the immersion to go back to the briefing for the information; a glance at the ground color tells all (with verbiage as an additional toggle). Red; destroy. Yellow; touch. Green; capture and hold at scenario end. (Edited to add: isn't it cool that CMSF allows these different kinds of terrain objectives? Lest I be mistaken for an endless criticizer, v1.10 has elevated this game to a very high level.) Just part of my endless quest for a slick interface. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, How about allowing the defender (or scenario designer) to purchase "camo" slots? At setup the defender could camo certain trenches and slit trenches; these would act as the reverse of a vehicle. The "camo" would be an area, say 5x5 meters or whatnot, which covers the depression and is the same color as the ground. When an enemy ground unit has a solid LOS (much like what is needed to identify a vehicle) the camo is permanently removed. Obviously this is just a quick brainstorming idea. I have no idea if it is feasible or desirable. Thoughts? Regards, Ken

I'd like labels on objectives: not the label the scenario designer creates, like "Enemy HQ Building" (although that is nice and adds flavor), but rather the label which tells me what to do with it: CAPTURE AND HOLD; DESTROY; SEARCH; etc. I leave the objectives toggle on. Frankly, I don't know why some are green and some are yellow. I _think_ the yellow objectives mean I should destroy them. I'd like labels. Hey, if I'm NOT supposed to destroy something, put a PRESERVE label on 'em (as well as a friendly base color, like powder blue or pink, or bunny yellow). In short, communicating the objective goal could be improved. Regards, Ken

Steve, Great to hear you're reviewing the campaign process. This game engine has amazing potential, which has only been partially realized. The only way that potential can be more fully realized is through the various battles and campaigns. I look forward to more high quality releases for new battles and campaigns (either at CMMODS or the suppository. Err, REpository). Regards, Ken

Oh my. Peter Panzer, I have been TRYING for a long time to get BF.C to allow the player to choose which of the Bradley's weapon is used, apparently to no avail. This issue will be there for CM:Normandy. Target and Target Light are too indiscriminate. I hope something gets done. Regards, Ken

Interesting idea, Flanker15. Except for Marine 60mm mortars, artillery assets only have 2 tubes. You, of course, get to select 1 or 2 to be used (or, with 60mm mortars, up to 3). I'll test and see if that is what is going on. If I select 1 tube and only one green dot turns red, that would support your assumption. If it holds true for 2 and 3 tubes, then you may've cracked the code. Thanks, Ken

Metal grills: Who has the bolt cutters? Or the pry bar? Or the shotgun? Or fires right into the masonry to rip out the anchor bolts? Etc. Perhaps a delay, but certainly not a block to movement. Ken

No, you're not wrong: the speeds do NOT match up. A long time ago there were some postings about having speeds for different vehicles/personnel match up; if SLOW is slow, then slow should be the same slow for all. That would've made coordination MUCH easier. Under that idea, movement colors would be based on speed in m/s (or somesuch). So, SLOW for a T-72 might be the same as MOVE for an infantry squad. Obviously, there would be a lot of extra work to figure out actual speed capabilities; tired, laden, uphill, etc. A new command, ADVANCE WITH (?) which ties together two units would be cool. Regards, Ken

Interesting. I believe this is the TacAI at work. It has assimilated the various combat lessons against armored forces and has self-modified its organization. The new "super squad" as you call it is a rational response in the ever changing offense vs. defense dynamic. ;) Oh, thanks for Hasrabit and Perdition!! Regards, Ken

Agreed: it's an abstraction that works, ESPECIALLY within the constraints of WEGO.

Of course a priority system has to be in place for improvement. And, in actuality, I agree with you that if the choice is a better icon system or a better QB generator, the QB generator would win. However, I do not know what BF.C's timeframe is, nor do I know how much more they are willing to improve this system. I throw these ideas out on the forum to get BF.C's attention and to let them see whether it is just one guy's ideal or if it's something a lot of other customers would enjoy. That support may make a difference in how BF.C prioritizes their resources. Regards, Ken

Gents, I refer you to this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=74868 I'm playing the USMC:Rahadnak Valley scenario which came with CM:Marines. (Note: it is a very good scenario. Thank you to the designer, George McEwan, and the playtesters noted in the briefing!) This scenario takes place over segmented terrain on a map measuring approximately 1600x1200 meters. 1.92 MILLION square meters. Or the easier 1.92 square kilometers. Or, 3/4's of a square mile. It's large-ish. Oh, and very well done! As Blue, my starting force contains 38 units. If I break my squads down into thirds, I could start with 56 autonomous units. Reinforcements bring it up to 74 individual units. Okay, 74 units, nearly 2 square kilometers; cool. However, "stuff" keeps happening that I don't find out about! Example: I placed a squad in an overwatch position. As they moved, I replayed the turn. They got there fine. I never saw a new enemy contact. I audited the squad's condition for the next turn or two. It never changed. Several turns later, I noticed a casualty had occurred. When? I don't know. He had already been treated and disappeared. In this game I play the squad leader. (And other roles of course.) It it a major burden to expect players to note the condition of 74 units at the start and finish of every turn. And that's just one company of infantry and their lift. I would think having the unit icon flash for a minute or so whenever the unit takes a casualty would be a huge improvement in playability. Light up the icon with a flashing red cross. Make it yellow if that's the what the hit caused: a yellow casualty. Put a flashing exclamation mark over the icon if they get suppressed due to incoming fire. Make it yellow, or green, or red, whatever color the suppression meter shows. Place a knife or a bullet, in red or yellow, next to the icon if the unit autonomously engages the enemy. Right now, if a unit advances, takes a casualty, fires on the enemy, and then goes to ground, I may not know about it. If I were the squad leader, I would know about it! I'd guess the platoon leader would find out pretty soon; as would the company CO. Since this game simulates all those command levels, why can't we get a system to notify the player? And for those who don't want it, make it an optional toggle. Thoughts? Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, I always thought the responsiveness ratings were all those little green circles. Sometimes when the asset is firing some of them turn red. Then they turn green again. ???? Ken

No problem. I've done a bunch of stuff, not all of which was rigorous enough to pass muster here, but, in short, a different UI would be a boon to this game. The only question is whether BF.C is, a) objective enough to see this perspective, whether they see the value in a new UI, and finally c) whether they determine the benefit (if any, in their view) is worth the effort. If no changes, I'll work out a total artillery chart. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, I'm not sure how much player (or BF.C) support there'd be for a complete air/ground simulation. The enemy of good enough is perfection. I don't see getting a high fidelity air/ground game built into CMx2. I, obviously, just want CMx2 to better simulate the INFORMATION available to JTAC's (a unit in-game over which the player exercises total control). I disagree that from a grunt's perspective there is no difference. Or, are you talking only about the airframe? If so, we agree. I think the bomb guidance and size (or any other air delivered ordnance) does need to be passed to the player for the very reason that those factors DO make a difference in the grunt's world. Thanks, Ken

No. I disagree with you Wildman. Right now do you have to select ANY of that in game? No. If you set up air support in the editor you get some generic choices. They are already pre-set with the various flavors of munitions that BF.C wants to have. In my proposal, all that remains the same. The only difference is HOW IT IS SHOWN. Fine, they include Laser seekers: include a laser graphic next to the bomb. That would show the player that you could expect a very tight CEP (based on visibility). GPS? Do something similar: show a graphic icon next to the bomb which indicates GPS guidance. So, bomb size shows the player how much of a "boom" effect will occur. Guidance icon shows how close to aimpoint the bomb _should_ hit. Right now that is all simulated already. You just don't have ANY friggin' clue what's being dropped! In the editor is the ONLY place that would be a factor. And it would only be a factor while you're CHOOSING the preset air assets. So, no, you don't have to pick aircraft, weapon, seeker, target, or axis. Right now you're limited to air heavy, air medium, etc. As I said earlier, about 15 specific permutations. All I'm asking is having the ordnance icons reflect what is actually being simulated. In game, I'd LOVE to have a linear target type for air support. One end would be the desired impact point, the rest of the line would dictate the run in axis. But that'd be candy at this point. Imagine a JTAC not knowing what he's calling for? That's what the game does right now. (Unless you've run a LOT of tests and committed the results to memory.) Otherwise, is there a difference between an F-15E and an F-16CJ? Thanks, Ken

Nice AAR. I'd just played this yesterday. Funny thing: I blew a hole in the village wall in the EXACT same spot you did! Enjoyed the write up. Thanks, Ken

I've run a few tests. For grins, here's the result of a 60mm Mortar module under SEVERE ammo conditions. SEVERE shows 5 ammo bars under the left-most 40mm icon; no ammo bars over the other 40mm icon. 3 runs; each run showed a total of 27 rounds impacting. (However, the number of impact craters were less; 9, 8, 11). This was under GENERAL target type. (No airbusts obvserved.) Next, I ran smoke. 2 smoke rounds. Yeah, 2. Then the right 40mm icon disappeared. Afterwards, the section fired HE. It was limited to 25 rounds. So, pretty ironclad results: 60mm, SEVERE ammo, can only fire a total of 27 rounds. At most 2 will be smoke. As JonS stated, if you fire off HE first, you can convert the 2 available smoke rounds into HE. The reverse is not true. I ran a bunch of other tests, but sometimes the impacts did not produce impact craters, so I will re-run them and count the bursts as they occur. A simple user interface tweak would help! Thanks, Ken