c3k

Gents, I've created a small scenario for testing purposes. As part of that, I created a tall wall. The tall wall section ends in a short wall section. Something like this: XXXXxxx Where the tall wall section abuts the short wall, there is NO wall. Meaning, the end of the tall wall is invisible. All other wall sections appear normal. My guess is that the programming for wall ends does not anticipate anything other than ending completely, or joining a similar height wall. Anyone else see this? Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, A difference: in the second run through the DELETE button would not illuminate when the HQ team for 4th platoon, C company was selected. Could not duplicate the initial crash. I WAS able to select DELETE for that HQ team the first time through. However, a NEW CTD occurred. I left only C Company of the Stryker Battalion. Within that company I left all HQ teams (because I could not delete them), all the Stryker vehicles, and only one squad. When I selected DEPLOY BLUE FORCES, I encountered the same CTD and the same error message, verbatim. (Despite no visuals - black screen until the error message occurred - then only the error window would display, the sound worked. I had the background battle noise wav file playing when the error message was selected.) Thoughts? Thanks, Ken

Gents, I'm creating a test scenario. During the unit selection phase in the scenario editor I encountered a CTD. I'd created the terrain: a simple 320 by 240 meter map containing a berm, to break LOS, and 4 3 story buildings and 6 one story buildings. I'd purchased a single understrength Syrian Mech platoon; 2 squads and the platoon HQ. I'd placed the Syrians in the buildings. Next, I purchased a Stryker battalion. My goal was to DELETE all the units of the battalion with the exception of a single squad and several Strykers. (I'm trying to load up on Javelins.) So, I DELETED the 120mm Mortars from the Stryker battalion. Fine. Next, I opened up the bottom-most company, left the Stryker vehicles (minus the 105mm variant Stryker), then I DELETED all the rest of the company. The CTD occurred as soon as I deleted the company's HQ. I had a black screen for several minutes, approximately 5-7 minutes. Finally, I got a window popping up which contained the message: "The Nvidia OpenGL Driver encountered an unrecognizable error and must close this application. Error 13." I'm running Vista Ultimate x64. Any thoughts? I saved what I had up to the Stryker purchase. I will see if I can repeat the CTD. Thanks, Ken

BlackSwan, That's a possible solution. However, if you search under my username you'll find a long thread about this situation with other viewpoints and proffered suggestions. Regards, Ken

ooooh, Steve, it's just plain MEAN to tease us like that... So, how soon will we see the new UI tweaks in v1.10? Thanks, Ken

TheVulture, Thanks for running a few trials. I meant ASSAULT into buildings. To refute a post upstream, it is rare that after giving buddy aid that my men do NOT end up with a spare Javelin or two. I would enjoy the ability to put the CLU and missiles back into a vehicle. As well, my previously stated desire to put a HOLD on firing special equipment would complete my Javelin/AT4 tweaks. Thanks, Ken

These are all great suggestions for PLAYING a more fun GAME. BF.C, please implement immediately into v1.11. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, In ASSAULT, it seems to me that the Javelin operator gets hit the most. I have not conducted any testing, rigorous or otherwise, so take this as an impression only. The Javelin operator, upon entering a building, is the first man in. That's never good for the actuary tables. In addition, the doddering idiot that he is, he is NOT carrying an M4, but the Javelin launcher. Maybe he thinks the sight of a big honkin' missile launcher will shock and awe anyone in the room. But once the shooting starts, he is at a disadvantage. So, my impression: as a team leader, he enters first. He also enters with the wrong weapon. Result: more Javelin operator casualties. (Note that once the close quarters battle commences, the Javelin operator frequently - not always - changes over to a more appropriate sidearm. I don't know if the internal coding puts the Javeline operator at a disadvantage or if it instantaneously credits him with a different weapon.) Does that fit with what others see? Regards, Ken

Steve, Good to hear that progress will continue. How about addressing the desire to drop shells on areas in defilade? Good old grid work? You know, the ability to fire on the BACK-side of a hill. Thanks, Ken

Hmm, if I understand it, you mean a toggle? Not that the terrain somehow reacts to your movement plot? I like it!!! I'd like to see different toggles: impassable for various units. Perhaps it would be selectable based on the current unit? Example: what is impassable for tanks is NOT impassable for infantry. Nice idea. Right now the hit or miss nature of searching with the active end of the plotted path point to watch the cursor change is very time consuming. Plus, not very accurate. I'm for it. Thanks, Ken

Exactly! I'm okay with the occasional flyer. I wonder if wind conditions in the scenario affect accuracy? The first round delay seems too long. But then the follow-on missions seem FAR too long. I'm in the midst of running some basic tests. Regards, Ken

Cool, I'll wait for my government bail out... Oh, I guess I only get taxpayer money if I bribe the right politicians. Err, I mean LOBBY the right politician. (Oh and for the bankers themselves, they've made excellent decisions. Look at how rich they got. They got theirs...screw everyone else.) Back to CM: I thought Steve mentioned an update to CMSF which would be incompatible with the current version. Vaporware obviously, but reflects at least the musings of a member of BF.C. If CMx2 is the base engine and CMSF2 is incompatible with CMSF(original), I am too feeble to grasp how they are the same engine. Obviously the more BF.C successfully charges the better off their business will be. That doesn't mean I wouldn't LIKE the CMSF2 code changes to be released as a patch. Thanks, Ken

Another item which doesn't seem right is the responsiveness rating listed on the asset symbol. That would be the green dots. If I've got all green dots it doesn't seem to matter. I get the same time delay as if I have some red. Additionally, right after a mission the number of green dots drops. WTF? Sorry, we can't respond, we just finished? Then, the green dots regenerate. There is currently, afaik, no way to for the player to see/know the amount of ammo available. Unless, somehow, the ammo levels are tied into the responsiveness levels? If so, the new rewrite of the manual does not reflect that. Emphasizing a point made by Normal Dude, who was a mortar FDC, as he stated, "...I can't speak for arty or air times, but the mortar times are about right if the crew was not ready for the fire mission." Okay, so 6 minutes (120mm mortar times by spotters at Elite difficulty) is about right if the mortar section is caught flat-footed. And further, if the mortar section is not unprepared for the call, why 6 minutes? Let's take it to the other possibility: the artillery section actually COORDINATED their actions with the manuever elements. So much so that they actually know what to expect. Why would towed 155's take 10 minutes to land a round on target? Each successive call to the SAME gun section should be MORE responsive, not less. The initial level of responsiveness seems a bit sluggish. Has anyone done a series of tests, or will it fall to me? (I'll gladly engage in the test process, I just don't want to repeat someone else's work.) Thanks, Ken

Hmmm; CMBO/BB/AK=CMx1 CMSF=CMx2 Will CM:Normandy (whatever)=CMx3 or CMx2.5? Will the posited CMSF_2_=CMx3 or CMx4? Do any of the anticipated revisions seem to take away from current or previous revisions? I understand the game/module concept. As much fun as dropping a few T-72Turms into the midst of Kursk appeals to part of me, I can see how isolating the games from each other makes development better. Yet, if the there are recognized shortcomings of the engine, as is implicit in speaking about CMSF2, why not UPDATE the original? Thanks, Ken

"Good morning, Sir! You're back from the Brigade meeting sooner than I expected. What's the word for today?" asked the Artillery Battalion's First Sergeant. "Well," replied the Artillery Battalion Commander, "Brigade is going to push hard this way." He emphasized the direction by smacking the situation map. "We're going to be on tap to provide support for the lead battalion. The plan is for them to take this village, here." So saying, he pointed his laser pointer right at the village on the map. "We'll have 2 hours till it kicks off. Let's get a rough plan going." "Yes, Sir!" said the First Sergeant. The Commander and First Sergeant then planned how to support the operation. They brought in the staff, prepped the men, ammoed the guns, laid in all the things that need laying. In short, a crack team of professionals went about their business. Two hours later... "Any word, Sparks?" asked the Commander of the radio net chief. "Ah, just a minute, sir. Something's just coming in. I'll put it on speaker!" "Arty support! We need arty support! This is zebra06, requesting a fire mission, come in!" squawked the radio. "My God, man!! That's what we've been preparing for!" shouted the Commander. "Answer him, dammit, Sparks!" Sparks keyed the mike: "Go ahead Zebra06, this is your Arty support. We've been humping ammo all day, waiting for your call!" The voice replied, "Zebra06, requesting 2 tubes of 155, medium duration, medium attack, personnel, area target at coordinates AB123456. I say again, 2 tubes, medium, medium, personnel, area, at AB123456. Over." "Hang on there Sparks," said the Commander. "First Sergeant. How long will it take us to figure out how to get a round over to AB123456. Isn't that the area we were briefed to expect?" "Yes, sir! That's right where we expected the support call! We're ready. Let me look up the response time in the charts..." Quickly, the First Sergeant flipped through his charts. "I've got the answer, sir! Ten minutes!!" "What? Ten minutes?" queried the Commander. "Yes sir. Ten minutes." was the reply. "Very well." The Commander turned to Sparks. "Tell them their arty support will be there in ten minutes." Sparks did just that... The radio crackled, "WHAT!?!? We're getting nailed. I SAW you at the Brigade meeting. What have you been doing all day!!!" The Commander grabbed the mike, "Sorry, we're doing our best. Ten minutes. Oh, and we only have enough ammo for, say, two of those medium/medium missions. We got tired carrying those heavy things." Yes, this could've happened. In fact, it seems to happen in all too many of my games. Why does it take so long to get artillery rounds on target? Especially if it's tasked, per the briefing, to support a unit? Is there ANY way to tweak the artillery response times? BTW, this is at Elite difficulty. I find it hard to believe 10 minutes is acceptable. Heck, some types of support show 6 minutes. That too is unacceptable. In another note, there's a link to an F/A-18 making a couple of ground attack runs: time between runs is WAY less than in game. I know all too well that the planes are not making a 9-g 360, but again, the response/repeat attack times seem out of sync. Thoughts? Thanks, Ken

Excellent....if you recall correctly!

Yeah, I'm not so concerned with the lateral confines of area fire, rather the vertical confines. With buildings as targets it's hard to get the right floor. Especially if you are using multiple units firing at each of multiple buildings. Ken

This is the last in a series.... Right now I'm playing in a built up area. The TARGET/TARGET LIGHT command interface is a bit of a pain. In order to area target a building, I want to have my fire impact a specific level. In order to do this, I've got to move the camera around significantly. It takes a lot of time and effort and even then sometimes the target line will snap to the wrong floor. My suggestion is to have the TARGET/TARGET LIGHT line behave just like a movement line when a building is the the target. Have a window open which gives a selection of floors. The floors which do NOT have a LOS/LOF can be greyed out, such that they are not selectable. This would be an immense time saver for city fights. Thoughts? Ken

Gents, A minor issue: Sometimes BLAST fails to be executed. Example: Several buildings separated by open ground such as this - X X X. All the doors are on the North and South faces, which are covered by enemy fire. I BLAST a squad into the first building, entering from the West. Very good. I now order 2 more blasts. A BLAST to exit the building towards the East, putting the squad in the open ground between the two buildings. Another BLAST to enter the next building. Result: Blast into the open ground works. Despite more charges, the squad decides NOT to blast, but rather QUICK around to North door and enter the building that way. Why? Thanks, Ken

Gents, One of the biggest tweaks I'd like to see involves pathing within buildings. Currently, and recurringly, my men don't seem to follow the directions I give... The latest situation (of many) involved a squad in Level 2 of one building, directly adjacent to another building. You know, they share a wall. So, since I never know if the walls can be passed, I order BLAST from one to the other. What happened? I'm glad you asked. They BLASTED all right. The hole was impressive. Then they ran downstairs, through the wall (I guess they could pass through it afterall), then run upstairs to the destination. This type of in-building behavior is all too common. Another situation: I had two squads in a two level building. It was constructed of 4 separate buildings adjoining each other. Like this: XXXX One squad was in Level 1, the other in Level 2. I ordered them to ASSAULT each building, in order, from west to east. The Level 1 guys did so. Cool. The Level 2 guys had to go up on the roof for each succeeding assault. Uncool. I could not see any difference in the internal walls between the two levels. Some sort of feedback is missing. To me, the player, there are two identical environments. Yet, identical orders yield dissimilar results. Obviously, there are internal differences in the environments. Why aren't they visible in the game? My suggestion is simple: when a wall is impassable, have the view of that wall show it as a black bar. Such as X|X|X|X between successive buildings. Or a red bar. Or something more artistic, yet visible to the player. (This assumes on-the-fly calculations of movement paths is impossible.) I'm aware of the argument that knowing if there's a passage between walls before getting there gives the player too much omniscience (can you be too omniscient?). However, BLASTING from one to another ought to work. Thoughts? Regards, Ken

Okay, what I want to see is the team on the right, solo. The "Hunt" drops them in their tracks, so they never get to the "Slow". So, please redo without the team on the left. Screenshots and motion will be expected for your next effort. Yeah, I know HOW to get to the tank, but why doesn't HUNT let my guys, um, HUNT? Thanks, Ken

Okay, I KNOW where the enemy's dug-in tank is. I've got a squad with 3 Javelins. Cool. I "Quick" 'em close to a ridgeline, then "Hunt" towards a prospective LOS. Cool again. It works. To a point. They "Hunt" until they see the tank. Immediately, they drop to the ground. Ooops. Now they can't see the tank. Too late, now the "Hunt" command is erased. Tried a few times. No change in outcome. According to the icons, the tank they were hunting was the only enemy in LOS, and that was only once they stood up. How about a tweak? Oh, where's the v1.11 thread? Thanks, Ken

Yeah, feedback on forces PRIOR to start would be nice. In the old days of CMx1, if I started a qb and the map was messed up, presto chango, I'd rip out a new one. Not much time lost. I'm personally not very concerned about finely honed balance. Rough parity is close enough for me. Don't give me a platoon to attack a battalion. Ken

Weasels? Are Weasels going to be included? C'mon, you KNOW you want them... Ken

John, Thanks. These are the types of technical info (speculation?) I was hoping for. Shtora literature (in the open, so subject to debate as to its veracity) states the .6-1.6 micron wavelength. As I stated, I'd immediately every soldier in my command with a laser pointer in that wavelength. Standard ops on spotting a tank would be to lase it. Hell, I'd even check the wavelenght of commercial laser levelers. The type that sits on a tripod and spins. I'd stick dozens of 'em all over the AOP of every small unit, if the wavelength is correct. (I have no idea.) So, if I'm in my M1, and I lase a T90 with Shtora, it pops smoke, but I still fire - I could still hit the T90 if it has NOT changed its velocity. If it were moving forward at 10m/s, my ballistics computer would solve for that. So, safe behind its smoke, I still nail it. The T90 would have to adjust its expected position by a value greater than its size and the accuracy of my weapon. Example: T90 is 5 meters long. My weapon is accurate at that range and speed to 1/2 meter. (All numbers made up.) If I were to hit the T90 dead center, that gives me 2 1/2 meters left and right leeway. After accuracy errors, I've still got 2 meters each way. To give the T90 a chance, it's new position AFTER smoke deployment but BEFORE weapon impact HAS to be greater than that distance, 2 meters. Preferably greater than 2 1/2 meters, better yet, 5 meters. Essentially, any tank to be protected from non-terminal guided rounds needs to be able to change its position by its own dimension. Given the short flight times (5,000 fps for the Abrams) that seems hard. Can it be done? If it can be done, how hard of a manuever must it be? Does it HAVE to be absolutely immediate: MAX braking, FULL rate turret slew, FULL rpm, SLAM into reverse, DON'T stop for 2 seconds? Is a crew capable of performing the action? If so, WOULD they do it for every Shtora warning, every time, all the way? Or, would they get bored of doing drills? If it's automatic, how many times would a tank crewman have his teeth broken or get a bloody nose when it engages before he disconnects it? Theory is fine. That's what labs are there to show. But field use is TOTALLY different. Regards, Ken