c3k

Hmmm, Scenario file manager? I believe a search under "c3k" will reveal some thoughts on that matter... Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, Scenario file manager? I believe a search under "c3k" will reveal some thoughts on that matter... Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, Scenario file manager? I believe a search under "c3k" will reveal some thoughts on that matter... Thanks, Ken

YankeeDog, I ran such a test. I used the editor and built some roads and ran some squads. Do a search under my name and you'll find it...eventually. The salient points were that encumbrance IS modelled. The men can carry some HEFTY loads. (The specific kg/lbs per man are in my post.) But, the game models it, to a degree. All units can sprint for short distances. After that the speed slows down and the depth of fatigue increases rapidly for heavily encumbered troops. Regards, Ken

OMG! I had NO idea the engine was powerful enough to craft separate targets at the various waypoints. That is awesome. (I remember seeing your Deathblossom, but that was while the game was sitting on my shelf. My memory incorrectly had the various target lines as face orders.) This opens up a huge amount of tactical flexibility. Wow. Thanks, Ken

SlowMotion, Ah, thanks for adding that. I'd noticed it, but let is slip. Regards, Ken

Gents, A couple of items I've noticed: loading/unloading passengers are not annotated; injured passengers are given a red dot. Loading and unloading passengers cannot be given orders (WEGO) if the turn break occurs in the midst of the loading/unloading process. That's fine, the inability to change orders, but there is no status indicator which would make it clear that they are loading/unloading. It would be nice to see a statement to that effect. Right now the only clues are the order lock-out and zooming in closely and finding a nearby vehicle with open doors. Subtle clues. I need a 2x4. That segues into finding the status of a unit. Is it in vehicle or not? Using floating icons in a crowded zone is a workaround. Right now, if you select a unit, you have no way of telling via the unit interface if that unit is a passenger. A message indication that would be helpful. Having a link to the vehicle they are in would be better. The corollary is also missing: selecting a vehicle does not allow you to directly select the passenger. You can tell there's a passenger based on the pips. Then you need to click on the icon and hope you get the right guys. Not too hard to do if you zoom in, but if you're across the map and your units are congested it gets difficult. Which brings me to the final point of this; the pip colors do not match the other interface colors. If a squad has injured members, they are annotated by a yellow base and yellow weapons icons. That's nice. If that same unit loads into a vehicle, the passenger pips on the vehicle interface are green for okay passengers and RED for injured passengers. It seems that YELLOW would tie in with the unit interface in a better manner. If a passenger gets KILLED (or hors de combat) the red pip would make sense. These suggestions are offered in the hope of polishing CMSF. Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, Sure, toss out "tactical" reasons for excluding motorcycles. We all know the REAL reason: you don't want to put up with the flamewars regarding the correct number and pattern of spokes for front and rear wheels. Thanks for the response. Regards, Ken

gibsonm, Guilty as charged... (One day I'll figure out how to post links to other threads. There will be much rejoicing when that happens.) To me, there is a slight difference in those threads. But, I grant that they could be rolled up into one. I do not mean to be annoying with the multiple threads, but they do have a short half-life. My intent it to raise what I think are areas where the game could be improved. (Yes, beauty and the eye of the beholder, etc.) Once BF.C comments, then I stop. Steve has mentioned that there are too many threads for him to read every one. You'll note that I raised a few other "issues" in other threads. The moment a BF.C member posts on the thread, whether to support it, be neutral, or to show how useless, silly, inappropriate it would be, I thank them and stop. My intent is to ensure BF.C notes the matter, not to harass them into adopting my worldview. For what it's worth, I take your post, above, in good humor. I appreciate the feedback, and I acknowledge your role as a beta tester. Thanks for the post. Regards, Ken

gibsonm, Guilty as charged... (One day I'll figure out how to post links to other threads. There will be much rejoicing when that happens.) To me, there is a slight difference in those threads. But, I grant that they could be rolled up into one. I do not mean to be annoying with the multiple threads, but they do have a short half-life. My intent it to raise what I think are areas where the game could be improved. (Yes, beauty and the eye of the beholder, etc.) Once BF.C comments, then I stop. Steve has mentioned that there are too many threads for him to read every one. You'll note that I raised a few other "issues" in other threads. The moment a BF.C member posts on the thread, whether to support it, be neutral, or to show how useless, silly, inappropriate it would be, I thank them and stop. My intent is to ensure BF.C notes the matter, not to harass them into adopting my worldview. For what it's worth, I take your post, above, in good humor. I appreciate the feedback, and I acknowledge your role as a beta tester. Thanks for the post. Regards, Ken

gibsonm, Guilty as charged... (One day I'll figure out how to post links to other threads. There will be much rejoicing when that happens.) To me, there is a slight difference in those threads. But, I grant that they could be rolled up into one. I do not mean to be annoying with the multiple threads, but they do have a short half-life. My intent it to raise what I think are areas where the game could be improved. (Yes, beauty and the eye of the beholder, etc.) Once BF.C comments, then I stop. Steve has mentioned that there are too many threads for him to read every one. You'll note that I raised a few other "issues" in other threads. The moment a BF.C member posts on the thread, whether to support it, be neutral, or to show how useless, silly, inappropriate it would be, I thank them and stop. My intent is to ensure BF.C notes the matter, not to harass them into adopting my worldview. For what it's worth, I take your post, above, in good humor. I appreciate the feedback, and I acknowledge your role as a beta tester. Thanks for the post. Regards, Ken

M1A1TC, That is a great idea. I just called in some 155 shells about 120 meters away. After several WIA and a KIA I finally ran my guys back into cover. Ooops. I wish I'd known BEFORE I dropped the boom stick on them that 100 meters is too close. Thanks, Ken

"Target" and "Target Light" using the same color lines. (When a Bradley uses its TOWs it cannot "Target Light". Its "Target" line, red, has the same meaning as a Bradley with TOW's using "Target Light, yellow.) The simple fix is to remove the "Target" option from Bradleys which have no TOW's. Regards, Ken

"Target" and "Target Light" using the same color lines. (When a Bradley uses its TOWs it cannot "Target Light". Its "Target" line, red, has the same meaning as a Bradley with TOW's using "Target Light, yellow.) The simple fix is to remove the "Target" option from Bradleys which have no TOW's. Regards, Ken

"Target" and "Target Light" using the same color lines. (When a Bradley uses its TOWs it cannot "Target Light". Its "Target" line, red, has the same meaning as a Bradley with TOW's using "Target Light, yellow.) The simple fix is to remove the "Target" option from Bradleys which have no TOW's. Regards, Ken

George Mc, only one vote allowed. JohnO, I'm putting you in the "I'm for this" column as well; that's 3 out of 3! Get on the consensus bus! FMB, whoa, make that 4 out 4! Anyone else? If you like how "Target" and "Target Light" can have the same color lines, why not have the same color lines for all the various movement commands? BF.C, you could save money doing that. No wasted multiple colors. It's cheaper to code only one color, right? Thanks, Ken (For the humor impaired, which includes some here, take a closer look at what I posted.)

Okay, now we're rolling! 2 out 2 posters agree (as far as I can tell). That creates a consensus. This means that CMSF players OVERWHELMINGLY agree that BF.C should fix this. BF.C, take note! Your consumer base is speaking... Thanks, Ken

Gents, Right now I understand "Target Light" yields the yellow target line and "Targe" begets the red line. However... Given two Bradleys, one has depleted its ready TOW missiles, the other has not. Let's call them "TOW-less" and "TOW-able". Now, if I do NOT want TOW-able to shoot its missiles at a target, but rather just fire its coax and 25mm I use "Target Light". Fine, TOW-able has a yellow line. Next I use "Target" for TOW-less. It has a red line. Both TOW-able and TOW-less are hitting the same target with the same weapons and, presumably, the same effects(all else being equal). But the USER INTERFACE shows something different. Let's hit that again: SAME EFFECT, DIFFERENT INTERFACE. That doesn't seem right. Did I mention the game shows a DIFFERENT INTERFACE for the SAME EFFECT? I think you see where I'm going with this. Any thoughts? BF.C? Regards, Ken

Steve, Outstanding. I recognize your statement is NOT saying that you agree with my position, but looking at the situation is all I could hope for. Thanks. Regards, Ken

Hell yeah! Without motorcycles and barbed wire how can I create the Steve McQueen near Switzerland in "The Great Escape" scenario? On a more tactically appropriate level, yes, I too would like motorcycles and sidecars. Not just for color, but for the different approach required to use those troops. Their speed and unit dispersion present opportunities and challenges. Have I already mentioned the need for purple flares? Regards, Ken

Steve, Thanks. Again, the level of detail is amazing. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, Look at my thread, "Rubble and Doors" or maybe it was "Doors and Rubble". That may be the issue. Or it may not be. Regards, Ken

LLF, Well, if the comm net doesn't work, how are you, the PLAYER able to affect changes? I mean, you don't give one set of orders and then have to wait 30 minutes for runners to go back and forth in order to change what your units are doing. I do not think this game should put you as battalion or company CO. If that were the case, you'd have a command and control sim with you staring at a blue force tracker screen and receiving radio calls. In my opinion, this game puts you in charge as squad, platoon and company leader. With that outlook, being unaware of incoming fire, let alone casualties in my unit, does not make sense. If you don't want something like that notification, perhaps it could be made a toggle? Regards, Ken

LLF, Hmmm, I can see it now: "Sarge! We're taking incoming fire over here!" The sergeant, a veteran of a dozen years, innumerable training scenarios, and several firefights over the last few weeks thinks to himself, "Yes, we are getting fired on. My squad has already taken 1 KIA and 2 WIA. I know I'm supposed to stay off the radio net unless it's something important. I wonder of the LT would think my guys being shot up is important? Nah, probably not. We'll just keep this as a 'let's keep it in the squad' kind of thing." Is THAT what's supposed to happen? Of course not. In combat, as soon as you take incoming, regardless of casualties, you yell it up the chain. If you don't know where it's coming from, so be it. You still send it up. This player interaction is missing. Thanks, Ken

Guys, This information is great. I mean that. I bought the expensive version to have the manual. I also, obviously, have the PDF version. But, in mid-game, I'm NOT going to pause to dig through them. First, some of the information is WRONG. Second, some of the information is MISLEADING. Finally, some of the information is HIDDEN. All I'm asking for is a TOOL-TIP or UNIT INFO screen which would tell me, the poor dumb bastard PLAYING A GAME, what my units are capable of. This, of course, ties in with the various other INTERFACE improvement requests present in this forum. I'm not looking for more CONTROL, I'm beseeching BF.C for more INFORMATION. Thanks, Ken