c3k

Gibsonm, Thanks for the info on 1.06. One question though: when will it be out? Regards, Ken

Are we comparing Syrian soldiers, whether conscripted, reserve, regular, or elite, to Iraqi fighters? I would submit that the Syrian regulars, and especially elites, would have more reliable stocks of weapons and would use them more effectively than the vast majority of what we're seeing in Iraq. Therefore, I'd be hesitant to draw direct comparisons between Iraq experiences and game simulation. (Yes, I'm sure there are cases of very good, very skilled, very well trained fighters in Iraq who are better than anyone the Syrians have. The curves could cross, but in toto the advantage goes to Syria.) Having said all that, I've held that the game does grant excessive accuracy at long range. This is especially so against moving targets. Regards, Ken

Steve, Wouldn't it be easier just to let the defender place 2D tiles for defenses then press a new "Process 2D Defensive Tiles into 3D Graphically Represented True Terrain" button? Ken

I'm using a q6600, native speed 2.4Ghz overclocked to 3.2Ghz. 8800GTX graphics. Vista 64 Ultimate. (8 Gb ram). All is good in CMSF. Unlike rune, none of the CMx1 titles work for me. With your budget of 300, a medium quad/dual core would eat up all of it. Is your motherboard dual/quad capable? If not, you'll have to factor that cost as well. (Sorry if you've already considered that.) Regards, Ken

Hmmm, water. I want waves. Waves with spray. And plumes. If it doesn't have rainbows with accurate physics modelling I won't buy it. Oh, and refraction. With different refractive indices for fresh water and salt water. And fish. With the right species. And the fish have to exhibit appropriate behavior. And breeding. If all that fails, I guess blue tiles could work. Ken

Steve, Yeah, kind of funny. My post above yours is obviously tongue-in-cheek, but I tried to make a point with it. Couple that with your post, above, about missing it and I have to bring up another point: The many calls to create a bug/problem forum would have enabled my initial post to be brought to your attention sooner. Okay, that assumes several things. First, any bug forum would have to be heavily moderated to assure the signal to noise ratio stays high. That would take the commitment of several individuals. The next assumption would be that my original post, above, would've resulted in someone at BF.C recognizing the issue I raised and how it interacted with the game. Again, that would take time away from performing other actions. Regardless, I do think that you, BF.C, would be well served by creating a separate forum for bugs. The amount of customer support you have is ridiculous. Use it. Oh, how's the wreath thing and free games box coming along? Regards, Ken

I hereby claim THIS thread was the first public mention of the shortfall of the CMx1 LOS and the the need for what is now termed "Enhanced LOS". I seek public credit for this. After the accolades pour in, I will seek some sort of wreath to be appended to my name on all forum posts. BF.C, you may send me free copies of all your games. It is enough that I serve. Regards, Ken

Steve, So NOW we know!! This explains everything: "I hate WWII and despise the people who like it." Why, this quote needs to go out over the internet! Context be damned! Thin-skinned people or those with delicate egos will always search for reasons to take umbrage. Thanks for keeping us in the loop - even if we don't like the shape, size, curvature, or orientation of the loop. Regards, Ken

^^^^^^^^ Agreed. 1.06, Ken

Steve, Thanks for the insight. Regards, Ken

As for me, I find it is WORK to play this game. I blame some of that on the GUI. Sure, you can invest a lot of time into it, but I don't have/want to put that much time into learning the GUI. Part is also the SIMULATION aspect. I am a former active duty member and current reservist. I keep up on military matters. Yet, I find that the icons, weapons, interactions and uses of the various weapons and inventory items is hard to learn. For example, how do I get my guys NOT to use their AT-4's? Why don't Javelins get used? What are the timing issues involved in MOVE for a Stryker, combined with UNLOAD and ASSAULT? Etc. Implementation of a tactical idea is hard. This revolves around coordination. I like WEGO. This game is real-time with a fudge to implement WEGO. There is a dearth of battles and true campaigns. Quick battles is broken when compared to the QB system is CMx1. There are a lot of quirks and bugs. Yet, I still WANT this to be a good GAME. Hoping for v1.06, Ken

First, I like the green circles under my healthy men. It took a little while, but I finally noticed the pie-wedge that each man has on his circle which denotes where he's looking. I like that. Very nice. What I don't like is the lack of tactical coverage. Every man in the squad has that pie-wedge facing the same direction! Always. I would think some would be looking at 12 o'clock and some at 2, some at 10, some at 3, at 9, etc., etc. Is this part of the lack of spotting problem that seems to plague this game? You know, men not seeing obvious enemy locations? Regards, Ken

Invisible enemy units at setup.

Floating LOS.

A bump because this would be great to have fixed in the next patch. 1.06, Ken

How fast do you want those bullets sent your way? Regards, Ken

Is it poor form to always self-bump? 1.06, Ken

Agreed. Sometime the right click needs to done a second time. Is this the same that you're noticing? I THINK BF.C is aware of the double right click issue. 1.06, Ken

Steve, Don't think of us as complainers, think of us as your own personal sticky-note. We're more than happy to remind you of things to improve the game. Regards, Ken

My very limited experience supports the slower ROF for longer ranges. At 300 meters, prone, it was VERY difficult to even be sure that I had just seen a pop-up silhouette rise up. This was on rolling terrain covered with light scrub. There were no markings or lanes, hence no known ranges. There were a lot of torso pop-ups which would pop-up at random. I was using an M-16 with iron sights. At 300 meters the front post completely occluded the torso. My ROF certainly dropped as I concentrated on aim and wind correction. (No misses. ) Regards, Ken

Hello. Can someone volunteer to bump this? Thank you.

Pandur, I've run an experiment. During setup you can get ALL the 7.62 ammo and give it to ONE M240B team. That lucky team will have OVER 13,000 ROUNDS. The other team keeps its default 700 rounds. Now, I like that I can ACQUIRE items. Great. I mean that. However, I setup my two MMG teams (one with 700 rounds, the other with 13,000). One runs dry. The other has a surfeit. Yet, all that extra ammo CANNOT be used by the other team. Nor can the 13,000 round team run back to a Stryker, drop off some extra, allowing the dry team to be resupplied. Once you muff the original ACQUIRE there is NO alternative. You cannot SHARE, DROP or UNACQUIRE. I guess you could burn it off... The more I think about it, the more I like the DROP option. I thought SHARE could be easier to implement, kind of as an in-game, behind the scenes ammo levelling between two units. But DROP, with a selectable number and type of ammo would be cool. I want an RPG depot so my uncons can run back and forth with them. Oh, and the artwork would have to show a dozen or two RPG's sticking out of backpacks. Just a few happy thoughts to tweak the game. Regards, Ken

Thanks. I opened this thread partially to begin a discussion about grenade resupply. As well, what about engineer satchel charges? My thoughts are for the situation when a PLATOON needs resupply. Instead of every SQUAD having to separately get ammo, why can't one team get it? What if my intent is to keep my anti-tank assets up on-line? The technique of peeling the 2 man anti-tank team from each squad would be counterproductive. As would the inverse - leaving just 6 men on line while 21 (2+7=9 man Stryker squad) go back. The 7.62mm example has already been mentioned. What of the Syrian side? Who will get more missiles for my launchers? Etc., etc. I'm not sure about "dropping" an ammo counter. Hey, it'd look cool, I'm just not sure how it'd work in-game. The invisible but coded aspect of "ACQUIRE" is already there. I'm just wondering about extending its utility. The ammo displays for squads obviously represent real numbers behind the scenes. We don't know what they are. But, by "SHARING" ammo, we could see the total ammo supply and how much they'll give to the other guys. In short, any expendable munition should be able to be SHARED or resupplied. We already have a system, rough but workable, in-game. Can we streamline it and expand it? Regards, Ken

The addition of bulk ammo supplies in vehicles is great. It adds to the "overhead" of cycling a squad, or team, off-line to resupply. But why can't the resupplied unit SHARE that ammo? If my platoon is running low, I'd like to send a half-squad back to the ammo resupply point. Skulking and dodging along the way. There, they load up with ammo for everyone. (Grenades?) When they return, what, they won't share? "Hey! Get your own!" Instead, how about coding up a new feature to SHARE? Have it as a sub-menu similar to ACQUIRE. Any other unit (restricted to sister units?) may SHARE ammo if close enough. This would keep from having to cycle every single unit back to the same point. Thoughts? Regards, Ken

THIS NEEDS TO BE DONE!! Think about the children... Regards, Ken