c3k

Steve, Quite the opposite. Scenario size is "tiny" or "small". The map is 208 meters x 350 meters. It is flat with all squares being Grass "T" AND Brush. The units are 1 stryker platoon, minus vehicles (3 squads, 2 MMG teams, 1 Hq element), and a lone T-72. That's it. My game system: q6600 (clocked at 3.2 Ghz vice 2.4 standard), Nvidia 8800GTX, 8 Gig of Ram, Vista64 Ultimate. Is that considered moderate by you guys? So, tiny map, minimum number of units, non-complex terrain, good machine: I can reliably replicate this issue. Let me know. Thanks, Ken

C'mon, don't let this sink into oblivion! Bump. 1.05, Ken

Steve, A direct question: are you aware of the drawing in problem of enemy units? If not, I assume it's due to the volume of traffic on the forum and your busy schedule. I've outlined it, above. If you'd like to see a scenario which reliably replicates it, let me know. aka_tom_w has my current email. Regards, Ken

BF.C, you are some sick bastards! Now I'll have to play in the dark... Crap. This just means I'll have to shell out MORE money to play this game. You know, the illuminated keyboard, so I don't ruin the ambiance. Sick! 1.05, Ken

Gents, I'm in the midst of testing crest lines and early intel (a toggle selection in the editor) and found an issue, heretofore unbeknownst to me. The Syrians, one squad each in a house, open fire on the hapless US platoon who think they're safe behind a berm. (That issue, berms, crestlines, etc. is discussed elsewhere.) THIS issue is the "?" icons which cover the Syrian positions. (Playing at Veteran difficulty.) At a distance, say 100 meters, the "?" icon is only partially visible. It is anchored at the center of the house. (The houses are the smallest available in the editor, 1 "square".) The "?" diamond base touches the ground and the top 1/3 pokes through the roof. The part through the roof is all that is visible. As the camera approaches the house location, the "?" disappears; it shrinks into the house, submerging under the roof. Moving the camera closer yields no improvement. The "?" stays invisible. ENTERING the house provides the missing clue! The "?" icon is there, INSIDE the house, but reduced in size to the equivalent of a kitchen tile (game scale). This seems to be some sort of scaling issue. The icon attains some sort of relative size when first positioned. Then that size stays fixed in pixel terms. I.e., if the icon is created as being 100 pixels wide at a game range of 150 meters, it does NOT grow as the range closes. At a range of 2 meters, yes, 6 1/2 feet, the icon is still only 100 pixels wide. At that point, 2 meters, all the other items have scaled to a much larger size. Questions, comments, deletions? Thanks, 1.05, Ken

To add onto Othermean's post, what is the cover value for terrain on each side of a wall? Does something need to be tweaked? Yes, but I certainly have no idea where to start. Regards, Ken

Right. Okay, back on topic. How do we get an interactive scenario list? Thanks, Ken

Steve; Thanks for the look and reply. As far as being "situationally dependent" the tank is sitting in brush 20 meters aways. You've touched on the deploy/orders issue (make the "fake" turn a zero time turn in duration - that would keep any action from occuring). What seems VERY odd is the differences in intel between Basic, Veteran, and Elite. Additionally, the "glitch" which results in the tank being drawn, in toto, BEFORE either disappearing or being replaced with a "?". That lets me SEE the enemy unit momentarily. I'd be more than happy to send you the scenario. Let me know. DaveDash; I only toggled intel to "Full". With just one enemy unit, there is only the one "?". Once I get a solid grip at the simplest level (which I do NOT), then I'll try more and more units with varying levels of intel. 1.05, Ken

If there's anyone interested (hint, hint, BF.C) I've run this with the early intel, full options several times. The level of difficulty makes a difference. At all 3 levels of difficulty the tank is visible UNTIL the "drawing front" passes it. It then disappears. At "Basic" level, it stays invisible. At both "Veteran" and "Elite" the tank is replaced with a "?" icon. That seems odd, no? Any interest? 1.05, Ken

thewood, Thanks. I'm not sure "yelling" before, or now, will garner any attention. But, in the absence of positive reinforcement... BF.C, anything? Regardless of the setup/orders first turn issue, what is the function of the menu items "Early Intel" and "Intel Level"? How are they supposed to work? Are they placeholders for a function to be implemented later? Do you want me to send you the scenario? Would it help if anyone else sees the tank appear momentarily, prior to setup, then disappear if the intel is set to "blue" and "full"? helloooo..... 1.05, Ken

^^^^^^^^ Agreed. 1.05, Ken

Gents, Here's an issue that's kicked around a bit, but I don't think BF.C has addressed yet. (Could be, but with the signal to noise ratio being what it is, I'll just try again.) In a WEGO game, the first turn is a hybrid setup/orders turn. In CMx1 (I know, I know, apples and oranges) you choose where setup your units. While doing so you have no intel on the location of the enemy. Nor should you, since their location is UNKNOWN to the computer until they've been setup. Simple. Then the setup phase ends. Instantly, you gain intel on the enemy. If they're in LOS, they're known. For example, a German squad in the open 40 meters away from my Russian bunker becomes visible. A German squad set back in some thick pines would NOT be known. Then, knowing this, I select my orders for the first turn. As the German, seeing a line of bunkers and rows of barbed wire stretching from one side of the map to the other, I would tend NOT to order a frontal "RUN". This is elementary to CMx1 veterans. In CMx2 there is, er, not a "problem", but a strange programming convention. The setup and order phase is the same for the first turn. I know NOTHING of the enemy when I setup. I place my units, give them orders, click "go" and THEN I see that they are only 20 meters away from the 1st Republican Guards Division. Ooops. So, I've done a test. (Hey, has ANYONE read this far?) I setup a US Stryker platoon, minus their vehicles, on a tiny map, 208m x 320m. All brush and grass "T". I selected a single map tile in the CENTER of the US platoon and made it a Syrian setup zone. I placed a Syrian T-72 right there. Yep, 20 meters to 40 meters away from every element of a US platoon. What happened? The US player has NO IDEA there is a TANK in its midst until AFTER you click "go". Shred the crunchies. So, I tweaked some of the scenario editor parameters. Mission -> Data -> Early Intel and -> Intel Level (?) had been "none" and "none". I changed it to "Blue" - so Blue gets Early Intel, and selected Intel Level (that may not be name) to "Full". This produced an anomolous change. Opening the scenario, the brush gets "drawn" into being, starting at the camera location and extending into the distance. As the "drawing front" moved over the tank location, the T-72 became visible. MOMENTARILY. Poof, it was gone again. So, bug, error, anomoly, user ineptitude? Why did the tank appear and disappear? Why isn't it visible? How can this setup problem be resolved? BF.C? 1.05, Ken

Crest update. First version: s=syrian, #=terrain height, U=U.S. s-20-20-20-20-20-etc-20-21-22-21-20-etc-20-U The Syrians have free LOS to U.S. Second version s-20-20-etc-20-22-23-22-20-etc-20-U No LOS until the U.S. moves "upslope" a bit. MUCH more realistic. (Note: the usual issues of unit deployment/lack of return fire/ignoring incoming fire apply) v1.05, Ken

akatomw, Woohoo! That NEW patch is AWESOME. Ha! Too bad for all the losers who'll never see it. I'm glad I've been included in the "in" group. It serves those complaining losers right that Steve and everyone else are keeping this patch secret. Yeah! (edited to explain that THIS POST WAS IN JEST! Despite my best attempts, aka_tom_w has NOT given me the secrets to the next patch. Sigh.) Thanks, Ken [ December 11, 2007, 12:56 PM: Message edited by: c3k ]

BF.C, Obviously you won't be able to enjoy your holidays until you've put this one to bed. The scenario/battle list fairly screams to be adjusted! A long-running complaint since CMBO has been the laundry list nature of all the battles. We NEED to have an interactive list. Have I played that battle yet? Did I win or lose? Which side? Does it have tanks? Air support? What type is it; assault, move to contact, etc? When did it occur? How large is it? How many forces are in it? Etc. All this information is IN the battle folder, but not in the list. Of course, I NEED to be able to organize my list of battles based on the above information. "click" oooh, now the battles are listed chronologically. "click" oooh, now they're listed by size. "click" oooh, now I have them listed by length. As you can see, I've done the heavy lifting on this project by adding in the "clicks". Get patching. v1.06, Ken

aka_tom_w, My profile's email is wrong. Oooops. Thanks, Ken

Gents, I've run a test of infantry movement in v1.04 and I'd like to get BF.C's response regarding this issue, specifically if it's going to be tweaked in v1.05 or if it'll be on the list for a future patch. Or, perhaps if it's just a "that's the way it'll be" kind of issue. I set up a small scenario, 200 meters x 350 meters. The Syrians have 3 small houses at the West edge and 1 platoon of reserves, typical levels (2 squads, 1 Hq). The U.S. sets up on the East edge, one platoon of stryker infantry minus vehicles (3 squads, 2 mmg teams, 1 Hq). The terrain is "T" grass. Running North to South, between the opposing sides is a raised dirt road. Elevation 22 meters. Adjacent to the road the elevation is 21 meters. All other elevation is 20 meters. All 21 and 22 meter terrain has "brush" as well as grass "T". I order the U.S. to move up to, but short of, the intervening raised road, using "hunt". No unit is placed above ground level (20 meter). Dear God, it was a slaughter. One MMG team ignored the "hunt" order and remained fixed. One squad ignored the "hunt" order and remained fixed. As soon as the 2 squads, 1 MMG team, and Hq element moved, the Syrians fired on them... THROUGH THE INTERVENING 2 METER HIGH DIRT BERM!!! Tracers burrowed through. (I know that's a known issue...) The U.S. had, after 60 seconds, 18 casualties (all but 2 red), and 18 "green" men. Most of those, 15, were comprised of the 3 man MMG team and 12 man squad which refused to move. At no point did any U.S. unit leave terrain with an elevation of 20 meters. HOW DID THE SYRIANS SPOT THE U.S. THROUGH THE DIRT??? My next test will be to tweak the intervening berm higher and thicker until I am able to block the Syrian LOS/LOF. More later.... 1.05, Ken

Headline!!! "Battlefront REFUSES to fix the 61st problem!!!" Carry on. 1.05, Ken

Barleyman, Oh, absolutely the assault rifle (M-16, M-4, or AK-47, etc.) is very effective at ranges of around 50-100 meters. I'm not doubting that. Your scenario sounds like a straight up run at a defended location. I agree the firepower available to the defense would shred any attacker. My scenario presupposes short engagement times with lateral targets. A man RUNNING across a street 150 meters away. Now, if he ran down the street for 10's of seconds, he'll be hit. You could just walk your rounds on him. But I'm talking a pop-up target on the run and visible for only a few seconds. CMSF tends to hit them far too often. And their buddies tend NOT to fire at the location where the deadly fire came from. 1.05. Thanks, Ken

Hmm, Is ther ANY value in trying to evacuate red casualties (as opposed to the lightly wounded yellow casualties)? If there is value, can they be moved? I'm imagining how planning for casualty evac could change an attack. Thanks, Ken

Hmm, Is ther ANY value in trying to evacuate red casualties (as opposed to the lightly wounded yellow casualties)? If there is value, can they be moved? I'm imagining how planning for casualty evac could change an attack. Thanks, Ken

Hmm, Is ther ANY value in trying to evacuate red casualties (as opposed to the lightly wounded yellow casualties)? If there is value, can they be moved? I'm imagining how planning for casualty evac could change an attack. Thanks, Ken

Accuracy and snapshot effectiveness does seem a bit too good. I've fired at a lot of targets at various ranges up to 300 meters, pop up torsos, and with iron sights it is very hard to even tell if you SEE a target at that range, or if the bush is just blowing in the breeze. Add in some lateral movement, at any speed, and that target probably won't get hit. Bringing the range in closer helps, of course, but then lateral speed at closer ranges increases angular velocity (whilst reducing required leads). In short, a moving target is HARD TO HIT!! Except in CMSF. As for overwatch, the reaction of forces is a bit under-represented. You don't need to identify a specific target to return fire. If your buddies are taking fire from "over there", well, you aim "over there" and hose the place down! Sure, get fancy, and assign specific targets "over there" to your guys, e.g. "Smitty, take the top right window; Johnson, suppress the top left. The rest of you guys hose the first floor!" Too accurate fire vs. moving units, and/or units at range, and a lack of overwatch responsiveness. Combine that with lowcrawls in open ground and others who can't find the front door (or dive into a window) and you get everyone wiped out. Waiting for 1.05. Thanks, Ken

Steve, Without getting into some sort of WEGO vs. RT flamewar (and I hereby state my preference for the sedate WEGO lifestyle as opposed to the frenetic pace of the RT'ers), I think the fundamental question (HEY! I used "fundamental" but I emphatically did not combine it with "FLAW", which, as we all know would mean a moderator would hit with a full force anti-photon beam, capable of shattering any Space Lobster of Doom carapace, but I digress....) is whether the code MUST be sacrificed to perform calculations on the fly. To shed the verbosity of the previous paragraph: in order to run a 60 second CMSF turn in 60 seconds of REAL time, does the processor power make a difference in the level of AI? Cutting down to 1/2 second intervals (say 2 frames in game), if my processor can run 10,000 instructions and yours can only run 1,000 instructions, do I get a better game experience? If not, what is the use of a faster/better processor? Where do the empty cycles go? Thanks, Ken

This is some very illuminating information about, not just terrain in game, but how to use the editor. (edited to add this) So the amount of "bushiness" in growth adds _cover_? I ask this to differentiate between cover and concealment. Is there a blending of cover and concealment? I.e., does the game give a bit of physical protection (cover) to units which should be difficult to see (concealment) in real life? (end edit) Quick! Someone step forward and start collating all this information into some sort of guide. Thanks, Ken