c3k

Figures!! I've played it about 3-4 times. All I did was assign one of each type of battery to a single HQ ensconced in a great (hidden) spotting position. All I USUALLY see is some track degradation. I have seen a RARE (given the number of rounds fired and the closeness of the impacts) kill. So I guess my use of "TOTALLY" is a bit of hyperbole. Sorry. I should've said "MOSTLY". Thanks! Ken

urc, Is STRIX the guided 120mm projectile? Regards, Ken

Gents, Again, forgive me if this was posted earlier. There is no central bug forum/thread. During the action phase (wego), playing with artillery or airstrikes in a custom scenario, I get to see variously sized impact craters from the different munitions. That's great. (And, seriously, kudos for that.) However, in the REPLAY phase, at the beginning of the replay - BEFORE ANY MUNITIONS HAVE IMPACTED - all the terrain deformations (craters) from the just completed action phase ARE PRESENT. In short, we get the effect before we see the cause. Now, I'm all for modern physics with 11 dimensions, weird strings, and time-travel, but could we hold that until the Space Lobsters of Doom module? To summarize, any terrain deformations from an action phase get "locked" into being there for the replay phase. To beat a dead horse, here's a concrete example: in the action phase, at the 60th (final) second, the very end, a 155mm round hits and makes a crater under a T-72, which then tilts into it. In the REPLAY phase, at the first instant, the T-72 is shown HOVERING over the crater as if the crater isn't there. Yet, visually, it is. If you watch the replay for the full minute you will see an impact in the crater at the 60 second mark, followed immediately by the T-72 tilting into the crater. Thanks, Ken

Thanks all. I knew about the DPICM delivered by MLRS. I thought I'd heard about DPICM being developed for the 155 round (albeit with fewer munitions per round for obvious reasons). I'd also heard the Brits had developed a terminally guided 120mm mortar round with an IR seeker. I was unaware the Swedes had fielded a similar (same?) round. I wouldn't think a GPS round (Excalibur style) would be too effective against MBT's. 1 meter accuracy is fine, but how many meters wide is a tank? (Rhetorical question guys!) The Copperhead is no longer in service - true? So, it seems that the way artillery kills tanks from afar is to use cluster munitions (or sub-munitions), or have terminal guidance (limited to IR sensors right now). Does the U.S. field any of these? If not, will they by the putative timeframe of CM:SF? Given ALL the above (my posts and the others), does CM:SF portray anti-armor artillery correctly? As an aside, I have not seen any other damage to the T-72's other than gradual track degradation. This means the bold green "+" becomes an un-bold green "+", then a little (yellow?) "+", then a thin red "x", followed finally by the bold red "x". What about optics? Or any of the other systems portrayed on the tank? The rare 155 direct hit will USUALLY result in tank destruction. Any other proximal impact has little result (other than the aforementioned track degradation). Thanks, Ken

Hmmm, I'd think so. I'm just wondering why my artillery support window has me choose between target types (armor, infantry, general) if the GAME does not differentiate effects against those targets. Of course, I AM still curious as to which U.S. rounds and (sub)munitions can take out T-72's. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Please correct me if I'm wrong. (I particularly like ridicule and sarcasm as teaching aids. ) Am I wrong that modern U.S. tube artillery (just like what's represented in CM:SF) has available to it specific anti-armor rounds? I'm curious because I've set up an artillery training scenario and the 155's and 120 mortars seem to be TOTALLY ineffective against the T-72. Okay, pile on with your Turms this and your ERA that. However, TOP attack rounds fused for the anti-armor mission should work, shouldn't they? Can U.S. artillery defeat Soviet armor? Thanks, Ken

Yeah, there are SOME bright spots. Just enough to hold out a vestige of hope... v1.05 will fix EVERYTHING. Regards, Ken

Yes, the squad is up front firing it, but the doppleganger is still in rear...firing as well!! More of these units are needed. I'm reminded of the ghost army in BFME2. Thanks, Ken

Cpl Steiner, Thank you! I'd assumed it was TO&E issue. Of course, if we're to use a high fidelity model for TO&E, why doesn't my Platoon HQ have 5 guys? (Oh, alright: I'm the FO, the MED isn't needed. Solved.) I'm still wondering why my friggin' gunners don't understand to rotate to fire on the target they've been assigned. <shrug> v1.05.... Thanks, Ken

thewood - yes, that's the ONLY reason I lost all those games in CMx1. Hev - Yes, I'd like that as well. Although I'm sure there's a "too much micromanaging" argument against it. I'd think letting the TacAI run things unless you override it via direct command would be a good solution. Thanks, Ken

Gents, Okay, I've found a bug. I know, I know, that makes my CM:SF experience unique on this forum. In the training campaign (I'm learning, dammit!), on "Basic Training" difficulty level, the first scenario. I start with a platoon; 4 Strykers, 3 rifle squads, HQ element, 2 MMG teams. I selected each infantry unit by its icon and loaded it into a Stryker. As suggested by the scenario briefing, I loaded the HQ and both MMG teams together into the Mk 19 Stryker. Several minutes later I'd advanced halfway down the map to the two hillocks on either side. I unloaded both MMG teams on the left and a squad on the right hillock. The two Strykers with loaded squads were in the middle. I began a prepatory fire. Nice graphics. (See, it's not all a gripe.) Suddenly, to my surprise, tracers began impacting the enemy trenchline from a FIFTH fire position. Hmm, not my left firebase anchor. Not my right position, nor was it either in the middle. WTF? So, I scrolled ALL THE WAY TO MY SETUP ZONE. What did I see? (Wait for it.) Yeah, baby. A ghost M240B on a tripod in my setup zone. It had no soldiers near it. It had nothing near it except the gently moving grass. Yet, it was firing on the enemy. Cool. Ghosts. Oh, that's the Tom Clancy game. Nevermind. Anyway, I did not shift-left click my guys. I did not draw a rectangle and forget something. I selected my units by their icons. This is my second play-through. All my men and equipment are accounted for. Even if I somehow left out unit, how could this weapon fire??? Yeah, it's a bug... Anyway, I've got the replay turn left on my computer. Should I save it? Is ANYONE interested? If I do save it, how can I post a cool picture? Let me know. Thanks, Ken

After today.

Gents, Forgive me if this has been mentioned (and buried) elsewhere. I've played a bit and am now going through the Training Campaign at the lowest difficulty setting. I unloaded my two MMG teams on a small hillock and noticed behavior which didn't seem consistent. (First, and very parenthetically, why does one team consist of 3 men and the other 4? I see the 4-man team has a commander, why doesn't the other?) Anyway, this is what happened: the Stryker with the MMG teams had enemy units at its 11 o'clock. I unloaded both MMG teams to the Stryker's 6 o'clock and 30 meters. The teams lay down facing the way they'd moved, to the Stryker's 6 o'clock. There, the teams ignored the enemy. WTF? Oh, I guess that default behavior is alright. I need to give them a TARGET order. I did so. Pointing to the enemy at the MMG's 5 o'clock (the same one which was located relative to the Stryker's 11 o'clock.) The MMG's DID NOT TURN OR MOVE OR ENGAGE THE ENEMY. Finally, I selected the deploy weapon order. Okay, now we have MMG's on tripods. (BTW, the gunner's hands are mis-positioned on the M240B's. It seems the weapon should be slid back about a foot.) Again, they ignored the TARGET order pointing at their 5 o'clock. Finally, minutes later, I found the FACE command. NOT located as a movement, but under a TARGET menu. To use it, I had to first CLEAR TARGET, then FACE to 5 o'clock. A minute later, I was able to again select TARGET. WTF??? Why, after I specifically select a TARGET do the MMG teams NOT engage that target? Facing to engage should be part of the same routine. If that can't be done, why should FACE and TARGET be mutually exclusive? FACE, rotating in place, would seem to more properly be a MOVE command. Am I the first to find this to be flaw? (or, to avoid sounding rude, perhaps I should call it "a sub-optimal command arrangement"?) Thanks, Ken

sFS, Oh, don't get me wrong. I LOVE fog-of-war mechanisms. I HATE changes in reality. To expand on that, I understand and enjoy moving against a hidden enemy. If I start a scenario and there are hidden enemy which I need to discover, that's fine. What isn't fine, to me, is starting a scenario where 50 T-72's are set-up in the open at 300 meters from my units. (I know this ONLY because I designed the scenario - nice editor BTW.) Yet, despite a division's worth of tanks in the open, my guys DO NOT SEE THEM. I understand that spotting routines cannot be employed while units can be freely relocated. THAT would be gamey. (Someone would just place the best optics unit at each vantage point during setup and gain all the intel, then place their units where they would gain the best advantage.) What I'm objecting to is the SETUP AND FIRST TURN nature of the setup phase. I think a stand-alone SETUP phase would be best. After all your units (and the enemy's units) are positioned, THEN you would be sent to the FIRST TURN. In effect, if my units move down a road (simulated by their placement there during setup) and there's a roadblock 100 meters ahead in LOS, I should know about it BEFORE my orders phase. Does all that make sense? Thanks, Ken

...they realize the magnitude of the work which needs to be done to CM:SF to bring it up to their high standards. With that recognition they have vowed to let their work speak for itself and will not post again until the highly anticipated v1.05 patch is released. or ...they are tired of being slammed for the shoddy condition of CM:SF and "all your money are belong to us". or ...they are waiting for the plaintive "thank you, we are not worthy" threads to exceed the volume of the "I can't believe I pre-ordered this game" threads. Any other takers? Regards, Ken (hoping for option 1, but I've been around enough not discount the others.)

Having played v1.04 a little bit, I feel a few alterations are necessary. The currently titled "Setup" turn needs to be called "Setup and First Turn". Or, to be more accurate, "Setup and First Turn but with NO KNOWLEDGE OF ANY ENEMY UNITS NEAR YOU". Case in point: my units start in LOS of enemy units in the setup phase, yet I have no idea of anything other than terrain and my units. Given the lack of situational awareness, my first turn's orders MUST be totally in the dark. My workaround is to dejectedly hang my head and give up on any kind of first turn orders. I select the best defensive/lookout positions I can, and then wait for the first 60 seconds to pass as quickly as possible. Also, in WEGO, the replay phase should NOT have a subtitle of "You may now replay the action", but rather, "You MUST now replay the action which you just saw or quickly scroll down to the little red square button and carefully click ONE TIME lest you mess up". Comments? Thanks, Ken

Another tweak that's needed: Given that I select a vehicle, then order "open up". Next, I group select many vehicles, which includes the previously OPENED vehicle. I order "open up". All the previously closed vehicles, indeed, OPEN UP. The other one CLOSES. The same behavior is exhibited with HIDE. My suggestion is to have SEPARATE commands to Open Up or Close Up (or Hide/un-Hide). This would replace the current toggle-like behavior which can induce unwanted results. As well, when a unit is OPENED (or HIDING) the command for that same action should be shadowed out of view. Thoughts? Thanks, Ken

True (regarding possible delays for FIRST strike, with lesser delay for follow-up attacks). Also, the on-station helo's should have a fair bit of autonomy regarding target selection after the initial run. As for fixed wing assets, the old WWII strafing run does have a place, but by far the preferred method is to pickle guided munitions from the mid 20's. Orbit a package around 25,000 feet and drop bombs on request. With that, and a bit of simple physics, the response time could be tightened a bit. Standoff range, glide ratio, initial velocity, acceleration due to gravity, and Cd, all lead to a solution. Of course, that ignores command chain loops. Ken

Hmmm, Years ago I bought a game called "Trespasser", loosely based on the book and movie "Jurassic Park". The game was horrible. THEN I read the reviews. All the reviews panned the game. They told me it was horrible. I swore I'd never buy a game without reading a review on it first. I broke that vow with CM:SF. In my hopes of suppoting BF.C I pre-ordered TWO copies of the collector's edition. In retrospect, this was a mistake. The game was broken on release. V1.04 is playable (or NOT broken), but that hardly makes it a good game. I am hoping against hope that BF.C can and will release patches which bring CM:SF up to their previous standards. Will _I_ purchase ANY modules? <shrug> BF.C has lost me as a supporter. I now put BF.C in the same class as all the other software producers. The motto of that class seems to be "caveat emptor". Release it when it's done, not one day sooner. Communicate and support it. Fix it. Good luck. Ken

Ah, "baited breath" could explain the dearth of dates. "Bated breath" could keep you waiting. Ken

First, I need to state how very easy CM:SF has made calling in arty and air support. It's fun. I made a quick test scenario to teach myself how to call in air support. I made perfect dugin spotter terrain and placed a U.S. battalion hq element in a trench. I then (across the marsh ) placed about 50 T-72's. I assigned one of every type of air support to the U.S. side. Okay, fun and easy, right? Due to the massive number of support aircraft, I have no complaints about the amount of clicking I had to do. Oh, what is my complaint??? HOW DO YOU TELL WHAT THE SUPPORT HAS?? Yes, CAS and Facs etc, communicate. How do I tell what they're carrying? I noticed some elements had "+"s and some had bold "+"s. What does that mean? (Yeah, I read the PDF and the hardcopy manual.) What if it has a red "x"? Basically, the GUI needs some more explanation. On another note, something was dropping LARGE ordnance. (2,000 pounders?) Oooh, I LOVE the craters!! So, nice job modelling, nice job with the calling in interface, poor job with the user information. (And DO NOT tell me I don't need to know what ordnance they're carrying!!) All the pictures for the aircraft show the ordnance as 40mm grenades. Some only have a single redline grenade, others have 3 grenades, each up to a green level. WTF? Please explain.... Thanks, Ken

Really. I like how smoke drifts with the wind. And how dust does the same. Wind direction and strength needs to be taken into account when targeting units. There. I said something positive about CM:SF. (I could say more, but I'll wait...) Thanks, Ken

I'm EXACTLY in istari's camp. Still hoping CM:SF can be salvaged. Thanks, Ken

Ah! Now, doesn't that explain a bit. Instead of a sawtooth highway, dirt road, gravel path, etc., it's smooth. Thank you. Regards, Ken

YES!!! V1.05 is alive!!