Rocky Balboa

In situations like this I will usually set a very narrow covered arc on the suspected location and this makes it more likely that your troops will spot the OPFOR.

Good rules to live by; especially from Mishga . Me personally I find you must be very methodical in how you approach fire and manuever. Make sure that you cover every possible enemy location with at least a covered arc. The covered arc will allow your units to see and engage quicker if they are ambushed. also any known or highly suspected location should be covered with area fire. Once this is done then move your maneuver elements to a good firing/ covering position then rinse and repeat.

Agreed, I rarely ever used things like covered arcs and area fire in CMx1. But in CMx2 you better make sure you have all suspected enemy locations plotted with covered arcs (and or) area fire and all known locations plotted with at least area fire before you move or your going to need lots of body bags .......

Easy Dog !!! Down Boy ...

Yep ..... That's the one and its still NVIDIA's top of the line (newest) series card .... which means they are still tweaking the drivers that go with it. Personally I wont even think of buying an 8 Series until they come out with the 9 Series because for me its not worth paying a premium price for the latest GPU and still having to deal with compatibility problems not only with new applications but my older applications as well.

Yep ... kind of frustrating when you have to clear target, change facing and then re-target .....

I know this is a small issue but I don't understand why you can't change vehicle facing while there is an active target? As of ver 1.03 you must clear target before you can issue a facing command. Is this intended or a bug? If its intended to be this way then maybe someone can explain the reasons behind it.

don't understand why people go out and buy the latest graphics card as soon as it hits the self and then want to complain when everything doesn't work perfectly. That's why its called the bleeding edge and if players cant be patient while problems are sorted out then don't buy a graphics card that hasn't been thoroughly tested. BFC doesn't have the budget or the staff to do the type of testing that you suggest. I'm sorry for those that are experiencing problems but this is the price you pay when buying bleeding edge technology. Next time don't purchase the newest card but get one that's been in the field for a while and leave yourself an upgrade path for the newer cards after they have been tested.

That's partly the point of my OP. If the Balconies provide more or less protection, then shouldn't the player be able to decide if we want to use the balcony or not? Currently you don't have a choice, If you move your troops to a floor with a balcony, it seems that they always set up on the balcony.

I noticed that a squad always use the balcony when occupying a building floor that includes said balcony. Does the game provide more or less protection when using a balcony as opposed to being deployed within the building?

I don't really know what the issue is but I will agree that infantry survivability appears to be very low when moving even short distances. I would also like to hear from BFC if they feel that this is working as intended or if they are looking at this i

PHIL I think this would be a useful exercize and even if BFC is working on some of the issues in your list, there may be one or two that they weren't aware of ..... At the least maybe it will prompt Steve to give us a definite list of issues being worked on in 1.04

Cap, I absolutely agree with what your saying and that's why I take issue with some of these scenario designers that give you 30-40 mins to clear a village. Most people get bogged down by the battle timer and start rushing to beat the clock and this is when these mistakes occur. Of course time constraints are a part of war and 30-40 mins may be all you have to clear an objective so my advice to scenario designers is this: Give some serious thought to the battle timer and if there is a reason why the commander only has 30 mins to secure an objective then design your scenario accordingly. Don't just select an arbitrary 30-40 mins because that's what you did in CMx1

I'm going to have to agree with Kip on some of his points. Here's what happens to me in RT. In the heat of battle I give a squad an assault order to enter a building directly across the street. I then realize; after they start to move, that the door is on the other side of the building so my soldiers are exposed in the open for a longer period of time and this has resulted in excessive casualties. I do understand that you must model buildings correctly in order to realistically simulate a MOUT environment but it does become an extremely challenging task in RT (especially RT/Multiplayer were you cannot pause) to remember to check each building for entry points before issuing movement orders. This becomes a time consuming task especially were buildings are separated by alleys because its difficult sometimes to maneuver the camera to get a good view. This level of micromanagement is the reason that I don't play RT/Multiplayer. I enjoy RT against the computer because I can pause to make these choices, but WEGO is my playstyle of choice in multiplayer. As I stated before these entry points are necessary for a realistic MOUT Sim but I think this illustrates how important WEGO is for multiplayer. Unfortunately, even with patch 1.03, the pathfinding and TAC/AI still does too many strange things to make WEGO feasible for me. Perhaps with some more tweaking and the ability adjust the turn timer, I might be able to play multiplayer again. :cool: [ September 05, 2007, 09:49 AM: Message edited by: Rocky Balboa ]

Even though 1.03 did make many improvements, the AI/Pathfinding still needs lots of work. I still have vehicles doing some very strange things (driving off in different directions than plotted, turning in unpredictable directions) . These inconstancies seem to occur more when in close proximity to other units. I cant really see myself playing CM:SF multiplayer because multiplayer/RT is just too impractical and the TacAI isn't dependable enough to play WEGO at all. So all of my play so far has been RT against the AI. I am enjoying what I am able to do but still appears to be many things that need to be addressed before I would recommend CM:SF to a friend.

Steve, I'll have to differ with you on that statement. If your talking computer games as a whole then yeah 6 months is about right. But in your little niche of that market (computer wargames / simulations) I think longevity is normally expected to be a lot longer, by about 4X. The reason as I see it is because there is less competition for those players that enjoy these types of games.

Red, The whole your digging is vast and wide indeed. Please save us the theatrics of climbing your mountain of vindication and proclaiming " I Redwolf predicted that there will still be pathfinding and AI issues after patch 1.03". If you really are a programmer of any stripe then you will of course know that a simulation this detailed will never be perfect and that there will always be things that need to be fixed. CMX1 still has issues to this day ....

Wolf, I have no complaints with your original post. If you purchased the game then you should be able to make a realistic, informed, rational and coherent post about an issue with the game that you feel isn't working correctly. Which I believe you did. My post was directed primarily at those people who continuously want to rant about what BFC did wrong in the past and demanding apologies for some perceived transgression. As for your original post, you made your case about the path finding and AI. I question whether it was necessary because BFC has already admitted that there were problems in those areas and was even working on a patch. So unless you include yourself in the vocal minority that want to continuously scourge BFC for their sins then I agree with your OP.... There are problems with the pathfinding and AI in CM:SF 1.02

To those of you who don't like the game and are angry, upset, frustrated, (insert additional negative emotions here). Did you play the demo? If you played the demo and didn't like it but you bought the game anyway then why are you upset with BFC? Obviously you have read some negative reviews and agree with those reviews so why did you buy the game? Did you buy the game thinking it was going to be different somehow? Did you pay your ~$50.00 thinking that now you have the right to piss and moan about how bad you think it is? If you haven't purchased the game and are here on these forums trying to convince the consumers who feel they have made a worthy purchase that we are wrong, then you seriously do need to get a life. To be honest I think I made a wise buying decision. I played the 1.02 demo and liked what I saw, I paid my ~$50.00 like everyone else and even though I see issues with the game, I have already had several hours worth of enjoyment and entertainment. Heck, I'll spend > $50.00 taking the wife and kids to a movie and maybe (that's a big maybe with some of the crap Hollywood dishes out) getting a few hours entertainment. My point is, don't get so bent out of shape because CMSF didn't meet your personal expectation. These guys are human, they made some mistakes, they have admitted their mistakes, and they are working hard correct the problems as they perceive them to be.

No slam intended but even if CMSF had been released in "perfect condition", I doubt seriously if most casual RTS fans would give it a second look. This game is not a RTS like Warcraft, StarCraft, Batlle For Middle Earth or even Company of Heroes. CMSF is a detailed battlefield simulation with a RT element built in but that's were any resemblance stops.

Good Scenario, I was a little disapointed when I tried to demo the walls of the compound and it didnt work. Per BFC, demo/Blast movement should be fixed with 1.03 so it should make for an interesting way to enter the compound. I'll play it again when I get 1.03

I think this was asked before but didn't get answered ..... Was blast movement fixed in 1.03 ?

With all due respect, it is that attitude that has caused the mess we have today. Had BF taken the time to begin with to iron out all these issues then we wouldn't have the problems we have today. To be honest I consider this to be a beta test ..... yes a beta test that I paid to be a part of but a beta test just the same ......

BFG should to take as much time as they need to get it right.....

I agree with Martyr, Don't forget to add some interesting Red TOE to the modules. Some that come to mind would be Serbian, Iraqi, Taliban, Argentinean (Falklands Anyone? Of Course Britt's would be a must for this one). And since this has turned into what kind of modules you would like to see thread I'll throw in my .02 US/Vietnam Conflict, Nato/Warsaw Pact, WWII Pacific, WWII Europe (I saved this one for last because I still have CMX1 for this one)....