Peter Panzer

Scipio: Will we be seeing an updated version of your color 'Weapons Icons" mod for the UK module sometime soon? I thought the present version for US and Syrian forces was superbly done and really brought the UI to life.

Damn it people, I just spent the last twenty minutes looking for the corresponding 'Screamers' thread only to come in here and see folks carping about people carping about a video game. Speaking of which, v1.2 by the weekend, right? Good then. Just to make this post vaguely relevant, here is an image of some UK Infantry trying not to get blown up... ..and here is some UK Infantry that can blow me up...

Nice work Wengart, Pandur and Mark. Any chance the fix for this can be slipped into v1.20 given that it hasn't been rolled out yet or is it far too late for that sort of thing?

Thanks MikeyD. I suppose one could use that technique as a rough workaround. It would be great if at some point the M707 had the "Target" and "Cover Arc" buttons in the UI activated. It has always struck me as an oversight that the player cannot check LOS and assign sectors with a recon vehicle. Especially given that the "Target" button is active in the editor and the '707's REDFOR counterpart (UNCON Spy) does have access to the Target/LOS tool in-game.

Well, it turned out the demo I downloaded from the Worthplaying US Mirror was mistakenly the v1.11 Marines Demo and I will not have access to a broadband connection again for several days. So, if some kind soul could chime in on any potential improvements to the M707 in v1.2 it would be great... Can it now use the "Target/LOS" tool in game? (Dietrich's question above) Can it employ "Cover Arcs" to scan assigned sectors?Bonus question... Has the short-barrelled "Para" SAW been added to the US Army and Marines inventory?Thanks for any information.

As one of the folks who have been banging on about various issues within the game post v1.11 I wanted to say thank you to all of the BFC boys and the Beta Testers who have put what certainly appears to be a tremendous deal of effort and responsiveness into v1.20. The bulk of the points I have raised over the last several months appear to have been addressed... Infantry on rooftops are easier to spot. Mine marking works properly. US M240 gunner does not ignore facing orders when using the bipod. Fixed a bug that could cause a quick burst of unrealistically high rate of fire from a weapon mounted on a moving vehicle. Vehicle crew "up top" as gunners or in open hatches have a more natural pose. These vehicles no longer automatically button up even when under heavy fire: MTVR trucks, Humvees, and pickup trucks. (THANK YOU!) IED Mines are more likely to explode. Small model fix for M16 with mounted M203. Syrian Unconventional forces add a Forward Observer Spy.I really can't wait to try the demo over the weekend as it seems like v1.20 may finally be the point at which CMSF turns the corner for me. Again, my thanks to all for listening and implementing these changes - you very likely just picked up another customer for the UK Module!

Yes, can this please be posted either on the forum or perhaps the Demo page? Also, does installing the demo create any conflicts if you already have the full game installed?

Marco: I don't know how in the hell I missed these the first time around, but thank you - this is simply fantastic work! Here's hoping we see plenty more samples of your craftsmanship in the future.

Paper Tiger: Now that is very cool! I have said again and again it is the "little" things that really invigorate the game or vice versa. Thanks to you and MikeyD for the quick replies! Broadly speaking, I agree that small unit actions revolving around light armor and cavalry/recce are tremendous fun. Indeed, the bulk of my scenarios center around this OOB and I am glad a Beta Tester shares this perspective! That said, lavishly crafted models and detailed TO&E's are a fantastic start, but the engine has to get the details right in order for those new elements to come to life. As someone who has not had the luxury of play-testing the newest build, I will place significantly more weight on the items in the v1.20 change log than all of the present "word-of-mouth," videos and web pages for CMSF:UK when determining if I invest more in this incarnation of CM. For example... Will WMIK/LMTV crews button up at the first crack of small arms fire like M1114 gunners in v1.11? Can I conserve those precious 30mm Rarden or 25mm M242 rounds and rely upon the AI to emphasize the coaxial guns via "Target Light?" Will unarmed Recce vehicles and the M707 finally be able to scan sectors using Cover Arcs? Will OPFOR infantry on rooftops remain invisible to your Light Dragoons and Jarheads even at ranges inside fifty meters while pitching grenades? I remain very cautiously optimistic about this patch/module and look forward to learning more in the coming days.

A few questions... In reference to the operation of the 30mm Rarden cannon, NormalDude noted... Has the manner in which the AI selects which weapon to emphasize in relation to "Target Light" or "Target Heavy" been modified in v 1.20? Recall the requests for a more precise manner for the player to prioritize AFV weapon use over the last several months - conserving limited ordnance was one of the big reasons why. Also, the online manual notes that in reality, FV510 employs electronic countermeasures for IEDs. Is this reflected in the game? If so, is it safe to conclude it is only effective versus microwave/cell detonated explosives (i.e. a jammer)? Does this only provide a radius of protection that moves with the AFV or does it actually "fry" the circuitry of the detonator rendering the IED harmless to follow-on forces?

Steve: That's great news. It's nice to hear the recon assets are getting some attention. Speaking of the LRAS3, will we finally have access to in-game LOS and Target Arc functions for the M707 (Recon Humvee) in v1.2? Given that their equally unarmed REDFOR counterparts (UNCON spies) have them the omission seems rather odd, not to mention limiting in terms of the '707's effective use. Even stranger, you can use the LOS function for the M707 in the setup phase but not when the engagement begins. LT Mike isn't the only one around these parts that enjoys a solid recon mission. Can you help us out?

Paper Tiger: Not a problem. Frankly, I have suspected this of quite a few folks - I welcome your candor and desire to get things right. I prefer Cavalry units, so inaccuracies surrounding light armor and recon vehicles (no in-game LOS tool for the M707) tend to get my attention. As MikeyD and I discussed briefly, with the introduction of UK teams and eventually WWII era crews using similar configurations this issue is not going away. I agree. My outsider theory is that new self preservation behavior was added for AFV crews without taking into consideration the ramifications for M1114/MTVR gunners. Buttoning up under fire makes very good sense for a TC, but it is exactly the opposite of what '1114/MTVR gunners are expected to and must do to ensure the survival of their team. A logical presupposition. It is also incorrect when applied to v1.11. A highly motivated veteran will behave the same as the greenest boot. As noted previously, range does not play a role either, nor should it in reality. The US military trains its combat personnel to acheive fire superiority when in close contact so as to fight through an ambush and manuever for advantage. All we get in v.1.11 are virtual doggies and jarheads filling their pants consistently under practically any and all conditions. This is disasterous in WEGO. Negative. See my last point. As I have said in similar circumstances in the past - fair enough. Thank you for devoting the time! Unfortunately, I exclusively "roll my own." In other words, the first thing I do upon installation of a new module or the like is delete all of the scenarios and campaigns and create my own "Hotseat" engagements. If need be, I do have a very simple, small "test" map I use to observe these issues for myself. I could set it up with a USMC "Escort Platoon" and a squad of REDFOR infantry and e.mail it to you. Of course, it would be nothing that you could not replicate in five minutes time on your own to be honest. Please let me know how you wish to proceed as I do not want to create unneccessary work for you. Then again, with all of those campaigns you have authored you may be a bigger glutton for punishment than I am.

MikeyD: Well, yes and no. Would it be acceptable for a roof gunner to be suppressed in a similar manner to his unmounted counterparts? Possibly. Unfortunately, that is not what happens in v.1.11. Even a few near misses, regardless of range, will cause them to button up. Again, that is just not what happens in reality. V1.10 had their behavior simulated quite well. Presently, we have to deal with an extreme, which makes M1114's, CAAT Teams and MTVR's rather compromised in their offensive/defensive capabilities. Absolutely - and for all of you guys pining for the French countryside during the summer of '44, guess what your SPW and M2 gunners are going to do the first time a virtual round whips past under the current model? Truth be told, I know there is no chance that a "Target Light/Medium/Heavy" option will be introduced in v1.2, however I thought I would tack it onto the list as it is something I and others have commented on several times in the past. For that reason I won't get into it again here. Paper Tiger: Range doesn't matter man, try it out yourself. Gunners button up as far out as 500 and 600 meters after two or three small arms rounds in the vicinity. That simply does not reflect reality. Furthermore, abandoning the primary weapon station when your team is under close contact is exactly what you do not want to do. I have cited numerous, real life examples of gunners facing a hell of a lot more than a controlled pair manning their stations and fighting. I am not calling for impervious robots, but v1.11 is far too extreme and restricts an entire class of vehicles. Thanks! That was very kind of you - I appreciate it! Kyle: I have been at this for quite a while - some are arguably more major than others. CMSF has been an odd gaming experience for me, it isn't solid enough to keep me immersed, but it doesn't suck enough to make me say to hell with it. I am holding out for v1.2. As Paper Tiger noted, you (we) have a more probable chance of seeing corrections to existing elements of the game rather than the introduction of new vehicles and such. I would love to see REDFOR MANPADS teams and ZSU's, but I digress! Kosta: Yes. I have mentioned the desire for an "Unacquire" option as well.

Well Kyle, I have been putting forth the issues below long enough to know that the only individual who considers them to be "must address" is myself. Good to see I am not the only one who thinks the M1114's/MTVR's are hosed though. Machinegunners do not orient properly Unlike the other members of their team, machinegunners do not orient properly when assigned a face command in v.1.11. Likewise, if ordered to "Target" in one direction during a turn and then ordered to cease fire and "Face" another direction in a subsequent turn they will not do so until issued a new "Target" order. Infantry on rooftops remain impossibly invisible Roof-mounted weapon station gunners undermodeled (M1114, MTVR) M707 recon HUMVEE lacks an in-game LOS tool and "Target Arc" capability Incomplete M16A4/M203 Model REDFOR AFV crews lack their unique unit portrait (infantry is substituted) AFV weapon use oversimplified (Target Light, Target Heavy) If these issues, some of which have existed for a very long time, were remedied in v1.2 I would be thrilled.

Quicker solution: adjust the roof-mounted station gunners' behavior to reflect that which was present in v.1.10 given that it was far more realistic than what we have now. Personally, Seabee, I love your suggestion, but don't hold your breath. Humvees in v1.11 are scarcely worth more than REDFOR target practice, transports for a box or two of virtual 5.56 and a means to claim the game has accurate TO&E's. CMSF CAAT teams and Army gunners do not reflect their real-life potential in-game. Below are some examples from Evan Wright's account of '1114 gunners in the 1st Recon Battlion (USMC) during the initial march to Baghdad in 2003. If you are going to brand your product as a "Tactical Ground Combat Simulation" I would think there would be a desire to get this stuff right, correct? That's right folks, they drove into some very close range firefights. In reality, these teams do not have the luxury of "outranging" OPFOR systems. You fight your way out of a killzone - assuming the fetal postion makes you useless and gets your team killed. Out of the hatch, all of the time... The gun is "up." Inbound, automatic 23 mike mike - the gunner is out of the hatch and returning fire. You will not see this in v.1.11 of CMSF. They are under fire. Guess what platform those Mk19's are mounted on? M1114's, go figure. Close range ambush, no chance to "outrange" here. That .50cal. returning fire in order to break the ambush, yeah, it's mounted on...the roof of a Humvee. Replicate this behavior in the "Tactical Ground Combat Simulation." At this point in CMSF your virtual gunners are filling their pants while the rest of the platoon gets aired out. Come on guys, this should be an easy one. Honestly, I just do not understand the type of pleading that seemingly has to take place to get these types of obvious things noticed and addressed.

With all due respect Mikey, the problem is precisely as AKD and myself have outlined. Self preservation behavior, which is perfectly logical when it comes to protecting AFV commanders is utterly antithetical to what M1114/MTVR gunners do in reality and should do in-game. Gunners do not button up, the safety of their team dictates they do exactly the opposite. The engagement range argument falls flat, man. I have gunners button up in-game after a few AK rounds hit the hull of their '1114's at 200 and 300 meters. Given that SLIM referenced Evan Wright's account of 1st Recon Battalion's exploits, I would suggest reading up on their gunner's behavior in close range ambushes to see how the crews actually react in real life operations. Again, respectfully, it is nothing like what you are advocating should be the case in CMSF. We need you to carry the torch on this one - get this fix into v1.2, please. Don't forget the M707's LOS tool - we have been supplied with a recon vehicle with no eyes for Christ sake.

Slim: It ain't happening in v.1.11, baby. The latest patch hosed the behavior of crews manning roof-mounted weapon stations like those on the M1114 and MTVR. What's more, troops cannot fire from the windows. The later I can live with, but the former is a big step backward for those of us who attempt to use light vehicles as something other than cannon fodder. I first mentioned this here. Also, there is no in-game LOS tool for the M707 for some reason. Unarmed UNCON spies have them, but their mechanized US counterparts get shorted. I brought this up again here. V1.2 is likely weeks away, it would be great if these types of issues were addressed.

Something of a quick aside here... Scipio: Do you have plans to update your Unit Icon and Small Arms Icon mods to reflect the new hardware in the UK Module? I certainly hope so. The current versions really bring the interface to life and are quite skillfully executed. Thanks for sharing your work! BFC: Speaking of icons, don't forget to add a unique portrait icon for REDFOR AFV crews in v.1.2. It seems it was accidentally left out of the Marines Module when the BLUFOR received their AFV crew portraits.

No sweat, man. Yes Mark, that image illustrates the model discrepancy nicely. Moving on.

Mark Ezra: Thanks, that's really all I ask. The M16A4 had the same issue prior to v1.11, it looks like the fix in the last patch didn't get applied to the M203 variant. I hope this helps. Mehman: Not when viewed in the context of the many fixes BFC has applied to models and graphics over the course of the game's refinement. These "small" issues do capture the developer's attention and on some level, matter to them. Clavicula Nox: Given the ambiguity of the medium, I am not sure if you were joking or if you are just a dick. There was no hyperbolic or derogatory tones in my post. It was simply a "hey guys look at this" message. Mark was cognizant enough to take notice and follow through - end of story. These types of observations are typical on this forum, by-in-large we are a detail oriented bunch, as are our hosts at BFC. Here are just a few examples: This guy has some notes about the M240 This fellow wanted to mod the barrel of the M249 so it reflected the current issue more accurately. Here are a few "OMFG" items from the latest patch (v.1.11): V1.11 PATCH FEATURE LIST Updates to models: BRDM-2, BRDM-2 (AT5), BMP-3, AAV-7, AAVC-7, M1A1 Abrams USMC, and M16 rifle. M4A1 rifle renamed to M4. Light from moonrise appears more gradually. When walls of different types abut, the sides render correctly.Thomm: Thanks for the perspective. It is the attention to the "small" things that really sets BFC apart in my mind.

Can the incorrect model for the M16A4/M203 please be corrected in v.1.2. The handguard/RAS should extend to the rear edge of the front sight base. See below... Incorrect (as it appears in v.1.11): Correct:

If the holdup for the British Module is primarily one of TO&E/scenario issues, might we see the v1.2 patch released in advance of the module? It certainly would make the wait easier for the anxious among us and would help others who are on the fence about the Brits gauge whether things have come along far enough to spend additional dollars on CMSF.

Apocal Thanks for the list. I have already read several of those titles, however it was some time ago. I will be picking up a copy of We Were One tonight. If the roster you presented is a reflection of your preferences, you will want to check out House to House by SSG David Bellavia (USMC). I have a better sense of where you seem to be coming from, but from what I recall, the use of heavy fire against structures with unknown inhabitants was, by far, a post initial contact event. Although not exclusively, this was an effort to either break contact or achieve fire superiority after an ambush had already been initiated. Again, it's been awhile since I have read the accounts you mentioned so there may well be some very legit examples of preemptive fire in the materials above. What always makes me start looking at the screen askew is the apparent lack of ability to observe contacts in structures or on rooftops no matter how obvious they are until they open fire (see the link in my previous posts for an example). That just does not square up with me. I think we need to be careful about rationalizing away a shortcoming in a key aspect of MOUT that could use some adjustment. This is my understanding as well. The problem, as I see it, is that in CMSF it is 100% of the time. Nothing the player can do, short of redecorating the block, can effect the chance to prevent in ambush in MOUT conditions. Well, you know how I feel about the tweaking part. I think we both agree that absolutes or extremes are a no-go. That's what we have right now with v.1.11 regarding spotting in MOUT - an absolute. That's where the BFC boys have to walk the line in terms of modeling, I just happen to think they are a bit tipsy at the moment. Thanks for the discussion, I appreciate it. Rogue I hope you found some good tips and all of the spotting back-and-forth isn't too tangential.

Prior to contact with enemy units? When you have a moment, could you please point me in the direction of those accounts? I must admit, I have yet to come across an AAR citing US forces conducting actions in the way you describe. The point trying to be made here is that the only tactic available to the player to have a chance at preventing an ambush in MOUT is to lay fire on every suspect structure in the hope of getting lucky and drawing a response. Recon-by-fire should be one option not the only option. If folks want to roll into every virtual town and light up block after block as a SOP, that's great, play the game as you wish. Those who prefer a methodology aligned closer with more common practices shouldn't be shoehorned into that tactic because the spotting in MOUT is presently off base. Seriously, how does someone look at the images I posted in the link below and conclude that MOUT spotting is good to go? http://www.battlefront.com/community...t=85444&page=7

Rogue187 Take heart, not all of the circumstances arrayed against you are realistic. As you have discovered, v.1.11 of CMSF guarantees an ambushing force 100% concealment and initiative if the are located within a structure. You cannot avoid an ambush in MOUT regardless of the amount of overwatch you deploy or time allocated to observation by AFV's or recon assets. Here is an example I posted during the first week of January highlighting just how off kilter the current model of spotting in urban terrain is: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=85444&page=7 Employing direct fires against the facade of every suspect building is "gamey" as hell, a waste of virtual ordnance, tactically rigid, boring in terms of gameplay and will assure you of a loss if the scenario calls for a minimum of collateral damage. Seabee and others are right, recon-by-fire is a valid tactic under some circumstances, but it should not be the only tool available to the player in order to have a chance at preventing an ambush - that is unrealistic, period. Please let the spotting in MOUT for version 1.2 be tweaked. Locating OPFOR contacts in structures should be difficult, perhaps very difficult, but not impossible all of the time. So Rogue, while your joining Flanker and I in the please-adjust-MOUT-spotting waiting room, here are a few very general tips you can try to use in the meantime: Be patient and drop the ramp on your IFV's/AAV's. Infantry leads the way. Split your teams for maximum overwatch and tactical flexibility. Bring along extra AT-4's/RPG's as HE will be required to reduce hardened positions. Locate and seize the dominant terrain. Note, this is not always "the tallest building." It may very well be the single story blockhouse that provides LOS/LOF up a key channel. If at all possible, envelope key OPFOR positions or assault paralell channels simultaneously. Do not allow the OPFOR to safely fall back and kill you later. Even harrasing fire is better than permitting a clean exfiltration. Deploy your units with 360 degree security in mind. A skilled opponent will stick it up your virtual ass. Smoke, use it. Deploy your AFV's in a support role. MBT's and MGS's are particularly desirable as they can be on the scene quickly, lay down heavy fire and do not suffer from request delays like arty or CAS. Do not let them idle in place for minutes on end - ID the target, fire a round and resume cover. You already know where a decent opponent will jam your armor if you are not mindful of their limits in MOUT.