Peter Panzer

AKD: Well done. This is very fine work and I'm a picky bastard too. Folks, if you haven't downloaded this one yet, treat yourself. This guy gets it.

Is the application of the LOS tool for the M707 being considered for inclusion in v.1.2?

This was something I requested prior to v.1.11 as well. Ideally, this would apply to LAV's and perhaps some REDFOR IFV's too. Just as important, it would be nice if the player could have the option to order the Stryker whack-a-mole guard to button up. These are the types of "small things" that cumulatively add a great deal of tactical nuance to the game in my estimate. How many folks around these parts agree with that assessment is another question.

If the lack of the LOS tool for the M707 wasn't an oversight, it sure looks like one. Again, the UNCON "spies" serve the same unarmed, recon role for the REDFOR and they have the ability to use it. Furthermore, the '707 can use the tool in the scenario editor, so why the hesitation to address this? Yes, it would be really useful, here's a recap: Players shouldn't have to guess ranges when the purpose of the vehicle being modeled is supposed to help provide them. Scanning sectors via Cover Arcs is a tactical advantage. This asset depends on mobility to survive, I may want to orient the vehicle in a different direction than that being observed in the event a quick get away is required. If you want to observe to the north, but keep the hull oriented to the east or west you are out of luck. It would take the guesswork out of confirming that an unarmed vehicle is in a safe position (hull down). Players shouldn't have to use their recon assets as "sacrificial lambs" to accomplish their assigned role. You shouldn't have to guess if the vehicle has a clear LOS. It would be useful to confirm the vehicle can actually see the terrain it is assigned to observe. Does the game interpret that bush as being in the way? How about those distant trees? Who knows?Point being, this vehicle would be much more useful and fun to use without all of the guessing on the part of the player. I know this may shock folks, but some of us enjoy the recon aspect of an engagement. I understand the need to filter every request that comes down the pike, but honestly, folks are not asking for too much here. Help us Obi-Wan, your our only hope...

It would be great, and long overdue, if we could use the "Target/LOS" tool with the M707 in v.1.2. UNCON spies have access to the command, so why doesn't the BLUFOR's equivalent? What about Cover Arcs? If you want your light recon assets to scan a specific sector you are out of luck in the current version of CMSF.

Well, you guys nailed that goal. Now that I better understand what is being modeled it seems fair enough, nevertheless I do think they are on the "less reliable" side of the curve a bit too much. It would seem that folks in certain parts of the world have had plenty of opportunities to refine their craft. In CMSF, using these types of mines to initiate an ambush and/or channel the OPFOR into a kill zone is, more than likely, not going to work. In any event, thank you for the explanation, it certainly helped me to better frame my expectations.

Yes, that is my understanding as well. If the idea is that these types of mines suffer from a very high failure rate, then I would say things are fine as they are. That said, they may be a bit too unreliable. Like I noted earlier and you seem to echo, you can send a parade of hardware across these things often with no effect. By the way MikeyD, I really need to start shopping where you do. Just for kicks, AT Mines are an interesting phenomena as well. They will detonate fairly reliably with mixed effects on light and heavy AFVs (minor to moderate track damage usually and an occasional M-Kill or destroyed AFV). Light vehicles fair very poorly as would be expected. I was under the impression that AT mines should deliver M-Kills somewhat reliably with the occasional we-got-lucky-that-time track/wheel damage or the equally outlying, outright destruction of the AFV. Is this an unreasonable assumption? C3k, I would be interested in reading your observations.

It looks like this one has been around for a long time - initially reported here. I am referencing these (Mines (IED))... Not these (Cell/Radio/Wire IED)...

Hello everyone: I am not talking about the command detonated IED's that require an UNCON trigger man. I am referring to the "Mines (IED)" you can select from the "Fortifications" option on the "Purchase Red" section of the editor. These appear on the map as a red sign just as AP and AT mines and by appearances, are intended to function in the same manner (i.e. without a trigger man). I have deliberately sent MBT's, AAV's, LAV's, light vehicles and infantry over top of them repeatedly with no effect. I am not sure if they work correctly and I am leaving out a step or if they are intended to function in the same manner as the other mines in the game and are broken. I hope this helps.

Hey, I know this isn't as sexy as a couple of Panzergrenadiers enjoying a dewey hedgerow in the summer of '44, but if it's broken it's broken. Can anyone confirm this?

I can parade a marching band across these things and nothing happens. How are these fortifications supposed to function? Shouldn't it be as simple as placing them on the map and waiting for the OPFOR to walk/drive over them? They do not require "activation" like their command detonated counterparts, correct? Thanks for taking a look.

Ha. You must have really been crawling through the back channels to have dredged this one up! The idea of improved fire controls keeps coming up again and again. Frankly, I think it would be a serious drag if we had to wait for the Nomandy game before an improved system was implemented. Especially given the impression that the modern systems seem to demand a "light, medium, heavy" or "hold" option more than their WWII ancestors. You can see the same cast of characters pleading their case here.

Thanks, I'll take a peek.

Some of you are getting quite skilled at producing uniform textures! A few questions/requests... Where can I find the short barreled SAW mod? Could someone add a collapsing stock? Can someone produce a USMC helmet without the opaque, black googles?Keep up the interesting work.

Steve: Well, I reckon it's a BFC world, I just live in it. No teasing, now. At first glance, I'll take that. Is this something we might see in CMSF as a potential piece of v1.2? If so, C3k, akd and myself will be glad to shovel the snow in your drive for the remainder of the winter. I have strong legs and very pretty lips for a guy. If things are going to remain as they presently are for CMSF, you will at least want to look at the routines for the BMP-1 as they seem to be out of whack with even the v.1.11 manner of doing things. Specifically, the coax is used for "Target" and "Target Light" area fire. If strict uniformity is the goal, the 73mm should be employed in these circumstances so it mirrors the weapon selection of all other IFV's. I hope some of the other items in my initial post also get a look-see, especially the invisible infantry in buildings/rooftops (there's another can of worms) and the M707's lack of in-game access to the LOS tool. Please pardon my persistance on these issues. I have been waiting for someone to make a game like this for a very long time. What's more, I am plagued by a most unwholesome fetish for light armor/recon units. Consequently, the issues I am reporting get pushed to the fore each time I try to play/enjoy the game. My thanks for all of the time you have put into this discussion. Other Means: Thanks for the suggestion. I'll try to play ball. Question: How do I prevent an AFV from firing for the duration of an entire turn in WEGO if I want it to engage targets in the first half of the turn only? When I string together this... "Target Light" directed at target "1," "Pause" 15 seconds "Move" to waypoint "1," "Target Light" directed at target "2," "Pause" 15 seconds Reverse to waypoint "2," "Clear Target"This happens... AFV blasts away at target "1" for 15 seconds and continues to do so in transit to waypoint "1." AFV halts at waypoint "1," transitions to target "2" and opens fire for 15 seconds. AFV reverses still firing at target "2" while in transit, halts at waypoint "2" and fires for the remaining duration of the turn.Does something need to be corrected within the game or am I doing something wrong?

Steve: Thanks for taking the time to comment. That sounds very promising, I look forward to seeing it in action. Thanks! I hear you on this, so I want to make sure I am clear. I am not advocating any type of "Target/Light Target" orders overhaul or extensive series of player controls. I do ask that you give serious consideration to aligning the "blend" of weapons the AI uses so that it incorporates a fuller range of the systems available in a more intuitive, escalating fashion. I know you guys are capable of doing so because you had already done it! If we are going to rely on the AI to select the weapon systems, then the bottom line is v.1.10 did a much better job. V1.10 worked nicely given the "imperfections" of the two tier "Target/Light Target" system. V.1.11, on the other hand, pushed the weapon selection of the AI to the singular extreme and eliminated the "blend," resulting in the series of misfortunes outlined below... ...and this... A gameplay example: I recall bringing up an M2 in v1.10 (WEGO) to support a beleaguered squad of Mech Infantry who were taking small arms fire from a multi-floored structure. Assigned a "Target Light" order, the IFV rolled around the corner of a building it was using for cover and began laying direct fire on the facade of the REDFOR strongpoint with the coax - very nice. Then, after four or five bursts of digital 7.62, the gunner flipped over to the M242 and popped a few rounds of 25mm into the mix before reverting back to the coax - "oh, hell yes," says I. This is the "blend" I refer to, all accomplished with a single "Target Light" order. This is not possible in v.1.11 because "Target Light" for a M2 now translates into exclusive use of the 25mm. The REDFOR infantry didn't take the hint. So, I transitioned to a "Target" order. Now the gunner begins laying bursts of 25mm into the structure with great effect for a full turn. No need to send my Doggies where I can send ordnance, so I continue to have the M2 suppress the targets in the building with the M242 for an additional turn when, to my surprise, the gunner touches off a TOW in between his work with the autocannon - "oh, f*ck yes," says I. Again, the "blend" with a logical, escalating methodology allowing the player at least semi-control using the two tier command system. This too is not possible in v1.11 because the IFV will systematically fire every TOW in its inventory before using the M242 - inflexible, absolute, not fun. What's more, forget about occupying the target structure because you just dropped it while the gunner was deliriously expending all of the ATGM's. Of course, that assumes your M2 gunner didn't get aired out while reloading the tube six times over in the face of the guys he should be whacking with the Bushmaster. Please give me reason to begin using more foul language, in the good way noted above, when playing your game. Blend it baby, just like in v.1.10... Structures: Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional ATGM Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm Area Target: Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional GPMG Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm

I'll take that as a "yes," wise ass. Another brief note, given the amount of light vehicles in the British Forces Module, making sure gunners in rooftop stations ('1114's, MTVR's , etc.) do not immediately button up at a hint of trouble could become even more far reaching. Thanks for your help. I will be more than glad to answer any questions.

Adam/Akd Indeed. I'll hasten to add that occasions arise where it is tactically sound to conserve your units medium and heavy ordnance in anticipation of future threats. Since we do not have "Target Light/Medium/Heavy" options, we must rely on the AI to create the "blend" of weapons used and in what proportions given the two options we have. The v.1.10 "blend/proportions," although not perfect, made a lot more sense than the present incarnation. MikeyD/MarkEzra Thanks. Can you comment on any of the issues effecting gameplay (gunner behavior, IFV weapon use, infantry in structures/rooftops) without compromising your NDA with BFC? Are the testers taking an honest look at these items? If I am perceived to be offbase please let me know as I will gladly talk through the issues. Suffice to say, I wouldn't be wasting my time drafting these posts if I didn't think these behaviors had diminishing effects on the game's attempt to portray real world operations. Wengart Well, I guess that depends on the circumstances. As v.1.11 stands, IFV's with ATGM's will unswervingly work through their entire store of missles when assigned to "Target" a structure. Not only does this absolute approach exhaust heavy munitions and exclude medium ordnance use, but it also requires the gunner to constantly reload the launcher resulting in a very unfortunate cycle of "downtime" at the worst possible moments. Not to mention unesscessarily exposing the gunner to fire. So, in this case, I agree, the gunners need to primarily rely on autocannons, 100mm/73mm cannons with the AI slipping in an occasional ATGM for an extra bit of motivation - v.1.10 did that rather nicely. Now, if I have a BMP-1 in the field targetting a M2 at range and the first AT-4 goes tits up, it seems reasonable to me that the gunner would reload the tube. It's a tricky line to walk for BFC, no doubt, I just happen to think the v.1.10 "weapons blend" was far more sensible and realistic given the limitations of the Target/Target Light scheme. Flanker15/MarkEzra Interesting. Thanks, I had not heard that piece of news. I guess we can take that one off of the list!

As someone who came to CMBO after it had endured it's growing pains, signing on for and sticking with CMSF from its launch has been an eye opening experience. I am delighted that BFC is working on another round of refinements and fixes. Briefly, v.1.11 was another step forward in many areas, but it also had some less than ideal consequences for a few principle actions within the game. Here are some requests for v.1.12 beginning with three points aimed at adjusting the regressive portions of v.1.11 and mitigating the predictability of some significant v1.10 behavior. Humvee and MTVR gunners button up if even a few rounds impact on their vehicle. Presumbably, the self preservation routine for AFV commanders is hyperactive and overstepping its bounds in this case. Gunners in the primary weapon stations of these vehicles should remain "up" and scanning for and engaging targets when under fire. Experience levels do not have any effect on this outcome.You can find a few more details on this subject here. Current weapon use for most IFV's, especially those with with ATGM's, comes across as overly simplified and presents unecessary limits to the player.IFV's with ATGM's (M2, M3, BMP-2) employ their missles exclusively versus structures via "Target" and autocannons are wholly used for area fire or "Target Light" versus structures. Coaxial guns are completely left out of the equation. The BMP-1 will use its ATGM's exclusively versus structures via "Target" and only the coaxial gun for area fire or "Target Light" versus structures. The 73mm is not used at all in either case. The BMP-3 will only employ the 30mm versus structures or area fire via "Target Light." The coaxial gun never factors in. Given that a redesign of the targeting commands in CMSF is unlikely, I believe that reinstating these pre v.1.11 outcomes would be an adequate compromise and produce more plausible, sequential results overall: Structures: Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional ATGM Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm Area Target: Target=mostly autocannon/100mm/73mm, occasional GPMG Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon/100mm/73mm This issue existed in v.1.10 and perhaps well before it. Infantry in buildings and on rooftops cannot be spotted until they fire their weapons. This gaurantees them the initiative 100% of the time. The number of eyes/optics observing, time spent observing, range and experience/fatigue levels do not have any effect on this outcome.You can find more details here. Below are a few more alterations that would be quite welcome: Allow the M707 (recon humvee) to use the "Target" and "Cover Arc" tools just as the UNCON spies currently do. Guessing you have LOS isn't desireable for an unarmed recon vehicle that depends on concealment for survival. The ability to scan a sector would also be very helpful. Allow teams to "Unaquire" extra items, at least while they are mounted. Allow units to exit from the map edge. If possible, permit waypoints to be adjusted/moved once placed on the map.Finally, here are a few items pertaining to graphics/visuals: M16A4/M203 handguard remains truncated. The M16A4 model was fixed in v.1.11 (thank you!), but it did not get applied to the M203 version. Syrian armor crews are missing their unique AFV unit portrait in the UI (the infantry portrait is used instead). BLUFOR AFV crew portraits were added in v.1.10, but their REDFOR counterparts did not receive the treatment. There is an odd washing out of the textures on the T-72 front fenders. Perhaps as a result of the light reflections being modeled. TOW's and ERA blocks do not "reset" during WEGO playback. Admittedly this is minor, however given all of the outstanding work polishing playback in v.1.11 I thought I would mention it.It certainly has been interesting to watch the game improve overall. In my experience, absolutes, like the first three items listed above, diminish the fun and erode the level of realism the game seeks to portray in wider sum. Hopefully, by drawing attention to them they can be addressed with the ultimate goal of making a more rewarding, intuitive game for those who appreciate and revel in the detail and "simulation" aspirations of the game. Thanks for taking a look.

Flanker15: You raise a fair assumption, so I took another look to be sure I wasn't completely nuts. Veteran, Regular and Green gunners go into bedwetting mode after two or three rounds impacting off of their vehicles - consistently. Sometimes even a passing round will make them button up. I detect no "experience" difference at all after playing through several turns of a test scenario I created. Further, I very seldom use the "Crack" and "Elite" settings, nor do I think one should have to in order to see realistic play. I'm not picking on you, but here's another way to lose the whole crew - check that - a whole platoon in short order... Have a few AKM rounds pop off the hood of the '1114 resulting in the eyes and ears of the vehicle gibbering in the back seat. Rinse and repeat to the entire platoon and watch as two guys with AK's lay waste to four guntrucks because their primary weapon stations are presently undermodeled. Bonus scenario: pair the instant button up behavior with the current troops-in-buildings-are-invisible-until-they-fire-and-gain-initiative-100%-of-the-time routine for a real treat. To their credit, I think BFC is already examining the later. You know, the situation above isn't even fun if your playing the REDFOR - I want to be rewarded for using realistic tactics as they resolve themselves against the best AI behavior the developers can muster. That has always been the appeal of the Combat Mission games for me. V1.11 seems to have made IFV weapon and Humvee gunner behavior overly simplified, just as v.1.10 made pathing take a step back. 'Less any of you have the wrong impression, all these issues need is a tweak to restore them to their previously more solid feel, not a total overhaul. Skinnedpuppy: To be honest, that strikes me as unwieldy. AKD's solution seems to fit the "flow" of the UI and accomplish the goal of granting the IFV's the flexibility they need to accurately mimic their real life counterparts. Again though, I am only asking that the pre v1.11 "weapons blend," warts and all, be restored as even it was superior to the current behavior. The current system of absolutes is too restrictive and unrealistic.

Hello everyone: I am kicking this one back to the top as I am hoping a tester/BFC will take an honest look at the AI behavior noted in my original post. This stuff is near 100% reproduceable and hamstrings the use of Humvees and makes IFV use rather clunky. The side issue of creating more varied options for the weapon systems of IFV's in the UI is a great long term suggestion, but my initial point was to see more of a tweak to the existing behaviors related to these two classes of vehicles. Summary: Keep Humvee gunners "up" even if dire risk to their digital person is involved. The "button up" behavior is great for AFV commander's, but is misapplied to light vehicle gunners (you may want to check the MTVR gunners as well). Adjust the "weapon use mix" of IFV's as it currently seems to weigh greatly toward absolutes (i.e. strict use of ATGM's for structures, autocannons for area target). Something in v.1.11 seems to have effected this balance as previously it was possible for IFV's to employ a blend of weapon systems versus targets. These pre v.1.11 outcomes seemed far more plausible: Structures: Target= mostly autocannon, occasional ATGM Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon Area Target: Target= mostly autocannon, occasional GPMG Target Light=mostly GPMG, occasional autocannon Allow the M707 to use the "Target" and "Cover Arc" tools just as the UNCON spies currently do. Guessing you have LOS isn't desireable for an unarmed recon vehicle that depends on concealment for survival. Scanning sectors via arcs wouldn't hurt either. My genuine thanks, as it would be great to see an adjustment made for v.1.12 in these areas.

thewood: My first thought was some reincarnation of the "Use Main Gun" feature as well. That said, we are indebted to C3k as he has spent a bit more time thinking and lobbying about this than most of us. Here is part of what Steve (BFC) mentioned on that subject: You can read more about C3k's notion for a "Hold" command including Steve's (BFC) reply here (scroll down to the third post). Yes, I have experienced that as well. Good point. If neither C3k's or AKD's ideas can be reasonably implemented, I do ask that we see more of a transition of weapon systems using the two tier "Target/Target Light" menu. In v.1.11 it seems like things have been adjusted toward something of an all one system approach (i.e. buildings=ATGM's, Area Targets="Main Guns").

Some follow up... M1114 Humvee M1114 gunners button up after a few incoming rounds impacting on the vehicle - even rounds that are in close vicinity will sometimes trigger the behavior. Gunners remain in this posture until the fire slacks off. I believe we are seeing an AI routine intended to aid the survivability of AFV commanders adversely effecting the realistic portrayal of '1114 gunners. The primary weapon station on the '1114 must remain "up," the team's survival quite often depends on it. Gunners do not drop down at the hint of danger, in fact, it is precisely the opposite that is the case. Here are a few examples from .mil (italics are mine)... "Humvee Gunners Set Sights on New Shield" Erik Slavin, Stars and Stripes (Oct. 2005) Given a choice between protecting themselves by sitting or leaving the task of spotting a suicide car bomber to someone else, nearly all gunners interviewed said they would stand. “I understand what my job is,” said Spc. Joshua Forman, 21, of Sammamish, Wash. “I understand that I could die. Once you get past that, it’s not really an issue. You come to peace with that, you can do more for your team. I’d gladly give my life to save the life of any other soldier I work with.” "U.S., Afghan Soldiers Fight Their Way Out of an Ambush" Micah E. Clare, Army News (July 2007) The silence was broken by the muffled sound of a dull thud in the distance, which didn't register with Sgt. Heinicke at first, because of the thick armor practically soundproofing his vehicle. "Did you hear something up there?" Sgt. Heinicke called up to Spc. Stone in the turret. "Um....yeah, maybe," Spc. Stone replied, leaning out of his turret so he could hear. "It might have been an explosion. I couldn't tell." Spc. Stone quickly scanned for targets with his Mark-19 automatic grenade launcher. All he could see was a billowing column of black smoke. ...The job went to Spc. Stone, who fired off several 40mm grenade rounds onto the hilltop at a vanishing enemy.... ...The enemy weapons fire had largely died down; especially after the Humvee gunners pointed their weapons towards the enemy and began firing. The rapid bursts of concussive shells hitting the insurgent's fighting positions pulverized rocks and felled trees. M707 Recon Humvee M707's cannot use the "Target" LOS tool in-game like their unarmed UNCON "Spy" counterparts. This greatly reduces their utility, can this please be corrected in v.1.12? M2/M3 (BMP) M3A3 tasked with targeting five buildings used all 12 onboard ATGM's without transitioning to the 25mm. The use of the coax versus a structure seems like an even more remote possibility. Range has no effect: 400m - TOW, 200m - TOW, 85m(!) - TOW. Area fire only makes use of the 25mm. Again, range is not a factor: 400m, 300m, 200m, 100m - 25mm all around. Over 4,000 rounds of virtual 7.62mm and nary a shot. The '240 on a Brad is not a "reserve" weapon. "Target Light" does not change this. As a result, if you want to conserve heavy and medium ordnance for future threats or simply suppress targets in a structure without dropping it, you are SOL. V.1.11 jacked up the Brads (and likely the BMP's) and '1114's. Please take a closer look at this behavior and adjust accordingly for v1.12. Testify, brother. I know C3k and myself have been asking for something similar for awhile, as he noted. I wonder if a broader solution like what you suggest would be more feasible to implement rather than Ken's proposal of an individual "Hold" per weapon scheme? Of course these things are often easier to request than they are to code properly, so we will have to see what the powers that be suggest. Thanks for taking a look everyone.

Here are a few things I have picked up on as of late... M1114 Humvee In v.1.11, gunners will button up almost instantly after even a few rounds in their vicinity. What's worse, they will stay down for the duration of the incoming fire. This is a useful AI behavior for AFV commanders, but it is a death sentence when applied to a Humvee crew. Keeping this primary weapon station "up" in reality is a big deal - without the ability for crews to fire small arms from the windows, it is a total ballbreaker in CMSF. Are other folks seeing this as well? M2/M3 Bradleys in v.1.11 will use TOW's exclusively when a "Target" order is directed toward a structure or wall. They will continue to employ ATGM's seemingly without deviation until their supply is exhausted. Is this intentional? I have yet to see a M2/M3 utilize their coax at all post v.1.11. Can anyone else confirm this? Thanks for sharing your observations.

Well, it's tough to sum it up any better than 19Kyle72 just did. There are a lot of seriously great files wrapped up in this one! I particularly like the manner in which several of the detonation effects are initially sharp and then slowly rumble as they fade - quite effective. What's more, the M110 now actually sounds like a suppressed rifle. Well worth the download - thank you very much! Also a quick question. Does anyone know the name of the "reinforcements have arrived" .wav?