Peter Panzer

...and we have a winner. Other Means: Your e.mail address is not available in your profile. Given Flanker 15's link, do you still require my example or does his suffice?

Here's a pictorial update on our rooftop friends from the scenario I described in my original post. I hope this helps. A quick recap... UNCON veterans on a flat rooftop 50 meters distant from a veteran M1A2SEP and nine spotting, veteran US Mech Infantrymen. Below is what the five rooftop ninjas see about 10-15 seconds into the first turn. Insha'Allah. Martyr Vision: The next image is what the BLUFOR crunchies and tankers see after more than five minutes of direct observation. Infidel Vision: The third screenshot is what one would hope the BLUFOR would observe on a time scale similar to the REDFOR. See that big ole knob on the left of the M1 turret? Inside it are optics that allow the TC to magnify his field of vision in the following increments: 3X, 6X (wide angle), 13X, 25X and 50X for acquisition. The Gunner and Loader have their own fancy harware to utilize in addition. Of course, there are also the nine pair of eyeballs wired into the infantrymen's wetware plus the binoculars the squad leader is toting. What the BLUFOR Should See: Just for kicks, this is what the M1 gunner would see using his GPS-LOS (Gunners Primary Sight-Line of Sight) at 10X magnification. "Hey Grabowski! I can see the hummus stain on that dude's keffiyeh. Second contact from the left, watch where I put this burst of coax..." That RPG tube might command a bit of attention too. What The BLUFOR M1 Gunner Should See: What's more, those rooftop guys have a habit of raining down some virtual discontent like a chorus line of Rockettes armed with a case of frags. Five guys on a flat rooftop pitching hand grenades 50 meters(+) at a M1A2SEP/Mech Inf. squad and remaining unobserved for over five minutes, yeah, that squares up. Guys, please, an adjustment to the manner in which infantry on rooftops is spotted is needed here. The testers will likely want to see how troops on balconies are treated in this regard as well. I have a savegame file ready, but I do not know how useful it would be. Wouldn't you want to be able to observe the situation over a matter of several turns rather than using a "snapshot?" Perhaps the testers could easily mock up a similar scenario. I would be glad to answer any questions. Other Means what is your e.mail address? Taki: Hang in there man. BFC has a long history of making adjustments to their games so long as the evidence to warrant it is supplied, we just have to do our part - they really do listen. The screeshots and savegame file don't lie.

Good discussion guys, I will try to cover as much as I can. Other Means: Thanks for the open perspective. I suppose I come at this from the opposite angle. Given that the game goes to length to take into account elevation when modeling various levels of LOS (prone, kneeling, standing, etc.) when I see an onscreen representation of a person standing I say to myself, yep, that guy is standing - not crouching, squatting or practicing his Lotus posture. I agree, but that's the fun of being a tester, right?. Thanks for offering to take a look at a file, that's really all I can ask for. I will get one to you after the weekend and you guys can evaluate things accordingly. Paper Tiger: I welcome the counterpoints, thanks for continuing to weigh in. True, but I do not count myself among those who grant US military hardware miraculous powers. Remember, all I am asking for is that units have the possibility to locate units in and above structures, which it presently seems the game does not do well or perhaps at all. I am not requesting flawless sensors or X-ray vision. How do you square this... ...with this? If we are recreating MOUT with a semblance of realism and concern for simulated ROE's, wouldn't my request for the ability to possibly ID targets in structures be more apt than your tactic of hammering the structure with ordnance to gain "...some measure of initiative." See, I don't want to have to level the virtual apartment row as a premptive measure every time because that's the only way the game allows me to "draw first." I want my little guys to be able to at least have a chance to preemptively observe and ID targets as reasonably as possible as is conducted in real world operations. I have included some excerpts from various sources you may find interesting below. Now before anyone gets torqued, I am not claiming these accounts are an impenetrable collection of "hard data," but they do show I am not as off my rocker as some are implying. In any event, I hope they are interesting. Note, all italics are mine. 3rd Battalion, 5th Marines Second Battle of Fallujah AAR Now fellas, why do you suppose those sneaky evildoers would only move on rooftops that were out of the Marines LOS? Probably because the Marines were IDing them on a consitent basis and dropping them at range. "Fallujah Is Realm of Snipers on Both Sides" Jason Keyser, Associated Press (First Battle of Fallujah) Oh dear. You know what's next. From the same account... Damn, looks like Mohannad and his uncle picked the wrong day to go out on the roof without their +4 Cloaks of Invisibility. Turns out, combatants were observing the rooftops, IDing targets (legitimate or not) and scoring hits. From the same account describing a USMC sniper team... Behold, the modern US Marine. He can see people on rooftops and engage them at distances beyond 50 meters. "Conflict in Iraq: The Sniper who Shoots on Video" Jerome Taylor, The Independent (UK) Whatever Sgt. Davis, go choke down some more poundcake. We wargame nerds have it on solid authority that what you describe is unrealistic. Honestly, IDing someone on a rooftop purposely trying to avoid detection and at twilight no less? At 300 meters? Scoring a hit before the sniper fired his weapon? Silhouehtting his upper body while peering down on targets below? Poppycock. Those Marines should have brought up an M1 and reconned by fire. From Paper Tiger: Alas, my friend, until BFC models sunburn, we may be reaching for that one (ahem...so to speak). I hope this is taken in the spirit of fun and helpfulness. I think this game has come a long way and there sure isn't anything else that comes close. Oh, for those at home keeping score, this is the cue for someone to come in and post half a dozen "we were takin' fire and couldn't locate the source" excerpts.

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the opportunity for feedback. I totally agree that troops inside of structures should be difficult to locate that makes perfect sense to me. What seems askew is that even troops standing on flat, non-walled roofs of one story structures can hurl frags into the teeth of scanning AFV's and modernized infantry and not be seen, seemingly in perpetuity. Likewise, they can move at a "Fast" pace and not have a chance to be detected. Now friends, those are some serious Juha trickster types right there. It is the sense of absoluteness I get from v.1.11 in this regard that seems off. It does not seem that there is any opportunity for units associated with structures to be spotted before they open fire with small arms. Agreed, it should be difficult and in some cases particularly so, to ID the OPFOR in structures prior to their pulling the trigger first. Difficult, yes. Impossible, no. All I seek is the possibility, however small, that units in structures can be spotted prior to their opening fire if the conditions are suitable. Furthermore, if those dudes are standing on a flat roof waving their danglies at the business end of a pair of AFV's or a twelve pack of Jarheads they should get IDed and hosed. Structures should not guarantee initiative.

Other Means: I suspect, we are not that far apart on this actually. I am not asking for a full, near-instant ID of units inside of structures and atop walled rooftops. What I would like to see is AFV's with thermals being able to spot these guys after several minutes or at the very least generate a "?" marker. The same would hold true for infantry, especially those with binouculars, high-powered optics (snipers) and/or ACOGs. Presently, it seems that units inside of structures and on walled rooftops get the drop on those outside and below damn near 100% of the time - that is neither realistic, nor fun. I find it difficult to believe that veteran tank crewman with access to six thermal, magnified sights would not spot six guys with their heads and upper torsos exposed, repeatedly hucking frags off a rooftop 50 meters to their direct front. Hell, you could count the pores on their noses on full magnification at that range. The game didn't give me so much as a generic "?" contact marker even after ten-plus minutes of observation prior to the skirmish. Mind you, the REDFOR units were not "Hiding" they were full-on, sign-me-up-for-my-virgins standing in front of two M1's! I agree that it is reasonable for infantry in a building to remain unspotted to those outside some of the time, especially if they are "Hiding." What's more, I find it perfectly realistic for structures to harbor a concealment "bonus." It's just a bit overdone at present. I hope this helps. Thanks for all of your work on the game thus far.

In v.1.11, it seems as though structures continue to offer too much concealment. I would like to know more about how units in buildings or on rooftops are to be preemptively spotted. In my experience, the only way to locate infantry in buildings is to wait for them to put holes in you. The inability of spotting units to win the initiative versus units in structures seems to hold equally true for AFV's and infantry. My latest experience had a full squad of US infantry with two M1A1SA's in tow remain unable to locate REDFOR infantry in the interior and rooftop of a single story building to their direct front, over open ground at a distance of 50m in broad daylight. There were no civvies in the virtual AO. The US infantry toted eight pairs of rested, veteran, unsuppressed eyeballs for "spotting" from their exposed, flat position. The two M1's chipped in with six FLIR's (Loader, Gunner and TC) with magnified optics. All BLUFOR units had an unobstucted LOS. Think the BLUFOR could spot the six homies in pajamas toting AKM's and an RPG standing on a rooftop 50m to their front? Nope. Pehaps said homies habit of heaving a flock of hand grenades on their position would give away the REDFOR's location, especially to the overwatching tank crews scanning the facade with their high tech doodads. Nope. Surely, a second REDFOR squad moving "Fast" across the same rooftop would tip off the BLUFOR, right? Nope. The REDFOR units were only spotted after they opened up with small arms. Even though the building was observed for over 10 minutes at close range with a host of optics. This, despite their standing head and shoulders above the rooftop wall and their heavily armed compatriots leering out of the first floor windows. MOUT actions would benefit greatly from a reduction in structure's ability to grant overly high levels of concealment. Could this please be toned down in v.1.12 as I fail to see how MOUT scenarios can be either fun or realistic as things stand. Relatedly, can we please have the ability to use the Target/LOS tool and set Cover Arcs with M707's (recon Humvee) in-game? I love that they are include in the game, but they are extremely limited in their current utility. Other than that, v.1.11 is a big step forward and crossed numerous key items off of my personal "BFC, please fix or do somefink" list! Thanks for the continued support!

Howdy folks: For those of you who may not be aware, the Northeast region of the United States was hit by a substantial ice storm last Thursday (12.11.08). The storm knocked out power for an estimated 800,000 customers from up-state New York to Maine. Power has yet to be restored as of today (12.15.08) to numerous areas. It is my understanding both Steve and Charles reside in Maine or thereabouts, so they very well could be effected. As such, their priorities may be in a very different place at the moment. One need look no further than the v.1.10 delay due to high winds in Ohio cutting Matt's power to surmise that we may be waiting for v.1.11 longer than anyone had originally suspected. Of course, I could be wrong. In terms of v.1.11 tidbits, I would love to know if "small" items like these have been resolved. It is a testament to BFC's efforts that many of us are so eagerly anticipating this latest update!

Well boys, any word on the v.1.11 status of these visual nuggets... M16A4 handguard is too short in front of the AN/PEQ-2 By way of comparison, here is a correct rendering of the M16A4 Tall wall texture is missing when it abuts a short wall Also, the unit portrait for Syrian armor crews is missing in the UI. Specialized crew portraits were added for BLUFOR in v.1.10, but for some reason their REDFOR counterparts were omitted. Thanks for taking a look!

Good pre v.1.11 thread... Several, if not all, of these have been listed but I'm going to mention them yet again because they are spot on... It seems that "non-hiding" units in structures cannot be seen prior to their opening fire. I can roll an AFV fifty meters in front of a structure and the gunner, equipped with magnified optics and a TIS cannot spot a pack of guys clustered in front of the windows even after several minutes. I know structures are intended to offer concealment, but damn. This tends to warp MOUT rather unrealistically. Allow the Stryker "air guard" to button up or at least duck down temporarily. A suicidal version of whack-a-mole doesn't play regardless of "doctrine." Conversely, allow Marines to fight from the troop hatches of the AAV's and LAV's. Lack of ability for the player to restrict main gun use with AFV's (i.e. the defunct "Use Main Gun?" feature). This is especially missed when using various IFV's such as the M2. Infantry should be able to deploy smoke in a direction plotted by the player. Allow the Recon Humvee to make use of the "Target" tool in-game to check LOS. I love that "unsexy" vehicles like this are in the game, why not make them meaningful? Allow teams to "Unaquire" extra items, at least while they are mounted. Allow ESV's to clear mines (BFC has already suggested this will not be included in CMSF, alas...)If some or all of these issues could be addressed in v.1.11 I would be thrilled.

Here's another one I am curious about... It seems as if M2/M3 crew's seem to favor the 25mm cannon over the coaxial gun when issued the "Target Light" command. Would it be possible to "weight" the chances of the coax being the primary weapon choice if "Target Light" is ordered in v.1.11? Currently, the crews will burn through their 25mm store with little the player can do to prevent it.

Since Steve is about and folks are discussing TO&E's, engineers and such... Please do not forget to add the gunner to the Stryker ESV's in v.1.11. The RSW's on this variant are nonfunctional in the game as a result of their absence. Huge bonus points if BFC finally puts a plow on that sucker and allow it to clear mines. Lastly, very interesting development regarding the IBCT. Simulating Airborne and Mountain troops would be welcome.

I am glad to hear the vehicle pathfinding issues are being tackled. Here are a few other items, in addition to those noted earlier, that would be great if they made it into v.1.11: Allow M707 (Recon Humvee) to use the "Target" function to determine LOS in-game. Presently, this is only available in the editor. REDFOR armor crews are missing the UI portrait graphic. This nice little distinction was added for BLUFOR units in v.1.10. The M16A4 handguard is modelled too short. The handguard on the actual rifle extends all the way to the front sight base - it does not stop 2/3rds of the way down the barrel as depicted in CMSF:M. Show an AFV manuevering down an alleyway and/or between two trees. Present the LAV-25 doors closing after the scout team has dismounted. Display the gunner being correctly assigned to Stryker ESV's - they are currently missing from CMSF. As such, ESV's cannot presently use their RSW's!

I really hope BFC continues to track this thread. This is right on. I sometimes find it a bit tricky when navigating AFV's in towns or wooded areas as spaces that visually appear wide enough for passage are, in game terms, not. This results in some often unexpected and less than ideal pathfinding, which Steiner describes well. I must admit, I am not sure what the v.1.11 screenshots from earlier this week are supposed to be promoting in terms of the new update. Here are some issues reported after the release of v.1.10 that would lend themselves to screenshots to demonstrate "...we got the screens to prove it!" The M16A4 handguard is modelled too short. The handguard on the actual rifle extends all the way to the front sight base - it does not stop 2/3rds of the way down the barrel as depicted in CMSF:M. Show an AFV manuevering down an alleyway and/or between two trees. Present the LAV-25 doors closing after the scout team has dismounted. Display the gunner being correctly assigned to Stryker ESV's - they are currently missing from CMSF. As such, ESV's cannot presently use their RSW's!If issues like these are ironed out, v.1.11 definitely has the potential to push CMSF over the top for me.

Bahger: Mine clearance is the least of your worries with US Army engineers (SBCT) in version 1.10. The game currently does not assign gunners to the ESV's. As such, your infantry will be parading around in virtually defenseless, thin skinned AFV's who can engage neither direct nor area targets with their RWS's. The potentially good news is, I passed this along to one of the beta testers last week, who, in turn, communicated it to BFC. Whether or not this is addresssed in 1.11 is uncertain. That said, correcting a bug that negatively influences an entire class of vehicles and infantry sure seems like a worthy fix to me. I would also like to see the plow added to the model of the ESV's enabling them to clear mines. Unfortunately, at this stage of CMSF's development, this may be reaching for the sky. Since I am on the subject of handicapped vehicles, it would also be helpful if the M707 (recon Humvee) could use the target/LOS function in-game and not just in the editor.

BFC/Beta Testers: Please note, M1132's cannot use the RWS for targeted or area fire use, perhaps due to the issue above. It would be great if this could be tended to in v.1.11.

I have had AFV's go sky high moving slowly across a marked field. This is what lead to my initial question. According to what I have observed, route finding in a mine field, marked or otherwise, is not an absolute proposition in CMSF. Thanks again for sharing you experience. On a totally separate note, your new "subdued rings" mod is quite handy!

Missinginreality: Thank you for shedding some light on this, it seems as if you are right. If I understand correctly, "marking" mines reduces the chance one will be hit rather than eliminating the chance. Should that be the intended case, it's a rather nice touch in that there is always the chance the engineers "missed one." Also, I totally agree that a preventative "search" command would be great, but I doubt we see this in CMSF. Does anybody know if the lack of a gunner in the M1132 is correct for a SBCT engineer squad?

I'll settle for functionality of engineer squads in regard to clearing mines. Alowing M1132's to "Mark Mines" would be a welcome bonus indeed. It seems that nobody is really sure about how this aspect of the game is supposesd to work. Engineers can "Mark Mines" resulting in the mine marker graphic changing color but what does that signify? Mines can be "marked," yet infantry and AFV's still set them off after the fact regardless of their movement speed. Are mine fields supposed to be cleared when the marker graphic changes color? Is the lack of a gunner in the M1132 (ESV) intentional?

There seems to be an ongoing lack of clarity as to how mines are dealt with in the game. A few questions... Will engineers and/or M1132's be able to clear mines in v.1.11? Will units be able to spot mines prior to detonating them?

Well, since a marauding gang of "deviated preverts" got my thread locked up, I thought I might add a few items to this discussion. Here is one for v.1.11. The edge of a tall wall disappears when it ajoins a short wall... Now boys, notice I didn't say "...when it abuts a short wall..." So, there is no need for further "reference" images. Also, would it be possible to add a REDFOR armor crew portrait in v.1.11 the same way similar images were included for BLUFOR units in v.1.10?

Mord: Thanks for the tip - I gave it a go. I think I prefer the muted color scheme you and Scipio are currently working with. Any takers on modding the unit icons? I would love to see what you guys could pull off. Something low-key, representative and precise like Scipio's UI Weapon Mod would be dandy.

M1: Thanks for following up on this one. The plate carrier looks great - you definitely nailed the color! As I noted earlier in the thread, many of the eclectic touches you bring to the design are quite agreeable (i.e. woodland patterned pouches, K-bar, etc.). The biggest surprise was your final treatment of the M16A4 - good touch on the ACOG and dusty receivers. Now, just be sure to revisit this one if/when BFC adjusts the model in v.1.11. What happened with the transparent eye protection? Did I miss something or did it prove to be too difficult to work with? In any event, thank you for the time you put into this. My little digital guys look more like virtual Marines thanks to you.

Huntarr: Now Gunny, I would devotedly butter your buns and call you a biscuit for far less than an antique Remington with a few aftermarket parts. ...because you, BFC and many of us on this board understand "Small things" make the game. I was ecstatic to see BFC correct the issue with the M1's previous inability to direct area fire at open terrain with the 120mm in v.1.10. This was a "small" issue with large implications for both gameplay and the ability to convincingly model the real world applications of the weapon system. My M256 Rheinmetall is your M40A3. No question. Honestly, thank you for the practical knowledge of the Corps you bring to the game, as well as the color you bring to the community. ...and Gunny, will you do me a favor? Make sure those BFC boys get the '16 right in v.1.11.

Steve: Your thorough response is precisely why I knew it would be worth the time to craft my original post. Thank you for the useful, direct discussion. I understand the utility of having to draw the line somewhere and certainly do not begrudge you for adhering to that reality. That said, I wanted to make sure the issues in my original post were known before "major combat operations in CMSF have ended." From my perspective, CMSF:M is teetering on the edge of becoming not only an entertaining game, but also a captivating one. It is no longer a matter of a few lingering gamebreakers so much as it is a mob of little issues collectively taking off the luster. After reading your reply, I am feeling confident v1.11. could very well be the proper cap stone I have been waiting for (unless v.1.11 breaks something). Some follow up: I play via WEGO while staying "down in the dirt." A big hook for me is watching the game's models convincingly interact with the environment. Knocking out these two issues would be a gift to players like me. Regarding the sudden upright posture at waypoints, that one is a bit elusive. Unfortunately, I do not have a save game file yet. The sliding into position, however, is common. I have sent a file to Dima illustrating the issue. Correct, I was referring to the 3D models. This one has been around from the very beginning. That statement clears things up. I have learned to work around the limitation. Yes sir, this is a pain in the ass during WEGO. I want that FO to get his head up and bring down rounds now! They should drum Huntar right out of the virtual Corps for letting that one pass muster. My helps to explain the matter. Honestly, catching an RPG there is bad enough with the doors closed. Thank you! A very appreciative supporter and customer for one... ...oh, and a no-knock raid from Kadett Holm... ...unfortunately, it will be followed up by CQB training with Sgt. Borkivitch. Enjoy.

Purpleheart23 Indeed. I suppose I am one of the "old timers" that didn't bolt when BFC released their plans for a modern setting or flare out during its suboptimal release state. The concern is there are some core elements that still need work and it looks as if it is really going to come down to the wire as to whether or not they are tuned up before BFC moves on. That's interesting. I play WEGO hotseat exclusively. That's right, I enjoy playing with myself and I am not afraid to say it. Roger that. Thanks for weighing in. Dima: I knew I could count on you to step up! I have a slow internet connection, however I will get them into your hands as soon as possible. As usual, my thanks.