Peter Panzer

The slippery bastards.

Howdy folks: ...just thought I would pass this along... The "Equipment" rating scale (Poor-Excellent) for UNCON Fighter Command units' ATGM's is backwards. Selecting "Poor" rather than "Excellent" results in the unit being equipped with the best range of hardware and vice versa. Currently: Poor = AT-14 Kornet E Excellent = Sagger B

Oh, hell. Indeed I shall, Steiner - thank you! My "exploded" folder of the "version 100" files lists the Republican Guard portrait with the name "portrait syr republican guards." Perhaps somewhere along the way to "version 108" it was renamed? In any event, I am putting together a complete, new set of unit portraits for the release of the USMC module. Here is a sample: US Mechanized (Heavy) Infantry Syrian Infantry (Reserves) UNCON "Fighter" If there is any interest, I would be glad to share.

Is anyone else able to confirm this? I even pasted the filename from the original .bmp into the new file in order to ensure there was not a typo - no effect. Granted, this may be irrelevant to some, but it seems to be a shame one cannot create a complete set of user-modified portraits. What's more, this would be a nice little glitch to correct in 1.1. Thanks to anyone who can take a moment - especially any Beta Testers.

Hello everyone: I am in the midst of replacing the stock unit portraits in the UI with some of my own images. I am able to do so successfully with the single exception of the Syrian Republican Guards portrait. I have named my 51x57 .bmp "portrait syr republican guards" and placed the new file in the "z" folder. For some reason, the stock file is not "replaced" in the UI. To confirm the problem, I also tried the process above with a different file - no luck. Is this a known issue? Has anyone found a workaround? Feel free to try this on your own and see what happens.... Thanks for any help.

In the event others are interested, it looks as if my original question regarding AFV selection is answered on page 128 of the new online manual.

Mikey: Thanks for the tips and noting that some launchers are fixed. It may very well be that I have not played around with this enough. To clarify, I play in WEGO exclusively. That said, wouldn't it follow that if a player selects "Pop Smoke" the directional line should not "snap-to" the front of an AFV? Rather, during WEGO, it would be great if the line could be positioned anywhere within 360* of the mount/waypoint. The mount would then traverse accordingly and fire the launchers during the next turn in the specified direction. Muhammed: If I am not mistaken, there was a M1 heavily damaged from a secondary "cook-off" from a burning T-72 (?) during the 1991 Gulf War. This new detail will add a great tactical wrinkle to the action. Any insight into the Scenario Editor selection of the new US Army AFV's?

It looks as if the USMC/v.1.1 module is going to be a welcome step in the right direction in a number of areas. Among several of the gameplay enhancements, I was pleasantly surprised to see the inclusion of new M1's and M2/M3's. Question: In terms of the Scenario Editor, how will the M1 (TUSK) and M2/M3 (ERA) be incorporated? Will they appear as a result of the value in the "Equipment" (excellent, good, normal, etc.) dropdown menu? If so, after installing the USMC module will these AFV's also appear in pre-existing scenarios where the "Equipment" value was/is set to the appropriate value? Question: Will directional smoke be available for AFV's in v.1.1? Unless I have missed something, it seems that AFV's can only deploy smoke over their frontal arc. Why? These systems are attached to fully traversing mounts, be it a turret or RWS. Thanks for any clarification. Somewhat relatedly, the inclusion of secondaries is a fantastic touch - well done.

Excellent - the more of these issues that get worked out the better. Keep it up.

Many thanks, sir. I am looking forward to v1.1 with great interest.

Huntarr: Thanks for taking the time to confirm this. I suppose this may reflect an individual's style of play. I use suppressing fire like it is going out of style, especially from my AFV's. As such, I noticed this flaw right away as it impacted what I consider to be realistic tactics. Only on the face of things as it does effect gameplay. This really should be addressed as it is clearly not intended given the contrary behavior of all other AFV's in the game. In a recent scenario, I had two mech infantry squads pinned down by small arms fire from an entrenched REDFOR platoon. Had the supporting M1 not been artificially limited to strict use of the coax, the fight would have assumed a dramatically different tempo. This "small" flaw, in a game committed to getting the details right, effects the realism of the events being portrayed. Could you please report this as a bug to be corrected in v1.1? My virtual doggies sure would appreciate it and I know you want the digital Corps tankers to be on the money, right?

Hello Huntarr: The issue with the M1 is different than those illustrated in your how-to's. Currently, the M1 will not use the 120mm gun when directed as area fire toward a section of open terrain. This is important if the need exists to suppress unidentified units in locations other than inside a building or behind a wall. Want to lay some heavy ordinance on those unidentified infantry contacts in the tall grass? No-can-do with the current M1. Why? Try this quick test: Place an unobserved M1 on a map, direct it to "Target" an open section of terrain. The crew will not employ the main gun. If you "Target" a structure or an identified REDFOR unit there is no issue with firing the 120mm.Try the same test with another AFV (T-72, M2, etc.) - they will use their main armaments prodigously. Outwardly, this may seem like a nitpick, but it certainly limits the ultimate usefulness of BLUFOR heavy armor.

c3k: To my knowledge, it is not possible to order the M3/M2's to exclusively employ their coaxial guns. The best you can do is issue a "Target Light" order and allow the AI to take over. In my experience, this is a rather mixed bag in which you will see a blend of 25mm and 7.62mm. Personally, I wish BFC would have retained the previous CM1 area target dialogue - defaulting to the coax and offering options such as "Use Main Gun?" and "Use ATGM?" Relatedly, there is the current issue of the M1 being neutered due to its lack of ability to conduct area fire with the 120mm gun. I really hope this is ironed out in version 1.1 as it certainly causes me to unrealistically change tactics when BLUFOR tanks are engaged. I hope this helps

Sorry to sidetrack this thread boys, but I located the earlier thread I had alluded to regarding the M1 not using the 120mm for area targets: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=75613&highlight=abrams+area+target Hey Birdstrike, yeah, I can confim it. Let's hope the Corps' tankers have their act together.

Hello Moon: Thanks for the rapid reply. Indeed they do. Only one round of HEAT has been expended by the crew during the fight thus far. This occurred when the crew ID'ed a REDFOR infantry squad and sent the main gun round their way. If I select a spot of open terrain on the map and designate it for area fire it will be hosed with 7.62, but that's it. I will play around with this some more, however I seem to recall someone else reporting this experience as well. Unfortunately, I cannot conduct a forum search as I receive a message that the administrator has banned my IP when I attempt to do so. I will be glad to break this out into a separate thread if need be.

Hello Blucher: That's very interesting. I have played almost 40 minutes of a scenario (WEGO) where I have tasked a veteran M1 crew to direct area fire to spots on the map several times whereby they only employ the coax. Using "Target" vs. "Target Light" does not make a difference. By contrast, if a REDFOR unit is identified the crew will touch off the 120mm. Any hints?

The extent of the fixes and changes in version 1.1 will determine whether or not I purchase the USMC module. Perhaps the version used in Mark's piece was an older beta build, but I noticed some of the lingering issues with WEGO playback in the "base game" were still present (infantrymen will sometimes slide across the map, vehicles still show an occasional vertical hitch when moving across uneven terrain or when pivoting in place). This makes me wonder what other "small" issues will remain post 1.1. Tin Foil Hat Guy says: the fact that the smaller, tighter USMC Recon teams were highlighted rather than the much larger, possibly ungainly, USMC rifle squads could raise a skeptical brow.... Will the M1 be able to use its main gun during area fire? Will terrain damage reset during WEGO playback? Will infantry be able to execute a "Face" command while "Hiding?" Will infantry pathfinding be polished? They still appeared to be a bit noncohesive when attempting to run down an open road in the video. Will Target Arcs extend off of the map? Will units be able to exit the map? Etc....All of that said, the new vehicle models look superb. This has been a strength of CMSF since the outset and BFC's art team is to be commended. I also noticed the liberal use of hand grenades to break contact, on the surface, that seems like a nice touch. It would be great to see a video focusing on the gameplay improvements. I am very curious to see what 1.1 brings to the fore.

You know, I was beginning to think one of us was completely insane. Thanks for hanging in there and keeping an open perspective. Summary: <ul> [*]"Face" commands for infantry units must be independently calculated at each waypoint when multiple points/orientations are linked in a series. Currently, it appears the "Face" command issued to the initial point is applied to all waypoints in a series regardless of any varying orientations assigned. [*]Hiding units should be able to re-orient while hiding. Currently, they must "unhide" to do so.

WEGO, 1.08: These waypoints, with their corresponding "Pause" and "Face" commands, were established in the same manner by the player. Yet there are two, different results during gameplay. Arrival at Waypoint 1 (correct orientation): Arrival at Waypoint 2 (incorrect orientation): How can the conclusion be made that there is no issue here? By way of context, the team remains in the wrong orientation at waypoint 2 for the duration of the 15 second pause. They then advance to the third and final waypoint where they assume the correct 3 o'clock orientaion. Honestly, if this is user error I would love for someone to please explain what I am doing wrong to produce this effect. Perhaps some others can try this out, using the parameters outlined above and report their experiences. Thanks to everyone who has chimed in thus far, especially Mark. [ June 01, 2008, 05:25 PM: Message edited by: Peter Panzer ]

Hello Mark: I am a bit confused by your last post. Was it made as an instructional piece or are you saying there is no issue with the consistent function of the "Face" command? Thanks for clarifying.

First, my thanks to each of you for your time. Steve: That being the case, I think we may have caught one here. This is/was my understanding of the "Face" command function as well. However, in my observations, the unit does not always re-orient itself to the designated facing after stopping at a waypoint. This is why I suggested adding a 15 second pause to each waypoint in my "Quick Test" scenario so as to allow the unit a fair chance to regroup and execute the command. That mindset is why, despite the twists and turns thus far, I remain confidant CMSF will continue to mature into a great game. Thank you. Slug88: Thanks for the confirmation on the "Hide/Face" combination. Mark: Test file inbound. Note the US Scout Team - they are assigned three waypoints in a straight line ("Quick" move) with the following "Face" commands issued as follows 3 o'clock, 9 o'clock and 3 o'clock. For some reason the yellow "quick" lines and triangular waypoints do not appear in this saved file, however you will see the purple "Face" indicator appear at the correct times. Pay particular attention to the team's action at the second waypoint - they turn in the opposite direction of the "Face" command after stopping and regrouping. Their movement to the third waypoint is captured in the next turn, but hopefully this lone file will be enough to demonstrate what I am driving at and give you guys enough context to see what is afoot.

Here is a bit more information, should it be of interest: Regarding Stationary Units Not Re-orienting: From what I can tell, this appears to be tied in with the "Hide" command. If a unit is hiding they will not re-orient. Is this intentional? Regarding Moving Units Not Consistently Re-orienting: Using the "Quick Test" chain of waypoints described above, you may notice when a unit reaches a waypoint and fails to re-orient they then "drag" the purple indicator line with them to the next waypoint. Once the next point in the series is reached, the indicator line from the previous "Face" command disappears and the unit may or may not orient themselves to the new direction assigned to the most recently arrived at point. As an aside, it would be great to have some additional text labels appear above waypoints to aid the player. Just as their is a "Pause" label now, "Hide" and "Pop Smoke" would be useful. Hopefully this makes sense. Honestly, I am not sure what may be a bug and what may be user error in this case.

Hello everyone: Here is one for the Beta crew: Issue (Infantry "Face", WEGO, 1.08): Infantry will not consistently/correctly execute an assigned "Face" command during movement orders. They will not execute the command at all if it is issued to a unit in a stationary position (i.e. no movement command issued, change orientation from 12 o'clock to 6 o'clock). In all cases, the purple line indicating the orientation to be assumed appears correctly, but the unit does not follow through. It is also not unusual for a unit to partially assume the assigned orientation (i.e. three troops facing 3 o'clock while the fourth remains at a facing assigned to the previous waypoint). Note: this issue also appears in relation to the assignment of cover arcs. Quick Test: String together several waypoints with a 15 second pause at each. Use the "Face" command to assign a squad/team to alternating orientations at each (i.e. 3 o'clock, 9 o'clock, 3 o'clock, etc.). Likewise, assign a change in orientation to a stationary unit. The "Face" command will not be executed even after several turns. Hopefully, BFC can iron this out prior to the next patch as it is a key element. Please feel free to chime in if I have mised something. [ May 25, 2008, 10:33 AM: Message edited by: Peter Panzer ]

Perhaps this is a good place to ask this question: Will the "face" command work consistently for infantry in WEGO in the upcoming patch (1.01?)? Quite often they will not turn in the direction indicated. I attempted to use cover arcs as a workaround, but they will not respond to that either. In my experience, infantry must be "steered" into their desired orientation via the placement of waypoints. This is very easily reproduced - vehicles seem to work great in this capacity, by the way. Any clarification would be appreciated as this is obviously a rather key command.

Double tap, sorry.