Peter Panzer

Are Dutch Recon Lieutenants really armed with M240/FN MAG's or is this a TO&E mismatch?

Hell, I think it would be great if small arms fire caused friendly casualties too. Any chance we could ever see that added to the "Iron" difficulty setting? Don't worry weapon2010, you'll really get to play with the big boys when you start dropping your company mortars on your own lead fireteams. Take it from a fratricide pro, If it ain't "danger close" don't even bother.

Kick. Ass. Simply one of the best mods going in any category. Judging by the slick looks of the Afghanistan Unit Silhouettes, the NATO version should be typically spectacular as well. Red air looks awesome! Thanks Scipio!

A lot of good stuff in this one folks. Very nicely done akd - thank you for your work and for posting it on a faster, alternate site. Some quick highlights... Outstanding expanded vehicle effects - the M1 remains especially brilliant The MG3 and M16A4 effects satisfy nicely Shoulder fired rockets are much more realistic - plenty more "bang" - well done Several gems among the reworked explosions - a well tailored blend of concussive blasts and dampened "whumps"Can the NATO (L115/AWSM-F - suppressed) be made to sound like the M110 or does BFC need to make a correction elsewhere?

Lethaface/Jonny Yes, that was the situation. Thank you for clearing that up as I was obviously not aware that was an intentional aspect of the game. Thank you for your help!

SDSmack I can get behind that part too. It's the first pair of gunships laying down ordnance in less than a minute from the time of the initial CAS request that has me scratching my head. This, by a group of "Regular" artillery observers no less. Just for kicks, I tried this with a US JTAC Team (Regular) and the same thing happened (TOT less than a minute) for the initial request. The difference being that the second CAS request timed in at 4 min. versus the Syrian 6 min.. In my opinion, a Syrian artillery/mortar FO team should not be on par with a dedicated air controller team in regard to CAS request time. Frankly, I suspect "<1 minute" for either side is probably charitable, but I have never personally talked in a gun run so I could easily be wrong.

The Syrian Forward Observer Team (Regular) below was able to direct a pair of Hind gunships to their target zones in less than a minute. Can that be right? Aren't these the same guys that need the better part of an afternoon to bring down their battalion level mortars? Interestingly, the second CAS mission they requested noted "Delivery = 6 min." The scenario difficulty level was set to "Iron."

Here's an example of the multiple Flavor Objects per click (Rock 6) I referrred to above. For whatever reason, the objects always appear in a line. I am still not sure what seems to cause this. akd Good find - probably worth a look by the BFC guys. Damn. That should have been my screen name.

NormalDude Much appreciated... akd Yes, I was wondering about that as well. Does the weapon station on the Fuchs actually have a limited traverse in reality or is this a bug? Like this guy... The same could be said about the USMC AAV7's and LAV-25's. It would be great if "Open Up" involved a few passengers making use of the topside troop hatches. Likewise, deactivating "Open Up" should make everyone get their heads down - crew and passengers alike. Those guys currently in the back of the M1126's are total sniper/airburst bait, love coming back for more and there ain’t much the player can do to mitigate it. On a different note, has anyone noticed the Editor laying down too many Flavor Objects per click in v1.30? It used to be one-to-one, but occasionally I’ll get a heck of a lot more than that. I notice it now and again with Rocks, Drums and Junk.

Similar to the issue effecting the newly introduced GWagon, TPz Fuchs and Nyala, the M707 weapon station does not respond to cover arcs.

Some doors now disappear when units are placed within structures in v1.30. They will be invisible when the camera is outside of the structure and visible when the camera is inside of the structure.

I think this can often be a big part of it. Having been on the opposite side of the fence, I fully understand the "dead eye" phenomenon and can sympathize. The saving grace has always been and continues to be, that you guys are good about making the necessary corrections when the inevitable glitches arise. Were it not for that, I would have lost interest long ago. I'm confident 1.31 will be a real crackerjack to the picky guys like me as a result of everyone's collective effort. Thanks for all of your work.

At the risk of being the type of individual he is delicately lampooning, I'll quickly echo c3k's cheeky comments. I am glad to hear 1.31 will arrive to clean up some of the loose ends pertaining to the NATO Module. By no means do I wish to diminish the obvious effort of those involved in its production, but I must admit to being surprised at a few of the seemingly obvious things that slipped through into the release version (vehicle weapon stations not responding to cover arcs, incorrect Spike ATGM flight animation, Canadian TO&E omissions, etc.). Is 1.31 something we might expect prior to the end of the year? That said, I am continually impressed by BFC's dedication to identifying and correcting inaccuracies in their games. Thanks for understanding that it is your commitment to recreating "real-world" fidelity that attracts folks like myself to your products. I'm sure the new demo will go a long way toward demonstrating your devotion to detail to new customers!

I noticed this too and came to the same conclusion.

Is the Gill/Spike ATGM supposed to fly for extended periods at the angle shown in the image below? This missle flew parallel to the ground appoximately 700m with its nose pointed skyward. Is this an accurate depiction of the Spike's flightpath? If you pull back and raise the camera angle a second, more suitably oriented, jet of flame appears above the missle. It seems the missle's flight characteristics are not being animated properly. As a lark... Given that Steve noted it is an easy fix, is there any chance the Canadian Combat Engineers will be assigned their demo charges in the stand-alone v1.30 patch to be released in the coming days? If needed, perhaps a possible correction to the Gill's flightpath animation too?

Yeah, yeah, yeah, detail, continuity, selfless dedication - whatever. The real questions are... Will Scipio be updating his most excellent colorized unit and small arms icon mod to correspond with the new Nato forces? ...and... Can Mord and GeorgeMC pull off a convincing, "Hey Troop, shut the f*ck up!" in German, Dutch and Canadian accented English so as to round out their preposterously good voices mod? I'll tell you folks, I had no intention to buy the Nato Module for a very long time, however after seeing the amount of work invested and all of the flat-out weird sh*t our European friends go to war with I will definitely be downloading it! Congratulations to all of those who have poured so much of their personal and professional time into making this game better for all of us. Thank you!

Thanks Steve and Sixkiller - I am looking forward to it regardless of its numeric designation!

Thanks for the quick reply Phil. Perhaps a Beta Tester or BFC guy can confirm your recollection. As for remaining fixes, CMSF really solidified for me after v1.21 and I have been having plenty of fun with the game ever since. The things I have noticed are admittedly minor such as the crewman on the M707 (Recon Humvee) not orienting himself when a cover arc is set or the omission of a unique unit portrait for Syrian armor crews (I believe they are assigned the Mech Infantry portrait). I also seem to recall an issue discussed after the UK Module where Syrian machine gun teams could not properly resupply from their IFV's/APc's. Of course, if your memory is correct and BFC did mention v1.22 was planned, I guess they noticed some bits and pieces for the next go 'round too. More to the point, BFC also has a welcome habit of slipping in occasional AI adjustments, such as the ability for infantry to briefly pause and return fire when executing a movement command (introduced with the USMC Module?). I suppose with all of the effort directed toward the NATO Module and the Normandy game I was hoping a surprise or two along these lines might find its way into a potential v1.22 update. In any event, I know folks are not permitted to divulge details prior to any release - I was just curious if the established pattern would remain and the "Modern Theater Guys" would get one last belly rub.

Will the NATO Module be accompanied by a v1.22 "patch" in the same manner that previous expansions were paired with fixes and enhancements? As a player who prefers a contemporary setting, I am hoping there might be one last round of spit shining before "M4" refers to armor instead of small arms.

bowen42: This issue has been around since the game's launch and continues to be, even at this late stage of development, a rather rough edge associated with WEGO playback. In an extreme and admittedly rare example, I have even seen instances of infantry models leaving the ground and hovering to their waypoint as late as v1.20. Simply put, Steve explained that this, along with a few other visual misrepresentations I reported, were likely due to my processor (E6850, dual core, 3 Ghz) lacking the horsepower to execute the program adequately given the amount of detail being rendered in-game at a given moment. That's not the answer I wanted to or thought I would hear, but I reckon the man knows how the code makes sacrifices in order to keep things moving far better than I. I don't know were addressing this would fall on BFC's scale of "effort vs. return," but it would be a great touch in making the infantry feel truly connected to their environment and clear up a long standing incongruency.

Other Means: Minor though it may be in the big picture, the lack of turret rotation is definitely an oversight. There should be a full 360 degree range of traverse. The inability to call for fire support with the M707 is a mystery to me. Theoretically speaking, these guys can easily pass off GPS coordinates to artillery units and laze targets for CAS. It has been said the deadliest weapon in a recon element is their radio. I could be wrong, but I don't think any unit with the rank of Specialist or below can request fire support post v1.21. Any help you could provide in getting these issues ironed out in the next (last?) revision would be fantastic. Thanks, as always, for your help.

I will guess that many players see the word "recon" in the unit's description and assume the team must be placed at the foremost edge of the formation in order to be used properly. Not true. Ideally, recon teams conduct operations in the objective area after their security teams are in position. As the commander of the recon element you have two key, concurrent goals, passing information up the chain and ensuring security for your teams. Spearheading a recon company with what amounts to a single Cav Trooper/Marine with a carbine is generally not a technique tied to success. Likewise, silouetting a lone Humvee on an exposed ridgeline while they "do recon" is a brilliant means of getting them aired out. Think more creatively and holistically when managing the fight. Light recon elements working in isolation are going to be summarily shot to hell when compromised - they should have other units providing mutual support in the event they must break contact. Utilize their strengths of mobility, high-powered optics/designators and lower profile to keep your distance from the OPFOR and maximize their survivability. Further more, cover/concealment and "tactical patience" are key to their effective use. The later point is crucial. If you just can't wait to push through that platoon of M1's, then perhaps missions dictating "recon-by-fire" are more your speed. I often employ these teams to screen the flanks of my main formation or have them observe from secured locations already being screened to the rear of the AO. As a matter of course, I will pair up '707's with another armed M1114 or a M3/LAV. Recon elements should continue to remain active throughout the engagement, identifying alternate OP's, conducting fire support missions** and relocating as the engagement dictates. Game notes: **M707 crews can no longer call in fire support missions (artillery/CAS) after v1.21. The LRAS3 mount/turret ring on the M707 does not rotate to the assigned direction when a "Cover Arc" is issued. A small detail, but maybe this can be corrected when the NATO Module/v1.22 is released.

Now Mord, be honest, did you just spend the better part of your holiday weekend screaming filthy phrases into a mic? You did, didn't you? Hell, I'm going to tell you this is the best damn thing I have ever heard just so you don't start yelling at me! I am always amazed at the amount of dedication and know-how various members of this forum put into work they willingly share with the rest of us for little, if anything, in exchange. Guys like Gordon Molek, Mord, Scipio, AKD, Birdstrike and others have very much enhanced my enjoyment of CMSF with free files that are quite often professional grade work. If it's feedback you want... This is, by-in-large, great stuff in my view, especially for a one-man shop. It would have been very easy for you to stray into unintended parody in an attempt to be more "dramatic," but you really walked the line impressively well on the vast majority of the samples. What's more, you built on the strength of the previous versions great attention to military jargon in a manner that doesn't seem contrived or pedantic. The aggregate effect is quite good. Something else, I am the type of player who immensely enjoys the dozens of little narratives that unfold over the course of a scenario as they assemble themselves into a greater picture. Work like this helps to put an exclamation on those dramatic pinpoints. It's clear you really understand the theatric potential of the game and how to bring it to the fore. Lastly, the idea to differentiate the idiosyncratic terminology between the US Army and the USMC was a surprisingly splendid touch. Do users have to remove one or the other of the folders in their "Z" folder in order for them to work in a given scenario (i.e. remove the Army folder when playing a USMC scenario)? When it comes to sound mods, I often filter through the individual files for the samples that I find to be the most convincing and discard the remainder. I strongly suspect I will keep the bulk of these. Congratulations on this enormous effort you lewd bastard!

Interesting point Tyrspawn - thanks! After a quick check, it appears you may be correct with a few exceptions. UK Sniper Teams/USMC Javelin Teams are Lance Corporals/Corporals and cannot direct arty/CAS. If you are right, this touch adds a nice little wrinkle to the BLUFOR capabilities or perhaps newfound lack thereof.

Like many others, the artillery and CAS observer changes in v1.21 have caught my attention. As noted elsewhere, all BLUFOR units are no longer capable of directing arty/CAS. That, in and of itself is no problem, but I am struggling to frame the rationale behind the new hierarchy determining who can and cannot direct "off-board" assets. For example: US Army MG Crews cannot - UK and USMC MG Crews can Armored Cav M707 Crew cannot - IBCT M707 Crew can M3 CFV Crews cannot - M2 IFV Crews can UK Sniper Teams cannot - US Sniper Teams canWhat are the new eligibility parameters meant to reflect?