Erwin

Good idea. That would indeed tend to discourage my tendency to load everyone up to the max as currently it appears that pixeltruppen experience very little negative consequence (despite protestations to the contrary).

I have been accumulating "Useful CMSF Hints" over at BoB in their OTHER GAMES forum since no one there seems to care or read about CMSF - that way my thread isn't lost to history, and isn't contaminated by comments etc. lol.) If you are interested: http://webandofbrothers.yuku.com/topic/11168 So far, some of the biggest learning surprises (to me) are: 1) You may as well simply use snipers and recon as weak reg. inf. 2) Arty doesn't provide RL or common sense results. 3) Some sniper rifles can be resupplied and others cannot - but it's very hard to figure out which vehicles may have the correct ammo. (After only 3 years, there is now a list at the SNIPER thread.) 4) Specialized vehicles (spotting/FO's and ATGM etc.) cannot get into safe hull-down positions to spot or fire ATGM's - so they are mostly a wasted asset and should be kept out of harm's way for the most part. 5) While it is incredibly useful that one can spot and target from any waypoint, there is no guarantee that a unit can actually spot or fire at the desired target when it actually moves to that waypoint. Still scouring the forums here for more info. Once I realized the above, my frustration level was greatly reduced as I didn't keep persistently trying to do things the "RL" way and failing. So, for me, understanding issues like the above helps me enjoy the game (as a game to be mastered like any other) a lot more. CMSF is probably a better simulation of RL when one deals with small units (platoon up to no larger than company level) and with no specialized units or arty. I can then see how one could use CMSF as a trainer to help illustrate basic RL principles. Personally, I like large scenarios - battalion to regimental and above - which is what CM1 allows one to do (which is why it's still #1 imo hehe). But, as a CMSF scenario becomes larger and includes more and more specialized units and arty, the CM2 system breaks down as a sim. Nothing to be embarrassed about since contractors spend many, many millions to develop "realistic" sims and those usually require several dozen contractors on-site to run the dang thing! CMSF remains a bloody marvellous entertainment game and represents an awe-inspiring effort by the developers!

I didn't mean to make it sound I was attacking you personally, jnt. You do good work and your postings are always interesting. It's just that I crave a tutorial that actually deals with the realities of the CMSF limitations, so that one can actually play the game to its potential. I would warn newbies that if you try and play using only "realistic" tactics, you can get screwed up. After 10 years of designing sims for DoD agencies and playing CM... well... I don't really count CM1 as I don't think anyone seriously claimed that CM1 was an accurate simulation... so after 2-3 years of CM2 I can't believe that I am only now finding out that the way I was trying to use snipers and recon "realistically" was a complete waste of time... ditto for arty, and vehicles with long range spotting abilities, and... and... well you get the idea. It's not a real big deal as I LOVE playing all the CM games as they are FUN. I guess I started to get seduced by some of the threads on this forum that imply that CM2 is really an accurate simulation of RL and I feel a bit stoopid to become disillusioned and realize that (of course) it's (merely) a great game. I say "merely," but I know I couldn't have come up with anything that is so entertaining! Why do I bother trying to warn newbies...? Hell if I know... Just a weird aspect of my personality. I promise I will try and control myself.

There was a thread here not that long ago re snipers and I had the impression that guys who had sniper experience were saying that due to the massive amount of extra training snipers get, there would be a lot more effect in a realistic simulation, than simply making their experience level higher in a game like CMSF. I would also have thought the same for Recon troops. But, perhaps by making all recon troops crack or elite, maybe that would mitigate the problem at least for Recon. Anyhow, I was simply pointing out that one is/can be successful at CMSF by "gaming the game" more than trying to use RL tactics etc. - since the game does not reflect RL accurately enuff (re the examples I gave above). Of course, a basic grounding of RL tactics is helpful just to give one an idea of where to start. But, I consider that detailed manuals that appear to parallel real world military manuals, can appear overly complex, confusing and off-putting to the casual gamer. (One wonders how many potential customers take one look at these forums and reel back aghast at all the RL training they would need to endure just to play?) And to cap it all off, manuals based on RL are misleading and don't really help you play the game well, because a good CMSF gamer needs to know about and understand the game's (non RL) anomalies and "tricks" such as the ones I noted above. What makes all the CM games outstanding is their brilliance at verisimilitude/making us "suspend disbelief" so that we really start to believe that we know enuff to be CO's of a battlegroup. But, the first helpful hint of any tutorial needs to disillusion players just a little bit and make it clear that they must learn to play the "game" with all its non-RL flaws.

Swarovski Monocular? Is that a monacle decorated with Swarovski crystals? My wife LOVES that sort of thing!

Any tutorial is always helpful, but it's almost like when playing a game, you need one written by someone who is good at playing the game, rather than by someone trained to use RL procedures. For example, the above tutorial doesn't discuss really basic but invaluable info that a gamer needs to know like "what speed should one move at?" ie: In the game, when is it better to move at max speed, quick, move to contact/hunt, slow...? What units should lead, in what circumstances, and why? It's also important in a game tutorial to point out where the game "breaks down" in its depiction of RL, and when "common sense" or knowledge of RL actually becomes a hindrance/is misleading - eg: the way CMSF handles recon teams and snipers - the fact that they are no better at spotting or hiding than a regular inf unit with the same experience level. Other examples of logic, commonsense and knowledge of RL mil being trumped by knowledge of game quirks: The fact that inf units tend to fire off ALL their AT missiles at a single target when in RL they may use only one or two. That vehicles with telescopic periscope type capability in RL, do NOT have this capability in the game. Recent tests done by other forum members here demonstrate that it's easier to use artillery to kill units in bunkers than in buildings. That artillery sometimes won't kill enemy units exposed on building roofs, but will kill them in surrounding trenches and in the ground floor of the building. That even when artillery collapses a multi-story building, enemy units will probably still survive and be in fighting spirit - as many an unfortunate pixeltruppen assaulter has discovered. It would be interesting to compile a list of these sort of counter-intuitive features that one needs to know to play the game really well. So, while well-intended and interesting to read to see how war is conducted in RL, these sort of "official military manual" style tutorials are not that helpful to the average gamer trying to play the CMSF game. (In the same way that the BF manuals for all the CM2 games, while packed with information, are actually not that helpful.) Just look at the volume of discussion and controversy on these forums as people, some of whom clearly have mil experience, become confused/puzzled about what the units in the game are actually capable of. I am reminded of a pathetic photo from the good old Spectrum Holobyte days of the FALCON flilght sim, where a group of adults had gotten so much into the game they all dressed in fighter-pilot uniforms complete with their own badges etc. and thought themselves really hot **** - and there they were - bested in a well-publicized competition by a little spotty asian teenager, who "used wrist-twitch techniques" to beat the whole lot of them. I also recall several years ago visiting a base on an all-game designer team playing Decisive Action with the designer (then LtCol Jim Lunsford) and his RL officers from his unit, and us gamers beat the crap out of the RL officers. What does that mean? That we could take over their units and operate better than they could? Of course not. But, we gamers were much better at playing the game.

Not having the budget for two sets of binoculars for recon teams is unbelievable. So, what is the RL reason for this? I have long wished for (well since NATO came out) a doctrine-type document to explain what seem to be insane personnel or weapon load-out decisions by the NATO forces.

That is some hot chick!

More amazing stuff re Barbara Rossi! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Rossi

Presumably it compensates for the other NATO forces (the Axis... I mean Germans...) not having all their ATM's.

Understood.

I asked exactly the same question re the Canadian (no satchel charges) and Dutch (no radios) Campaigns before the 1.31 patch and was told yes wait for the patch. One would think that not having any inf AT weapons is a pretty serious problem unless none of the scenarios have enemy armor. But, there may be a workaround. (I hadn't even missed my Canadian engineers not having satchel charges until it was pointed out in a forum.) At least the Canadian and Dutch Campaigns seem fixed now.

Yes. Considering that we can't read up on this sort of issue in the manual(s), that's the sort of intuitive display info that would help a LOT. I wasn't even aware of the issue till I read this thread. It's a shock to realise that I may be using my recon vehicles all wrong - after 2+ years playing (shudder)! Heaven help the casual player. (And BTW, I think this sort of thing is a "death sentence" for widespread competitive H2H play as one needs to really understand the game engine and its many, many quirks to play at a higher level - much more so than CM1.)

Yes, thanks AKD, that was helpful. (And thanks for the tests Stickky.) A list of vehicles "that spot better buttoned long-range than unbuttoned" would also be very useful as a companion to the list you gave. Maybe I am not sensitive/detail-oriented enuff to really study the equipment load-out box. Did I get this correctly: That the load-out info will sometimes change depending on whether the unit is buttoned or unbuttoned. (I note that there seems to be no change in the equipment load-out in the above example, regardless if the M707 is buttoned or unbuttoned.) It would be nice to see any sort of increased ability appear somewhere (in the unit equipment load-out screen??) so one knew which units had additional capabilities depending on their buttoned status.

The final attack must be planned as I had the same experience and was happily massacring the final attack when the game ended 3-4 turns overtime. ALEX says that one needs to area fire a LOT as soon as you see a "?" icon pop up. To me that's a waste of ammo, as I thought that the "?" icons could cover a large area. But, (in CMA at least) apparently that tactic works.

Since I have to turn the fog/weather off most of the time so I can see where I am plotting, it's no biggy. All one misses are some nice screenshots. (The problem of seeing my oppo's dust trails when fog should obscure them is far more of an issue.) But, dang it, I STILL love CM1! Sincerely hope you guys had some time off over TG. If I had to deal with some of the stuff on these forums, I would be in a sanitarium with "apoplectic anger issues" by now, heh.

AKD: Re your "It is mostly pretty logical." In CMSF MANY things are NOT logical to me I am sorry to say, that's why I asked. (And If I am confused, then lots of others are too.) "Not sure if the BMP and Marder gain any advantage over their internal optics from use of the sights on their external ATGMs by an unbuttoned commander." Well... while I appreciate the answer, it sounds like you are as confused as I am at least re these vehicles. What would be very much appreciated from someone who knows, would be a definitive list of which vehicles (in the game) spot better unbuttoned (and I mean with long range equipment, NOT 25m away) and vice versa, as it seems to make quite a difference. Thanks...

Touche, Ali Baba! LOL

Can you comment on the rumor that CMSF2 will be CM:Zombies? It sounds awesome! (Really...)

Ok, I get confused with weather or fog not appearing in either CM2 or CM1 in certain situations. I thought there was a fix, but I guess it was for CM2(?) But, yes I was referring to fog/mist in CMAK with nVidia and Win7. So, there is no patch/fix/workaround? (No real problem in any case.)

Merci beaucoup...

If the M707 has to be unbuttoned for the "more accurate" observation, is this true of other vehicles? Which vehicles need to be unbuttoned and which can remain buttoned for improved spotting? (Be nice if this stuff was in the manual btw.)

I posted this is CMAK Tech Support, but in case that is not being supported: What is the fix to get weather FX in CM1 with nVidia and Win 7?

I'm sure this has been dealt with but what is the fix to get weather FX in CM1 with nVidia and Win 7?

Well, just as prior to WW2, the European and US owned most of the oil resources in the far east, and used that as a weapon to control other countries like Japan. Countries in that position soon get resentful etc. War is almost always about economic resources.