Erwin

If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to AI issues, is that acceptable? If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to marketing, is that acceptable? If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to TCP/IP WeGo, is that acceptable? If CM:N is "delayed" until June 7th, 2011 due to UNKNOWN issues, is that acceptable? Absolutely yes it is... if one has confidence that BFC will use the time to make the game better. Some of us still remember the godawful howling and whining when CMSF was first released "early" with bugs.

Paper Tiger: Seriously, is that what RL troops do? ie: They pour on a lot of smoke and then behave as if there are no IED's around cos they are sure that cos the triggerman can't SEE the IED location then they must be safe(???) That's what the game demands, so if you can back that up with RL examples then I will actually be very happy (for real). Oh and BTW PT, I am enjoying the scenario and campaign immensely, so am not bitching about the scenario actually... I am more frustrated by the CM2 limitations and the lack of clear explanations as to how things work or a manual that explains all the CM2 features and quirks that we seem to endlessly discuss in these forums so that we can play the game intelligently. Dave: Are you talking about Canadian mission 2 - the IED's on the only bridge to get to the town? There may be different AI plans, but I found at least one triggerman in the town outskirts but no one in the buildings close to the bridge. You have to be pretty observant to know you've killed a triggerman, and I guess there has to be a friendly unit almost standing over him to ID. If you kill and long range you may never know for sure.

Have you tried Canadian Campaign mission 3? That is close to what you described and very bloody. I suppose one could use a lot of smoke and then move freely since the triggermen couldn't see to detonate. I find myself continuously torn between trying to use RL tactics and realizing they can be disastrous in the game, and being frustrated at being forced to use gamey techniques to win missions.

1.31 also gives the Canadian engineers their satchel charges.

Let's forget about the PPHE vs HEDP issue as I think that is complicating the issue. Let's just focus on ammo sharing. AKD: "edit: Just tested and a GMG team will not share its final 32 rounds of HEDP. This is why the total HEDP shown available for sharing is not the actual total of all the HEDP carried by the teams. So sending an empty team to acquire ammo for the purposes of sharing would be pointless." Am confused as usual... I thought you showed that 2(+) teams would share ammo. So, if 2 teams were in proximity each with 32 rounds, both teams show 64 rounds and one of the teams could fire all 64 rounds(?). Also, did you show that the "Command element" (that's their HQ correct?) can carry 50 (or more?) rounds, and can give ALL of those rounds to a GPMG team. The proviso is that the HQ and sub unit remain in proximity till all 50 rounds are expended. ie: if the HQ unit moves away immediately before the GPMG unit fires, the GPMG unit will only have acquired 32 rounds. Presumably, if the GPMG unit fires 18 rounds and stops firing, it will grab the rest of the ammo from the HQ, so if the HQ moves away immediately after the 18 rounds are fired, the HQ will have 0 rounds.

Ok, time for a poll. Who amongst us actually studies the night sky in CMSF to check on star locations lol?

Well, if the IED's are mixed up with other flavor objects I suppose one can waste time and ammo shooting at all flavor objects. If they are near "bags" and bags are what id's an IED, then the game becomes more about looking for "bags." Not so much fun imo. Am starting to think that without mine/IED clearing ability, these features should not be in the game. It's ludicrous to think that in RL one would be ordered to go locate IED's, and the only way to find them is to be blown up. It's perfectly acceptable of course to have a "conventional" mission and to stumble across a deadly IED during that mission. But, to tell us there are IED's at a location and make that a part of the game when nothing can be done seems silly.

Do we at least know (in the akd example) if ammo is expended by any or all of the teams, then one team goes to get ammo resupply: 1) How many rounds can the "resupply team" get from the vehicle? 2) When it rejoins the other 2 teams (or gets within 24 meters) how many rounds are shared with the other teams (all or only a %, or..?)? Someone at BF, pleeze enlighten us...

Ach... snipers... don't get me started... <breathe deeply 10 times and repeat after me "This is just a game, this is just a game..."

c3k is doing something similar in another thread. This a such an important feature I really hope we can have definitive rules/explanation re how ammo sharing works from BF.

Ok, so you are saying that Det 5 acquired ammo (mysteriously) since it was moving away. And the other detachment never acquired any additional ammo(?) (I am just so confused about this - and a few other CMSF features as well...)

That is very interesting, but am still a bit confused. Did the Pioneers' 620 HEDP ever get exchanged/acquired? You are saying that the GMG running away (5 detach) received extra ammo?? The HQ was able to give extra HEDP ammo away??? ('Fraid I still don't understand what one needs to actually do to have one unit give ammo to another unit. Or, what the limitations are... Like all units have to be part of the same formation - is that platoon? In which case does that mean Company and above CO's can never give ammo to anyone?

You mean there are no other flavor/bag object anyplace else in your scenario than on an IED? Doesn't that make it too easy, going from one extreme to another? Once you know where they are, it's (usually) easier to find a way around the IED.

Hey guys, GaJ from BoB asked me to repost this here: Cabe was a member at BoB... became inactive when RL got tough. It's still tough. He is an artist by trade, and getting work is hard. So... if you're the sort of person who could commission a portrait - or a model - you really really should check out his work. It's friggin awesome. In fact, even if you can't commission anything, you should just check it out Artwork: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabebooth/collections/72157601627237354/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabebooth/sets/72157601635535015/ Collection of model photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabebooth/collections/72157601634083197/ And if you _could_ commission something ... well, I know he needs it right now... GaJ

Hey guys, GaJ from BoB asked me to repost this here: Cabe was a member at BoB... became inactive when RL got tough. It's still tough. He is an artist by trade, and getting work is hard. So... if you're the sort of person who could commission a portrait - or a model - you really really should check out his work. It's friggin awesome. In fact, even if you can't commission anything, you should just check it out Artwork: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabebooth/collections/72157601627237354/ http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabebooth/sets/72157601635535015/ Collection of model photos: http://www.flickr.com/photos/cabebooth/collections/72157601634083197/ And if you _could_ commission something ... well, I know he needs it right now... GaJ

I read on another thread that units can only share ammo with units from the same platoon. Is that correct (anyone)? And is the same true for the HQ of that platoon? Does that mean that a company or higher HQ can never share ammo then?

You are correct that there are many problems like this one. But, it is just a game. The problem I think comes from some folks getting so into the game that they post tactical treatises as if this was a realistic training simulation. As I have said before, with platoon level actions in conventional (relatively boring) situations, CMSF may work as a sort of trainer of concepts. Once we get to the size and sophistication of the scenario you depict, CMSF breaks down as a simulation and one needs to learn how to play the game in order to win the game, and RL experience can be more of a hindrance. There are so many aspects of CMSF that are not amenable to common sense nor is RL applicable. It's just a kick-ass game.

"The official word, found elsewhere, from Steve was that they (BF.C) would leave it up to you to peruse web sources for more detailed specs on the weapon and equipment. The reasoning (if my memory is anywhere near correct) was that there is FAR too much detail for them to try to cram into the game manual. They had to stop somewhere." That's a bit of an annoying cop out. 90% of the info provided in the manuals simply gives stats copied from heaven knows where, and is of little or no use whatsoever in playing the GAME. Things like how ammo swapping works, or whether covered arcs improves spotting, and what gun takes what ammo, what sniper ammo can be acquired from what vehicle etc etc is critical to be able to play the game well. One thing is certain - one can NOT rely on common sense, or knowledge of how RL equipment works as much of the time this is not reflected in how they work in the CMSF game. Of course if there was a clear manual that stated all this info, it would cut down the posts on this board by about 95%! Maybe that is the real driver, hehe...

Yes, yes, yes... I have exactly the same frustration. Lots of MOD specs but little usable (in the game) info. It also took ages to find info (in these forums) as to what ammo snipers could reload and from which vehicles as well. Re "regular" ammo, I loaded up HQ's with all sorts of ammo and put them in the same location as low-ammo inf and I didn't see any ammo improvement for the inf - bullets or missiles. So, how does this feature work? What is the point of having a game this complex and subtle and then no manual to explain these features and how to actually play the game?

"It doesn't give ammo to them permanently." Well that was rather important news to me. Wish someone would tell us this stuff - maybe in a manual update every now and again. Question: I loaded up my HQ's with ammo and rockets etc and brought them into the same room as inf low on ammo (for a couple of turns), and I didn't see any improvement in the inf's ammo of any kind. Do they have to be together for a minimum amount of time?

NATO and Brit forces do have to be handled differently (more cleverly) from the "all-powerful" design treatment the US forces received.

And the headpieces better look like this or the entire game will be ruined for everyone and I will never buy another BF product! http://snyderstreasures.com/images/headgear/GermanHeadphoneSetF.jpg

Ok, Dave, that is at least some evidence, as opposed to Dan's "guess." It is VERY dangerous to assume that anything in CMSF functions like "common sense." (It will get you killed fast.) That's why I like to ask for a "definitive" answer. Just because the vehicle's optics points towards a target does NOT mean that the GAME takes that into account (until someone proves that it does). I just know that someone somewhere has done these tests. I hope that Dave's findings are accurate. If so, it contradicts what someone at BF said (I think) that units spot just fine without covered arcs, and that arcs are best used when one wants to "restrict" a unit from firing in certain directions/ranges. AFAIK this comment would indicate that CMSF is different from CM1, where covered arcs definitely improved spotting.

Actually, releasing it for June 2011 on the anniversary of D-Day would be a clever marketing strategy. I don't believe there are other WW21 Normandy games slated for release around that date. (The mass market, I think has burned out on WW2 shooters.)

I have one or two downloaded from the repository IIRC.