Chops

Not exactly bones, but here are the fairly recent quotes from Steve: 11-17-09 As for CM: Afghanistan's delay... it's the typical problem we developers have! Finishing that last 5% takes way, way longer than anybody expects. We're working very closely with our Russian partners to get it done ASAP. 11-16-09 There are only two significant things left to code for Normandy. The rest is the normal pile of odds and ends, ranging from time consuming (scenarios and campaign) to the easy (2D weapons icons) and from the cool (vehicle textures) to the mundane (manual). The detail stuff takes a lot of time, but not 10 months 11-05-09 We are still aiming to have the game itself done before the beginning of the year. Meaning all the features we plan on being added should be in the game. How long it will take to get the game released after that... we're not sure. But a couple of months is certain. Therefore, it won't be January. However, none of us want it to be April either. I haven't had a relaxing summer off since about 2004. Daddy needs a tan. 10-26-09 Version 1.21 will be along shortly. We're not exactly sure if NATO or Normandy will come out first. Right now I'd say it could go either way.

In relation to some comments about body armor in this thread, here is an article that I came across today. More money down the tubes to BAE and other Defense Contractors. http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story.jsp?id=news/ARMOR120409.xml&headline=U.S.%20Army%20Focuses%20On%20New%20Body%20Armor&channel=defense

I have CM:SF, Marines, Brits and the 1.21 patch installed. 1. I've noticed that when setting up AI units in a trench during scenario design, if the troops are set to face perpindicular to the trench, that often they will set up outside the trench but still in the action spot. Once the Scenario is started the units are still outside the trench. 2. When deploying a MG team behind a low wall they will lose all line of sight and not be able to target anything. I know that MG behavior was tweaked during various patches, but I don't remember seeing this recently. Has anyone else seen either of these issues?

An Army Special Forces Squad moving into a town encounters heavy resistance.

I just witnessed a 5-man U.S. Army recon team hunkered down in a muddy irrigation canal in the middle of a cornfield, having a really bad day. The recon team had just shot up a Syrian that wandered into the trench about 25 m away, and were intently focused on him, when they got jumped by a 6-man Mech. Infantry squad hidden at their 3-o'clock position. They started taking small arms fire from AKS-74's out of the corn which caused them to go prone in the trench. Then a grenade lobbed by the Syrians, bounced harmlessly near the top of the trench and into the corn on the opposite side, where it exploded. However, the recon team had run out of luck. Suddenly, another grenade arced out of the cornfield and landed in the bottom of the trench, exploding with such force that the nearest soldier lying on his stomach was flipped up and onto his back killing him instantly. Three other recon members were seriously wounded, leaving only one soldier unhurt. After witnessing such horror, he scrambled to his feet and bolted back down the trench toward the relative safety of a stone wall at the edge of the field. Unfortunately, his valiant attempt at self-preservation followed by prayers for divine intervention were all for naught, as the Syrian squad swarmed out of the cornfield into the trench and put a bullet in his back. They then proceeded to give the coup de grace to the remaining wounded survivors lying in the mud, bleeding, at the bottom of the irrigation trench. Their work finished; they then melted away back into the corn. The realities of war - it was enough to turn my stomach.

From the Book - Dying for Saint-Lo, Hedgerow Hell, July 1944: Check out the photo description to the right of the article - ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Mortars

Roger that Ken. Maybe Charles can work some of his magic for CM:Normandy and the NATO module on this issue.

A sniper team in the game usually consists of three men. How about being able to split the sniper team so that we have the sniper solo, and a two-man spotting/security team?

A search of this Forum came up with the following info. posted by Steve on 4-08-2008: Features necessary for simulating WW2 ETO - Many of the things people have felt are missing in CM:SF aren't supposed to be there or aren't really all that relevant or necessary to the Syrian setting. Obviously moving to France means that some of these things need to be included. Besides the obvious stuff (temperate terrain/weather and WW2 units) major things to expect are water, bridges, AT guns, on map mortars, infantry riding on tanks, expanded defensive works, and other stuff like that. Obviously TacAI goes right along with this since these things all require new TacAI and/or improved existing TacAI. (note that TacAI is a long term "work in progress" and will never, ever be considered "done"). Features not necessary for simulating WW2 ETO - Some of the things that make contemporary warfare what it is are things which WW2 fans find "not fun". This has caused some to be unhappy with the Syrian setting simply because it isn't WW2, regardless of all other factors. Things like the extremely high lethality, asymmetric forces, the lack of "familiar" equipment, the whiz-bang technological stuff, etc. It should be obvious that this stuff will not come along for the WW2 titles, however it appears that this can get forgotten at times. Consider this a reminder.

Cpl. Mike, The following is from the CMSF Game Manual v. 1.20: There is certainly room for improvement in the UI for Air/Artillery Assets and the information that is made available to the player. There are some lengthy discussions on this topic in this forum.

Zaloga has a fairly recent book (August 2009) that compares the M1 with the T72. I wonder if he consulted any of the "Tank Commanders" here, on the subject. The following is a link to a brief book review: http://www.wargamer.com/article/2797/m1-abrams-vs-t-72-ural#

So, this brings up the question - Why isn't the military (NATO) using helicopters for troop and supply transport to a larger extent? Move the troops where they need to be by helicopter, and then let them patrol on foot. I know the Taliban can bring down a helicopter with RPG's and heavy machine guns, etc... Do they have other AA capabilities?

And you thought Brit Vehicles were dangerous.... http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/nov/05/armored-troop-carriers-unsafe-for-afghan-duty/ I thought BlackWatch was a Brit unit...seems to be mentioned as a U.S. unit in the article.

I just read on a translated Russian game site, that CM: Afghanistan will be released in Russia October 23rd, and elsewhere in December 2009. It also mentioned that Moon was pushing for a Vietnam game rather than Afghanistan. Who knows if any of this is accurate...but it is interesting.

I ran some tests yesterday as well. I had Army, Marine, Brit Rifle, and Brit Pioneer squads entering a single story building with a Red Mech Inf. Squad positioned across the street in a two story building. I had a high wall set up on the Blue side, so that the units would not see each other until Blue units were in the one story building. I ran each test separately for each Blue unit. Each Blue unit had the same exact modifiers and experience levels, and entered the building using the Quick command. The first round of tests involved the Red Unit on the first floor of the two-story building across the street. The second test involved a Red HQ unit on the second floor, as well as the original unit on the first floor. The test results indicate that there is very little difference in casualties suffered among the various Blue units. In fact, the Brits experienced slightly less casualties. Very interesting, since I was under the impression that the Brits were taking more casualties.

Here is the link to weapons issues in Afghanistan including Wanat: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/11/weapons-failed-us-troops-_n_316660.html

I just put together a Blue Motor Pool (Brits, Marines, Army) map with all of the various Blue vehicles on it, just to compare and contrast. I noticed that the Marine Tanks - M1A1HC FEP and the M1A1HC appear to be identical other than their names in the game. They both have the same ammo, defenses, and equipment as far as I can tell. Shouldn't there be some differences in the game? I searched through the forum but have not found any clarification on this.

Hey Phil, Here is a link to an Nvidia graphics tweak guide that should help you out - http://www.tweakguides.com/NVFORCE_1.html

Here is the link to the previous discussion regarding this issue - http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=88256

What is the latest on the development of this game and the demo release?

I have posted on this topic before, and have found the limitations of Baked Scenarios frustrating, however, I have learned to work around them. The AI forces that you have on map at the start of the scenario will not follow AI plans, although reinforcements will follow AI plans (you will have to wait at least 5 minutes for the first reinforcements to arrive - game limitation). So, you can have the AI forces on map at the start of the scenario provide harrasing fire to slow the Player's advance until reinforcements arrive. One cool feature of Baked Scenarios is that you can have an AI artillery barrage arrive at a timed interval, rather than just at the beginning of the scenario. Personally, I would have preferred that the Battlefront Team focus on increasing the functionality and usability of the Editor rather than on Quick Battles as their primary improvement to the engine for CM:Normandy. I get as much enjoyment out of designing Scenarios as I do playing them.

I have noticed what DaveDash has mentioned regarding high WIA and KIA for British fireteams - sections. I have seen this happen with British units in buildings taking fire from Red Forces in other buildings which seems unusual since they at least have some protection, and are not out in the open. I have only observed this in a small sample of battles and situations, so it will require further observation and testing.

I agree that it would be helpful to change the color, duration or both for the casualty flashing icon. As mentioned above it is easy to miss, the way it is implemented in v. 1.20.

And to add my 2 cents to this much deserved love fest.... Awesome work Battlefront team and associated crew! I have enjoyed your work since CMBO and am really looking forward to your future products.

I was just checking out the Brit Scenario "It ain't half hot mum", and noticed that one of the weapon's showing for a Rifle Section was the L17A2. I searched through the Brit Manual but this weapon is not mentioned. Is it the same as the L85A2 with UGL? I guess that maybe the L17A2 is the UGL. What is the range of this weapon? Additionally what is the range of the L134A1 (GMG) mentioned in the manual?