Thompson

Thanks for the tips, all. I was doing my recon pretty much like you guys advice, but maybe was a bit too hasty. However, you only have 50 minutes to complete the mission and I used half of that just getting to those four observation posts (was moving very cautiously). So, I didn't have that much time to spend, in order to make it back to the exit zone in time. All in all, it went OK, I only lost 2 guys to a bit of overeager probing, saw a glipse of an AT gun (but didn't ID it nor get points for it), spotted some foxholes but not the Amis occupying them and firing at me, made it back in good order and got a Tactical Victory. Good enough. I doubt my pixel soldiers would have spotted anything more had they sat at their OPs a bit longer (night, hedgerows, etc, being the case), at least not well enough to score more intel/Victory Points. Oh, I didn't mean it ought to be easy (or easier). It's just fine as it is. I was just wondering about how spotting works in those situations I mentioned above and if I had been doing my recon all wrong. Glad to know I wasn't (for the most part). Quick follow-up question (not about spotting, though): Are exit zones for only one unit at a time or can there be several exiting at once (if they fit there)?

Started playing the German campaign in CMBN yesterday (Panzer Marsch or somefink) and stumbled on two spotting issues on the first battle that puzzled me. 1. Does hiding or crawling hinder spotting? On the first battle of that campaign, the night scouting mission (kudos to the designer, btw, a splendid idea this!), none of my scout teams spotted anything or did just seconds before getting their heads blown off. Tried a few different tactics, always on foot (not rumbling around with the armored cars), crawling or hunting, stopping at times to "take a longer look", hiding and not hiding in place, but never did the poor sods spot anything. Not even if sitting on the other side of the road from the Amis. Granted, both parties were behind hedgerows, but the second I let one team take a peak from an opening in the hedges, they got themselves killed (or pinned and then, after about 2 seconds, killed). I cannot for the life of me figure out how I should have scouted their positions, so that the scouts would have survived the ordeal. 2. Does covered arc hinder spotting outside the arc? I had my scout teams set to a circular 20 meter covered arc to keep them from opening fire on enemies to be spotted at a distance (he said hopefully). I removed the covered arc once I got suspicious, as the scouts didn't spot anything, even in places I was fairly sure had enemies very close by (which was confirmed later several times by getting shot by them). It didn't seem to make any difference, but I thought to ask anyway.

Will the new patch invalidate older version game saves? IOW, can we continue our campaigns started in unpatched v1.0 with patched v1.01?

Oh ye of greater knowledge, lend your aid for this poor pilgrim stuck in the hedgerows of Normandy and answer me this. 1. How do I get my engineers to cut barbed wire? After a bit of trial and error, I found out how the Mark Mines command actually works, but haven't found out how to cut wire yet. Just order them to move through wire? 2. Is it possible to destroy and/or clear anti-tank obstacles (the ones that look like giant caltrops)? I've tried blasting them with mortars, direct fire HE rounds, engineers with Blast orders, but nothing seems to work. Are they effectively indestructable? 3. Why do the on-map mortars lose roughly half of their ammo if you move them to a different place during set-up? I could understand this during game, as representative of not having enough ammo bearers to move all the "extra ammo" with you, but not during the set-up phase. 4. Is the Deploy Weapon command during movement supposed to work as a delayed order of sorts? I expected that if I order a moving weapon team carrying an undeployed weapon to deploy the weapon (pressing the command button so it is depressed/lit up), the team would deploy their weapon once they get to their destination. However, more often than not, they just sit on their hands at their destination with the weapon undeployed and I have to give the order again. (Note: This comes mainly from my experiences with US MG teams.) Can't you give the Deploy Weapon command in advance? These two aren't questions, but requests to powers that be. A. Please, please, please, make the openings in the bocage a bit easier to see. Now it's a game unto its own to hunt for these nearly invisible openings. Also, make the difference between low bocage and an ordinary hedge more distinctive, plz. B. Make the bocage breaching AI smarter and/or stick to orders better. Too many times I've seen my engineer teams do something really stupid with their breaching orders. (I can be stupid on my own, don't need my engineers to help me in that department, thank you very much.) The breaching as it is now requires a lot of micromanaging and just blind luck to get results at least half-way like you intended. Fix this or somefink.

Heh, I can imagine. Fortunately there is arty and air support on that particular mission; I just pounded those bunkers into submission. For their credit, the Javelin guys did fire on the tanks near the bunkers, though. (The delayed sound of the explosion is cool, as well as realistic, of course - light travelling faster than sound.)

Yup, they had the missiles as well as the launcher. I am not that dense. If the actual reason for not firing is, that the bunker had been vacated and the enemy troops were hiding behind it, I must commend the Javelin team's eyesight then - the range was quite long. It sounds a bit weird though. How can they know the bunker is *really* empty by just eyeballing it from a long distance away. Do they have x-ray vision or something? In any case, I would have taken out the bunker, just in case, no matter what.

First, I've yet to see split AT teams rejoin their parent squads, no matter how long they stay near each other (I mean *really* close for many minutes). Also, having them mount the same vehicle and stay there for some time does not seem to qualify as being close enough. IIRC, the manual states that split teams should rejoin together as a full squad if they are left close each other for a while. Second, in the tutorial campaign (battle 2 or 3), my Javelin teams refused to fire on the enemy bunkers no matter what (the briefing states you should be able to do this). Giving them direct targeting orders or leaving them to target themselves had no effect - yes, they had LOS; no, there where no enemy tanks left. Oh, one more thing. If there are separate Dismount and Bail Out orders, why does the *crew* bail out on Dismount order? This happened to me several times. To me, Dismount order would be to order all riders to dismount (not the crew) and Bail Out would be to order the crew out. Am I not understanding this right? It's quite tedious to order the HQ and the two MG teams to dismount one by one from the lead Stryker.

Hmm, I don't know. I am running with admin privileges, of course, and I had "turn on DEP for essential..." selected (item 6 on the FAQ). As I have already registered the game, I don't want to start messing around with the alternate option in item 7 on the FAQ, as it looks like it could cause some unforseen hassles in other games/programs. Maybe that option in item 7 would have helped, I dunno. You see, this was more or less, a 'for your information' kind of post only, to let you know of a problem with the licensing program.

I've had the eLicense program crash every time I tried to register CMSF using the online method. I enter the license code (or whatever it was called) and click the button to register the game online. The program just barely starts and then promptly crashes with a Windows error message (and a query if I want to send a error report to Microsoft). The program never gets so far as to actually register the game. I managed to register the game using the offline method and have been able to play the game, so all is well for me now. However, I wanted to report this crash as it is quite annoying and had there not been an alternate way of registering, it would have prevented me from registering and thus playing the game. As this is not a game performance issue, per se, I don't think you need my computer's specs (or?). My OS is a Finnish language Win XP Home SP2. P.S. No, this had nothing to do with firewalls or some such, I tried to register with my firewall and virus scanner switched completely off - the result was the same (i.e. license program crashing).

Is there or will there be a single player demo of DropTeam? (If there is, I sure can't find it.)

First, the most important things to change from CMx1 have already been changed in CMx2 (from what I gather from various bones thrown to us) - those being banishing borg spotting, improving the handling of C&C, and 1:1 representation (with it I guess/hope "volley fire" has also been banished). Had these not been implemented, they would have been on top of my list. I also think it's redundant to mention better graphics, cause that I take for granted from a completely overhauled and rebuilt game/graphics engine. The topmost thing to keep from CMx1, I know has been kept in CMx2 - that being the WEGO system (it wouldn't be CM without it). Therefore, I won't mention it on the list below. CHANGE/ADD (in no particular order) (1.) In CMx1, Training, Experience and Morale are all bundled under Experience, I'd like them to be separate "attributes." In other words, separate unit Experience from Training and separate Morale (base fighting spirit) from current Morale State/Status (e.g. Shaken or Panicked). This way, we could have e.g. green paratroopers (Experience=Low, Training=High, Morale=High); we could have war-weary veterans who are okay now but are somewhat on-the-edge/brittle (Experience=High, Morale=Low, Morale State=OK); and we could have nearly fanatical conscripts with little skill but lots of determination (Experience=Low, Training=Low, Morale=Very High). If all those above mentioned three units were broken at the same time (Morale State=Broken), they'd (usually) rally in the following order: paras, conscripts (even if their Morale is the highest, the paras with their much better Training have a better rally), burned-out veterans (lowest Morale). Footnote to (1.): I'd like to see units have the following four attributes: Training, Experience, Morale, and Fitness. These would not change during battle. Then the unit would have two additional attributes that would measure the unit's current condition and these would change during battle, they'd be: Morale State and Fatigue (in CMx1: Suppression and Fatigue). In addition each soldier would have four states: OK - lightly wounded (impaired function) - wounded (out of action, may return in campaigns) - incapacitated/killed (out of game). (2.) Campaigns. No need for anything overly complicated or elaborate. For me, an improved version of operations would be good. I'm happy with linked battles on different maps with forces carried over to the subsequent battles (continuity!). I really do NOT like CMx1 operations' moving map, it's a nice idea but it doesn't work - separate maps are better. Between battles there would naturally be a resupply and refit phase, and each battle and/or map could have its own briefing. For example, a small campaign would have three separate maps (call them A, B and C) and would last at the maximum 5 or 6 battles (might get the 6th battle, might not - much like variable turn limits in CMBB/CMAK). The campaign starts from map A, from which the attacker must push the defenders off and advance to map B (achieving e.g. a Tactical Victory would be enough to advance). Defender's objective on map A might just be to delay the attacker (having inferior forces in the 1st battle). On the 2nd battle the defender would get more units to put up more of a fight, etc. Map B would be where the defender would have some fortifications. Etc. Etc. You get the picture. Reaching map C and taking the village there could, for example, be the campaign objective and determine the campaign result. Much like Close Combat campaigns worked. (3.) Customizable hotkeys. I want to choose which key does what. (4.) Force roster screen in battles. It would show all your units and their current status. Double-clicking on the name would take you to the unit. I'm tired of hunting for some elusive unit that I just can't seem to find and I'm very tired of clicking on each unit on the map just to get a quick update on their condition. (5.) Better AI. I need a smarter pathfinding and convoy driving TacAI that understands what roads are. I need a TacAI which has some awareness of its surroundings, especially when finding cover or routing. I need a targetting TacAI that sticks to orders and retargets only in self-defense - if I give a MG an order to fire on certain unit (to cover advancing infantry), I do NOT want it to retarget another unit close to the target for no apparent reason (or better yet, have it sit without firing a shot, even with full ammo load!). I need a TacAI that evaluates threats more sensibly, if a tank spots a lonely enemy squad 1500 meters away, I'm not quite sure how wise it is to start blasting them with all you've got (what possible threat do they pose at the moment that justifies announcing your location to everyone and their second cousin). And not just better TacAI, but better OpAI and StratAI as well for those solo games (no more HMGs walking ahead of the platoon, for example). DON'T CHANGE (in no particular order) (1.) Game scale (command individual squads, vehicles, guns). (2.) Realism and playability balance (playable realism!). (3.) Command interface. Point-and-click, color-coded order lines, 10 (or so) different orders (don't make the list too long and cumbersome by adding dozens of new orders). (4.) Keep at least some focus on WW2 ETO, please!! (5.) Your striving for wargame perfection.

ASL has the dubious honor of doing "skulking" better...

That looks like the sequel game to GI Combat, can't remember what its name was, Squad Assault perhaps?

Forgot this from my wish list above -- give soldiers a new, separate morale attribute that is static (to a degree) during battle and describe morale state/suppression compared to this, much like Fitness and Fatigue are related in CMBB/CMAK now. HIgh morale troops would break less often and be less adversely affected by incoming fire than low morale ones, but this would be separate from experience. So you could have battle-weary veterans (low morale, high experience) and near fanatical, newly conscripted peasants (high morale, low experience). So in effect I'd like to see the following attributes/stats/values: training, experience, morale and fitness. Training and experience would determine the "skill" of the unit/soldier, morale his "core" will to fight (pitted vs suppression), and fitness is self-explanatory. [ January 29, 2005, 03:05 AM: Message edited by: Thompson ]

With this 1:1 representation/simulation I take it that ammo will be tracked individually (so e.g. the squad LMG can be low on ammo, while other weapons aren't), soldiers have individual "attributes" (experience, morale, fatigue etc.), leaders can be first casualities in a unit (now they're the last to fall), and firing will be done more-or-less individually (no more squad "volley fire"). Or? Also, I'd like to request 1) separating training from experience so you could have e.g. green paratroopers (high training, low experience) and 2) an intermediate step of "(lightly) wounded" in soldier status (it's too binary for me now - I'd like to see some walking wounded in the fight, with reduced effectiveness naturally).