Brent Pollock

Right now, v1.03 is all that matters.

I've run a few tests now with blue on blue HMMV and red BRDM vs HMMV and not seen any evidence of vehicular collisions being modelled. Vehicles no longer seem to push one another around (my favourite example of this is from CMBB when a StuG III pushed a Russian AC into rubble, wherein it got stuck). They will slow down, if given the chance, but they can even have their images pass directly through one another with no ill effect? Maybe if I do tank on truck or somesuch I'll see some damage...nope, it looks like HMMV and Strykers can have carnal relations with a T-72 with none being the worse for wear. [ August 13, 2007, 07:41 PM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

I guess I will have to postpone my plans to test if artillery smoke rounds can cause casualties by freak direct hits (no I am not talking about WP hits).

With all of the rockets (e.g. RPG) I've seen launched from buildings in CMSF, I've yet to see any ill effect on the firing unit or building. No comrade gets scorched and no furniture gets ignited. Are the modern rockets that much safer to fire from confined spaces or is that just missing from the current version?

From what I have been able to see, group select and Face do not work the same way they used to in CMX1. In CMX1, the entire group would face parallel to the unit I used to give the direction (so, they all ended up facing the same compass direction). Now, it seems that they all end up facing towards the point on the map that I clicked; they all focus on a single point rather than taking a parallel sighting. This tends to be annoying when you are trying to align them all to face the enemy line at the start of the game or in the editor. I tried holding down the Shift, Ctrl or Shift+Ctrl while clicking the point for the Face command, but it made no difference. Also, the Face pointer cannot be used off map, so you can't have them all "focus" on the horizon. I don't know if this is a feature or a bug? It is useful if you want them all to focus on a point.

One thing I found by accident is that you can now do a group select and give them all the same Cover Arc (pie slice or complete circle) - cool!

This testing was "triggered" by discussions ongoing in the the main CMSF forum regarding what we're gaining with 1:1 representation. I realised I hadn't been paying close enough attention during the firefights to see if a squad in CMSF could only track one target at a time (or all the ones you could jam onto one 8 m grid), so I set out to see if it could. I have tested Syrian & US reg infantry in a small house presented with the following targets: 1. squad or HQ on one side, vehicle on the opposite side = at first, small arms only at infantry target, than simultaneous ATG at vehicle 2. squad or HQ on one side, squad on the opposite side = at first, small arms only at one target, than simultaneous small arms at both. Even the three-man US HQ section split one guy off to fire at the opposite target. Fire splitting even worked if both targets were on the same side of the building, and the squad seemed to split the fire left and right according to the two windows. 2. three squads equidistant forming a triangle = at first, small arms only at one target, than simultaneous small arms at two, with all three getting engaged at some point in the first minute I only tested the last one once, so I didn't keep trying to see if the sqaud would engage all three simultaneously. Also, I did not bother to press it past three targets. It didn't take a whole lot of test time for this to happen - it did it within the 20 or so seconds for each test. Ummm...all hail 1:1 That was not something I recall ever seeing in any CMX1 match. And going through the chore of splitting every squad into half squads was considered "gamey" because it doubled the number of targets you could engage, not something that was considered as part of the normal development. Now, CMSF 1:1 seems to do it using the AI. [ August 13, 2007, 06:12 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

Yes, and I'll like this poll even more after it's been patched to poll v1.03

WOOHOO!

Okay, I've run some tests in conjunction with the wall/berm stuff I've posted on the main forum. After running 3 x BMP-2s and 4 x Strykers back and forth across friendly infantry for three or four minutes, it would seem that, no you cannot run over your own men. I must've missed some incoming enemy fire ( friendly deflections?).

[entire post removed to the first post for ease of reading by those new to the thread] [ August 12, 2007, 09:35 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

I have yet to get around to adding vehicles to the test. I didn't want to compromise it just in case their height negated the wall. What you did reminds me of the bug/tactic in CMX1 wherein you could do the following: - position the full squad right next to an impassable wall between two buildings; - deploy it; - lo and behold, sometimes a half squad would be on the other side of the wall.

Okay, I've spent the last couple of hours running some tests to get a handle on the bug/glitch/coding compromise/whatever that allows small arms fire and LOS to go through walls on their own tile. I used the smallest map possible, no weird weather/lighting, and a platoon of US Cav Scouts and a platoon of Reserve Infantry (set to Regular ability). I divided the map by the high wall(s) and gave them each a small building. The strangest thing I noticed was that the US units (all of them, including the lone-gunman HQ unit) could draw LOF 3m past the high wall (stone or brick), but the Syrian units couldn't, regardless of how close they were to the wall?! The units could not be seen until they were close to the wall (I assume within the same tile; if both sides ran PT far enough away from the wall, they could hear one another, but no LOS occurred). Once spotted, they could be seen by anyone with LOS to that wall section, even units well away along the length of the wall, so it does seem like the computer treats them like they are on the opposite side, despite what you see on screen (none visibly crosses the wall). However, even though Syrian units could not draw a LOF to the other side, once close enough to the wall, they could spot and engage enemy units on the other side. Now the semi-good news. My tests indicate that this LOS problem can have a bandage put on it by running a double high wall instead of just the visually pleasing single high wall (I only tested double high wall, not a combination of high and low). I ran both sides right next to their wall for 10' and no one fired a shot, despite being with hearing distance. If I feel up to it, I'll edit all the QB maps to have double walls and reinstate the originals if this ever gets patched. ...and I should add that the testing was infantry only - no vehicles. Now, to the topic of grenades not going over high walls - actually, they can...sort of. If I had units of either side within grenade range of the wall and gave them Area Target orders either at (Syrian) or past (US) the wall, a few grenades, but not even half, would be tossed over the wall. Unfortunately, those that made it "over" the wall seemd to just barely get over, looking as if they were still restricted to the footprint of the wall tile. ---------------------- Berm addition: I have now run similar tests with: 1. Strykers and BMP-2s added 2. replacing the wall with a +6 level berm 3. making that berm two tiles wide. Results: 1. no LOS benefit for the vehicles. They have to be close to the wall, just like the infantry, to mess things up. I was also able to replictae, for both sides, the "poke vehicle's ass through the wall and disgorge infantry to the other side, using slow, quick, hunt, etc. 2. No unit was able to place a move-type order anywhere on the slope. A seemingly very minor improvement. The berm is still permeable if the unit, vehicle or infantry, is close enough. However, there does seem to be some oblique restrictions to the LOS; if the unit was far enough along the berm, there was no LOS...or maybe I just didn't test enough. 3. No improvement. Even with a double tile berm, if one unit was close enough, LOS was permeable. It did not require both units to be flush with the perm and directly opposite. Also, infantry could now place move-type orders on the slope and top of the berm. I had trouble getting units onto the slope, but one Cav MG team managed it...and came tumbling down dead after "burrowing" their LOS through. I have not tried steeper double berms...nor did I try any Area Target stuff to see if they would chuck grenades over the berm. [ August 12, 2007, 09:34 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

Do you mean to CMSF (I can't see that happening) or the next release in the series, which I am guessing will happen in the next release of the CM2 series. I think it was left out of the first one for simplicity; the ethos from the start was supposed to be BFC not biting off more coding work than they could chew.

Hmmm...maybe I just missed the incoming fire, although there wasn't much that could've hit him. The opposition was three T-72s. One was burning (no survivours), the other crew had bailed but has been under fire for a minute or two and the third was busy with other targets, facing the wrong way and buttoned up. When it happened, the soldier image was right underneath the Bradley image, between the tracks. There was another soldier that was brushed by the left track, and he was fine. I wouldn't expect trench overruns to cause hit and run kills. Might have to run some tests tonight just like I did for CMX1...which reminds me, I wonder if smoke rounds can cause casualties in CMSF (another one I tested in CMX1).

[jump a few posts down to see that this did not pan out in Stryker/BMP-2 tests] I think I just ran over one of my infantrymen with a Bradley! From what I could tell, there wasn't any incoming enemy fire (although I might've missed it, but there wasn't a lot of opposition), but the guy lying right where the Bradley drove turned into a casualty a soon as the Bradley got over him! Dang - that's something I'll have to watch out for as a change from CMX1! P.S. a quick search didn't find a similar thread. [ August 12, 2007, 09:14 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

Ah - I had not progressed that far and had presumed that they would regroup once jammed into the vehicle. Thanks for the tip.

I haven't been able to figure out how to deploy a team inside a vehicle. Am I missing something or was it just too hard to code, given that squad elements usually recombine if they are proximal and not using different orders? There doesn't seem to be any way of doing it short of kicking everyone off the bus, splitting off the team(s), then selecting which subunits reboard (which is how I would do it during set up). I'd like to be able to kick a halfsquad or AT team out the back without having the whole squad stretch their legs.

Okay, I thought I would attempt to get some serious discussion going about the tactic of wholesale urban renewal as a tactic, especially as a somewhat pre-emptive one. When I popped open the last mission of the training campaign, I pretty much crusied through my OB, saw that artillery and air support were not an option, and noticed I still had my full complement of Javelins. Then I counted all the buildings in town...counted my Javelins...did the arithmetic...right, I am going to tell my Javelin teams to flatten the joint and turn this into a exercise in rubble-combing-for-exact-body-count. As others have noted, it works like a charm...an HE-laden, lethal charm that makes a voodoo doll look like...ummm...a voodoo doll...with no pins. Two things don't feel quite right about this: 1. in "real life", wouldn't I be wanting to hold onto at least a handful of Javelins in case some AFVs...very angry AFVs...with sharp, pointy teeth... rolled into my CMSF life? 2. I didn't seem to be penalised for levelling objective buildings? So, even though I was credited with a Total Victory or somesuch, I felt I had failed at the task because I didn't learn how to tackle the village without resorting to Javelins. I think I'll take another kick at, but restrict Javelin use to a max of four, and only at buildings that are known to be occupied by more than one guy. [ August 04, 2007, 08:07 AM: Message edited by: Brent Pollock ]

Hmmm...maybe it is supposed to represent that blasting a wall leaves demolished rubble, rather than a smooth, surgical incision that you could use as a super highway? Did the tanks also balk at moving through it?

The only terrain mod I have ever become addicted to is the one that differentiates foxhole-like craters from those which are too shallow to use as cover. It is BMP 1210 and also works in CMAK. The only credit note I have in my BMP folder is "JS".

Nothing to do directly with force mix, but I urge you to allow Sewer Movement for the Russians, but not for the Germans. I would also give the Russians a slight fanatacism edge.

Maybe this never came up in beta testing because it didn't occur to anyone to give a heavy weapon team (MMG) another heavy weapon (the Javelin), instead of letting a squad breeak out a couple riflemen for the task as an ATG team? I am even leary to give the HQ section the Javelin, because they should be doing other things than sniping AFVs. ..or do you mean MG or Javelin teams on rooftops?

Likely wouldn't have mattered with me because I probably couldn't've clicked fast enough to save their sorry hides.

I finally saw it last night during a QB - I am all for it for the same reason JasonC stated. Took me a few replays of the "tape" to get the gist of what had happened. Now the question that remains for me (even after searching through the manual) is how these guys are counted for the victroy section, which breaks things down into KIA, wounded and MIA (if memory serves). I am guessing that the routed guys are the MIA, rather than that category representing the unfortunate ones that were vapourised by an explosion.