Stew

So I have the Engine 1 version and tried to open a help ticket to get my code but every time I try to submit the ticket it says "you look like a bot" and refuses to take it. Any suggestions for how to get around this would be appreciated!!!! Thanks

I asked this question awhile back and the answer I got was that if the FO is in the FSV you should always use the FSV to give the target order. I've had good results doing that, but I've never done a scientific test nor have any seen anything official from BFC.

Hmmmm. . . just tonight I encountered an issue where I expended six Javelins against a T-72 MV1 (2001) with no kill. The range was right around 200 meters (wish I had kept better track). The graphic representation showed the Javelin popping up for a top attack, but I'm not sure it was getting an optimal angle. On balance this seems like a RL feature of the Javelin rather than a bug, but I'd be nice to know for sure.

I'm looking forward to the Marines module and I can certainly see why BFC is going to the model given the time and effort they devoted into putting the CMx2 engine together. I do worry, however, that in selling separate modules that add game play features as well as new units they might undermine the unified CM community that they have worked so hard to maintain over the years. I've always thought that the decision not allow modding of the core game was a sound one. I love the fact that I can create or download a scenario and know that it will play just as the designer intended without having to worry about whether I have the Space Lobsters mod installed or enabled the uber-Finnish SMG rules. The module approach would seem to complicate this a bit. The units issue can be dealt with so long as scenarios are clearly labeled indicating which modules you need to run them. I worry more about each module introducing game features that change the core game experience, even in subtle ways. I know BFC needs to make their money, but I hope that they decide to make any game feature changes available via free patch while selling the new units/scenarios as modules.

I've also seen T-72s survive 3-5 Javelin hits on at least two occasions (though not in this scenario). Both times the tanks were parked next to buildings. I'm wondering if the Javelin was clipping part of the building and exploding early?

"Not possible" seems like a bit of exaggeration. Difficult, yes. Getting the AI to attack properly was a problem in CMx1 and that continues here in CMx2. However, the addition of scripted AI battle plans offers glimmer of hope, provided scenario designers are willing to take the time to learn to use them effectively. Six months down the road, with some more patches from BF and lots of trial and error from scenario designers, I have no doubt we'll have a range of user-designed Syrian campaigns to choose from. Moreover, a Syrian campaign needn't be predicated simply on defending against a Blue onslaught. Even the losing side in a war is going to launch its share of counterattacks. I could see a Syrian campaign predicated on a series of Republican Guard counterattacks against overstretched U.S. lines.

I'm also puzzled that we can't seem to select indirect fire targets/patterns that are not in LOS. You would think that in the age of portable GPS, this would be possible. Perhaps this simulates a reluctance to "fire blind" into a battlefield with lots of friendly units around (as opposed to a pre-battle barrage, where friendly fire is less of a concern). Still, i'd be nice to have to option, albeit with reduced accuracy (which is also my recollection from CMx1).

I have been able to chain a hide command onto the last waypoint AFTER a unit has already dismounted. I have not, however, been able to chain it at the end of a move command (not dismount) when dismounting. When I click on the last waypoint of a move command while the unit is still mounted, the hide option is grayed out.

Insignificant it may be, but it also gets at a long time pet peeve with respect to the battles interface going back to CMx1. I would LOVE to be able to sort the battles/scenarios from within the battles screen. As is, all you get is an alphabetical listing, same as with CMx1. If you want to find a particular type of battle (say a small meeting engagement)you have to page through all of them and read the descriptions. As Nick mentions, this is not a big deal now, but in a year or so when we've all got dozens if not hundreds of scenarios, it becomes increasingly cumbersome. Obviously there are more important things to work on for now, but in future releases (perhaps the WWII game), it would be great to be able to sort battles by date, size, type, forces, maybe even by scenario author.

Is there any way to tell your infantry to hide after they exit a vehicle (Striker, BMP, etc.)? I'm playing WeGo at least until the patch allows us to pause at Elite level. I can order my infantry to exit their carriers and move into a building, but when I click on the last waypoint inside the building, the "hide" button is greyed out. Once they're out of the APC, i can order them to hide, but I'd like to be able to give a disembark order that ends in hide without having to wait until the next turn.

I have noticed that FOs inside FSVs sometimes spot poorly. The line of sight is the same (both can see the targets), but while the FSV identifies the targets accurately, the FO inside just sees "?" (this was at Elite setting). Dismounting is one option, but wouldn't you then lose the benefits of all the FSV's sensors and the vehicle-mounted FBCB2 system, thus kind of obviating the whole point of having an FSV? Is this a bug, or do we just need some better guidance on how to handle the FSV v. FO trade off?

I too would like some advice on which unit should give the arty/air support fire order when you have an FO inside an FSV. The tutorial campaign suggests using the FSV, but the manual seems to imply the FOs should give the order. Can somebody explain the variables in play here?

Re: an admission from BFC of at least some of the current problems , see here among other places: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002086;p=2#000046 As to WHY things like TacAI and pathfinding are so buggy, I'm not the developer, but it seems pretty obvious to me: we are playing version 1.01 of a highly complicated game running on an entirely new engine.

Thanks Michael. I'm generally more inclined to play the games than talk about them, but reading some of the traffic on the forum this week has just made me shake my head. There are plenty of bugs that need to be worked out in CMSF. Moreover, I'm not sure how well many CMx1 gamers (self included) will take to the demands of modern warfare. Increased lethality doesn't necessarily mean increased fun and perhaps just the opposite. But I'm certainly willing to give it a try and some of the conspiracy theories about RT and WEGO seem laughable. The history of excellent support for CMx1 gives me faith that BFC will eventually improve (if not perfect)the TacAI and pathfinding. Whether they can make modern warfare as fun as the rumbles in the French hedgerows is something I'll wait and see.

Adding to Runyon's point above, people seem to forget that in creating an entirely new game engine, you can't simply cut-and-paste the old TacAI and pathfinding code. Surely BFC learned lessons from CMx1 that can be applied to the new code, but this is a much more complex environment and it's going to take awhile to get it right. It's simply unfair to compare the TacAI of CMx1, which featured 12 patches for CMBO and two major upgrades in CMBB and CMAK, to a game that is less than a week old. Already the new engine does all kinds of things that CMx1 couldn't (1:1 representation, relative spotting, semi-dynamic campaign, etc.). I totally agree that it's frustrating when it falls down on basic stuff like pathfinding. But that stuff is hard and it's simply going to take some time to get it right in the new engine, just as it did for CMx1. I'm glad to have the game now, if nothing else to fool around with the new interface and the editor. I'm going to hold off on the campaign, however, until there's been a patch or two. One final point: the highly lethal nature of the modern battlefield means CMSF is going to have much less tolerance for error, human or computer. How many times in CMBO did you have units blunder into enemy fire only to escape back to cover while the first shot went wide or while the enemy tried to rotate his gun? There is MUCH less margin for error in modern combat. Screwups, whether due to bad tactics or bad AI are going to be much more noticable in CMSF than in CMBO and its siblings because they will almost always be fatal.