Sivodsi

... the drama! What happened to Sergei? Assassination? New orders? Alien abduction? Stay tuned for for further details!

The first few patches forced us to restart our PBEMs, the later patches we could just continue playing. What about for 1.11? I've put a few games on hold while I'm going through some torrid times at work (big apologies to all my opponents!) and as we get closer to release, I really hope that this question can be answered.

Well, no surprise there. "para" doesn't mean specifically for paratroopers? Oh well, I suppose it doesn't mean that we won't get them, unless you can see equipment that para's definately have but are absent from the list. So, my question is, does the equipment listed thus far rule out the possibility of there being paratroopers in CMSF: Brits?

QBs are a bugger due to the lack of ability to choose the equipment you want, and if you go with the default choices Red vs Blue is hopelessly skewed in favor of Blue. However, there are some work-arounds to improve the situation. Check out Mark Ezra's post, you'll have to scroll down a bit: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84886

BFT have said before that they don't plan to include further Red vehicles, but if Moon is planning to surprise us, this would be one way to do it (yeah? yeah? really? Pleeeeeeeease!). Edit to add: its probably old info but with the inclusion of the Jackel and L110A1 (5.56mm Minimi-Para) looks like we're going to get some red berets. Paratrooper scenarios! Cool!

Yeah, I've found that I could not area fire the javelin on an open ground or entrenchment. You can area fire buildings and of course, vehicles, but its frustrating if you want to shoot the crap out of an entrenched enemy AT asset for example. I believe this bug has been noted, but can anyone confirm whether it will be fixed in 1.11?

Thanks for the advice, I'll give it a go. Thanks also for giving the reason the FOs don't have any ammo. It begs the question as to why they are available to be picked in the first place. I thought that the current QB system was designed specifically to result in more realistic forces. I'm no expert, but I would be surprised if a platoon of T90s were coupled with three UAZ loads of FOs (with or without ammo). :confused:

I've just been checking out what sides can get in 'small' battle sizes, Syrain, Republican Guard, heavy combined, excellent; vs US mix heavy infantry, excellent. The Syrians are very predictable. You usually get the 3X T90 + 3 X FO (no ammo, why is that?), but you might also get 8 X BMP2K, or 5X BMP2, or 3 X BMP2 + 3 X FO (again, no ammo). But this could be pitted against US forces of 4 X M1A2 SEP and 4X M1132 Strykers, or 8 X Stryker, or 4 X Stryker + 4 X Bradley :eek: Syrians are obviously at huge disadvantage. Does anybody bother with QBs any more? If anybody still plays QBs could they advise on any combination of forces that is more likely to lead to a reasonably balanced mix of forces?

But does it run in 1.10? Which raises another point, will PBEM games started in 1.10 still run in 1.11? I'd like to know now for the sakes of the games I've got going on at the moment, of course.

Anyway, before anyone gets on to the more obvious double entendre involving penetration values and such like, there are some very interesting and odd looking machines in there. Like, this deadly looking beast: Anybody know what on earth this is/was? Probably a one of a kind, I would guess.

Add the TOWs on LAV-ATs to the list: they incremented by 2 in one of my PBEM moves. Also, it seems unlikely that 2 TOWs fired by the same LAV-AT in a row at the same tank which is stationary, would both miss.

I hope this bug has been noted before (I tried looking, but the 'search' function seems to be a bit weird, either throwing up too many results or nothing), but LAV-ATs TOW ammo increased by +2 in a single move in my last PBEM move! Also, my LAV-AT fired two TOW at the same tank, and both missed! If they are really that crap the Marines are in serious trouble whenever they meet armor. Again, PBEM move available if anyone wants to check it out. I'm hoping that the ammo bug may compensate for the high number of misses.

How about LAV-AT? Also, I'm surprised that when I search for 'bug' nothing comes up. Its great news that CMSF has no bugs!

I have a suspician that if the red player fast moves all his tanks to the first ridge, and then hunts to the top of the ridge with a covered arc he will be unbeatable in this scenario. This ridge is closer to the red player than the ridges are to the blue player, and getting your tanks into position first counts for a lot in this game. Once the red player has got this position it won't matter where the Abrams pop up, they will get whacked. I lost badly playing the Americans in a PBEM game where my opponent did this, and I used this tactic as the reds vs the AI and won comfortably. When I have time I will hotseat this to test the theory, using Huntar's positioning for the US forces as detailed above. Of course, if anyone else wants to play-test this before I do, they are welcome to post their results here.

Thanks for the answers. So, including IBCT will not necessarily mean new equipment. It will be the same equipment organized in a different way.

Is there a non-mech infantry force in modern armies? Does the US army still use trucks to get around in like the marines do? If so that means that trucks will appear in army colours - I assume they use the same trucks as the marines. I suppose this means that the inclusion of IBCT in QBs, which is good news if it allows more flexibility when picking forces. The question is, does it mean the addition of any new equipment? Somehow I don't think so. I guess I would be more excited if more flexibility/options were added for the Red forces. Blue has already got heaps to choose from.

Yeah, pretty sure this is the case. Actually the file was sent via a file sharing site, but once my opponent had replayed the file and sent it again it worked as perfectly as normal.

I asked my opponent to resend, and still had the same problem. Then I asked him to redo my previous move and send me that file, and it worked normally. I assume it was just a corrupt file. Still, if anybody wants to investigate...

Well, pretty much as the title suggests, I load up the PBEM file and it runs smoothly for the first 30 secs until the chopper is heard. Then I get a message telling me that CMSF has to close. File available if anybody wants to check it out.

http://www.drboylan.com/basespst2.html I suppose that the top secret deep space stations have 'cloaking' technology that enables them to avoid the prying eyes of thousands of amateur astronomers around the world? These astronomers likewise failed to notice the top secret supply missions? Let's employ Occams razor here: is it simpler to believe that ETs in UFOs can crash on earth and have their technology scooped up and used in secret programs, or that some people can profit from spreading stories about these things when they don't exist? If this stuff existed, why isn't it more obviously available and why don't we see people making money from it? I can't see anything available that doesn't seem like anything other than a result of evolution of previous designs - including all the technologies listed in the quote above (to which he casually adds "gravity control flight" whatever that means!). If it is top secret how can there be information about it on the net freely available? Is it perhaps because what we see on the internet is the result of an entertainment industry that meets the need of some who want to believe in conspiracies and such like? You can make good money from purveying such stories, though I'm willing to accept that some people may genuinely believe in this kind of stuff. After all, a lot of otherwise respectable people believe they have been abducted by aliens, even though it is far more likely they are suffering from sleep paralysis disorder. We can watch in amazement at Discovery Channel programs in which we see an entire village in the jungle of New Guinnea flip out over fear of vampires haunting them in the night, but really it seems that the same thing is happening here. Humans have a need to believe the fanciful, and what you see here is this need being met. I quite enjoy reading the stuff, just don't confuse it with reality.

Noooo way! Oh man, that's the best nugget of info I've heard since since since... umm ok, for a long time. Thanks for casually dropping it into the conversation!

Do you think if we whine long and hard enough BFT would spare a tiny proportion of their resources into putting out a Syrian army truck in a future patch???

Please read previous post.

BFT have made it pretty clear that there will be no new red toys. These are all going to be saved up for the 'temperate' setting CMSFII game (that's 'game' and not 'module') that will be full on red vs blue. At least that's what I understand is going to happen.

Since we can clearly distinguish scenarios from mods, and its mods that are causing the most expense in terms of bandwidth, why can't the scenario download section be free and the pay system as outlined by Moon (which seems entirely reasonable to me) be applied just to mods?