Sivodsi

In a word, no. I used this extensively for CMX1, but its not as necessary for CMSF since they shortened the system of exchanges for PBEM. Also, the large size of the files limits the number of e-mail systems that can handle it. But gee, wouldn't it be great if some kind of system could be worked in conjunction with gmail? Or even if you could single click upload a file to an online file repository, and automatically notify your opponent (and include some trash talk, naturally!) Any takers?

You have to dig through 3 pages of google images to get to a picture of the 9035 with humans in it: Compared with: Just from the eyeball, I'd say BFT got it right

Nice! A pointy one, a roundy one and a square one to complete the set.

Yeah, I had a similar case with my Kornet exploding above my enemy's challenger, but much to my disgust the damn thing was alive and kicking the next turn.

Yeah I had that and still have the pickies on my hard drive. It was on a fast moving T72 and the screenshot showed the point of ignition as right on the mg. Very frustrating as it happened in a PBEM. IIRC it was recognized as a bug that has since been squashed.

Yes, you have to load them into the vehicle, find the 'acquire' button, and be sure to select the CLU if your troops don't already have one, then extra missiles, as nec. No probs with regular Stryker units, but javs can be frustrating with the marines because although your AAV has javelins on board, it doesn't have the CLU, so those desperately needed weapons can remain tantalizingly unusable if you don't have the jav unit. Def worth getting the British and the Marines, you get a huge variety of toys to muck about with, and with the Marines you get some cool Syrian gear (BMP3 + T90).

I hope the out of line of sight firing from CMSF will be maintained in CMN, otherwise it will be difficult to use them Its always hard to flank on CM battlefields, given the necessarily limited portion of the battlefield, so that leaves us with shooting and gutsy assaults. In other words, a slugfest in which the weight of arms will make the difference. It'll be great to do the odd bocage scenario, but the most fun (for me at least) will be rolling fields and sunken roads with only the odd hedge. An occasional copse or foresty area would be cool too.

What's the AP capability of the CV9035s 35/50 gun? Would it be able to take out the older soviet origin MBTs from the front?

Bejeezus, the CV9035's gun looks big for its caliber! - and there is a mistake in its weight, as its supposed to be the other extreme to the lightweight LAV, as noticed in the sticky thread

By the sounds of it, LLF is (sensibly) parceling it up into scenarios that won't require the entire map. I think otherwise we would have a fair bit of a wait before computing power catches up to play it. An incredible achievement!

Webwing (from sticky thread above): So, we have some definite dates... for bones at least.

If you had searched it would have been a waste of your time. They are cagey about giving time estimates that they can be pinned down to.

I can send you the save file, would that be better? Let me know where to.

In this thread they not only walked through the wall, but they also went straight to exhausted - and they have remained exhausted for the game thus far (it aint over yet).

Yeah, no problems with the decisions as made and their justifications given. But sometimes specific situations come up and you want to do X but you can't because of Y. In the scenario I'm playing there are no AT teams, I only have regular infantry and recon, and this means I can't get a simple RPG launcher equipped unit out to where its needed. Indeed, if only I could shoot a soldier in the 7 man squad so that they would fit into the BMP! Perhaps if I just get a unit to stick their head above the ridge? While CMx2 was working out its teething problems I still played CMAK and CMBB, but with the improvements from about 1.09 I suddenly got tired of CMx1s limitations and could stand playing it no longer. Above I said 'in general' CMSF is an 'improved game', but that doesn't do it justice. Actually, IMHO CMx2 kicks CMx1's butt out of the ground.

Yes, this coded rule is an improvement, but it gets pretty frustrating when you want to load a 7 man Syrian infantry unit into a BMP with 6 seats. Surely in RL, if there is a contingency for it, it would happen for short distances: "Holy Akhbar! This BMP only has 6 seats, but there are 7 men, Hammid, you are the smallest, lie down over their knees, it is only for 2 minutes - and mind the bayonet!" This situation arises out of other coded decisions that were made in the game design. In the first place why would you want to put a 7 man squad into a vehicle they wouldn't use? Because they have an RPG launcher, unlike your recon team that does not. I find it hard to believe that in RL the Syrians would spend too long trying to work out how to do this: there is a need for some soldiers with AT weapons out yonder, but we only have infantry and recon troops to deploy in our BMP. So we either give the recon squad an RPG launcher or we send the infantry squad (either one lucky person gets to stay behind or we somehow squeeze him in). Of course, this particular 'game problem' could be fixed by: 1) allowing Syrian units to be split (at a bigger cost of morale due to different capabilities to splitable western units). This would allow more flexibility in deploying Syrian units - though lead to perhaps 'unSyrian' ways of using red infantry. 2) allowing units to use some weapons that are not native to them (surely even recon squads would have some sort of RPG training, and in any case if uncon conscripts can fire an RPG, so should a soldier) 3) including an RPG launcher as equipment in a BMP (is it not reasonable to expect?) 4) Allow units to share equipment with each other, or 'store' equipment in BMPs, strykers etc. then if the BMP does not come with an RPG launcher, another unit can 'give' them theirs. All of this sounds easy on paper, but naturally comes with a whole host of programming & other factors that conflict, that have been discussed so often in separate threads of their own. In general though, I agree that the decreased amount of abstraction has led to an improved game, even if the ramrod rules mean that you can't always do what you want, or seem to be unreasonable in specific situations like here (or more pertinently, what you might have been able to do in CMX1).

The image was a stock one of an FN, but according to the other thread the chances are that its a G3 with the tripod folded - and it was this that at first confused me.

Yes I am a heathen! My knowledge of small arms pretty much jumps straight from WW2 to CMSF leaving out a whole range of delicious cold war stuff. Actually I did think of the FN FAL, but was having some problems squaring what I saw with this: Somehow the BFT image looks different.

Its being delayed until the beta testers settle the debate over the value of the power-up packs.

Yeah come on stikkypixie, get those creative juices running!

Check out the sticky AAR. You can see a couple of 303s, M16, AK and another that I can't ID (but someone will shortly no doubt).

I'm guessing the toyota pickups are standing in for the trucks that will eventually come with the title? The date of the scenario is 1981, so if they use a toyota then this would be the model that would be in use: The one depicted, which looks like this: didn't come out until 1983. <instant toyota pickup wiki-grog>

Yes, but as it is the NATO module, any Syrian units are a bonus, and so would not be detailed in the same way. BFTs way of keeping us keen!

I think you could get them much closer if you use this technique: - bug as posted by Alan8325

Oh come on! You should only be disappointed if they don't actually appear in the module! I'm prepared to be pleasantly surprised by whatever new Syrian units we end up with (this is said with the expectation of getting a red truck, naturally)