Chelco

Ey Thomm, Those results, using whole squads? I tend to split squads in MOUT, but I was thinking of not doing it anymore since the behavior at corners in 1.05 is way better than before. I noticed that the results also depend a lot on how the team arrives to the corner (perpendicular or parallel to the wall). And to athkatla: yesterday I saw that too. Cheers,

Man, that's great! Looking forward to play this campaign.

Very good point. I have been playing around with the scenario editor, specifically with the "Cautios/Active/Normal/etc" settings for the AI. I can't get the computer opponent to avoid those mad-berserk runs right into the muzzle of the guns of my grunts.

IMHO, the Soviet way of war could have succeeded in the hands of the Soviets only. The problem with importing military doctrine from another country is that you have to be very clever accounting for cultural differences and your officer corps shortcomings. For example in the October 73 war, the syrians "took good Soviet tactics and made them bad and took bad Soviet tactics and made them worse" (from Arabs at War: Military Effectiveness, 1948-1991).

Wolf, yeah, it is now possible to move whole squads (not just small teams as in the screenie above) across urban terrain with far less pain than before. Big improvement. athkatla: LOL. I've seen more cliping into the walls but not crawling through them. Was it near a door?

Jason, what's your take on this? The Franco-Prussian War showed the world far more tactical innovations than the American Civil War. Yet ACW games outnumber the former by a long run. I would argue that our hobby does not fairly represent many of the most significant segments in the history of tactical warfare.

Point well taken Jason. I took your first post as if you were writing about intrinsic attributes of tactical warfare through the ages. Your strong opinion regarding COF and technology is something I still find debatable. When it comes to wargames, you are absolutely right, WWII wins as the favorite of the hobby.

Take a look at this screenshot (pardon the jaggies). The 3-men team in the forefront was pulling overwatch for other 3-men team in the background (near the cursor) when they spotted an insurgent team moving along a side street (far background). The insurgents were killed (black mass in the far background) by the overwatch team. What I really liked from these 10 seconds of action was the ease of moving the background 3-men team along the main street but just short of the corner and how none of the men made anything goofy as exposing into the danger zone/line of fire. Also, is it me or in general infantry is doing a better job "hugging the walls" (see the men in the main street against the wall)? [ December 15, 2007, 08:00 PM: Message edited by: Chelco ]

I meant enjoying the setting of CMSF. What is wrong with you? Look Dorosh, I wrote my post in a laptop while riding in a train. Sorry it failed to meet your standards of writing. I thought I was writing in an internet forum, not for a peer-reviewed journal. Can you let it go this time, Dean Dorosh? As for Jason, my personal apologies. I didn't mean to offend him, but his post is highly debatable. We were talking about gaming preferences and his post didn't sound to me as such, but rather arriving fast to too wide conclusions about tactical warfare. There is a lifetime of research papers by Stephen Biddle regarding gaps in weapon's technology and their influence on winning/losing battles. That's all I have to say.

I'm a wargaming wh0re of sorts: any period has interesting twists for me. So, while I enjoy modern warfare a lot, I wouldn't mind any of the other interesting scenarios mentioned here. Jason, While I respect your opinion and tastes for wargaming, I couldn't avoid finding your post too pretentious. Stephen Biddle would have a ball reading the previous snippet.

Hi Webwing, You make a crucial point. What's your take of CMSF's TacAI? What it can do and what it can't do? I could be wrong, but it seems to me like once the TacAI orders a group to move down to a waypoint, it will assign a path to it and that's it. The poor AI soldiers assigned to this path and waypoint wilco no matter what. There is no re-assesment or re-planning of the path assigned. You know what I mean because I am sure you have witnessed Panther's AI (apples and oranges acknowledged, but still) to attack you in one direction and after suffering losses it will pull out and attack you from another direction. Even when the AI is trying to move into the same piece of terrain during the whole scenario. I could live with a waypoint that lasts the whole game because the lack of triggers, what I cannot live is with an apparent AI path created at the beginning of an scenario that lasts until the very end. I don't know how a scenario creator is supposed to work around this.

The AI editing tools in SBProPE are far superior than the ones in CMSF. The implementation of triggers in CMSF's AI tools is sorely absent. For the scenario designer, there is no option to change the AI plans in the middle of the game because of an specific player’s action. I am growing more and more distant to this game due to the non-reactive, follow-waypoint-to-death AI opponent. There is no doubt that making a good wargame AI is a great endeavor. It can be done, though (have you guys tried any of Panther Games?). Lately, I don’t wish developers would make a super-smart computer opponent, I just wish they would make a “credible” one. One computer opponent that fears the bullets of my grunts (don’t enter a kill zone if he sees his mates being ripped apart), one that fears his retreat routes being cut (reaction to turning movements), etc. I would be more than more than happy if CMSF’s AI editor would allow me to (even painstakingly) script that type of behavior. The best tactical (company sized engaments) AI in a wargame is in the HPS' Squad Battles series. Pity those games are IGOUGO.

Another realism freak here and play elite too.

The enemy unit will appear as a fully identified enemy unit icon or as a question mark depending which one of your friendly units is selected at that moment. At elite level, clicking on the map or on the enemy unit will give you only partial details of it anyway. But I think that when no friendly unit is selected you will see enemy icons and question mark icons that represent the collective spotting made by all your units. I think that's what you are referring to: you get (partial) details from the collective spot reports (no friendly units selected at that point). I don't think that a friendly unit will target a question mark, unless you give that unit an area fire command. You know? One cool thing I experienced a few days ago is how info on enemy contacts is transmitted via the communication links. I had a dismounted US Cav. commander on top of a hill and his platoon waiting at the hill's base. The Cav. commander spotted all type of units, but the rest of the platoon was out of sight so when I clicked any of the troopers, no enemy icons appeared. Silly me, the commander didn't have a radio so I moved a CFV closer to him and a few seconds after the commander mounted the CFV (remember it's equipped with good comms) all the other units became aware of the enemy contacts. Extremely cool.

Ey Capt, wish you a speedy recovery.

I totally agree with you regarding C2. In my original post I was actually writing about how urban terrain imposes a tough challenge for the squad leader when it comes to directing fires. In that regard, fireteams are a better choice than the whole squad both in real life and in the game. Sorry for the misunderstanding. Cheers,

I don't know if you are making fun of me or if you are genuinely asking a question. I will refrain to answer your question for the time being. All the best,

Great job, Cpl Steiner. Looking forward for the next installment. In urban terrain, just forget about squads. The urban fight is a fireteams fight. Kudos.

I didn't know you couldn't split the syrian squads. Thanks,

This is a Kodak moment.

Dale, With great shock my family found out that after 26 years of lighting the plays of the Buenos Aires Philharmonic Orchestra, my uncle was still unable to play the violin. Playing games is one thing, designing them is another. Boom is a straight shooter. I once collided with him and we exchanged vitriolic e-mails over that. In the end I prefer his style. Political correctness tends to transform discussions about substance into discussions about etiquete. And he has the background I say he has.

esq, Your infantry not spotting a tank 5 meters from them bug. Can you elaborate?

Your book means little to me dale. All I'm saying is that when somebody like Boom$lang write, you read and learn pup.

The way you talk about "core game concepts" and "implementation" to people with successful, multiple-awarded wargames on their resumes never ceases to be an amusement. I'm sure you are clueless about it so let me brief you: the guy you are responding with such condenscendence is part of ProSimCo's team. Author of "Raging Tiger" and "The Star and the Crescent", that guy works on military sims for a living.

There is enough in this game to keep me busy for a long time so I will still be playing CMSF into one year for sure. As for the addons, bring them on, yeah!