Zemke

I guess if I played the game in RT this would not happen, assuming I saw my Striker taking fire in time to micro-mananage the driver, and tell him to seek cover....which in real life/real time as a Company Commander I would not have to personnally order a Striker driver to withdrawn and seek cover....just another reason the WEGO model needs "fixed" not only for TCIP, but for single player play also. Last WEGO IS the very essence of what Combat Mission is or was. WEGO give you time to think about what was going on and influence the battle. Granted play in RT is ok if you only do small battles (platoon), but anything larger and you start to run into serious problems that would not be realistic on the battlefield....reason...subordinate commanders would not have to be micro-managed and would excute the intent of the commander....me. Sorry if I diverage from the original intent of this post somewhat.

Thanks Hev

I second that, WEGO for TCIP......please with sugar on top.

Well see we have this new engine and it is really good, better than the CM1 engine........but....... Ok Cheap shot at BFC, (sorry) so what is the problem with on-board mortars, and a host of other small details that CM1 had that CMSF does not?

Good question, I am sure there are OGAs working on that as we type.

How about Strikers seeking cover from incoming T-62 fire instead of sitting there shooting back! In CM1 the tacAI would never let that happen, or at least I saw plenty of my armored cars and half tracks scrambling to get the heck out of the line of fire.

It would be nice to take prisoners again, that was one of my favorite things to do in CM1. A even better idea would be all prisoners taken to have a guard. You would then have to detach a team or some element to "watch" them or they would disappear and all points gain from prisoners lost. Now this is a good idea if I do say so myself....lol.

1:1 representation....sometimes you get what you ask for, sometimes you don't.

Yeah, that doesn't sound right either, at least for a T-62....hmmmm. I wonder what is going on. They should not be able to penetrate from the front, but I am not an expert on the ammunition these T-62 could be using or if there is a type of ammunition that would penetrate the front of an M1A2. As for the AT-11, if it is a top down attack weapon then I could see it killing an M-1, but not a frontal armor hit. I know during Desert Storm there were several instances of M1s taking multiple frontal armor hits to the turret with no penetration. Now that may have been due to the ammunition used back then too, not sure. I am not a tanker, just a lowly infantryman.

Thanks Hev, your system must be much better than my old AMD 64 3500 2.2 ghz with 2 Gig of ram....but this is the ONLY game I have frame rate problems with. Hev, how big a battle can you do on your computer and not just my scenario but any battle, what is the maximum number of units fighting before you get poor FPS and lag? I ask because I was wondering if it is my system or does everyone run up against a limit sooner or later. I thought the later, but as Pandur's example shows, his computer is a fairly recent model and he is having problems. I know (I am rambling here) thinking out loud, so this begs the question is the problem computer related or specific to certain computer configuration and video cards? Also, there has to be a limit (I would think) for every computer, before FPS go to hell in a hand basket. [ October 11, 2007, 08:23 PM: Message edited by: Zemke ]

I prefer Elite.

Is there an AAR on the web somewhere to read about the engagement? It sound utterly unbelievable.. (NOT saying its not true, I am sure it is true, I would just like to read more details about the encounter/ambush). </font>

Yes Sir, they seldom live to learn from their mistakes.

Pandur, You are right it would not be that much fun. I have been experimenting with Syrian Special Forces set to Crack vs Vet US, making things a bit more interesting. This game would be cool if there were a few more national forces to pick from, China, Russian, Iranian, British, German and so forth. Make for some very interesting battles, and a far better "Blue on Blue" battles. There must be a ton of work building the graphic models for each national force or more would have been included, example more European forces. After all the most likely scenario would be a US lead coalition force. This would also server to stimulate sales in Europe, just a theory. I don't mind paying for a really expansive module, but not a single force addition like US Marines. I hate to think we may get "milked" for every single new force.

It may not be much fun for the insurgents, but the modern US Army TODAY trains hard to shoot at close range. I say "today", because this has not always been the case. The war has renewed emphasis on close quarters combat techniques. This started within "the Big Army", (Non-SOF) around 2000, but has become the standard for all units. The techniques were borrowed from the SOF community, and have proven very effective. The numbers I stated, (perhaps not in this post, can't remember for sure), a kill ratio of about 50 to 1 in both Afghanistan and Iraq during small arms engagements is true. While in Afghanistan I was not too worried getting shot at at ranges over 100 meters, the bad guys simple cannot shoot. They have little to no training in the most basic marksmanship. With that said there are some very good snipers out there, but if you run across one of them, well it's going to be a bad for someone... and those guys are mostly foreign fighters. [ October 08, 2007, 03:03 AM: Message edited by: Zemke ]

The engagement ranges for the M1 in the game are not exactly optimal. On the open field you would want the most stand off you can get. If urban, and you are using armor and armored vehicles use your firepower, smoke and indirect fires to isolate the battle and suppress the enemy.

Scenario sent your way. Give me some feed back too, it has no briefing as of yet. However what I was really trying to get was what is the maximum limit or battle size people are generally able to play on their computers? I have been thinking of upgrading of late, and sort of want to know about what processor and graphics card would be good to allow me to play larger battles or as large as I can.

In my quest for the "perfect scenario", and my penchant for large battles, I seem to have run up against a size limitation due to my computer's ability to process. For me the larges battles that are playable is no more than 12 vehicles or around a Bn+ of infantry. How about everyone else?

I think it is a much better infantry model. That said, it still does not seem to model the vastly superior American small arms accuracy IMHO.

For me the graphics went down, but the performance went way up, I prefer the performance by far.

If you are talking about cannon fire, you are correct. However in WWII certain crew served weapons had the same or higher ROF, for example the M2 .50cal used today is exactly the same used in WWII and the German MG42 had a much higher ROF that any medium MG used by the US today. Several European Armies use a copy of the MG42.

Those pictures are from Afghanistan, if I am lying I'm dying....lol. I also think adding the latest UAH would be good. I also think the next mod should include an Afghanistan potion, which would be easy. Make groups of four UAH teams with four man crews to simulate SF and ETT teams there would be all you would have to add.

This assumes that (a) engagments depicted in most CM:SF scenarios are similar in all relevant aspects (force balance, terrain, objectives, etc.), to RL engagments, and ( that the typical CM player is as skilled a tactical commander as the typical US Company commander. I would not make either of these assumptions. </font>

I am not sure why there is lag. In Rome: Total War I have played 3 vs 3 and it runs ok. There is lag when people start using flaming arrows. I supsect that all those nice graphics are the problem. But other games have a lot more people and less far less lag. We need and expert to explain why.

I think people are over reacting about some relatively small issues. I agree with Steve most LOS issues have been solved, although not perfect it seems better. Infantry combat seems better, more responsive and I have had no "stuck squads. I think where we are now should have been the release version...but that is history. I am still testing things, but so far I have to say I am enjoying the game a lot now. I think it will stay on my hard drive after all. As for my other "wishes" posted else where, I can wait and hope. I have to say the 1:1 seems to be working pretty well now...it is starting to feel and look right. I still don't like playing in real time on larger battles, but the smallers ones I can manage. I would still like to see TCIP WEGO like the old CM1. Steve may I ask why it is not in the game, I am sure this has been answered but I have not seem a reason.