cool breeze

Oh and C3k had the perfect test. And stiener14 is 14 and never says anything that helps anybody at all.

AHHHHG my post didnt go AGAIN!!!!!!! PHwwww ......... Dang it! OK the super short version. problems with test, more tests needed to verify problem. problem 1: Fanatic motivation makes them cower much less than realistic compositions would cower. cowering is much worse for guy in open cause cowerers for him get more and more scared and eat bullets while the cowerers behind the wall recover in relative safety. Problem 2: Way to packed. they look like sardines. Where are the big guns just killing everything? again not realistic to my non grog eyes. this makes it a bad test because the guys at the wall are like double-ly over packed compared to the ones lying down. so missed bullets and especially rifle grenades (which have an easier target, the wall) will do exceptional damage to the guys behind the wall. Problem 3: shouldn't soldiers fighting from a wall with high powered rifles have to expose a similar amount of themselves to aim and fire well vs. troops lying prone facing right at the enemy? seems like about the head neck and shoulders exposed for both. Plus the wall isn't made for him to fight from so he may have to expose some extra to maintain a good firing posture, using a high powered gun and all. Ok so facing head on they may actually have to expose about as much of themselves as each other in order to aim and fire. But shouldn't the prone guys be a bit more accurate because of stance? Seems like the straight up fight might be tipping their way. But what if everybody was spread out more like real life? Well then there would be lots of flank shooting opportunities. Now all of a sudden the wall is much better than the open cause they lying down guys are a big target from the side, while the crouching guys are a little smaller from the side. Add this to points 1 and 2 and I think youll see walls working a lot better in normal situations than they did in this test. At the title of the thread and at silly stiener14 for sorta blaming us CMSF players for this "problem" The walls help infantry a lot by letting you hide behind them. You can assault along them and be safe because your guys keep popping up and disappearing too fast to get hit. You can crawl behind them and move invisibly. you can just hide there. you can move easily when you take fire. Us CMSF players know about how cover doesnt keep you truly safe when your being shot at. We didnt say they didnt work in CMSF because we use them successfully on the regular. You just gotta move your dudes when they are taking too much fire, just like always if you can, which you can with walls.

my first time moving a tank through a hole I blasted in got immobilized on the berm, blocking the hole

Well you could say the beta testers helped make that little jem of a video play out so realistically. Unsuppressed and well supported american squad of semi auto rifles almost manages a decisive clean up of the 3 bolt action rifle carrying guys hiding in the holes.

Steiner14 is hilarious.

Just wanted to add my experience with them. Firstly, as everybody who has seen them knows, WHOLLY C@#p! I bought em the first time for a quick battle vs Ai and they got hella tanks and I got hella infantry with support but not much anti tank, anyway they take my town so I call in the rockets on it and of course Im hella impressed even though they dont do much damage to the enemy so I start another quick battle on a big open map this time with 4 rocket missions, one of each and two of one. Im defending and set up a preplanned to fall all over the areas they would advance through (i covered all approaches but they only went through one. I also had naval fire all of the over watch forest patches. And way they drove their whole army right through the middle of my best and longest rocket barage salvo after salvo landing all over them. Im imagining them devastated. I cant see anything cause of the dust. I cant shoot anything cause of the dust. anyway i set up my force around the town in the middle of the map to block the attack but the objective was way behind me. The dust covered their entire advance into the town where I couldn't do much of anything. They went around my blocking town , straight through my rocket fire, and into the cover back area of the map and into the objective town. They were all in halftracks. The riders took some casualties but it didn't seem like my fire did anything but scare and scratch and get em to avoid almost all my direct fire. Now if it had been an infantry not armored infantry it woulda been a lot different...... But there is a LOT of reason to pick 2 60 mm mortars over all that 10 tons or whatever of ordinance. But yeah still 85 Points or whatever does seem pretty dang cheap. But that might be so people use them. you cant really shoot at anything in the area of the barrage for a long @$$ time.

Ok all yall rule nazis JK no offense guys. After I unload my armored infantry from my 2 mg US half tracks, put my scout teams back in the half tracks to get the 2 mgs back online, move the remaining footsoldiers into position and start battling with them I now REVERSE me half tracks into firing positions to have em open up on the already engaged enemy positions with both their mgs, is that too gamey or am I just a creative commander using what hes got to the fullest? or how bout Ive got some extra half tracks in a courtyard kickin it like in that meeting engagement A Strange Morning or something like that. anyway Im not using the half tracks for transport cause they are already on the scene. But I want more firepower so I have one HT driver bail to man the gun of another half track and away we go. Gamey or realistic? I dont think he would really just sit around all battle so what else would he do?..... actually eventually they coulda picked up those extra foot sloggin reinforcements if I had though about it.

that 240 m radius town area is more area than 42 football fields with nice (stone?) houses (with simulated basements?) and bath tubs and such. How many shots were fired?

Those half track pictures are awesome, thanks! If they were all loaded up with ger like that in game I might not be so inclined to fight with them. As it is once you got the squad out but put two gunners back in it looks like a pretty lean mean fighting machine. seems better than those silly frame with no shell MG vehicles we get in CMSF. But then again my problem trying to use those things were always MGs not carbines anyway so I guess if I actually had these "sweet pieces of kit" in shock force id be like maybe those shell less frames werent that bad. But is it just me or are the mounted machine guns on these half tracks better than they were on those guys? O and im not seeing a second forward gun on those so i guess its not as normal as I imagined. But Id want my MGs facing forward.... when you gotta mg some dudes behind you it seems your already likely doing some stuff wrong. but then again if they are there you would definitely want an mg pointing that way.

IIRC in CMSF you could take too much stuff and some of it would disapear, cause they couldnt carry it so they just left it in that dimensional rift or what have you. Does this still happen? It only seemed to be when you did something kinda silly anyway like try to give 3 guy 9 AT4s or what have you.

In my defense wouldn't the half tracks have had an extra mg pointing forward anyway? And I only did it at the end of the scenario to crush a defeated enemy before running out of time and it was just short reverses into shooty spots. But yeah I been having a blast with this game, loving some of the kits and all the refinement. and infantry guns and towed guns:D

I must have forgotten to put a cover arc on him. Oh no better see whats up. Oh wait they are bangin away with their garands on some flanked guys lets wait a sec. Dang they are murdering them all! They shoot and reload so fast and have such big accurate rounds! After one of the enemy surrenders i move to avoid hitting the POW and expose myself to a flanking panzerchrek team behind a hedgerow. Oh no better run...exposed to at least 2 teams... but garands man maybe ill just shoot em. Yeah! go boys! Whoopen ass! And then my tank comes up and we finish up the rest of em. BoyaaH! America! lol yeah i just started the road to montegue campaign or what have you and am like 10 minutes into the second lvl and liking it ALOT so far. oh and cats chasing dogs was sooo much fun as both sides. Anybody else use their 2 mg us halftracks in reverse to get both guns pointing forward? Too gamey?

but if he had ran a company through the mines is woulda been a really good deal

I haven't really used it yet but on move you can get em to do some awesome walking shooting.

Hi Y'all! RTer here, though I'd pitch in as requested. I love the new hunt and use it often with my AFVs. Now I'm not saying having the old hunt in addition all the move orders we have now wouldn't be nice. Id be happy to have it as extra. But I think the ones we have now are better for the newer higher fidelity environment. With spotting based on each guy instead of each abstract squad it wouldn't work as well. Its about how you spot better when your not moving. If you are advancing with some AFVs towards an enemy infantry position you'll probably want to use hunt with the afvs that are moving. If they see some dude you dont really want them to stop, shoot until the infantry duck out of sight, then keep going until they see someone else. cause while your moving your not spotting as well, and your already in a good spot, if you stay put looking around youll kill the next dude as he pops his head up. if you keep going like the old hunt command by the time you see em again your too close and hes already aimed his bazooka at you. Similar think in a vehicle vs vehicle fight, but the thing here is that once your guy spots first enemy and kills em its probably a good time to stay still and wait for his buddies to be seen rather than keep chargin forward as soon as he doesnt see anything right now. as for trying to make a determined forward moving stopping and killing as you go but keeping going as soon as you dont see anything, old hunt style, attack. Well with the tools available the way you do that kinda thing is with non hunt movement orders combined with pauses and potentially area fires and or cover arcs. I think it works better this way than it did with the old hunt. this way the overwatch tanks are staying still spotting and killing while the other ones move rinse and repeat. this way the fighting tanks are fighting better cause they arnt moving, and the moving tanks are probably moving better cause you gave em the proper move. Oh and the new hunt isn't move to contact, cause they are being extra cautious. And when did BF say not to use covered arcs? But your guys are right old hut would be nice to get back. But not if it replaced anything. it would be also nice to get something almost just like new hunt but that wouldn't cancel all orders, and maybe went a little slower than hunt, it would be nice sometimes to like be able to hunt up towards a crest but then reverse as soon as you see anything. or like hunt forward but have it pop smoke as soon as you see something.... but tac ai kinda already does that stuff where appropriate..... any way if ya read all this i appreciate the interest. let me know your thoughts Oh and one more thing I was thinking about making a thread but that seems a little much, so nows my chance. Does anybody else think that reversing with the 2 mg US half tracks is the way to go so you get both guns on target? like you give a cover arc towards the bad guys, and then you reverse to your position towards the bad guys, then you shoot em hard. Man I love those half tracks its so sweet how everybody just jumps out of em in lie .5 seconds and they can even shoot their rifles from inside. Too bad we dont have any of those 4 or more MG halftracks. Please BFC add them some day

Rpgs are "nerfed" along with everything else to make up for the bunching. i just checked wikipedia (the source of all knowledge and it says rpg 7 he is 23 ft radius lethal and the thermobaric is 30 feet radius lethal.

I just read this on wikipedia's Battlefront.com page "On July 1st, 2010, Philip Culliton was hired as a "First Second Programmer", after operating for 13 years with a single coder." Holy Cow! Does everybody else know? Strong move! Not that you needed one but awesome. Sam

I tried the demo but I havent gotten it to start yet. I installed it but after that it wont start. It says something about resolution so its probably that. So.... Hopeless on that front? I think Im just gonna buy myself a real computer. Im gonna build it. CMSF is my favorite game and im building it as cheaply as possible, using my old tower and my friends old but still new graphic card. Whats good cheap stuff to buy for this game?

Ill throw a big party or something if I can play it.

A javelin bouncing into the stratosphere is clearly whack but would a dud(nonexploding) javelin have enough KE to puncture a BMP? While I imagine most ATGMs would smash the heck out of one it seems to me that a javalin would do less. my reasoning is 1) that the javalin has a smaller warhead since thinner armour is its target, and 2) that the final turn down to hit the top of the target should waste much of its thrust, first its going mostly straight with some up then it turns and dives down. Im thinking it wouldnt fall far enough to gain much KE and that the shortness of the down thurst phase should mean it wont be flying down that hard. plus that big ol shaped charge domey thing on the end, being hollow, might crush pretty hard. Any way thats what I was thinking about. Anyone who knows anything wanna let me know if a top attack dud hit with a javalin on a BMP ought to break it? Anyone got any thoughts on it? Thanks!

Firstly, take no offense BFC, im not trying to place any blame. And secondly, I second that thing about graphics settings making potentially serious crashes. Last time I ran CM:SF my computer exploded! 8O I place the blame squarely on the man who said he fixed my computer a few months prior.

So my laptop fried recently. it could run CM:SF but not that well but it was a duel core or 64 bit processor so not fully utilized plus it was a laptop so I was impressed it ran at all. Now I have a laptop once again but its even less made for gaming. Its a netbook with one of those intel atom processors. +1 for being only single core and 32 bit (I guess) -2 or -3 for being a netbook only costing 300 bucks +1 one for being newer. I downloaded the demo and ran it and it says corrupt file. Im thinking the game is just too bad ass for this dinky thing. But if anybody has had better luck Id be thrilled to hear about it. soo.... anybody had success with something like this? I figure Ill probably have to sait till i save the money to get a cheap desktop but Id be extatic to play some little battles in the mean time. Thanks!!!!! Happy New Year!!!!!!

I read your other thread. Maybe you should try putting all you setting to minimum instead of maximum to free up computing power so you can draw more trees. I too wish for a longer tree draw distance and will try that when I get a working computer again. Good luck!

I think 12.5 mm causes freindly casualties too

Firstly, Thanks BFC for the changes to syrian Arty and crewed weapons set ups! I cant wait to see it in action! (my computer died with terrible timing). And... Can we PLEASE get a cheat coded version in some patch that lets us unlock pick upable heavy weapons from other squad casualtied teammates? as in code that alows the super squads of 1.20. Those squads are really cool. Thanks!