noob

I understand the comments, there is always going to be an element of gameyness in a game but this is a little too gamey for my liking, and as regards stacking it surely would be possible to allow an exception to the LOS function of a Target line so that it doesnt give LOS information when being used from a waypoint but still allows that unit to fire in that position "if" it has a LOS which would be down to the players judgement, that way you would get to use multiple stacking area fire commands without it allowing you to work out enemy position LOS paths.

I've just been using the Target LOS tool on the move waypoints and it gives you the LOS from the waypoint you are selecting, that means if you want to see what the LOS from an enemy position is you just have to put a move waypoint on it and then create a Target LOS line. It seems bizarre that a game that strives for realism in some departments could allow such an unrealistic feature, i can't work out why it's been put in, i would like to see it removed as it basically allows a player to understand the LOS from an enemy position much too precisely.

Is their a way to finish the game by retreating off the map rather than surrendering or asking for a ceasefire ? If not it would be a good feature as i am in a game at the moment where i cannot do any offensive actions so my only hope is to hide until the clock runs down to preserve whats left of my forces and get the points for suffering less than 75% casualties. However this seems very gamey as in RL my forces would have bugged out by now.

I know its possible to change the parameters but thanks for mentioning it anyway, i intend to look at the parameters of each scenario before i play them, then maybe discuss the potential changes, if there is an obvious problem like the one i mentioned, with my opponent before we play.

I'm relatively new to CMSF but not to CMBB / CMAK and after having played the scenario "Abu Susah" from the Shock Force base game scenario list to test some things i noticed a disturbing thing when i got to the result screen, i found i had achieved a minor victory despite suffering over 75% casualties and losing five out of seven Strykers. Being somwehat confused as to the result i checked the parameters in the editor which i have posted here so someone can confirm if im reading them right. Blue Force Parameters are : Enemy Casualties - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Enemy Condition - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Enemy Ammo - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Friendly Casualties - Threshold (%) = 75, points = 100 Friendly Condition - Threshold (%) = 50, points = 50 Friendly Ammo - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Terrain Objective points = 70 Red Force Parameters are all set to 0 apart from the unit parameter that awards 25 points to Red for each knocked out Stryker. So according to this Red get 0 points for inflicting infantry casualties and reducing enemy morale and Blue get 100 points for suffering less than 75% casualties and 50 points for having 50% of forces on good morale or am i reading it wrong ? The Blue briefing warns about losing too many men and vehicles and getting involved in a serious and prolonged engagement, but the point allocation doesnt take that into account. If i am right there is a serious error in the way points are allocated to the forces in this scenario. IMO Blue Force Parameters should look more like this: Enemy Casualties - Threshold (%)= 0, points = 0 Enemy Condition - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Enemy Ammo - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Friendly Casualties - Threshold (%) = 15, points = 100 Friendly Condition - Threshold (%) = 30, points = 50 Friendly Ammo - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Red Force Parameters should look more like this: Enemy Casualties - Threshold (%) = 15, points = 100 Enemy Condition - Threshold (%) = 30, points = 50 Enemy Ammo - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Friendly Casualties - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Friendly Condition - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Friendly Ammo - Threshold (%) = 0, points = 0 Would this better reflect the briefing ? If the VC's in this scenario are in error has anybody else found any other standard scenarios that are this wrong ? and if so has anybody fixed them ?

Yes, thats what im saying, the restrictions put on Blue forces are far more stringent than on Red forces, it's too easy for Blue to use overwhelming area fire to defeat Red so applying restrictions to building damage would be another factor impinging on Blues tactics but i will defer to your obvious experience as a/ im a civilian and b/ im new to CMSF so maybe i will find most of the scenarios well balanced in hindsight. However it would be good if someone like yourself went through the scenarios that are available and recalculated the VC's or at least rated them for balance given your experience in RL.

But surely for the Blue forces as the invaders of a foreign country in the modern era the avoidance of large numbers of unit and civilain casualties are paramount for winning the propaganda war back home and in the U.N. (i.e. the Vietnam syndrome) so i would of thought that the only parameter of any significance given the force imbalance would be keeping casualties within acceptable levels for Blue only, obtaining the terrain objectives should not add to Blues score as its unlikely the Red forces can ever hold a position against the superior forces of Blue so a casualty only VC would negate that material difference. So at the end of a game the players could asses the forces in action against the casualties sustained and then determine the winner based on the casualty parameter only.

No one would be "bound", it would either make sense to a player or not, if it did they would use it if not they wouldn't, it would just be something that was available, if it proved worthwhile it would be adopted. I know there isn't a central vetting authority at the moment, that is why i have suggested what i have, so there could be the possibility of one. Even if the designers are individuals i would of thought there were a set of standard parameters that determined whether a mission was a success or not in real life conflicts.

Being a WW2 obsessive i'm relatively new to the CMSF engine and modern warfare in general but knowing the old CM wego system only to well via CMBB the learning curve wasn't to steep when i started playing this particular theatre. I'm still playing the demo at the moment but the imbalance in the forces so far has been quite drastic to say the least. However after looking at the briefing for the demo mission "Going to Town" i noticed one of the parameters was to sustain no more than 10% casualties which was 11 men approx. The other parameter was to secure three objectives. The casualty parameter could only be because of the political consequences of dead Blue troops and this added a whole new dimension to the game. So i was faced with having to fight a battle and only lose 11 men......totally new experience and utterly fascinating, also the Syrian problems were equally as fascinating (you cant hope to hold any property so just kill as many Blues and vehicles as you can, then try and escape and try it again) That parameter made me realise that force imbalance is relative to the victory conditions, but i'm not sure exactly how the game calculates them and if they are as harsh (but fair) as some of the briefings imply. What is needed i think is a battle evaluation reference manual that allows players to work out the results of a battle from a standard reference source after the battle and not the via the subjectivity of the individual scenario designers. If there was a standard set of victory parameters that took into account force balance and politics and then all the scenarios would be balanced theoretically. Also if this standard was rational and fair it could be the benchmark for the parameters of new scenarios. The question is who will do this ? ( i might do start some research but im not commiting to anything as i feel a little out of my depth with my modern warfare knowledge )

ok thanks

Is "hold position" the defend order with the checked shield icon ?

I have the patched Kalypso version of TOW, when i play online against another player in every game my tanks have initited move orders after being ordered to stop, also they not only move but usually directly up to enemy trenches with the obvious results. Is there a way to stop them doing this ?

I would like to join if i can, im unemployed at the moment so i can play a lot of turns per day.

Found it, thanks

Can anyone tell me where to get the CM battlemap grid overlay ive heard about ?

Im "very" interested in playing in a CMC tourney. Im unemployed and will remain so for the forseeable future so i can be in for the long haul and play plenty of turns.

I am not American but because of the hours i keep i can easily play an American and get a good turn rate going.

Am i too late to join ?

If there is any room i would like to join as a Tactical Commander. I have a lot of experience with CMBB so if its possible count me in.

As to the wisdom of house demolition by tanks thats another thing, i would just like the option to do it if i chose and accept the consequences. However as far as i know it seems to be a rarely used tactic so im not going to cry if CMx2 doesnt simulate it, i just wanted to mention it.

but if they do that then they ALSO need to let tanks CRASH into buildings and fall through the floor and end up nose down STUCK in the basement Not necassarily, they could just give the chance of immobilisation to any tank that crashes into a building, and make it possible only with a fast move order and buttoned so it cannot get "shocked"

I was reading an account of the battle of Arnhem bridge and it mentioned the Germans using Tigers to knock down some of the buildings the Brits were using by ramming into them. Will CMX2 be able to simulate this ?

But if there is no time delay between battles, why bother with an operation at all? Why not just run a scenario? Or is it that the time limit on scenarios isn't long enough? Because in most big battles ammo runs out after say 40 turns. Playing this way allows you too play battles with 100 plus turns whilst getting rearmed at regular intervals. Plus playing games of such a length with no redeployment force you to plan ahead and consider lines of retreat, layerded defences, etc and this to me adds a new and more realistic element to the game. I do agree that wholesale rearrangement seems a bit unrealistic, but in the lulls between assaults, there were usually some opporunities for redeployment Yes but why complicate it, its simpler to say no redeployment and then both parties can take that into consideration during the game.

The idea of this way of playing operations assumes there is no time delay between battles therefore no repositioning. As said in a previous post its just a huge battle chopped up into parts that allows resupply after each "day". So there seems no real need to add exceptions unless there you add some virtual time between battles, which seems unnecasary.

A player can reposition reinforcements along the map edge they appear on if they are present at the start of a new battle, this simulates them having information gathered by their comrades as to the disposition of the enemy based on the previous fight. That way the player can have some flexibility in entry location and unit formation of the reinforcements, however they still have to "move" to the frontline. [ March 06, 2005, 10:22 PM: Message edited by: noob ]