SlapHappy

This is similar to what I think of when I picture a 'foxhole'...... http://www.terrierman.com/foxholeshelter.jpg

Or perhaps a 'shell scrape'.

Well, to be precise they seem to be more like what is called a slit trench?

If anyone wants to add to this occasionally it would be perhaps useful to those interested in integrating this into their scenario designs. I haven't posted a 'proper' scenario or campaign for public consumption yet. I mostly like to tinker around the edges of the game and see if there are some possibilities as yet uncovered. Right now I just finished the most basic version of a map and a four vehicle convoy which utilizes baked commands. The map is a heavily forested and swamp area which has only one clear pathway for travel. In the map, I use the slow command and delay feature to pilot 4 Supply Humvees around a circuitous route and arrive at a parking area. Pretty simple stuff, but it works quite well. Using the variable delay I gave the 2nd vehicle a 5 sec delay, the 3rd a 10 sec delay, and the 4th a 15 sec delay. This helps even out the convoy and avoids bunching. Right off the bat I noticed that using a group move order was not the way to go. If you don't give the vehicles individual move orders, then if one humvee gets obstructed momentarily by another, it tends to 'forget' it's move path and will simply stop there permanently. You won't have this problem if you use individual move orders. The advantage in baked commands is that you can not only have troops move like in the AI programming, but you can have them do things like area fire, or a combination of the two. You can order dismounted troops to mount vehicles and then move those vehicles after a brief delay command. Another advantage to moving troops with baked commands is that you cannot only move troops, but you can tell them exactly what path to take. The strongest argument against using baked commands to move troops that I can see is that if anything interrupts the intended orders, then some or all of the intended maneuvers will be lost when TAC AI takes over. Since there are no move commands that avoid this issue, including HUNT, then the use of baked commands must be used judiciously within the intent of the scenario designer. I have yet to explore the possibilities of overlapping baked commands strategic AI plans simultaneously, if it is workable at all.

Errrr....MadMatt is on the BFC team. Or are we talking about a different fellow?

I'd have to go with Steve on this one. While it's true that the problem mentioned in the thread is a viable issue considering realism aspects, I don't see how a delay of any sort alleviates the underlying problem. I think the 'move delay' feature was intended to be a game handicap for the control of lower quality troops. Now one could argue that another tack might be having them do something entirely different, or ignore you. I'm not a CMX1 vet so I couldn't say. My best guess would be that commanding low quality troops in real life might be even more frustrating than anything that a game developer might be willing to foist onto his customers in a game environment. Screaming obscenities, cracked monitors, etc.

I had to do a complete Windows (XP) reinstall as well. Unfortunately, in my case, the side switching problem remains.

SPOILER How the heck are you supposed to stop the PZII light tank in the British mission?

In the testing grounds map, the only effective difference I saw between JTAC and FCT was that FCT had an equal delay time when calling CAS and a slightly shortened delay time when calling in artillery strikes. I'm uncertain if any of this was affected by troop experience level.

Hi Vet. Well, there was an honest to goodness Squad Leader computer game put out by Hasbro Interactive - and yes, it really, really sucked.

This from a reply to a statement made about French captured tanks in Normandy: *All of the 21st Panzer divisions captured tanks were concentrated in the 2nd battalion of Panzer Regiment 22. On the first of June the battalion had: 20x Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.G/H 6x Pz.Kpfw.IV with 7.5cm KwK 37 (Pz.Kpfw IV Ausf. 35x Pz.Kpfw.35S 739(f) - S35 3x Pz.Bef.Wg.35S 739(f) - S35 2x Pz.Kpfw.35R 741(f) - R35 2x Pz.Kpfw.38H or 39H 735(f) - H38 or H39 However, before they could see combat they were discarded when the majority of the battalion was sent back to Germany before D-Day to re-equip with Panthers. All of the Panzer IV's and the remaining personnel were used to form an extra company in the first battalion. However two other units operated captured French tanks. Firstly Panzer Ausbildungs und Ersatz Abteilung (Panzer replacement battalion) 100, attached to the 91st Airlanding Division and located near Carentan with 1 S35, 8 H38s or H39s, 1 Char B2, 5 37mm gunned FT-17/18s plus one Panzer III and Panzer Abteilung 206 with 10 S35s, 28 H39s and and 6 Char B2s.*

I was talking to some local reenactors who were in disagreement about the involvement of captured French vehicles in Normandy. One claimed that units like the 21st Panzer who did have some of these in their formation disembarked leaving these vehicles behind. The other claims that these vehicles actually did see action. I've never seen any information that clearly says one way or another. I know that on the beaches themselves many french turrets were converted into fixed casemates for defense.

Does anyone have this type of detailed info about US GI's? British and Commonwealth? Soviet?

Thanks...Cid250's picture clears that up for me..... About that squad training issue....that's just the kind of doctrinal separation I would like to see between the combatants in the Normandy game. It's these little differences that will make the infantry groups seem not so much like rubber-stamp copies of each other. Even though the animation workload might be somewhat steep, the payoff is priceless in game feel and authenticity. It's a shame that BFC doesn't have a dedicated guy to flesh these little details out and incorporate them into the game. It seems like animations are a bit of a bugaboo when developing game code. It's understandable that something that requires a lot of man-hours could be neglected when it doesn't directly impact the game play - but man, the details really do it for me.

A classic pic, thank you for helping me better illustrate my point.

I can't help but feel that the problem some are having replicating these results lies in variables within the action spot system which we are not privy to understanding. I've used the same technique to try and blast a hole without entering, and only succeeded in blasting a LOW WALL which was directly behind my troops. So right there we can see that if we throw in just a few terrain variables that are different from a normal case situation, the results can vary quite wildly.

Usually when people make a statement regarding graphics in CMSF, they are referring to the model fidelities or sometimes the textures. Texture modelling has enjoyed a rather remarkable success since BFC released the tools for such some time back in an earlier update. What has always made 3-D wargames interesting for me are the animations. You take a game like Second Manassas. Graphic resolution and model quality is really quite low by today's standards. However, the animations are wonderful. Then there is a game like TOW, which has good model quality, but so-so texturing, especially on infantry models. But the thing I like the least in TOW graphics is the movement animations for infantry. They just don't "feel" right to me for some reason. Overall, CMSF has really nice movement animations, but I wish there was some more variation. By the time we get to Normandy, it would be nice to have individual soldiers low-running with their rifles in their off-hand, while others in the same squad are performing a different animation at the same time. Some better "jumping" animations would be a pleasant addition as well. The current low-wall jump animation is OK, but not one of the better in the whole game. Mix it up a little. The more variation and randomness applied in this area really breathes life into the game, IMO. It helps keep the "robot" feel down and makes the pixeltruppen seem more alive. I know this is strictly "eye-candy" stuff, but once the game mechanics stuff is sufficiently battened down, extra polish like this can make the game even more satisfying from a vicarious standpoint.

Wankers There, now everyone feels cozy.....

Well, if a laptop with integrated graphics runs as well as a fully decked out desktop with top-end graphics card, then CMSF is really insensitive to computer specs.

Nah...this happens in single player mode as well....I had it happen when a Mk 19 mounted on a humvee spit out about six rounds simultaneously at a target in a building during a test scenario I was working on.

Because it's older code. Older than it's release date would indicate.

"The scenario designer can save his scenario file in a special for- mat (.btb) that enables units to have pre-assigned Commands, which normally is not possible to do. This feature allows a battle to start up right in middle of a firefight, for example, or to have a column of vehicles begin the scenario already in motion. Thus the commands are “baked” into the file itself. It is very important to note that Baked scenarios use a special file format that can not be edited again. Therefore, it is advisable to bake a scenario only after all edits are complete and to always keep an “un-baked” (normal) version so you can make changes to it later if need be. It’s a good idea to give the un- baked version a different filename to avoid possible confusion since file extensions are not always shown in Windows." This is about as descriptive as the manual is regarding the usefulness of "baked" scenarios. I guess it's up to the scenario designer to determine what usefulness this approach might have. Keep in mind any scenario created this way is not editable in any way by the end-user (which might be useful in some instances in and of itself).

I can verify that in a very simple test that I did, a Marine Javelin unit executed a quick move command that I baked into an existing mission. I did not try anything more exotic. That is odd that it only worked for reinforcement units for you.

That does limit you somewhat. But I can also see how you could issue more detailed instructions than the regular script AI. Like a convoy for instance, you could tell it not only to move to a certain point on the map, but exactly what path to follow (like down a road). The other problems that will probably crop up is that once certain events happen, they will change the ordered behavior of the group. For instance, once that convoy receives fire, it may stop and never resume movement again. At least that appears to be the way it would work in the game.

Of course, your unit can apply for a bailout if you truly feel it has legs to get through a Senate filibuster.