average

Hi Battlefront Just picked up CMFB for PC. However, other than my desktop, all the laptops in my household are recent Macbook Pros. Not to be prickly, but often if I buy a game on most online stores, if there is a Mac version its included in the one purchase. Therefore I can install Civ 5 on my desktop and on my laptops. However, with BF, its Mac or PC, or buying it twice at full price. What's worse is with all of the expansions and modules, I'm locked into buying those twice as well unless I want to limit myself to one platform. Any chance of just having one version for the digital product for both platforms? I can understand that with boxed copies it would be an imposition, but unless the thinking is you want my $55 plus modules twice and you think that a lot of your customers are willing to pay twice, I can only see this enhancing sales. I for one would be more able to rationally convince myself that it won't be a repeat of Market Garden or Fortress Italy or whatever other games I've bought and not played very much. It's also kind of galling because most of the assets (like for instance the sound effects) are recycled as between modules, but the broader debate about new game/module/expansion is beyond the scope of this thread. As it is, I hesitate every time for this reason while trying to work out when and on what platform I am likely to be playing. Thanks

Like when we all talked about Steam and the whole discussion broke down terribly and then again today, I log on, do the 1998 webstore thing and the first download doesn't work. C'mon guys, do us a solid and use some other pipes to push it. I don't care which. Torrent maybe? Gotta to be a cheap way to surge your capacity for launches. That said it seems to be peaking at 700kbs and dropping down to about 350kbs. I'm not planning on sitting here watching it but you know, I'm excited its Saturday morning, I want to blow imaginary stuff up...

Steve, I'm not trying to be difficult here. I think the point for me is that across my various devices and the whole what you would call "trial attorney" lifestyle I generally have about 8-10 days a year where I can get stuck into my old hobbies. So this year for instance, I get to a break in my schedule, I dig out CMSF and try and install it on day 1 a short domestic vacation. That involves finding my windows laptop (not my Macbook Pro because not even I will buy the same program for different platforms unless its MS Office). Then I find out I've used up my three installs. So I email helpdesk. The response was super helpful but I've lost the time I had to play. A couple of years before that I repurchased the Marines module because of a key problem. Or just over Christmas, this time I didn't take my windows laptop (my Apple is better). So I touch down in Paris and I'm left to ponder should I buy CMRT for Mac or Windows. I mostly play on Windows at home, but when I've got free time I'm often away. So the solution is I defer it until I get home by not buying anything. This matches my general dissatisfaction with the weird patches, DRM and content issues I described above. I notice that the titles I do play all have the "steam-play" feature that bridges that gap for me. So I get home and I need to install CMBN and I decide to get version 3.0. So that takes me a day to download, and then I install it - which I need to do anyway since I've changed SSDs over. Then I start playing Market Garden for a couple of days. I get involved in a what-if scenario involving the counter-attack at Eerde by Von der Heeydte. Totally enjoyed it. But very hard fought. Having just re-read "It Never Snows in September" I'm somewhat surprised that the scratch force attacking my left-hand flank (made up of training troops and stragglers in reality) are all set to crack. Probably not as surprised as I am by the amount of running armor that KG Wather has. Then yesterday I managed to spend a couple of hours in the Hunner Park Nijmegen scenario. But in the back of my mind I wonder how my PC with twin GT970s and running at about 4.5ghz, with 16gbs of ram and an SSD is running the game at a slide show pace. So again, rough edges taking the shine of what is the best game in its product class. Perhaps the other thing to note is that I do frequently change components or entire computers. That has probably come about because of ever better SSD solutions, new processors and just being a little unlucky with having high end components fail early. So while I'm exaggerating to make a point, the point is a very real one for me. So unlike many of the other posters here I have some very real time constraints that mean to me, the overwhelming imperative is having something I can pick up and play at any time without having any questions as to whether the product I've paid for will work, whether it is up to date and whether every scenario or campaign is uniformly worth the investment of time. I think what is literally missing from this conversation is that I am a marginal customer who used to be completely rusted on. I like CMX2 a whole lot better than CMX1. I like modern a whole lot more than WW2. I have more than enough spare money to buy everything you publish and not blink. What is making me a marginal customer is that its become cumulatively hard to find the time to keep up to date and sort through the content. There are also ease of transacting questions and some bad experiences with DRM into the bargain. What I am prepared to pay for is a seamless digital experience and a high level of curation of your content. If you can organise that then I don't mind paying for "features." Whether I have any interest in particular modules is another question, but that is exactly why you are selling modules, some of us will buy some, some of us will buy only a few. So assuming I'm not a lone time poor voice in the wilderness I think its worth investigating whether a product like CMSF could be sold digitally (at say $20 for a complete copy) and given the chance that game deserved to succeed (which in versions 1.0 through to 1.10) it never really had owing to quality control issues. If that works then it might suggest moving to a dual track system of digital distribution and the BFC web-store. Perhaps you could do this to generate publicity for CMBS and support for its release (as you said, many customers including friends of mine could never overcome their experience with CMSF 1.0 to 1.10). Finally, I'm not sure that Baneman and Sburke et al represent the views of the majority of customers. Their forum post counts are so substantial that no doubt they are able to keep completely up to date and play on a regular basis. That said at most they will have spent $90 more (having personally purchased every CMX1 game and everything but Gustav line and CMRT) on BFC products than I have to date. So I appreciate your willingness to explore better methods to publish your products, because when your products work, with the right user made content, then they are fantastic. Regards

Long time lurker here. I think the comments at RPS are entirely on the money about the problems with BFC. I love BFC games, but I want a more convenient and streamlined way of buying, installing and keeping them up to date. BFC is essentially asking its customers to pay more for less over time (for instance by way of paid "feature" patches, modules), while not delivering more in terms of the quality of the SP content or the customer service experience. So I haven't purchased any additional content for CMFI. I haven't purchased CMRT. I am probably going to purchase CMBS, but I don't really want to pay for the patches, the modules and the rest that will mean over 2 years spending about $120 on something I have very limited time to play. I have found that many of my attempts to play the game have been limited by the time it takes to install various modules, patches and deal with activation problems. And assuming I do play it then having to try and sort the good content out from the bad content. My sense is that many former BFC customers would feel exactly the same way. I think many of Steve's early experiences as outlined in that Polygon feature shouldn't rule out moving to a better distribution platform. Rise of Flight, Matrix, Eagle Dynamics etc are all on Steam and probably selling more than ever. Maybe its time to move on from 2002 on the retail front.

Plus the game AI don't have range cards, fire plans, TI or the ability to just traverse a PKM across the smoke screen. I've tried in game to employ smoke to screen the movement of armour from ATGMs with very mixed results. I read somewhere that was a legtimate tactic to counter AT-3/4/7 batteries. Didn't really work as well as expected, almost better having the tubes just fire a HE mission (the dust is almost as good). I don't know if you'd ever actually give that a go for that matter. Same story with obscuring infantry movements at long range, except it blows away just at the point of maximum danger because they've got 6 WP rounds per gun. What I feel is super gamey is when you're almost obliged to fire smoke to conceal a close assault or movement across a choke point. The smoke in that case is like a big target indicator. It stands in the mind of some scenario designers as a suitable substituition for proper fire support or a suitable force. Its up there with obstacles not covered by fire, all out assaults without a proper reece or briefing (lets send a rifle company with a couple of light AFVs up the guts to destroy an undetermined enemy force and hold the ground so gained) and using a mech rifle company to clear 14 blocks in 2 hours using nothing more than self confidence while suffering less than 10% casualities.

Gibsonm, Fingers crossed. Incidentally, thanks for all the work you put into Beta testing the product. I'm sure it helps keep it grounded.

Gibsonm, I appreciate that CM:BN is the main effort for BFC. Part of the reason for my post is that you can only reach the conclusion CM:BN is prioritised ahead of CM:SF is by inference and the inference is drawn from the delay experienced to date. I note your suggestion that I am being impatient. The question of how long I waited when CM:SF was the only product in development (although, this perhaps isn't the decisive issue given that CM:BN has been under development in parallel with CM:SF almost since the outset) is irrelevant. I waited as long as it took. Am I suggesting that as the product becomes more mature, it should be that less and less content will require remediation - yes. As to whether that is actually the case, I don't know. In support of the suggestion I am being impatient you raised the delay since the original post to the time of my post. The bug pre-dates the original post. Patch 1.31 was released on 26 November 2010. Give or take that is near enough to 55 day. My recollection is that the initial report of the problem was perhaps the following day. I don't accept that the operative period of delay with respect to the PZF 3s is 17 days. As to the issue with 84mm ammunition - that issue dates from the first day of release. It has never been officially addressed. Other patches have adjusted ammunition levels without a delay of many months. So it may well not be a question of getting around to it, it may instead be a question of whether they will get around to it. As to whether it is a simple fix, and what exactly BFC intends to include in the next patch, I don't know. You could guess that since the content was originally in game, it could be re-inserted (just like other similiar bugs have been fixed with regularity in the past). You would obviously be in a better position to judge the complexity than I am. Given your NDA obligations I doubt we can explore that in depth. Regardless, the only point of my original post was to try and illicit a response. I think we can both agree it would be nice to have PZF 3 launchers back in game and that it would be nice if the CDF 84mms could be employed. I'd expect you would be more excited than a lot of us about the potential for 84mm fire. Given the above perhaps we can avoid the accusatory “???” going forward. Regards

Bump. It's beyond frustrating to be at the point of attempting to play "Fields of Fire" knowing full well that a company of Panzergrenadiers are essentially defenceless passangers, unable to engage enemy armour despite having sensible positions to attempt that, and ample opportunity as it turns out. It's just a little bit on the hard side to see why its taking so long, and why there has, apparently, been no update on progress towards a further patch for CMSF. Similiarly, when are the Canadians getting a supply of 84mm commenserate with their supply of CGs ? What about even some HEDP rounds ? They are basically ideal for most uses other than trying to defeat MBTS. Can we ever expect to see a supply of HEAT rounds (basic, tandem, RAP or however issued to the CDF) ? Given that at least with certain rounds, the CG can engage static targets beyond the range of the Eryx it would seem reasonable to expect that a decent number of rounds would be issued. Alternatively, why do they have 2 CG's per section but 1 round per rifle ? Is that some wierd CDF thing ? Put into context, it seems a relatively simply fix that has now been left for considerably more than a month.

Is pressing the counter-attack reinforcing failure ? At the moment, it doesn't appear your oppontent is fully comittted on the north flank, meaning that its not going to be decisive for him, but if you suffer sufficent losses, it will be for you. It's not the sort of thing the Soviets would encourage. Tactically, it almost has a German feel to it in the pathalogical desire to counter-attack. I don't want to be a downer, but it doesn't appear you achieved sufficent local superiority to be sure of success. Since you failed at first instance and are now pressing on its plainly evident what your intention is, which can't help because he can shift emphasis safe in teh knowledge your not going to hit him hard in the South. As you said, Hillfarm is indefensible. Why not let him hold it and apply concentrated fires against it. Turn it into a meat grinder. That is assuming you can break off now, which might not be so easy. I would have thought your average Warsaw pact response would be to attempt to contain the breakthrough, cut off any further advance and try and manouvre against the southern flank aided by smoke and or short hop up the middle. You could then try and roll up his southern flank and force him to try and shift the wieght of his forces. That would offer some opportunities no doubt.

Having started on the campaign and some of the stand alones, I can make a couple of observations: 1. the forces given to the player are inadaquate, especially in FIBUA where you have a rifle plt trying to clear a bn size objective, 2. the sensitivity for blue force is casulaties, not terrain, but the objectives allow for signifigant casualties if terrain is captured; 3. the attacking force should always have at least in theory, a substantial margin over the defending force; 4. the ratio of 3:1 is ideal (or higher in FIBUA), but in the open a lack of numbers can be compensated for with supporting fires; 5. it is not realistic to attack a force 5 times larger than your own without a very signifigant overmatch in fire power nor is it fun to be forced to rely on the off map flank and guess work to have a fighting chance of carrying your forces to the objective; 6. sometimes deliberate steps are taken to remove organic direct and indirect fire weapons without justification (this is inexcusable) which is not realistic or desirable, this leads to a force that can't operate at full capacity and which wouldn't be committed to a deliberate assault; 6. i suspect the reason why you have such strange force packages is that designers and beta testers play the scenario mutliple times and each time you play the scenario it gets easier and terrain objectives are favoured over casualtity objectives; and 7. one of the reasons why it must be tempting to have such strange scenarios and force mixes is because the AI doesn't have the ability to manoeurve effectively in reaction to an assault (this has been pointed out above), and the result is that red force to inflict casualities relies on a static defense of trying to draw a strange blue force into a series of kill sacks or close ambushes (which is fair enough, but only up to a point) that end in red force being chewed up and spat out when they lose the initative (unless your rifle coy runs into a syrian special forces regiment in depth which sometimes happens). Take for example mission 2 of the campaign. There an attack goes against the most poorly sited defensive position imaginable, but by an inadaquate force package for the size of the the objective given that the suspected oppfor is a bn - with anti tank assets. Why does Blue care about this position sufficently to attempt to overrun it with half a company of armoured infantry in a hasty attack ? It doesn't make a great deal of sense, although it is fun to listen to the 30mm autocannon fire on Syrian conscripts (with patchy results).

As usual, the release of any computer game one wants to play coincides precisely with a busy period but I have had a couple of play throughs of "It ain't half hot mum" Interesting scenario but I haven't been able to do anymore than fight the AI to a draw/minor defeat for the British forces. Its a little bit hard to put in a company attack with when outnumbered 3.5 to 1 into complex terrain. Almost the exact opposite of the superiority you'd strive for. Also little bit harsh that you are minus javelins and any guns in support yet the nemy have crew served weapons a go go Even with a kill ratio of 6:1 in favour of the British force, I am having trouble fighting my way into town with enough time to clear the town itself without suffering unacceptable casualities (while dodging incoming mortars that are on song despite attack helos and fixed wing jets operating in the area). Suspect my results are an indication that I am not utilising the Apaches, 51mm and reece group properly, and would be interested if anyone has had a better result. It may also be that I am attacking along the eastern (left) flank in company strength with half my fire support group in support from the cluster of buildings along the main road (the warehouses?). I then assault the ouyling objective and try and assault into the town through the dead ground created by the walls, with supporting fire being proivded from the high ground to the north east. As you can guess I have become obsessed with the scenario, to the point where I think about it at inappropriate times. Will spend the weekend playng it/hacking it up. Will change it up to give it a 3 hour time limit, and possible a 2nd harrier and some 105mm tubes (or even 155mm tubes) and see how that plays. Might just start with making everyone fit and adding the javelins back in.

If you had read the manual you would note that you only get the .50 cal rifle in your bn sniper team with equipment set to normal or below.

Cough, Cough, off topic. Get over it. Is that an F16 overhead ? I suppose if the Czech's had been killing innocent people in the Sudetenland then the parrell might be closer, but it would still be wrong. Tito was the best thing to happen to the Balkans since the about 550AD.

Just further to the above, if you don't site in that way, your own dudes are so dead, which is something CMSF doesn't model. Assuming anyone is left alive, you'll soonn run out of bullets and the effectivness of each round fired will drop substantially. You take the view your not going to kill them all, you just need to stop them outside their effective range for personal weapons, so you just need enough fire to stop them getting in close, and if they do you have to then stop yourself getting sliced. (which is when you want to have your rifles, 203s and lmgs switch sectors onto the threat). I dont think that always translates well into games.

Jason C sort of nailed it re tripods. Its one thing to fire a MAG 58 off a bipod (it will still hand out hurt at range) but off a tripod, its not laser cannon accurate, but its not supposed to be. Its an elementary part of company level defensive ops, especially in poor visibility to get your crew served weapons onto tripods, with range cards and fixed lines/defensive fires. If you are really serious you will card in your LMGs as well(basically give them a sector and certain targets to hit), although thats always going to be crude (think sticks, a compass and visual reference points. You can sort of replicate that so long as your guys can see the target in CMSF, although it would be nice to be able to drop plunging fire onto obvious choke points if you are say playing on the defensive and have the suspiciously well placed low rise to do it from.

I don't think Steve is completely closed to some refinement of the system. He said, like a few of us, he wouldn't mind strongpointed houses. The game would have trouble dealing with dispersed fox holes while the squads are stuck in 8 x 8m. I think the point of departure is what can a a rifle coy manage to dig in a timeframe short enough to avoid being allocated prep numbers by a staff officer with a toughbook and microsoft outlook. It's not difficult to build something that will stand up to 81mm and 120mm vt and 105mm splintex. The skills are taught on the abriged g-res infantry IET in the Australian Army. Basic fighting pits, dug outs, bunkers, slit trenches, stuff you can do without having a forest or combat engineering support nearby, they all enhance your chances of surriving bombardment out of all proportion to the effort. Whoever said that first world armies don't/can't dig, well, I remeber having little digging parties, and then filling them in, and hating it. Its the bits of hot metal that do most of the killing, and provided your out of the way you can surrive a half battery dropping 32 rds of vt/splintex on a wide shceaf across your front, although, people will get hurt What you can't do without multiple bursting layers and engineering support is protect yourself against impact, delayed or phos coming in on top of you. Same goes for mk84's. If it lands close enough, your ok. Generally, if your going firm and if its a medium intensity conflict, you'd dig in, get your templates done, get your guys out of observation, get piquets out to stop any reece elements from bumping you to preserve your killing grounds. I'd like to see the Syrians be a able to do that.

Re Barleyman and failed states, I think that had more to do with the Syrians and the terrorists than the lebanese government creating armes caches to prevent territorial incursions. If you really do want to make invasion unattractive, you do what steve suggests, invest your money in man pack stuff, small arms and probably thermal blankets and ir netting. Then you train your militray aged population to use the kit, put the emphasis on field craft and leave them to it. Where it falls down is you don't want your militia having modern anti-tank and anti-air systems,because you use 2nd line tanks and aircraft to keep your regime on top of the situation, and if your like the Syrians, you need to balance out each branch and tier of your armed forces against each other. Hence, the republican guard have nice AFV's, but I'm reasonably confident they would keep the modern anti air systems with someone else, so that you can use the airforce to bomb them back to the stone age should the republican guard decide they want to be in charge. The airforce probably don't have the resources to defend their airfields in case they decide they want to be in charge. The regular army probably have the manpower and resources to stop offensive operations by the republican guard in built up terrain. The secret police probably make it their business to be seen hanging around the military district, just to let the military leadership know that their families will be 'looked after' should the unthinkable happen. Then you factor in the dictator prestige factor in having tanks and aircraft, and the sort of arms deals you can do well on, and what neighbouring states have as a party pieces. You don't get a coherent procurement policy most of the time for those reasons. Its like how western defence spending is shaped by industry policy considerations into the expensive fiasco that it is today. The last thing you want to do is give the militia the ability to defeat your loyal elements, because its harder to convince people who don't have a vested interest to play by the rules. Problem is that if they ever have to fight an external threat with better or equal kit to your own, they are in a world of hurt and upset, because you've deliberately underarmed them, not because your cheap (as is often assumed) but because you've been playing a political game. The final thing I'll raise is its like western armed forces and their relationship between regs and reserves. As anyone who has served in a reserve force will tell you, the regs don't like the reservists getting the good gear. It might lead to questions about the size of the full time estbalishment. I'm pretty sure i've borrowed the above from a book, but I can't remember what it is. [ January 19, 2008, 06:37 PM: Message edited by: average ]

I see what Steve is getting at in terms of complex linear defensive arrangements. They do take time and effort, and likely to be aligned along logistical nodes or in the approaches to major population centres. The fighting positions are likely to receive heavy fires, and its likely they would be bypassed and then contained by cav. elements screening likely lines of departure for any attempt to severe the LOC. So, probably, any long term defensive arrangment will be irrelevant. That is however a straw man in terms of entrenchment and fortification. A bn of rifleman with sapper in support can dig themselves to the point where they can withstand neutralisation fires within a day or two. By that, I mean simply dig deep enough, fast enough, without enough overhead cover that the result of taking neutralisation fires is you might be supressed and fixed, but your formation will remain combat effective (ie not more than 1/3 of your force is dead, wounded or a stress casuality)until someone closes with you to finish you off (other rifleman or afvs). Even a plt with limited building materials and a day or so can have a fair fist at least riding out smaller stuff and airbursts, if not perhaps mk 84s galore and mlrs bombardments. At the moment, Syrian dismounts don't have the ability to remain effective in the open in trenches when engaged by anything more serious than a MK19 GLA. Basically, I think the Syrian grunts should be able to dig in as fast and as effectively as a group of reservists on a weekened ex. I think it would make things more interesting tactically if you had to apply realastic amounts of force to neutralise a position, with only limited assets. It would get much harder for the US player to simply get into position, light up everything they can spot, and when faced with a local defensive node, call in fires and be certain its finished off. In reality, fighting with fires takes a long time against people who are prepared to dig and die when the time comes. Ala 2nd Battle of Faluja, ala 2005 Lebannon. Meaning, if you want to effect a rapid break through, your going to be manouvering more and firing to support that, rather than the doom with stykers sort of combat you get at the moment, where its about geting body count and standing off with and crew served weapons.

My own quick question, and its a bit whiny, but I think the Syrians should be able to strongpoint a house. Basic third world stuff, pretty easy, something you really would do if you valued your own life and that of your blokes, even a little bit. It would be nice to have a strongpointed house feature with firing loops, some resistance to everything other than serious firepower, concealed entry and exit and maybe some sort of claymore for christmas style set up for when its time to go as they mousehole your wall. Other than the Iraqis, I don't think 2nd world armies are that slow on the uptake that they just "say this house will do me nicely, bunker down and wait for a mechanised force to rock up and knock holes in the wall." I'd add in and make a video of 8 Plt's last stand and put it on youtube with a commentary running something like "oh yeah, hajj don't surf."

Adam1, I'm not going to be mean, and say look, or even think for a minute. Ask yourself the question what do you mean by HE performance. For what ? Engaging dues in the open, hosing down a contact, trying to knock over buildings ? Not all HE performance is the same. But would you believe that the BMP1 fires the same 73mm rounds as the SPG-9. Would you believe maybe somewhere between 300 to 600 grams of HE, fired at around 350 m/s. Where as the BMP2 fires 30mm rounds at about 950 m/s with about 50 grams at the pointy end (im guessing that, don't have reliable tab date, but i'm basing it on 25mm hei-t scaled up ). I'm sure there are armoured corps types around from the who have forgotten more than i know more about soviet autocannons and they can correct me. However assuming I'm right, you do some complex math. I can't do maths, but a 20 rounds burst of 30mm will put as much HE down or more, and will tear cover up more effectively, but the blast effect of each round of 73mm is considerably higher. Grunt instinct says that probably I'd prefer to be fired on with the 73mm low velocity stuff unless i was in deflaide and then the 73mm can no doubt fire indirectly on me. Steve, I understand why you toned down the 40mm GLA, it would be just utterly carnage for red otherwise. Still, I'd like to see it go through windows, thin walls and into trenches and wound. At typical ranges, its one of the more effective weapons in a section, along with the LAW and Minimi. As to the Syrians, they have at least an insituitional memory of standing up to mechanised forces (in favourable terrain for the most though) and as such, I would have thought the static tasked Syrians would be very much in a "dig or die" mindset, otherwise your open to observation and fires will ruin your day before you even get into a contact. At the very least, you'd dig individual fighting pits with overhead protection before you'd dig a linear trench that sticks out like dogs balls in the open. If I was a Syrian bn cdr, I'd find myself favourable terrain, preferably on a crest or plateau, dig in with overhead cover and some green bits, and try very hard to be invisible from the air, and be a hard target for fires (ideally you'd want to find something with a steep drop behind you and a hill in front). Otherwise I'd just be thinking 155mm VT is coming and I'm dead, and why didn't I become a doctor.

I think the 40mm GLA's and grendaes are severly undermodelled. Maybe the only explosive weapon that has disporportionate killing power are small AT rockets against infantry in the open. As to the griping that HE is the major killer, well firstly, its true, and second, until CMSF gets dispersion, cover and decent fortifications and entrenchments, its always going to be harder for the defender than it otherwise would be. Ergo, most of the trenches are linear, which is a huge mistake, most of them are shallow, lack overhead cover and from the effects of fire, clearly don't employ reinforcment and bursting layers, and scenario designers often sight them in poorly on low ground, which without vertical cover is just asking to get nailed. Combined with 10 men in 64m2 and its just asking to get smashed by fires. Now if you build a trench on favourable terrain, you should have LOS and LOF problems hitting whoever is in it, even if it is open and linear, but as the US player with AFVs, linear trenches are not a problem, and tactically the defensive arrangments in scenarios are often unsound. The trick is to lock your fires and deny firing points on your positions. Its why mines (command detonated or otherwise) and obstacles should be aviable to red on the defensive.

Two things really stand out. One is that the infantry have the ability to direct fire to finely, and second, allowing for the relatively accurate modelling of weapons, infantry in game behave like reactive targets rather than infantry. Infantry minor tactics are kind of lacking. Dudes pop up in the same spot over and over again, they skyline themselves, they like getting enflaided and they are really bad at hiding. In terms of movement across open terrain, its a lack of individual and section drills that makes small arms fire so lethal. That and perhaps the number of dudes shooting at any one target is far too high, considering that one of your basic considerations is that if i can see that dude, then he can probably see me, and that is probably a bad thing unless ive got the better cover. One of my major frustrations is my grunts can't pepper pot across open ground, have difficulty dispersing themselves, and move in spastic fireteam bounds. I've never seen them attempt a section movement in peels and leaps of 5m combined with copious fires and the proper use of concealement and cover. Instead they race to get into the beaten zone and get smacked up, although they remain combat effective far too long when caught in the open. I think JasonC covers the balance of anything I'd want to say, better than I can say it. I don't know if this has been added in as well, but dudes can't dig in and don't know about vertical cover and strongpointing fighting positions.

On one hand, Austrlian DCPU skins is a really nice idea, but on the other, as Gibson has pointed out its pretty useless. The make pretend factor is far too high. That said, its not an outrage that someone would consider knocking up an Auscam skin. What really interests me is why Gibson relates the point back to the ADF considering the use of CMSF as a training aid. I suppose you could give it to officer cadets as a tatical primer on mechanised warfare, but the Australian Army isn't big on that sort of thing.

The big fallacy is that not every RPG round knocks out IFVs and AFVs in game everytime. I often see two or three rpgs follow up, and that tends to result in very bad results for the passangers and crew. The evil RPG29 is close to one shot effective, but I routinely see Styrkers taking two or three hits, and dismounts surriving (although less dismounts surrive at the moment then previously).

Just so you know, I had a play in the editor and added some 122mm tubes (i just like blowing stuff up). Point fire mission with 122mm medium rate, medium duration, general ammo will destroy the town square building and have it show up as destroyed in the victory conditions.