DaveDash

Yeah what I meant was I think 30% intel shows you 30% of the enemy units picked at random as ?'s. Will be interesting to see if this is correct.

Thank you, you just proved the very first line of my post. Flawed is a matter or perception. None of your points even remotely have anything to do with the 'core' of the game, otherwise they wouldn't be getting fixed bit by bit with patching. CM:SF is flawed for sure if you are after some sort of magical real life combat simulation, but I'm not seeing too many of those around. Oh apart from this one cool game I heard about called joining the Army. This argument would only hold water if there wernt millions of complainers bored at work with nothing really better to do across hundreds of game forums for thousands of different games. Your post is way over-exaggerated. I don't blame BFC at all for their utter frustration at many people here. Many of you are acting like you just invested your life savings or something. How about some reality straight back at you? Seems to me some people have extremely unrealistic expectations these days. Comes from lack of experience I suppose, perhaps after this release there won't be soaring expectations for CMx2 WW2 and no doubt far less complaining and far more constructive critism. This just proves how apples to oranges comparing a car to computer software is. There are so many holes in that comparason it's ridiculous. The functions of car software is also extremely simplified compared to a graphical game where pixels on the screen need to figure out the difference between a bush and a rock while doing about 50 million other things. And guess what, I guarentee the most complex car software breaks and you have to PAY to get it fixed. Look at Formula 1, the absolute peak of technology and their cars break all the time. Gee whiz, think they could get that right with all their billions, staff, etc, lets go and complain! The day I start paying $40,000 for a computer game is also the day I expect it to run flawlessly. You guys can harp on about the BFC seal of quality and how you're dissapointed as much as you like. Fact is moving from abstract to 1:1 is going to cause issues. Abstract is easier to get right, 1:1 isn't, in fact, its expodentially more complex. I think some of you don't get that, maybe it's from not having any sort of actual background in computing, I don't know., The fact that BFC is sticking around to try and move closer to a 1:1 solution despite the sky is falling attitude. I've been in gaming communities where the Devs were like BFC is now, graced the forums, talked straight, etc, and due to many post like displayed in here simply just didn't do it any more. It just wasn't worth the hassle for them to try and explain concepts to people who just didnt get it. Would be a damn shame to have it happen hre. [ December 12, 2007, 07:07 AM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

Regarding the use of smoke, it would be nice for infantry when you click on pop smoke you get a target line (just like the target button) with a range of up to 20m or whatever.

Ive fiddled around with early intel before and it seems it puts red question marks over suspected enemy units. The higher the %, the more question marks there seem to be,

GSX 'flawed' at its very core is a matter of perception. Despite some of the annoyances I enjoy the game significantly, it runs, I can complete missions, and I can have fun. This is the first line of a new engine from BFC, please enlighten me and point me to a game dev, even a big one, that has released a new engine with this complexity and gotten it right on go one. What would be more useful is if you provided stated examples of what is flawed and suggested how to fix it in a constructive manner. If SF isn't want you want, then, perhaps another game would suit your style more, and perhaps you should consider not telling us all about it if you don't have anything constructive to say? How many times have I seen a game likened to a car, or this, or that. Cars are not complex. CM:SF is complex, vastly more complex than CMx1. you just don't see what goes on under the hood. Even the U.S. military can't get things right the first time, look how many 'patches' the F-22 needs. Microsoft Windows XP still has bugs, years later. You paid what, $40 USD for this game? A car costs thousands of dollars and in any such case any new generation car usually has millions of dollars behind it in testing. Apples to Oranges, get some perspective. Future releases will get better and better, the fact is we have to go through teething problems to get there, and I'm happy with that. At least BFC are still here working on issues, unlike other gaming houses that are forced into 'two patch only' policies by their publishers and you end up having to pay for an expansion pack to get the game fixed in the beginning. The naivety of this community is quite cute sometimes. But personally having played thousands of games of different genres, and been a member of hundreds of gaming communities, a lot of you guys really don't know how lucky you are. Cheers.

I really appreciate the feedback from BFC. The level of detail that you share with us on these forums really is beyond many other gaming communities where you rarely have contact with the developers.

Proper tracer colours are cool, but yeah, you've gotta be careful in games because they do end up looking like laser beams.

Hahahahahahaha. That is absolutely hilarious.

Yeah I had each team pop smoke. The problem was it blew the smoke away and I had to shuffle across to get in the smoke. Then, the smoke wasn't really where it said it was during the orders phase, so one team ended up exposed while the others sat around twiddling their thumbs wondering why their buddies were yelling out.

The patch will be here when it's here, no sooner, and no later.

I did a test under combat situation (a house with an enemy squad over the rise) and it still ended up reasonably bad no matter what way I did it. Splitting however I managed to get enough fire to bare upon the bad guys to eventually surpress them after taking about 3 casualties. I tried throwing smoke to get onto the crest, but the wind blew it away and half my squad got chopped up while the other half couldn't see the enemy to shoot back, apparently. Having a full squad means less casualties initially, but youll never get enough men on the ridge to surpress the enemy, so in the long run you'll either have to stay down there or suffer more casualties as your guys move onto the ledge 2 at a time and get cut down.

Oh definately it's not that simple. But as a general guideline I have found, a1:1 matchup will go the U.S. forces way.

Actually you're right. The face command only puts them in a nice line during setup, not afterwards. Problem is during movement they all bunch up into a group and lose their nice line formation. I did have much better luck by splitting the squad. Full Squad: Split Teams: Ahh that tip is extremely handy. It's frustrating to have an entire squad stuck at different levels of a building, including outsid, and refuse to move. I resorted to splitting the teams and merging them up later to get around it.

Well I've noticed that giving your units the 'face' command in "open" terrain makes them spread out in a lineish pattern. I might test giving them a 'face' command at the base of a ridge then move up up onto the edge of the ridge and see what happens.

Oh yeah, if they're in cover or prone they're almost impossible to kill. That's cool. You can have some real good firefights trying to route guys out of trenches or cover. My beef is when a unit which is sprinting across an alley and is exposed for about one second gets 2 casualties from a lone AK guy 150m up the alley, or guys about 400m away sprinting from cover to cover take half their squad in casualties from some machine gunner across the map as soon as they stand up. I guess I just hate losing infantry, especially as the U.S. side and especially when I'm being extremely careful. You don't have many guys to lose.

I'd like to know about this also. It seems to me that the KIA count is a proportion of guys left on the ground when the mission ends. Maybe if you 'healed' all your guys you won't get any KIA? I know since I've started paying attention and doing this, my KIA has dropped to about 1/5th of my WIA. Before it was 1/3rd to 1/2.

I'd like to know about this also. It seems to me that the KIA count is a proportion of guys left on the ground when the mission ends. Maybe if you 'healed' all your guys you won't get any KIA? I know since I've started paying attention and doing this, my KIA has dropped to about 1/5th of my WIA. Before it was 1/3rd to 1/2.

I'd like to know about this also. It seems to me that the KIA count is a proportion of guys left on the ground when the mission ends. Maybe if you 'healed' all your guys you won't get any KIA? I know since I've started paying attention and doing this, my KIA has dropped to about 1/5th of my WIA. Before it was 1/3rd to 1/2.

LOL.

Well a good example of small arms fire is Webwings Crossroads map. It's infantry only, with no artillery. You also only get three Javelins. Try doing that map without taking casualties. It really goes to show just how over-accurate some of the small arms is in game. On the other hand, snipers seem to be USELESS. I also find it hard to believe you take no casualties even with overwatch. Most of the time in this game your overwatch units will sit helpelessly doing nothing waiting for the info to be passed through the CoC while the unit they are overwatching gets hosed down. A classic example is the first campaign mission. Try assaulting the barracks through a breach in the wall with half a fricken division of vehicles overwatching. They'll all sit there doing nothing while your infantry get hosed to bits - even with target arcs. Overwatch currently basically means just area target whatever you're assaulting. Which in WEGO is a huge pain because you have to stop shooting eventually otherwise you'll hose your own guys, and then they have 60 seconds of doom to survive. The only way to keep your infantry casualties down is to basically blow up everything in their path, or use tons of smoke to get them into buildings, which can only be done with Strykers, since Bradley smoke is far more ineffective for moving troops from A to B. That of course means you have to get your Strykers close, yeah, good luck doing that with all the RPG's around. =P [ December 10, 2007, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

I can handle infantry getting mowed down in the open, but some of the shots in this game by your average untrained guy with an AK make me wonder. Often I see my guys mowed down by AK fire from 400+ meters as soon as they stand up, or exit from a vehicle. Often, running across a small alley can result in two guys down. Usually it's the defender that can do this. The attacker constantly 'forgets' where the enemy is after they've fired a few rounds and popped their heads down. Doesn't seem realistic to me at all. 1) I'd like to see some time taken for aimed shots at range. None of this bot like accuracy you find in games like Counterstrike. 2) I'd also like supporting units to hose know enemy positions if they, or nearby units are taking fire. It annoys me that if one vehicle gets fired upon, thats the only vehicle that actually fires back. Even if the other supporting vehicles can't see the enemy unit (even though they do have LOF or LOS) I'm sure they'd swivel their guns and area fire at the general target area where the shots are coming from. There's no need to wait for this info to be passed around the CoC when the friendly supporting unit is RIGHT there. 3) Units shouldnt forget so fast the position of enemy units. Memory of the enemy unit should 'fade' after time. This is done in operation flashpoint. If a guy shoots at you, then is pinned, your guys shouldnt forget he was there and should have their guns pointed in his direction. 4) Increased amounts of ammo for all units proportionally to reflect the much higher ammo consumption. It would be nice for defenders to have ammo dumps they can run to and rearm at also. I've fired a few weapons and even a guy running without cover is pretty fricken hard to hit at 400m's with optics. Unless you have some sort of automatic weapon or you're at close range with a shotgun you're not gonna hit them as much as is currently modelled. I've seen videos of Bradleys struggling to hit guys on the run at relatively close ranges. They basically had to wait till the guys dived for cover before they mowed them down. I've also seen a video of an insurgent sprinting for about 50m through open ground with an entire marine squad unloading at him, from about 150-200m away, including .50 cals, and they didnt hit him until he dived into a phonebooth. I think decreasing the accurace of small arms and increase the ammo would allow for some pretty intense firefights. Right now it's just small bursts of extreme lethality which basically cause you do keep your infantry stationary and blow up enemy positions with tanks or javelins. [ December 10, 2007, 01:10 PM: Message edited by: DaveDash ]

I think with force balance you have to basically just playtest. Warfare is a little more complicated in CM:SF than previous, since for example an ATGM can take out a tank from across the map but is all but useless against infantry, placement makes a huge difference, artillery is devistating, etc. In general though a U.S. company which is attacking will beat even those most hardcore Syrian company defending - it's more about how many casualties the U.S player takes. The more vehicles, artillery, and air support you give the U.S. player the easier it is going to be. I put a U.S. heavy mech company up against a reinforced Republican Guard mech company with tons of ATGMS, defending a heavily wooded large hill, heavily dug in. I then playtested by just being a complete noob with the U.S. forces. My theory was they should be heavily defeated. Turns out there isnt much 12 M1A1's can't stop - even staggered as reinforcements every 30 minutes. Sure the U.S. player lost about 9, but when the ATGMs run out the remaining tanks walk all over everything. So first thing of course is to remove a tank platoon, and try again. That's how I do it. Eventually you get it right.

I love Rural Map #2, but I created an infantry based battle on it and it groooooound to a halt. Vehicles it was fine with, but I guess the processing power of a companies worth of men trying to spot through all those trees was a bit much. I can have batallion sized battles on normal desert maps, so I figure its something to do with all the trees.

Mission 1 The first was Crossroads. U.S. HUMINT got word of the Syrian plans. They would engage our forces once reinforced, and launch a counter-attack from the western flank. U.S. plan was then to move two platoons west and capture the hill - while using a blocking force from buildings in th middle with 3rd platoon. B company would then move through A companies positions and take the town. Turns out our intelligence was wrong (I got plan 2). The Syrians engaged our men as soon as they left their cover! My platoon took heavy casualties and were pinned down. Not a good start. They managed to surpress the Syrian forces however and I snuck squads, on at a time, up the ridgeline to outflank the Syrians. I managed to route the Syrians from their foothold in the hills, and also captured the buildings north of my position to act as a blocking force. The Syrians seemed to be massing for a counter-attack on the eastern flank, opposite to what INTEL said, but they would get cut down if they tried. Annoyingly, before taking up blocking positions, 2nd Platoon took casualties from the opposing force on the hill before they even got to move. Also, 1st Platoon gained the hill too late to inflict heavy casualties on the enemy moving around in the town, although the irregular reinforcements were cut down as they tried to run across the open ground. Meanwhile, I send one of the recon squads around to collect casualties and help the wounded. B company arrived on the scene, and pushed up the eastern flank. It looks like most of the enemy have been killed now or are out of ammo as my men search for targets to engage. Everything is quiet and it seems the crossroads will soon be mine. Two squads from 1st Platoon, B company, cross the ridgeline between the eastern most houses and an entire Syrian platoon is on the reverse slope waiting for them. Chaos ensures and the Squads takes heavy damage. I rush 2nd Platoon forward along the Orchard to help, but they get cut down by Syrians on the rooftops. This is where I took significant casualties. B companies advance halts as they fight tooth and nail with the Syrians and try to deal with their wounded. (I try not to leave wounded soldiers lying on the battlefiend). 3rd Platoon, A company advances across the western flank to try and gain a foothold on the town, and take the heat off B company. The houses are jammed packed with enemy units however and 3rd Platoon, A company gets pinned down and takes heavy casualties. B company eventually overwhelms the enemy after some hard fighting and the Syrians finally surrender with 32 minutes left to go. Total Victory: 9 KIA 44 Wounded So I got the other AI plan. I think the original one however is more polished and a bit harder. I also think all the uncon guys that run across the ridge should turn up on technicals and reinforce the armys positions, would make for a hell of a fight. Still, I love this mision. Mission 2 Plan was to gain the western hill and move all Bradley units around and attack the town from the west. I rushed this one a bit and foolishly didn't dismount all my men. 3 Bradleys were destroyed in the chaos that prevailed after the Syrian counter-attack, frying the squads in them. All the ambushed men survived. Major Victory: 19 KIA 9 Wounded 3 AV lost This mission wasnt too bad. If I wasnt so careless I probably could have won it with no loses. Mission 3 Well I noticed I was given a vast array of forces and massive artillery support. I wonder then what I must be up against. I decide to peek my tanks over the ridges first to draw some fire and take a look, while also moving the FO into position to blow the town to smitherines before moving any men in there. My tanks make short work of all enemy armour in the town, they don't even get to fire a shot. I then move my FO into position and call down quick, genereal artillery bursts on all the houses he can see. I just know they're going to be loaded full of Syrians. I also move the platoon near the west hill into position to take the hill to spot enemy units. Unfortunately though I stray too close one Stryker is destroyed by RPG fire along with the squad in it. I decide to hang back and I bring hell down upon most areas of the town where I know infantry are. My artillery decimates most of the enemy infantry in town, and I gingerly move my tanks in to explore around before sending any infantry in. My tanks make short work of any infantry remaining in town, my scout Platoon takes some casualties while they advance across the south-east fields, it appears the last few buildings still have quite a few Syrians occupying them, and they don't realise the fight is lost. My tanks quickly destroy the buildings and the Syrians in them. Total Victory: 12 KIA 9 Wounded 2 AV lost All in all pretty easy. I got the feeling this mission was designed to be easy so the player got to feel some payback. I think the first mission is still the best by far. The campaign could have been more fun if the maps were more designed around each mission, and that would probably require new maps. The rescue one, for example, could be fun if your supply line further back supplying the now captured crossroads needed clearing, and then the final mission could be YOU have to defend the crossroads with your resupplied two companies against some sort of overwhelming assault.

Well the battle is over, resulting in Total Victory for the U.S. Initial reports indicate U.S. casualties amount to 40 KIA, 62 Wounded, and 5 Armored Vehicles lost. It is reported the Syrians suffered 408 KIA, 266 Wounded, 8 Tanks Lost, and 11 Armored Vehicles lost. Pictures and an indepth report from the battlefield to come (When my internet speeds up )