DaveDash
-
Posts
539 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by DaveDash
-
-
Dave: I play with highest/best everything and just about every mod available with no problems. I have 6 GB Ram and a good nVidia card (295 I think).
I use an SSD for swap files, (but I should have put my whole OS on the SSD as that seems to really make things faster).
I would have to see your onscreen movement to determine that maybe I just don't notice jerkiness or whatever you are experiencing. But, you seem well "over-powered" for CMSF, so not sure how you would diagnose other than hiring an expert.
MY machine is a dedicated game machine so it has the min of other crap loading at start. May want to check what other crap is running if you have not already. I am sure you will get the cobwebs out eventually. Good luck, it sounds like a great system.
Cheers bud, it's 100% video card related though and not CPU/HDD/RAM.
GTX 295 is better than my card I think, that's a very good card. Could also be CMSF just doesn't run as well on ATI's. Some games are like that.
-
What I do is send FOs to overwatch positions and send in a Stryker to briefly enter the ATGMs LOS, then quickly pop smoke/reverse so it wont get hit. After the ATGM gave away its position, I call in immediate fire support.
But I only tried this once.
This won't save you against AT-14's, so pay special attention to the briefing.
I haven't found an adequite way of dealing with AT-14's that doesnt have luck as a factor. You are either going to risk losing vehicles, or risk losing a higher number of infantry due to minimal vehicle support. It's a call you have to make.
BLUEFOR tanks in hull down positions have a good chance of surviving (or the AT-14 missing) them. However, I'd be very careful of this with the Leo2 since based on my testing, it is a lot weaker on the front armour than the other BLUEFOR tanks. Again though this relies on luck. Some figures for you based on my testing: Attrition Rates (Chance of being destroyed by AT-14 hitting the front in hull down) M1A2 ~0%, M1A1 varients and Challey 2: ~10%, Leo 2: 33%
If you have air support such as Helos, they are also pretty good at taking out AT-14s. During the setup phase, put area fire CAS targets over likely ATGM spots. Still luck is involved. Unfortunately they also don't tell you WHAT they are engaging, so you have no idea if it's an ATGM or regular infantry.
And finally calling down a ton of artillery and moving from cover to cover is a good way of advancing and closing the distance between you and them, so you have a better chance of spotting and engaging them.
You also really need to do your maths. Special Forces usually have 4 AT-14 sections, regular Syrian infantry usually have 2 AT-4s and 2 SPGs, etc etc. So pay attention to likely spots based on what the briefing tells you is there, and then count how many ATGM teams you have identified and destroyed.
All the other REDFOR ATGM's don't really stand a chance if you have Tanks as long as you keep your tanks in hull down facing the ATGM's, but if you only have IFV's the same logic applies as Tanks vs AT-14s.
Here is a youtube channel of my playing "Milk Run", the USMC campaign when you have to deal with ATGM's (not AT-14s)
The action is slow to start in the beginning due to a recon phase, so skip to video PART 4 or so when my tanks show up.
-
Yeah, there is something wrong there. My ancient (one year old) system doesn't have your power and I have no problems at all.
Are you ATI or nvidia? Also do you play on best / best?
EDIT: Further tests indicate that one of my mods is slowing the game down a bit too (I suspect it's the NATO icons, but will verify in a minute). Removing my entire Z folder gives me an extra 5-10 or so FPS. Still can't play it with satisfactory FPS on BEST 3D Models though, but still it doesnt look to shabby:
BEFORE(old computer):
AFTER (new computer):
-
So you just reached for your backup ...
BTW any update on that other request / project of yours?
Ah my backup I thought was on the BFC website
I managed to recover my files using some data recovery guys at work.
Check your PM.
-
I think we can get bogged down in details until the cows come home, but the fact is for me and many other dedicated CMx2 players, many of us are very happy with the outcomes the game produces now. This is in no small part due to guys like c3k's constant bug finding, the BETA testers dedication, and BFC's dedication to the engine.
The game now does not ruin the suspension of disbelief, and acts in a predictable and believable manner. The immersion factor blows away anything CMx1 can provide, and the ability to use and apply real life tactics, as demonstrated by a few of our military posters, is higher than CMx1 due to the nature of better fidelity and the new C2 and spotting systems.
The big "gotcha" moment for me is that CMx2 taught me to use significantly better tactics that CMx1 because the higher fidelity makes it far less forgiving to error.
Yes modern weapon lethality plays a part in this, but it doesn't tell the whole story. The game -can- be far more lethal if YOU the PLAYER, do stupid things, and that has taught me overall to be a much better tactician, especially when it comes to terrain (which is much better modelled in CMx2), squad level tactics, and Command and Control. I went and read up on real life tactics, applied them to the game, and those real life tactics worked. So somehow it can't be that bad of a simulation.
Looking forward to the improvments Normandy brings.
Steve: One note about the assault command - I'd love to see the fireteam providing securty and/or support NOT be suppressed when the assault team is. That's a bit of a big bug for me at the moment, and I believe you guys know about it?
-
If this were true there wouldn't be millions using it. I've had it for 4 years and I never get "spammed". Unless you count a pop up coming up when they have the entire game catalog all 33% off on black friday
. Maybe I'm overreaching a bit here, but it seems to me that older people (i.e. 35+) are either completely clueless when it comes to computers or super paranoid about viruses/spam 
. I'm just guessing you're older since basically everyone on this forum is.Personally, I love it, I can see when my friends are playing, what games they're playing (it even lets you know if they're playing non-steam games... i.e. someone can see me playing CMBB), what damn server they're on even, and lets them/me invite me to their game server. Not to mention I like having (almost) all my games accessible in one easy spot. The downloads are always rapid for me too, at least if the game isn't a decade old. I average probably around 700-800kb/s for patches. Super old games it's more like 150kb/s. But then again, super old games have much smaller patches
. Also not being able to lose your game cd and/or cd key is a plus. If you move house you don't have to lug around your game collection 
.That said, some people just don't like it because they like "hard" versions of their game (i.e. with CD/printed manual).
X2. Steam is just like the PC version of Xbox live or what have you. Its never spams you and I don't really care if it collects data on what games I play. Avoiding such things in life today is almost impossible.
The ONLY problem I have with it, is it locks you into playing games through the client for most games. This can be troublesome sometimes, and downloads are not 700-800kb/s here for me in Australia at least.
But yes a big bonus is never losing your game collection, unlike BFC who have the downloads expire after a year, which caused me a bit of grief when one of my hard drives died.
-
Well, it doesn't run slow any more after fiddling around with CCC and the in game settings. I get about 30-40fps @ 1920x1200 on "Improved" and "best", with CCC controlled AA (2x) on large maps, which is good enough.
But still, it's the only game that I cannot run on a comfortable framerate at max settings. I think it is because on "Best" 3d Modelling (as opposed to improved) the draw distance is a lot higher and there are A LOT of objects to render. Would be interesting to know if anyone can run it on full settings getting 50+ FPS, and what their specs are.
-
I'm pretty sure that pointing to the strengths for design for effect vs. engineering literalism, and specifically with a focus on the dominant force of various forms of "soft failure" in infantry combat, is the polar opposite of players demanding more micromanagement to fix underperformance in the pursuit of perfect control.
One poster glossed my earlier comments this way - "in CM the soldiers are not reluctant enough to go into their death". X-zactly. Very big part of it.
I think every significant advance in the realism of combat simulations since oh about the mid 1970s, when they were just absymal, has come through innovative design and new mechanics, nearly all of them (I'd stump for literally all but might overlook something) first appearing in low tech board wargames, back when game designers took their craft fairly seriously, and had to in order to stand out. I think the board wargames of today are light years ahead of even the best board wargames of that era, in their ability to recreate the true command dilemmas and actual OR relationships determining the outcomes of battles, operations, and campaigns. And I think they are also light years ahead of computer wargames, on the same subject. Computer wargames excel at immersion and playability, but nearly all of them have had just atrocious game play and OR fidelity. CM stands out by miles ahead of the computer wargame field in that respect - it gets about to the level of good board wargames of an earlier era. It doesn't reach the heights of contemporary wargame design for the board, in my opinion, though those excel at larger scales than it tries to handle.
Infantry combat with morale and a leader-command and control system - boards first. We go - boards first, but much more playable on the computer. Double blind - goes back to original Kriegspiel as played by militaries, again much more playable on the computer. Detailed gun to armor match ups with specific tracking of each shot to different hit locations - boards first (Tobruk system for those unfamiliar). CM did it better but nothing like perfectly. Replayable scenario system with point based force design, boards first. Etc. I understand BTS being proud of what they've achieved on the computer, and bully for all that. But I am not measuring them against video games. I am comparing them to serious board wargames of modern design - which I spend more of my time playing these days, frankly.
Yes you could engineer in lower bravery for the average pixeltruppen. Probably should, but at any rate we can do some of it as players, which is great. But once committed to the engineering solution to everything, first the problems aren't as apparent because the effect being designed for has been tossed - the sim does whatever it does, it is not being measured against a real result. A design for effect designer is trying to recreate a definite thesis about the key OR variables faced, and it is quite clear he hasn't if he misses. Second, because the bits that don't get engineered enough are always those harder to measure or implement, and the whole affair becomes an MM rabbit hole when you try to solve it with the engineered version.
Take cover seeking. What miracles does the tac AI need to be able to perform, to get it perfect, as measured by realistic resulting loss rates and their time profile through the engagement, when using a 1 to 1 engineered approach? The terrain needs to have every wiggle in it. The men need to see every wiggle. The men need to assess every scrap of incoming fire and settle into the appropriate wiggles, some of which are exposed to fire from different locations or to fire of different sorts of weapons, while being vulnerable to others. You get some of the way by those who do living longer and those who don't being wiped out, but this falsifies the experienced loss rate to achieve half the result.
But to design for effect it? Dead simple. Units have some abstract suppression level, taken from the morale system anyway. They have some abstract exposure percentage to incoming fire. Just link the two - more suppressed units fire less often but also effectively have automatically better cover. "Oh but truly billiard table lethality would go wrong" - simple, tie the suppression gain to the terrain exposure level; on 100% exposed train tracks or wire, no improvement is available; in an 11% stone building lots is. "Oh but the high cover would soak up too much ammo and get ammo expenditure per casualty wrong" - so you link that. Every critical variable is directly in the designer's hands. He has to know what key OR relations are involved and what he wants, but if he does he can get it and get it straighforwardly. Without needing to invent lines of code as smart as the self preservation instincts of scores of living men.
I understand the reasons why designers go engineer instead. They think they are going to get gobs to great realism for free. But in fact, they get gobs of lethality and superhuman heroism for free - and no doubt, good immersion too, a fine selling point in a world of first person shooters. But that isn't the metric, "combat realism" or putting the strategy player in the OR dilemma "shoes" of the historic military situation. It is a different one and legit in its own right in business terms, no doubt.
But all the advances in game design, have come from and continue to come from conscious game design. They come relatively slowly and infrequently, and on some platforms can stagnate outright for a decade at times. Basically none have come from engineering realism attempts to avoid the OR driven design problem. And I don't expect any to, pretty much ever.
You really have absolutely no means to critize CMx2 games based on factors such as disobeying orders and such. Those factors are up to the PLAYER to dictate as he sees fit.
Im also getting the idea from you post you haven't touched CMSF in a while. CMSF isn't "Super Lethal". Are you even aware some of us are griping over on the CMSF forums because certain aspects of the game (HE) are not lethal enough?
Have you even witnessed the TacAI retreat when overwhelmed? Refused to take your orders when shaken? Anything beyond that is entirely in the hands of the player, you can make the game as realistic or as unrealistic as you like by issuing the orders you like. Are you even reading any of the comments presented so far in this thread about TacAI behaviour? Human behaviour? Look at the tactics and tutorials thread in the strategy forum, where a US army officer goes through various missions applying real life tactics in game - and they work. Can you do that with your boardgame? .
Im glad you're into your boardgames, but they have one huge striking disadvantage that they will never overcome; You can't play boardgames against yourself. And its inevitable that computer games will eventually get far far far closer to reality as time, technology, and experience goes on than boardgames will ever achieve with their abstraction. CMSF isn't there yet, it can feel a little robotic at times. But thank god we have guys like BTS pushing the boundries, and more importantly, listening to their fans and supporting/improving the games well beyond what other developers would do.
-
they're very supportive of indie companies and the mod scene in general.
In short, they're not EA or Activision.
This is true. Ive found some obsqure games on Steam from one/two man bands, that I never would have known about otherwise.
-
Yeah actually releasing the game through Steam will almost certainly increase your customer base, but god it can be a nightmare.
I am extremely anti the fact that I have to install the game through steam, then steam has to update itself, then apply patches, etc, all before I can play it. Sometimes, when your net connection is slow or steam is slow, it can take all fricken night just to play a game you just purchased (even via DVD).
-
Thanks for the HoI2 example, Michael. I'm sure there are people out there who love the features that caused you to give up on it (again), but that's exactly my point. The audience who loves, really loves, that sort of level of control is extremely small. Micromanagement controls are, in our opinion, a lazy solution that eventually crushes the fun right out of the game. This isn't to say that CMx1 or CMx2 had perfect interfaces, because neither did. Difference is that CMx2 will be improved over time in that area.
The Vinyl vs. CD argument is, as DaveDash said, "amusing". When I bought a vinyl record I also bought a high end audio tape. The first time I ever played the record I also recorded it. Then I put it away and didn't touch it again unless I had to replace the tape. Why? Two reasons... 9 times out of 10 I wanted to listen to my music in my car, in my Walkman (heh... remember those?), in my room doing homework, or someplace where my turntable wasn't. I also did it because I wanted the crispest, cleanest recording possible. No matter how careful you are with vinyl the mere act of playing it causes wear and the potential for damage.
As soon as CDs became somewhat affordable I jumped to it with gusto. And with digital music I haven't bought a CD in several years with one exception (wasn't on iTunes at the time). As I listen to randomly mixed music, within a particular genre, sometimes 10 hours a day... the last thing I think about is "boy, I really miss my vinyl".
Steve
Well the other reason I found it amusing is because Vinyl has a more "1:1" representation of music (being analog) ie, CMx2.
-
I'll try to keep this short because it is not directly related to CM, but recently I experienced a good example of that. In the last month or two I developed a mild hankering to play HoI2 again, which I eventually succumbed to. So I moved the icon back up onto my desktop and broke out the manual to get back up to speed on it. About a third of the way through the manual I realized that I just didn't want to play that badly. It didn't help that the manual is written in a somewhat verbose style that is not organized to help the reader find the information he is looking for. But the bottom line is that there was just too much that the player has to do in order to play this game. Now I've never been a beer & pretzel gamer by a long shot, but I find myself wishing that the designers of HoI could have found a way to streamline it while keeping in the essential parts that could make for interesting play. Instead of it being entertaining or fun, it was a toilsome chore to try to get through it.
That's in addition to many other things that can be criticized about the game, but none of that belongs in this thread.
Michael
HoI3 you can put various parts of your country under AI control for this very reason (trade, research, production, etc), and your can put formations under AI control to, from the Theatre level down to the Corp level. In fact, if you wanted to, which you dont, the AI could control pretty much everything.
Illustrates the point, I think.
I find CMx2 is pretty much at the limit of how much micromanagement I want to do. I'd like to see more intelligent behaviour around certain things, to take away some "area target" micromanagement, but adding any more level of player control would just bog it down. Having full individual squad control would be a nightmare in micromanagement, because I doubt the AI would get itself right. Have a look at how retarded the AI is in games like OFP/ArmA etc.
So basically IMO CMx2 is in the sweet spot of fidelity. The CD/Vinyl record analogy is rather amusing (being a part time DJ and dealing with oldschool elitists). Fact of the matter in my opinion is that CMx2 in its current state is a FAR superior combat simulation to CMx1, so much so I cannot be bothered with CMx1 now due to its flaws. CMx1 has a old "wargamers" feel to it though, that like an old Vinyl record, has a lot of nostalga attached.
-
One thing that niggles with me sometimes is the automated bit of the action spots for multi section squads. For example if you want a squad to move often one of the action spots alway highlighting where you don't want a team to go.
This isn't a problem because we can split squads but the then they go out of C2.
I'd like to see the C2 taken another level lower to let split sections get some C2 so long as the squad leader can communicate with his split team leader be that by sight, audible, or in modern electronic.
If you give the guys a FACE command at the end of the waypoint, they all get into a good position. And as mentioned, they move around to get good firing positions on their own accord.
Examples: Move infantry to a berm, give them a face command, they will all line up on the crest of the berm. Same with a wall. In forests and other terrain features, they will automatically find the points of best cover in the action spot.
I have very rarely seen units not being able to get LOS due to positioning these days. The ATGM team examples just don't happen in the game much anymore. Your guys move around by themselves in an intelligent manner to get LOS based on their weapon system. The only major problem I have witnessed is vehicles not having LOS to infantry units inside buildings (at the corners) because the vehicle cannot see the centre of the building.
Also AFAIK units share C2 in a limited radius.
-
I did something similiar to BlackMoria
But the key point remains, DO NOT WORRY ABOUT THE OBJECTIVES. You will lose far more points for getting your men killed than for not taking an objective. If you break the Syrians will to fight, you will win. The key to all NATO missions is slow, deliberate, with the goal of forcing him to surrender before the time limit runs out. Gamey? Maybe, but so are 1-2 hour timelimits.
What I did was I used fire and manouvre at a slow cautious pace.
First, I called down supporting indirect artillery on the tall buildings at the back, and the tall building on my left flank near the front of the village, as they were likely ATGM/MG spots.
I then used my initial LAVs to set up a base of fire to the rear right flank of the hill so their entire left front/left side was anchored and protected against the hill, and moved some supporting dismount assets into those buildings on the right flank also to get eyes on the village. I set up two LAVs in Hull Down on the hill and suppressed all buildings they could see, then I moved the next two LAVS next to them to the right, and then they suppressed all the buildings they could see. I then took my original two LAVS and moved them to the right, etc etc.
Any SPG, ATGM, or MG that was spotted was suppressed immediately with mortars and 25MM from the LAVs.
When second platoon showed up, I moved them in a similiar fashion, but was far more aggressive. I moved right around to the right side of the map, behind that tall building. Two LAV's would sit and fire, the other two bound, then the previous two would take their place. I managed to get that platoon of LAVs all the way up the right flank so they were looking at right angles to the village. I then moved infantry from 1st Platoon (my supporting base of fire) up to the top of the hill into the rubble of the buildings hit by arty, and then moved the dismounts from 2nd Platoon up to the tall building, putting the MG up the top, and moved the platoon in under the covering fire of the LAVs/1st Platoon into the first village and cleared it.
By this stage, I had killed most of the enemy contacts and suffered similiar casualties to BlackMoria, although I did have one LAV immobilized by a SPG.
I play in RT, so such 'shoot and scoot' tactics are much more viable than in WEGO.
It's worth noting in this mission the briefing says you get re-supplied next mission. So that was my queue to go nuts with firepower and supression.
-
The dual socket Nehalems have one memory bank for each processor and the PCIe slots are on the first processor.
It is possible that you can improve the situation by binding the game process to a core that is in the first CPU to prevent it from "wandering off" to the other CPU which isn't directly connected to the PCIe bus and hence the graphics card.
It's more likely to be some slowness directly associated with the graphics card, though.
Yeah I feel it's mostly graphics card related. I am wondering if the 1920x1200 resolution is killing the game. I'll change my desktop resolution lower and see if that impacts performance, but I wonder if there are any switches to change the resolution to 1680x1050 and keep my desktop at 1920x1200?
It appears the draw distance is way larger on this machine than my previous one, so I am wondering if CMSF does some internal calculations to figure out draw distance that isnt related strictly to graphics settings? I mean trees and vehicles stay high resolution across the map, while grass changes after a certain distance.
EDIT: Ok, I am not sure what I have done, but installing CCC, using that to control AA etc, and turning multisampling ON in CMSF (Before it was off!) has given me a huge boost to performance. The game now runs quite well on "Improved" 3D quality (draw distance basically) and Best Textures.
-
Hi guys,
I just picked up a new computer. Basically, 12GB of RAM, Intel i7 Dual CPU Quad Core 2.93gHz, and an ATI HD 4890 video card.
Now the 4890 video card isn't the newest (being about a year and a half old) but it is still probably one of the third-fourth best video cards on the market for gaming today.
Every game I throw at my computer it runs at 1920x1200 on max settings fine, including newer games like Dragon Age, Farcry, and so forth.
CMSF however the performance on the best settings at 1920x1200 leaves a bit to be desired. It's a bit choppy when viewing a good number of 3D models under "Best" and "Best" (terrain is smooth, but units are not). Having AA/Multisampling on/off doesn't seem to make much of a difference. It's the only game where I cannot run the game satisfactory on high settings. This is purely 3D graphics related and obviously nothing to do with RAM or CPU.
Im running the latest ATI video drivers, but just the drivers, I dont have CCC installed, as I am dubious as to whether it helps or not. Happy to be corrected wrong here.
Is there any 'tweaking' I can do here, or am I just going to have to suck it up?
EDIT: after fiddling around a bit, the biggest cultrit seems to be towns, ie lots of buildings. The game runs best on 'balanced / balanced' which doesn't seem right for this rig. That's what I played on with my laptop which is far inferior spec wise (on 1680x1050 mind you). Downloading and fiddling with CCC doesn't seem to make a hell of a lot of difference.
-
Nice post LongLeftFlank. I do agree that lethality in CMSF in the earlier days was the biggest killer of the suspension of disbelief for me, and let's be honest, some issues still remain.
The biggest killers in CMSF I have noticed is A) movement with infantry, its quite possible to lose a man to some guy with an AK-47 at 400m when running around, and
Rooftops and balconies are still death traps. Balconies in particular need some remodelling so the balcony isn't an area troops can walk onto, because moving out onto them is just asking to die.I'd also be happy with a general level of 'tweak' for the abstract amount of cover in the game to be bumped up, especially in buildings, and accuracy to be reduced for the lowest experience troops.
-
It's not a bug. Im 99% certain I've heard Steve or someone official mention this behaviour. Although it -is- very rare.
-
If they were real men under the same orders I think you'd find an 80% tally with reality. It's just no-one gives the orders we give (bar possibly the Soviets early WWII) as they have force preservation, logistics and writing letters to worry about.
This is not necessarily true.
When I first started playing CMSF, I got high casualties. Way higher than the US sustained in real life. As the engine improved, and as my own tactical ability improved, my casualty count became in line far more with what was expected in real life.
The recent NATO campaigns basically force you to have less than 15% casualties or you get heavily penalized, force you to conserve ammo, and all your units are core, so any casualties you sustain follow on to the next missions. So they force you to adopt proper real life tactics. I use smoke like never before, I never move infantry around without suppressive fires, I never cross firing lanes without or cover, I don't drive vehicles around willy nilly without considering terrain.
The AI suffers unrealistic casualties, not because of an inherent flaw in the simulation, but because it not capable of using real life tactics. However, the AI's ability to preserve itself is considerably greater than what it used to be (like I mentioned in my earlier post), and I expect it to be even better in CM:Normandy.
This is actually a testament to the strength of the new engine. It can produce realistic results if you use realistic tactics, and it still produces realistic results if you use poor tactics.
The two major constraints of the game are: Unrealistic Time Limits. This is a CMSF issue purely installed by scenario designers for the sole purpose of making the game challenging, since the engine supports up to 4 hours now, and the lack of strategic vision by the enemy AI. In many cases in real life the AI would just withdraw instead of fight to the death, but that is beyond the scope of the game.
-
I always did think the accuracy of small arms in CMSF was a little too high (or perhaps, cover not adequate enough), but on the same account, you only have 1-2 hours to finish your scenario and thus that needs to be taken into consideration. I imagine however, CMBN will have accuracy of many weapon systems much reduced.
I think it is worth mentioning that many CMx1 players probably picked up and tried CMx2 in the very early days. The game is VASTLY improved, especially from an infantry stand point, these days. And I expect CMBN to be even better.
Your infantry units find cover better, react to fire better, path find better. For example, there were times in the early days where units struggled for LOS on berms, or targeting infantry at the top of roofs. These days they move around into a better position to fire, and stick to cover much better. The game is truly enjoyable and believable now (as opposed to many frustrating moments in the early days), and I can't wait to see what Normandy brings.
One thing I'd LOVE to see in the initial release of Normandy, or later patches, is more suppressive fire on the part of the TacAI. At the moment the game is a bit clinical with its suppressive fire (I understand improvements were introduced along the way, especially with contacts that faded out of view). I think this is especially true with MGs and such. I've never been in combat so its quite possible I'm talking out my ass, but if you look at combat videos there is a constant barrage of fire going down range. CMx2, unless you control it yourself (which can get tedious with large formations), fire tends to happen in spurts. I'd live to see the TacAI being more aggressive with its suppressive fires.
-
I try to do it but usually have to jump back and forth because I can't find my own guys! That and you can't unload infantry from a Stryker or what not, without them.
Mord.
Im fairly certain you can have your icons on, and enemy icons off by going through the alt-i options.
Do the other tanks have a direct LOS to the target as well? Or was something blocking the target? Because I have never seen this myself.[Edit] I just did a test myself, and no way it's 1 second, it's more in term of minutes.
Exactly. He is either over-exaggerating the issue or playing on basic training skill level.
-
DaveDash, I'm pretty sure that can't happen. My guess is it's a different guy going from green to yellow after buddy aid on the red guy is finished (whereupon he vanishes).
WIA stay WIA, they don't come back to fight again.
Well I've either read in the manual or heard BFC say it can happen, and I've seen it happen. It wasn't what you said, a squad with 1 man left went to 2 men after the red WIA got treated by his squad mate, and he ended up yellow. I specifically remember this squad going from 1 man to 2 men, and it was no where near any combat.
-
Also on the odd rare time I've seen a wounded guy (red) turn yellow after treating him.
-
I think it would be a huge PIA for your own forces. You'd have to use the mod for enemy forces only.
Quite often I call down area fire on a contact and do it from the enemies PoV, and I'm buggered if I'm clicking through 30 different infantry icons to find my HQ unit or FO.
Also when you actually click on a unit, doesn't it give you information as to what it is? IE "1st Squad....Rifle"
. Maybe I'm overreaching a bit here, but it seems to me that older people (i.e. 35+) are either completely clueless when it comes to computers or super paranoid about viruses/spam 
. I'm just guessing you're older since basically everyone on this forum is.
.
Rooftops and balconies are still death traps. Balconies in particular need some remodelling so the balcony isn't an area troops can walk onto, because moving out onto them is just asking to die.
Approach against ATGM concealed positions
in CMSF Strategy and Tactics Forum
Posted
Not im my experience, and I've used them a lot in the Canadian campaign. Weakened? Yes. Need a tweak back in the other direction? Yes. Pretty much useless? No.
JDAMS are the biggest "WTF" at the moment.