Darkmath

Well, if you check the TO&E pages, you can see in gun/Howitzer the "6pdr AT Gun (Airborne)" ...

People have various opinion about the CMBN graphics ; some says it's acceptbale, other found it as the same level as a modded CMX1... While surely the engine is of no matche with big market games , the last category somehow puzzles me ; I found the engine features a quite important amount of details, but something is still making the game not good enough for 2011 standards, but I can't tell what. So what do you think could be improved in CMBN graphics technically speaking? Is something moddable or not? IMHO, it may come from 2 elements : The low drawing distance of details and the background skybox. THe last one especially bugs me : It looks like the background has the same res as CMX1! I don't know if someone is currently working on some HD background, but do you think it would dramatically change dramatically?

Hello there! That's quite a very long time before I post here again. After playing a bit of CMSF, I've concluded that asymetric warfare was not for me, so I've been waiting until good old CM WW2 come back. CMBN Demo has definitely convince me to buy the game . CMX2 is now a real pleasure to play, not to mention the good looking environment (and it's my homeland !!! I could play those landing beach scenarios with 14inchs arty I couldn't do back in CMAK days ), as well as the good feedback about the AI . Still, hand to hand combat puzzlez me since I've had US and Syrian squad in CMSF hanging around for a tea break 10 metres apart. So, is hand to hand combat featured now, visually or even abstractly? If not, is it planned to be included some day? One more thing , manual said you could use bunker as a shelter for infantry. Could we use bunker to fit an AT gun in it? Thanks in advance

Although I'm not sure I will buy the Marine Module yet , but 1.1 patch bring a lot of improvement I wouldn't have expected , especially dynamic AI arty or TACAI. Since the list isn't definitive, I am wondering how's it going for several points not mentionned : -Hand to hand combat modelling -Moveable waypoints -WEGO in TCP IP mode

Just to mention what I based my opinion on. web page Featuring a familiar poster from this board...

Well, it's not my opinion : I think 25$ is a fair price (even more so with euros/dollar exchange rate ) , it has just happen that CMSF price has been lowered so that the module is more expensive than the title.

Well, having BMP 3 and T90 (but still no 23mm AA vehicles) is great for more challenging blue vs red setting but... is that all? People who disliked premature releases of CMSF and haven't played again since, are not very enthusiastic about paying for 25$ (while CMSF is now sold for less than 15$) just for new TOEs features. Are there engine related (StratAI, TCPIP WEGO, )improvements in the module to come? Or would they be included in patches?

IMHO, I think cornering is ,though usefull, is micromanagement at an entire squad scale. I mean, how IRL 10 men could be ordered to corner at the same time? How many soldiers could be ordered to overwatch at a corner ? In this case, I would think you can't put reasonably more than 3 soldiers who can really overwatch a corner , as you already said. But 3 soldiers isn't a squad or even a split squad. As for the tactical problem itself , maybe you could put several HUNT waypoints to the corner so that the last waypoint is perpendicular to the buildings, then the squad will be facing directly the threat. Instead of a straight line, you would have a detour via the front of the bunker. Make sure the squad is out of their LOS in previous waypoints, if it's ever possible. Problem: the squad redeploy in each waypoints. I'm affraid the redeploy "dance" could make the squad in enemy's LOS . I don't think it's a good solution either.

I have seen my T72 2001's 125mm APFSDS bouncing or shattering on M1A1HC front armor in the scenario a fistfull of doodads as close as 30 metres! So I don't want M1A1 armor be increased anymore! I got the same results at close range with M1A1 vs M1A1 at close range : 120mm APFSDS round won't penetrate the front armor.

While I like the retroactive improvements for previous modules idea, I have some concerns about the development strategy (just my humble opinion, so I hope I may be wrong) Are you going to hire extra 3D modeller/ scenario designer? I'm affraid that a parallel development is too much for a small company like BFC ; as you don't concentrate on a single title, the quality of both titles might be lower than expected. Also, a few requests for the next titles : -hand to hand combat(abstracted will be enough for me) -prisoners -Collision model -Bring back CMBO's 14 inch battleship gun! [ April 09, 2008, 09:39 AM: Message edited by: Darkmath ]

In Trident Valley scenario as Syrian (the most difficult side )in 1.06, a squad on a hill outside one of the 3 villages hit the enemy Bradley's flank. 10 seconds later, the Bradley left the village then moved around the squad until the vehicle spots my soldiers. :eek: I don't know whether it was the results of a well timed AI plan or a dynamic AI decision . Anyway, it's sill amazing.

I concur with dan/california on this point. Along with water, I would suggest including burnable terrain . It may improve tactical diversity too.

I concur with the nearly invulnerable M1 front armor. I played the scenario "A fistfull of doodads" , involving T72 vs M1 duel in a small village. I've managed to move the T72 towards the M1 as close as 30 metres , after disabling M1's main gun and smoke screening the area, then every 125mm rounds APFSDS didn't penetrate! It would be interesting to see what results we could get in a M1 vs.M1 . From my little experience with Blue vs. Blue engagement, 120mm sabot cannot penetrate M1 front armor too.

5 months ago, I was tempted to think CMSF was "flawed beyond patching" , and I played only for debugging, not for fun. After 1.06, CMSF became really playable for me. The engine handle basic things correctly in most situations,IMHO. However, as it was often pointed out, 1:1 representation makes bug/ weird behaviour appearing more blatantly then abstracted engine. What still kills immersion for me is the clipping model. If a vehicle can't go through a line of abandonned vehicle blocking a whole street, then it CAN'T go through (unless US Army has developped a kind of tunneling efect device for their M1 ). The same could be said about infantry, while more acceptable, which makes hand to hand combat impossible to implement. Here, 1:1 representation require a rigorous collision detection model, otherwise the player will feel the game is going wrong.

Some people consider Blue vs Red far too asymetrical so they are turning into Red vs Red campaign (like Paper Tiger's Hasrabit Campaign). Indeed, except infantry only battle or late T72 vs. M1 armour battle, combined arms scenarios involving AFV or arty for example, make the syrian side disavantaged in comparison with Americas (BMP2 is of no match against Bradley). So how about a blue campaign? However, there should be a background for such a campaign. Moreover, not many potential enemy country would have american material ( Egypt and Saudi Arabia have M1 Abrams, but I don't know country having Bradley so far). What do you think?