molotov_billy

Say, what's an Ikon?

Speaking of - how are people organizing real-time matches? Is there a chat board or somesuch? I haven't even tried multiplayer yet.

Just an educated guess, but it doesn't look like they're doing any kind of animation blending, so essentially - don't expect the soldiers to ever do more than a single action at once. For example - notice how soldiers have to stop running before they can rotate/turn, or how they never shoot while on the move.

Birdstrike, sorry about the late reply. I do think it's fine as is. I'm just running into a lot of bugs (not your fault) that this scenario tends to bring out, and I think it's making things more difficult than they should be. The biggest one for me is that whenever I get into a firefight, my rangers throw out their AT4's almost immediately, even when I use "target light." Obviously that doesn't work out very well when I have to engage armor later on. Two other movement bugs that aren't necessarily crippling, but certainly annoying - for some reason, I'm getting the split squad bug very often, which is when half of the squad ignores a movement order while the other half does as I say. The squad icon ends up floating somewhere inbetween the two, and it's difficult to get them back together again. The second squad bug is the infinite planning bug, where a squad will not listen to a move order because the "team leader" never finishes his "planning" activity. Anyway, once those things are cleared up, it'll be a challenging scenario, but not impossible.

what do I win!

I'm fairly skeptical that there's any logic at all such as this dictating where the tacAI moves. I haven't seen them prefer covered approaches at all, or react in any way to distant enemies, or perceived enemy positions. They generally seem to choose their path based on terrain alone. When interrupted, or at the end of a move order, they seem to snap to cover in some situations, but never during the move itself. [ September 10, 2007, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

well I see its a grainfield </font>

I noticed the same thing in this scenario. I think there might be some type of unpassable marsh terrain next to the road?

Agree with the points brought up here, though I think in the case of seeing passengers "inside" stryker vehicles - isn't this because the passengers are hanging out of the hatches in the back? I think in general, the distance to enemy units isn't as much of a factor with spotting as it should be - my guys seem to have the same relative chance to see units close up as they do 500 meters away. A lot of people have also noted many strange occasions where units (even vehicles) are not spotted right away at a distance of only 10 meters.

I do hope that CMC - whatever lessons they learned and whatever functionality they've creataed - gets folded into the new WW2 game on the CM2 engine. It seems a waste to be developing on old tech when they're already working on a new version of everything.

So I tried the updated version - in the first couple of minutes, 4-5 JDAMs have dropped on my forward russian forces (playing as blue.) What gives - have the chechens stolen a couple of russian strike aircraft? It doesn't appear to be friendly fire, because I hadn't ordered any airstrikes.

Played this one again tonight - very challening! I'm too embarassed to mention the final results, and don't want to post any spoilers, but this is indeed the first mission where the mission time limit isn't just an arbitrary number. It's a very tricky trade off of speed vs caution, and it looks like it will take me a couple of playthroughs to achieve even a minor victory. Very cool.

Very interesting. Though this one in particular is very much a rural map.

Yes, I noticed it in the recently released map "The Farm", where you have a couple platoons of rangers that fight through some infantry and eventually have to face armor. The only thing I could do to save AT4's was to seperate the "Anti-tank" team and have them hide - though this only saved one of the two AT4's.

So when I use "target light" with my infantry against other infantry targets, they end up using all of their AT4's. I'd prefer to keep them so that they can be used later for more appropriate targets. Is this intentional or a bug?

I have a feeling that the graphics don't really much the level of concealment that smoke provides. In the cases that I've used it, it seems to be pretty effective at blocking LOS, though it wouldn't appear that it should. It's uses are a bit more rare than stryker smoke, but certainly invaluable in some situations. I use it to cross raised roadways where I'm in one of the ditches and want to cross to the other. Throw smoke right on the road and advance across. I have a feeling that because of the tiled LOS/LOF system, smoke will obscure the entire tile that it's in. Also - make sure you use the "face" command before you throw smoke to ensure that you're throwing it in the right direction.

birdstrike - I haven't completely finished it yet, but it has been really fun so far. This is the first scenario I've played without any real armor to use - having only light infantry forces you to play a completely different way. Without javelins to solve every problem, there have been some nice long firefights where I've had to coordinate MG fire, smoke, and rifle assaults very closely. Some 81mm mortars for the rangers would be nice, for a bit more of a 'combine arms' feel to it. I'd highly suggest a scenario like this for some sort of infantry training scenario.

My bad, thought you were referring to this post, which surprised me, because there's some good info here.

Dan, I think it would be an error in judgement to dismiss feedback simply because it's emotionally charged. Obviously by the tone of his post he's pretty upset about whatever's going on in the game, and that in itself is an indication of the seriousness of some of the problems he may be experiencing. Seems like there's enough info in there that would at least indicate something's not working as expected, and maybe should be checked out. Sure, filter out stuff that isnt useful, but I certainly wouldn't take offense to it

It was an accurate description of the level of frustration one experiences when encountering that type of stuff. It's appropriate to the discussion and helps convey a level importance for the issue, at least in my opinion. Others should do the same so that a developer can create an accurate picture of his or her customers' experiences. Frustration is the last thing you'd want people to experience while playing a video game. My opening post and follow up posts created an accurate picture of the scenario I experienced. If people such as yourself had wanted additional info, I provided it. I'm still open to further questions if anybody wants additional information for the repro of these bugs. It was daylight during the scenario. The squad in question had no fatigue - they had just exited a stryker vehicle. I've already provided the information that I have on the "Hunt" command, and so have a couple of other folks within this thread. In fact, two others replied to your post with additional info on their experiences with "Hunt" before I could even get to this reply. The information is there, if you wish to see it. I think I've already explained this several times, so I'll copy/paste from one of my other replies: 1) Squads failing to see opponents in the clear 10 feet away from them. 2) Failing to react to the sound of enemy fire 10 feet away from them. 3) Failing to react to squadmates being cut down. Absolutely not. What it means is that I've seen similar things happening in every type of tactical situation - my troops often have trouble spotting things in every movement command, they often fail to respond to incoming fire, and they often fail to respond to their squadmates getting cut down around them. Many others have explained situations in which they've seen such activity, including yourself. The point is that my own command decisions are irrelevant to the bugs that I've observed, as they've happened during good decisions, bad decisions, and everything in between. My feedback on the matter has been three simple points: A) Troops should react to enemy units 10 feet away from them. Troops should react to enemy fire 10 feet away from them. C) Troops should react to friendlies being slaughtered wholesale around them - i.e, not to continue on without thought, walking over bodies as if they didn't even exist. Again, the "small snippet" scenario was a specific example that highlighted each of the issues that I've experienced in a number of tactical situations. Others have experienced them as well, and provided numerous examples of each. I'm glad that you finally came around to at least see one of the issues that people have brought up. So the people and ideas that you argue against are hypothetical? I don't understand. You'll have to explain that one a bit better. It's a wonderful story, but it doesnt address the issues that I brought up, and it doesnt address every situation in which it has come up. Furthermore, you're simply making up details as you go along, assuming the absolute worse in every single case. You conveniently forgot that the enemy squad in question was a mere 10 feet away, plainly visible to even the first person that would have rounded the corner. Your story does not explain to me why squads are blind and deaf, why they do not react to casualties, why they do not react to enemy gunfire, and why they run over the bodies of their own squads, to the last man, absolutely sucidially. Take a look at Phillip's thread - we await your story explaining as to why the 30 ton infantry fighting vehicle was also invisible a mere 10 feet away, or why a US infantryman got so close to an enemy ATGM that their models were actually interpenetrating - and yet *neither* unit saw the other. As an additional element of flavor to your narrative - they were close enough for the soldier's M4 to be about two-thirds of the way up the ATGM gunner's anal cavity. Maybe there's a fantastical, gut wrenching story behind every one of these occurences, or maybe, just *maybe* there are a couple of tweaks left in a game that was admitted - by the developers themselves - to be released early, not yet finished. Who knows. Here's the defintion that made sense in this context: "A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. To "set up a straw man" or "set up a straw man argument" is to create a position that is easy to refute, then attribute that position to the opponent. A straw man argument can be a successful rhetorical technique (that is, it may succeed in persuading people) but it is in fact a misleading fallacy, because the opponent's actual argument has not been refuted." [ September 07, 2007, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

Yuck. Once again, you're replying to arguments and people that don't even exist. I now realize why you don't quote messages when you reply - you haven't actually addressed a single point that I've made in nearly a dozen posts. I've repeated myself so many times, I feel like some sort of kindergarten teacher - people have dumped a mountain of data at your feet that back up the assertions that I've made, none of which have anything to do with tactics, and yet you continue to lecture about issues and ideas that nobody has concerns for. There's actually a lot of great info in this thread from those who do care about improving the game. The data is there if someone cares to look at it. For the nth time, not the task at hand. Straw men again. You're arguing about something that nobody's contesting. Hunt has it's own problems, which I've already described. I'm tried of repeating myself. There you go. I've been saying it over and over and over - regardless of tactical situations - units are not responding as they should to nearby threats. Again, who exactly are you arguing with here? Where is this even coming from? Nobody's fighting the game. We're observing bugs that have come up during play and we're letting the developers know about them. Bugs that you yourself have confirmed and seen! Ugh, more straw men. Please point out the person in this thread that requests anything close to the scenario you describe. [ September 07, 2007, 06:31 PM: Message edited by: molotov_billy ]

Deserves a bump.

Thanks for testing that, Phillip. The rotation thing is interesting - I've noticed this as well, maybe because soldiers are similated as very small vehicles. Why are they so slow in turning? Seems like a quicker turning ability would help solve some of the issues that people have when running into enemy squads at close range inside buildings, etc. It just takes too long for them to find their places, and then turn to face the enemy. By the time they even fire a single shot, most of their number are on the ground.

Again, the attitude just isn't necessary. Your first paragraph I've already covered, and as far as the rest goes - you're making assumptions, or inventing straw men - I've never compared CMSF to CMx1 (Why do I have to say that multiple times?)

Glad you guys tested this out, I had the same assumptions last night and wanted to ask someone with two machines to try it out. So under all movement commands aside from hunt - they pass by shoulder-to-shoulder, and don't react?