BlAin

Steve? Anyone else? Thanks in advance...

Who has any other thoughts about this? Thanks...

Yeah, I figured that much [for both of you above ] Seriously though, I understand what you are saying about recalculation and what not, but since the spotter has the option, should it not be beneficial to the overall requesting team, or if it is not, just remove this option altogether if it is useless. I mean, there out to be some reason it is there for it should make the requesting team save precious minutes off re-ordering a whole new strike. P.-S.: My 2 other questions (above) still stands...

Steve? I bump this up again just to be sure you have the opportunity in replying to my previous question. Thank you!

Sorry if I got to bump this up...

Thanks for the answer Steve, but let me be more precise in how I meant the questions to be understood. FS3 can be "heightened" or lowered (in my questioned I used extended or retracted) because I saw it live in a campaign mission (with patch 1.04). But what I wanted to know is if we were able to get a Special command to do it "at will". Originally, I did not meant when it is stowed for transportation. Oh, Steve, what about merging fire teams of different types? A future administrative commands maybe? Also, another of my questions was about *adjusting* artillery fire (since we have the option to do it [from the spotter]) and not cancelling and ordering a new one altogether (even though it rather takes a long time which means that it seems almost useless in a way).

I figured that I should ask this because I find this a tad bit annoying. You know the Stryker M1127 RV [and the M1131 FSV]? Well, I wondered if it was possible to obtain a command, in the Special commands menu, to extend/retract the FS3 apparatus on top of the vehicle? Note: Since the M1131 FSV has the same FS3 that the M1127 has, it should also be able to extend his. Also, since it happened to me in quite a few occasions, would it be possible to obtain a command, in the Administrative commands menu, to merge infantry teams which suffered heavy casualties in order to have 1 battleworthy team instead of i.e. 2, 3 or 4 teams with fewer than 3 soldiers still fighting? ---------- Also, maybe someone could shed some light about this: How much faster is the Stryker M1131 FSV able to obtain a response from artillery and air support assets compared to other U.S. units on the battlefield? Adjusting artillery fire? How come it takes almost as much time as cancelling a strike altogether and asking for a new one?

Important; please note! Alright Steve, you might want to keep this handy would you fall on somebody with the same, albeit I guess probably rare, problem that I got. When you completely uninstall the game, it seems that a file is left over after you got a confirmation that the uninstallation is complete: runservice.exe Why I would know is simple: because I looked at the date the file was created and the date did not concur with that of i.e. CM Shock Force.exe, meaning that it did not uninstall for whatever reason. Once I deleted runservice.exe (and knowing that the game's *.exe would create a new one in the WINDOWS folder when it would be accessed at a "later" time), my newly installed game loaded perfectly. Maybe it might help other people who have been or will be facing such a similar annoyance.

Yes, I know, I reinstalled the game before and I never had any problem like this one. So, to recapitulate, I double-click on the game's shortcut icon and nothing happens... It is really annoying. If you have any clue about this kind of issue, Steve, it would be really appreciated if you could relay the information here. Furthermore, I tried to unlicense the game just in case and nothing happens. I also tried doing it (both starting or unlicensing the game) with my anti-virus and all its services turned off and it does not work at all... Thanks again!

I just reinstalled the game just in case (1.10 following with 1.11) but to no avail, it seems (as expected) that even though you click on shockforce.exe to start the game that runservice.exe does not kick in and let me put my CD key in, hence that I cannot go in eLicence Control Center to fix the problem. It's the very first time that it happens to me. Every time that I go in services.msc and try to start LicCtrl manually, I get a type 5 error (whatever it means). DEP is not activated and my anti-virus (Panda IS 2009) has both shockforce.exe and runservice.exe listed as "allowed" programs. Please, if I need some help about this. Thank you in advance!

But personally, and I am not saying this because I disregard air assets' ammo information which should be available to the ground team, but I think there is something flawed with how time (which is a very important factor nonetheless) and the pilot's decisional input are rendered in the game... Let me explain. Everytime that I order an air strike, that it be from attack choppers, A-10A or F-15E, it takes in general 8 to 10 minutes for them to begin their attack phase. That it be urgent or not, needing a heavy or a light barrage, or against armor or soft targets. A battle can drastically change in a matter of 8 or 10 minutes! However, once they're done engaging, if you ask for their support again, it takes another 8 minutes to prepare another attack... give me a break, they are supposed to be around anyway! So you cannot keep the pilot posted on the evolution of the battlefield situation in regards to its designated targets at any point during their attack. Also, since the A-10A mostly relies on visual targeting from the pilot, it should always be at the pilot's discretion anyway. Personally, what we would need to know is from where the attack will be coming (in regards to the target), the altitude level of the attack (which would provide an incentive on what type of weapons would be used or not), the aircraft availability (1 pass, 2 or 3 passes), and if area target order, the weapons' choice at the pilot's discretion (only if it was possible to report the location of targets within the area/and depending of the type of aircraft). Again, an real life example is with what I trust the most and what is the most cost-effective: a Gatling-cannon attack on armors (which is the most potent in my view) or a hydra-rockets attack which is far less precise (and at the same time lethal) than aimed cannon rounds. Anyhow, this should be sorted out... depending of the type of air asset attacking and the battlefield information what we [should] continuously send to that asset. Since the latter is omitted, we have a more complex issue in our hands. This could be seriously simplified would the ground team was able to update attacking air assets with information as it comes.

That's really weird... are they added only in certain types of engagement scenarios? The small scenario on which I am working is a meeting engagement one... Any clue?

Is there a possibility that foxholes could be added in the scenario editor instead of being generated randomly by the editor? Simply because it is not really practical if you want to put soldiers in the holes in advance if you do not know where they will be generated... Thanks for the feedbacks...

Yeah, I noticed that they were deep inside the 4th platoon. Just to let you know, The MGS that I pitted against some T-62 just obliterated the latter. On the other hand, the T-62 when it got a good shot at the MGS completely detonated it with no crew survival. I tried also the Stryker M1126 (40mm) against either a BMP-2K and afterwards a BTR and both stood no chance due to the 40mm rounds being fired (at less than 200m though). The BMP's and the BTR's shots were not effectively percing their way into the Stryker's hull. I thought, at least, that the BMP-2 would withstand the 40mm exp-rounds fired by the Stryker but it did not last more than 10~15 sec.? That's unfortunate that there are no foxholes and no way to have a dugged-in position (the latter which I sorely miss...)

Thanks for the input guys. However, I need to know few more things: first where would be the foxholes and how can I add Stryker M1128 (MGS) since it seems that it is not listed anywhere in the Stryker infantry available troops. P.-S.: Tested a T-62 against a Bradley, it is now 1-1... hehehe. At closer range (under 500m) the Bradley has a important disadvantage, it seems, it cannot/will not fire its atm. However, its 25mm cannon just went through the T-62 like air through swiss cheese! Seems odd to me, but I guess that it could be u-depleted rounds...

Thank you, that makes way more sense now. Why I asked is because, let's I select a reserve tank company, once it's in the "Activated troops" section, what it would display generically will be "T-72M early" no matter what I wanted. Now what you're saying is that if I change the quality setting of this said unit, it would change to a T-62, for example. I will try it. What about my bunker problem now?

Hello everyone, I hope that someone could help me out with this: For some reasons, once I am in the scenario editor, I cannot make the bunkers (whichever type) stay in the completed (and saved) scenario. They do not appear at all. Furthermore, T-62 tanks are not present in the "Available Units" scroll-down menu (for the Syrians). Is there a way that I could add them to available units? Thanks! P.-S.: Also, could not find fox holes either in the map field element list...

Personally, it does not ruin the experience that much (not being able to set waypoint, albeit it is mildly annoying), but not being able to set waypoints close to a selected vehicle (because of the "box" or something alike around the vehicle) and having to painfully set waypoints on short distances (like close to the top of a dune, etc.) every single time: it is QUITE annoying to me. Sorry, M1A1TankCommander.

Oh, do not worry, I knew that already that you would neither have time nor the resources to cover them all. I was only sincerely asking that someone from the DEVTeam would look at them and actually acknowledge their being at any rate noticed. If you look at the first post (mine) and you had to choose only two entries, the most important ones in my view are: </font> Once you click on a vehicle, no matter what, if this vehicle carries an infantry unit, it will automatically select it instead of the vehicle. You should be able to select by default the vehicle instead (on top).</font>When clicking with the mouse and setting a path for vehicles their is a "dead zone" around them which prevents setting the waypoint near thembut only if you are using the "above view".</font>Simply, these two are the most annoying ones. I would be the happiest player (and I am sure that I would not be the only one!) if these could be reckoned in. Thank you.

I am sincerely hoping that you will stop by Madmatt and reply. Thanks.

Actually, I did, but as there are many posters who participated to the thread, it is only normal that I bring this out to Madmatt's attention. There are a lot of them, so I guess that upon reading that list, the DEVTeam will be in a better position to decide whether or not the elements listed from within that thread are, overall, relevant and significant. They will make the best educated guess for their game.

Thanks for another patch on which your team has worked. It is much appreciated. I was wondering if you ever had noticed the elements in the following list: Annoying missing elements (you're invited to contribute!)? I would like to know if any of these were addressed (or at least a significant number) and if they could be in the future patch (v1.08). I think that a lot of these elements (and definitely not just those from my post!) would indeed improve the gameplay, its quick-readiness playability and the overall reaction time. Many of us contributed! Thank you for your time.

I am pretty sure there are other issues pertaining to the scope that this thread has; hopefully, will get other posts as well. Perhaps Steve could provide us with some of the minor but annoying stuff he would like corrected! [ December 20, 2007, 09:47 AM: Message edited by: BlAin ]

If Michael Dorosh (and all those falling for his theatrics) is not trying to screw up this thread, then he is definitely not improving it!! Please, go play elsewhere and find yourself a nanny with a hand big enough to hold yours; because I think those who contributed pertinently to this thread would like it to stay active, useful and resourceful. Period.

Setting the time in the Quick battle editor would be good as well instead of the imposed 30 minutes, which is IMHO too quick...