dan/california

It is generally accepted that the improvements in fire control systems and related technologies have made heli-borne assaults into truly hot LZs essentially suicidal. Current doctrine in all but the most permissive air defense environments calls for landing troops outside of the immediate tactical engagement area. Even the Iraqis, who were pretty clueless, ineffective, and or unmotivated in 2003 made flying helicopters anywhere close to troop concentrations positively unhealthy. The inclusion of the IBCT in the upcoming British module will allow the modeling of almost all realistic airborne/ air assault scenarios. There have been multiple threads on this, use search.

The thing that has driven me nuts a couple of times is when I CANNOT get an AT asset to acquire LOS from a particular building location even though three sqaddies are going "check out the T90 dude". I mean there are times when I have wasted fifteen minutes and three saves trying and it just won't work.

Just sell me the bleeping module, now, today, Please! Pretty Please. See what you've done, I am reduced to pitiful begging.

You need to include a few more scenarios like the battle of Pooh, people who haven't played that don't quite understand what a misery top line Syrian equipment and troops can make life for the Blue side.

Clavicula: Both the story, and your service are appreciated. Thanks

You can't tell that much of the story and then stop, I mean its just cruel. If you really don't want to talk about it I understand, But......

That little "2D abstract" bit changes the coding involved by at least two orders of magnitude. It is not even a discussion about the same thing, AT ALL.

Steve is correct, sucky is all that can be hoped for in terms of AI. Which is why co-play and TCIP WEGO need to be higher up the list. Complete with an easy to use lobby attached to this forum. He did just say it would be less work.

It should be pointed out that the amount of work involved in a PTO game would certainly require a new title as opposed to a new module. In no particular order you have at least two new TO&Es to translate into game terms, radically different terrain, which requires heavy AI programming, true amphibious assaults, and many more I haven't thought of. A good landing craft simulation would be a programming nightmare all by itself. That is a ton of work that BFC is just not sure is gong to provide a return on investment compared to other things they could be doing instead.

Yes, definitely! As far as a place to learn more, this is probably the very best. Start with the stickied "How To?" threads in the strategy and tactics sub forum. Once you have tried some of the basic suggestions there you will have a far better idea of what you are confused about and can ask some more specific questions on the forum. The search function is your friend. The forum is catalogued back to the beginning for CMSF, so you probably are not the first person with that question. The games depth is virtually endless by the way.

Sonar is dropping depth charges.

The other thing about civilian density is that many scenario designers don't think about very well, at least all of the time. If the radio and TV ads blaring, continuously and for days that a city is in the path of the the main U.S. advance, and that ROE is to obliterate anything bigger than a cat that shows up on thermals, there will very shortly be almost no civilians within range of a U.S. armored column. When the war is about more than propaganda concerns priorities have a way of changing. Even without that level of nastiness there are lots of more or less dirty tricks like the Israeli robo-calls saying the your house is on the target list for 9 P.M. tonight, don't be there. Most civilians just don't hang out in the open in the middle of a shooting war, stability ops are a different question, but CMSF is more about the shooting war part of the mess.

Also, is there any question of an Italian Module? Either the forces or the actual fighting in Italy? You could do a cannon fodder module with the Italians, Hungarians, and Romanians. The forum, if not the market, cries out for a Finnish-Russian Module for the Eastern Front as well when the time comes Wow, I just managed to write Steve & Charles a WW2 list thats several years long, and I actually like modern better. You have got to break down and get a larger programming group started. The prices for decent coders in eastern Europe are getting even cheaper with the current economic mess, might be a great time.

So module Market Garden with all the airborne stuff, then The Ardennes/Huertgen Forest module to wrap it all up? Maybe a small powers/odd equipment module at the end? While I am engaging in pointless random speculation, is their a North Africa module even on the radar, you DO have first cut at the terrain done after all?

The Syrians probably don't have that many T-90s, the greatest realism issue though is the complete lack of supporting assets on either side. A Syrian tank concentration that large and moving in the open would be priority one for every asset in the theater pretty much. It is equally true that a few camouflaged ATGM teams would GREATLY restrict the U.S. tactical flexibility. In terms of 2-1 odds in tanks, the Abrams has simply wiped all the russian stuff it has actually faced. Always with a massive crew quality advantage going to the U.S. side. What would happen against the very latest russian stuff with equal crew quality is of course a matter for debate. I think the fact that the red tanks show up in two waves is very significant in this particular scenario. They are vulnerable to defeat in detail.

So the very biggest drags are the actual models and the associated code to make them run?

There are two subtle berms or rolls inthe ground that provide hull down positions that are actually closer to the American Than Syrian lines. I haven't played it H2H against a person, but against the AI I advance the U.S to the first berm in one brad line. You have to fiddle around a little bit to get each tank in just the right spot, but once this is achieved I just set back and watch the Syrians melt. I might lose one tank. Rogue 187, it seems we should play a little head to head then , no? See which sides plan survives contact with the enemy.

Would some way to import at least basic terrain contour data be that difficult? I don't question that it would require some work, but it really does seem like a worthwhile thing to put on the list.

But what was the definition of trench, or "dug in" in the manual? The problem in the game if there is one, is that its only model of trench is somewhere between basic and incompetent. With correctly modeled dugouts and overhead cover the casualties would be far lower. It is also true as Steve has said a number of times that that kind of truly fortified position is a viable target for the kind of sustained air and artillery strikes that are beyond CMSFs scope. An enemy that presents a B52 worthy target and doesn't have a viable air defense system will get a visit from the Buffs. I would argue that objective Poo is such a target by the way. You can argue , by the way, that for the game to be within a factor of two is pretty good. For Normandy BFC has promised several grades of improved fortifications and the effectiveness of artillery is greatly reduced by period tech limitations. So it should play very differently.

Unfortunately the thing that make me shudder is the patch policy for the Total War games, or rather the lack of patches policy. If they don't nail it first go round, they just say oh well and proceed to the next project. Therefore, I will never buy one of their products without perusing six months of forum info on a released game. BFC on the other hand is amazingly persistent and helpful , So I am perfectly willing to pre-order any product of theirs that interest me.

Moon, that is just cruel! Give us SOMETHING to base random speculations around, please.

If, big IF, that has even a 50-75% success rate against Kornet style ATGMs, as well as RPGs it should be mounted on every tank and AFV in the inventory ASAP. How does it do against top attack missiles? Does it have any effect on KE rounds? How Jammable is the radar, and how much does it interfere with other vehicle electronics systems? Price would be nice to know too? The armies creation of a EW MOS for inclusion in line units is looking brighter by the second.

I believe the 50 caliber teams are attached to some higher level headquarters, so have to select a whole battalion and then edit madly.

I like the idea of it being random, I like the idea of it being very quality dependent. Making godlike coordination harder will improve overall realism overall. Since the game already has some AI to determine cover, and the direction of the known enemy it would make a lot of sense to have longer command delay when ordering units into obvious (to the unit) danger. This may be such a big AI hair-ball as to be undoable but makes sense to me if possible. Still within the framework of a system that has both quality and random elements. If the presence of the enemy is unknown to them, of course they march out to a VERY realistic result like good little pixeltruppen. This happens now in CMSF when you get LOF to the back of a building before you start blowing the front of it off. Had a great moment like that in the second battle of the Marines Campaign. It briefly fooled me into thinking I knew what I was doing.

The yellow line of death is now real by the way. One guy lases/shoots, many friends think it is a good idea.