Drusus

Sometimes start button crashes the game, AT4 icons not removed, reinforcements not showing for one player, troops sitting in thin air when their transports move from under them and so on... Some small syncing problems On the other hand, this game nearly ruined my Maths exam today. I played too much and didn't read enough. In other words, playing is fun even if there are some bugs. I would say 50% of the games work good with only minor glitches or no problems at all, and in the rest of the games the serious bugs will be seen when the setup is over, so that they don't ruin games that have progressed too far. IMHO the realtime online playing is more enjoyable than online playing in CMx1 ever was.

I still do think there is something wrong with the spotting of vehicles. I can understand that vehicle crews might be doing something else and thus miss obvious units. I also can understand that it gives too much control if the player can force the unit to spot actively to the right area because of god vision. And I do understand that information that should in theory be relayed isn't relayed. But the combination of all these puts the player in a frustrating situation. There is no way to force the relay of information about the enemy vehicle nor to make the vehicle crew to spot the right area. The only option the player has is to just trust that he will spot the enemy first. It would be so helpful if there was something that the player could do in these situations. But there isn't. I don't know what is realistic in these situations, but I would imagine that if an infantry platoon's attack was halted because of enemy vehicle, they just might tell the supporting MGS that they need support, and there is a vehicle at a certain spot. Now if the MGS doesn't spot the vehicle because the gunner was changing the CD when going over the crest in this situation it doesn't feel right. There sometimes appears question marks. If I have understood correctly, these are because of relayed information. I don't see this affecting the spotting much. If the information was relayed, I think it should also show what type of unit there is (is it tank or infantry, atleast). Spotting of vehicles in these situations should be a lot better. I do feel that in general vehicles should spot a bit better to the frontal sector.

As I see it, there is a specific situation where the game doesn't work as I would expect it to do. That is when the unit in question has (or should have) information about enemy units because of relayed information. There are two things I don't see happening as should. First, the relaying of information isn't what I would expect it to be. Or maybe the information passing does happen, but the game doesn't show it as well as it should. The second problem is that spotting in situations where information is (or should be) relayed isn't as fast as I would expect it to be. This might be because the information isn't relayed, or because the spotting is just too slow in these cases. The typical situation is having some US infantry units spot enemy vehicles. If you want to shoot & scoot those spotted vehicles with your own unit, there is a big risk of bad results. My example is from the Jisrah Shugur scenario. Here the enemy's vehicle is usually BMP-2 and your vehicle is Stryker MGS. Naturally, in this situation spotting first is critical. Now, the problem is that even if my infantry units have known for a long time (5 minutes or more) where the enemy BMP is (which is usually on road or in completely open ground), the information doesn't seem to help in the spotting of the BMP when trying to kill it with the MGS. Giving covered arcs doesn't help either. The range is usually below 500m. And the time it takes to spot the enemy vehicle is often more than 20 seconds. As I see it, there should be little chance of such long spotting time given that the MGS knows pretty well where the vehicle is and thus should be actively spotting the right area. The solution is simple. Spotting of units whose information has been relayed to the spotting unit should be much faster. Also, the player should have some more knowledge of the information relayed to the unit. Here I am assuming that such information is relayed when in battle. This is where the US excel, so my assumption shouldn't be wrong. I have said this earlier, but there is some gamey ways to solve this situation. The first is that you as the player can see when the BMP starts rotating it's turret and issue a reverse command immediately. Works even better when trying to flank MGS with BMP. The other method I have used when I get bored is to use area fire against the BMP. For both problems a simple solution is to have a small pause before the execution of the command.

I know this one will probably fall into "too much micromanagement" departmet, but it would be great to be able to disable / enable the use of weapons by clicking the icons of the weapons. That way it would be easy to have the sniper teams to just use the sniper rifle, RPG squads fire the RPG first, and only after that shoot with their rifles, use ATGMs with BMPs and so on. To avoid too much micromanagement, don't allow every weapon to be enabled / disabled.

Whatever online pause system is implemented, please make sure it will have the option to pause the game even if the chess clock time is used up, in case both players agree to do so.

Well, that depends. IMHO it is not too much fine coordination if there is a prearranged plan. If there is one, then every squad just needs to shout/radio "first ready", "second ready" etc and then the commander needs to say "Go!". But that really depends on the situation. For a quick plan arranged over the radio it would at least take some time to do this coordination.

Addition: In RT this would be really useful, if there is limited pause time. I think the limited pause time is going to be there for multiplayer games and at the moment there is no way to pause the game in online games. So this is useful in that setting, too...

Maybe this could be implemented using the "group pause" method I suggested in the "1.06 feedback" thread? For this to work from the UI perspective it would be wise to have a way to select a group of units (ala Ctrl-1 assigns the selected units, Shift-1 then selects them or something) and then have a new command called group pause. First, assign the wanted units in a group. The select the individual units, and issue the movement commands. For each unit you want to link, select the to-be-linked waypoint and press the "group pause" button. The option you choose using the group pause button would be "when rest of group ready". Intuitively when all the units have reached their "paused" way points the units would then proceed. Naturally for this to work as intended, the units should be in contact with each other through the chain of command. Other options: only one unit from the group moves at a time. This way you could do bounding overwatch easily. The option suggested in "V1.06 feedback" thread is to have option with the effect "group wait until cancelled". It could be useful for other uses too... I think this would work... Opinions?

Pauses for online playing. Doing any kind of coordination with more than two units is pretty much impossible because of continuous play. A chess clock system would be excellent, but just a pause which either player can set or unset would be fine at the moment. If your enemy abuses it, don't play against him... Another suggestion (kind of related to the demand above): group triggers. This would be a special pause selection, that is when pressing P the selection would go as follows: 15 sec, 30 sec, ..., 1,5 min, "pause", group 1, group 2 ... This would work so that _all_ units set to group 1 would act when the pause is canceled for _one_ unit. Example: Making a simple counter attack plan involving a platoon: set the movement commands for the squads, and set them to "pause group 1". Then when you want to activate it, just cancel the pause for one of the units in that pause mode. Every squad will start doing their thing. The group pausing would be useful in online (and RT play in general) if there is limited time for pausing the game, as this would allow coordination of troops even without pausing the game. Implementing this might be too hard for the rather small usage this would probably get, though... (Just have to say this: Allow units to have multiple plans...) Online play also needs some command delays. It is too easy to have a vehicle behind a building to pop out at an enemy tank (which the vehicle behind the building doesn't know of) and just wait if you see the enemy first. If you do, kill the enemy. If you don't, you as the player will see the turret of the tank beginning to rotate and can order the unit to reverse into safety. Very gamey and very effective tactic. Even a 3 to 5 seconds pause would remove this option. Area fire should also be delayed, it is too easy to just manually area target those muzzle flashes, which is a really gamey way to get past the limitations of relative spotting. Allow vehicles to see better into the sector directly in front of them. Too often I have seen situations where my MGS Stryker knows there is an enemy vehicle in given area. I give a covered arc order which is about 15 degrees wide and move my Stryker to a good firing position. It can take more than 20 seconds to spot the enemy vehicle. Range is about 400 meters, the enemy vehicle is on a road and doing nothing. Visibility is good. I have seen this multiple times. One time I got bored and issued an area fire command, and BOOM there goes the enemy vehicle. Very gamey and again very effective. It would be great to have a different icon for the enemies which the selected unit knows because of relayed information. And when the unit knows of enemies through this way, it should be much easier to spot them. Selecting the icon could then tell how that information was gotten. And last but not least: There is a problem with suppression at the moment. There is another thread about suppression going on, but I don't think it is about the same thing. I made a post about this some time ago but didn't get much feedback. The problem is as follows: troops in buildings seem to be fighting too well even when panicked and suppressed to maximum (according to the suppress-o-meter). I have seen troops route just a second after they were effectively firing back at the enemy. I did some testing of this in the house cleaning scenario, playing in hotseat mode. I had both Syrian squads and US squads experience this. So, BFC, please fix, or... In general V1.06 is very enjoyable. Good work on a game engine that is fundamentally flawed . To be frank, I did have my doubts about the engine, too...

You have a great LOS tool in the game. Put waypoint somewhere on the map, select that way point and use target command

I have noticed that troops which are in buildings and are under fire seem to continue fighting effectively even if their suppression is maximum and they are panicked. For example I was testing the house cleaning mission, and I sprayed one floor with .50 area fire and some small arms fire, and still the conscript troops in that floor were able to return fire. Needles to say they were panicked and their suppression was maximum. I have had similar situations with US troops, too. This is with v1.06. Has anybody else noticed this? Maybe this is intentional?

Is anybody having this problem using some other patch than the Paradox version?

I am pretty sure I know which units do crash the game: Those that have the two extra panels showing information about the unit: for vehicles there is the "silhouette" panel and then the three tabs showing ammo/damage/defences. For HQs it shows unit/formation and the "silhouette" panel shows some information about the unit (personnel, experience, ...). The units that have those tabs crashes the game when selected as the unit whose information should be shown. The game crashes before the layout of the panels is changed. For those having this problem: you can play the game if you don't select the wrong units. I have had a blast trying to win the Abu Susah scenario using only two squads (and artillery). I think I would gotten it, but then I selected an enemy RPG squad...

Some more info still: I tried applying a different patch, and I reinstalled the game and patched it. Still crashes. I can select any unit causing a crash if I group select units so that the crashing unit isn't selected first. That is the data of a non-crashing unit is showed on the information panels. I don't think I can help any more. But if you need any more testing you can contact me at akaariai at cc hut fi.

More info: The game crashes also with the latest drivers (169.21). The game crashes when clicking on some infantry units too: normal US infantry doesn't crash, but HQ squads do crash the game. RPG and MG squads do crash the game, and some red infantry squads crash the game, but at least sniper squads do not. My guess is that the squads that do crash the game are equipped with RPGs. When the crash happens no data of the unit is shown, that is the crash happens either before the update of the screen or before the data is even tried to be updated to the screen. Next going to download the patch from a different source to make sure the download isn't corrupted. My version was from Ausgamers.

Correction: The crash happens when you click on any vehicle, infantry works just fine. Tested vehicles were T-55, Stryker and Bradley, I don't think there is need to test more. I also am using NVidia graphics, but I don't think I have the latest driver, going to update them next...

I have the same problem. I am using Paradox version 1.06 and the error is just pure simple CTD. (The program has encountered a problem and needs to close). Happens immediately when you click on any unit. So, "Its broken"

At least the new Finnish 81mm HE grenade is supposed to be as effective as the old 120mm grenade. So, direct comparisons aren't possible. I think the biggest problem with the HE lethality is that the squads are usually in the 8x8 action spot. This means that a direct hit to that spot will cause a lot of casualties if the round is modeled realistically. Because we can't force the squad to spread out, I think there needs to be some adjustments to the lethality of the HE shells. Either just tone it down, or then make a hack where the first one in the squad takes the full force of the blast, and subsequent ones some fraction of the full blast. This is to simulate that in reality the rest of the squad would be further away from the explosion than the game allows.

I think the problem with the AT sections is that the Syrian squads should be very much capable to have a AT team. The limitation to the team is that it needs to be near the body of the squad. The game limits the AT team to be in the same action spot, which is unrealistic.

Having played v1.05 a little now, I think the accuracy and lethality is much better. There are some situations which could be handled better, but overall I think it is pretty good.

The problem is there is some release specific code that BFC can't write, even if they wanted to. And that code is most likely because of different copy protections used by the different versions. This is why we wait... I think they want to release each version as fast as possible. That way everybody wins. And even if they wanted to release the patch simultaneously, they would have to wait for Paradox & Gamershell to make their patches. That means that everybody gets the patch late, as opposed to everybody getting the patch as soon as possible.

StellarRat: As I understand it, the problem _is_ where to insert those new way points! I must admit that to me this doesn't feel like too hard of a problem if one is allowed to make bad decisions once in a while. By bad decision I mean slowing down when it isn't necessary. On the other hand computing is full of problems that do not feel too hard but when you begin to solve them, you see that they are impossible or really hard to solve. So, when Charles says this is a tremendously hard problem, there is no reason to doubt it.

I am going to use paintball as an example in this post. I know that in many aspects it has little to do with real warfare, but the point I am trying to make here is about the concept. First, some background. I was active paintball player for some five years, playing tournament games both here in Finland, and also in Europe (Millennium series). So, I know something about paintball, and this is why I am using paintball here. The basic setup of the game when using those air filled cones as cover is that there are some places of perfect cover and then the rest is without any cover. In the game it is extremely important to keep your enemy's head down. This is why it is easy to use 1000+ balls per game. If you can manage this, you can maneuver. And when you maneuver you can hit your opponents. Many times the game is resolved when there isn't seemingly happening much. Both teams are trying to suppress the other. The better team either manages to force the enemy to keep their heads down, or if the worse team tries to shoot back, they will get hit when trying to do so. The inexperienced players are easy to spot in the game. They don't know how to take proper cover ("my eyes are behind the cover, thus I am safe") or they take huge risks trying to shoot back when they are "dotted". Now, how does this relate to modern warfare? I think the concept is somewhat applicable. That is, in modern warfare you use enormous amount of bullets to make your enemy keep their heads down. If you manage to do that, you are free to maneuver, and thus able to kill your enemy. In modern warfare you have also other tools for the problem, heavy weapons being the example. The crucial thing here is that in paintball, it doesn't matter how much you shoot when your enemy is keeping his head down. I mean, you can't hit him by just shooting more when he is in cover. On the other hand, if he isn't in cover, you need just a few balls to hit him if you can shoot freely. In this game there isn't such cover that is able to withstand _huge_ amounts of fire. At least I haven't found such cover. Now, the claim is: in real combat there exists such cover. And I think very much the same thing should happen in combat than what is happening in paintball: the other "team" is able to suppress the other team and thus can maneuver for the kill (eliminate in PB terms). It is also worth mentioning that there should also be those spots of no cover. I do not want the whole map be like the paintball field, where there is lots of spots with perfect cover. But there should be those spots also. How the game should represent these spots of cover is up to Steve & Charles. As JasonC pointed out, it most likely has to be some sort of abstracted cover model. If not, excellent. Of course, it might be that they decide the game is good as is. That is good, too. I can keep complaining... By the way, what comes to the range shooting and combat shooting, in paintball the accuracy goes as follows: Before game 9 hits out of 10, in game 1 out of 10. The target being the same, of course. Hitting moving targets is really hard when the target is visible only for the 5-10m as is usual in paintball. And the range is something like 20-30m! In real combat you have one additional thing to worry about: if you get shot, you can get killed. I imagine that would drop accuracy a bit more. Back to the topic of my post: if CMSF would try to simulate a paintball game, the game would be decided by just sitting behind those back field bunkers and shooting until every opponent is eliminated. No matter if he is in cover or not. The same problem is present also in CMSF's simulation of modern warfare. You can win by just shooting enough bullets at your enemy, no matter where he is.

In my opinion in v1.04 there were three things needing adjustment. 1. Accuracy when shooting moving targets seems to be a bit high, especially at longer ranges. 2. Accuracy of somewhat suppressed troops seems a bit high. 3. There isn't enough cover Now, 1 and 3 together mean that movement in some situations is even more lethal than it should be. If you move, you get shot, if you don't you get shot. When you add that at least in v1.04 reactive fire was slow, you get high body counts fast. Number 2 needs some more explaining. I think there is problem with the suppression system because the troops forget too soon the incoming fire. What I mean is that troops that are in a position that will get heavily fired and has already been heavily fired should have reduced accuracy. As it is now, the suppression will go away quite fast, and then the troops will fight again like nothing has happened. The fix for number 2 is to have the suppression to drop down in a way that the worst suppression goes away fast, but some of it remains for a quite long time. That is, the drop off is logarithmic. Number 3 however seems to be a bit harder to fix. One fix is to just add more cover in the editor. However, in my opinion there needs to be more done. At least some terrain types should have a lot better inherent protection, or at least there should be the possibility to choose different base protection values for the action spot in the editor. A bit like making terrain rough in CMx1. There is also the proposed abstracted covering system, but of course it is better if this can be fixed without it. By the way, how is reaction fire working in v1.05? In v1.04 I ended up area targeting the flashes I could see in the 3D view. But the virtual 20 pairs of eyes some 100 meters from the shooters couldn't see anything...

I don't mind if the vehicle doesn't follow the exact path. That isn't the problem. The problem is that sometimes the path finding algorithm screws up a simple (straight line, no obstacles) movement command. There are plenty of examples above. It doesn't happen often, but it happens (in v1.04 at least). Now, to fix _this_ problem, the proposal is to follow the exact player given path if it is possible to do so. The other problem is that sometimes the game doesn't see a path when the player can see there is a path. Now, there are people who think it might be good that the player could micromanage the unit through this path. Again I don't care if the unit moves exactly to the movement commands given. But again the proposed fix is to move exactly along the player given path.