B00M$LANG

Why, what's funny about the French military ? </font>

I understand, Martin, but the showstopping aspect of this issue stems from the asymmetry of contemporary urban conflict and the tactical significance of speed and accurate navigation. It would be better if BFC put big green lines on paths through which we could navigate our vehicles with confidence and in formation rather than leave us to hunt and peck our way through the maps wondering if a vehicle is going to balk and break formation, causing chaos at exactly the point of initiating contact with the enemy. My argument is that this is a design issue as well as an execution issue, and much more destructive to gameplay than it was in a battlefield context that didn't rely on speed of maneuver. Can you imagine anything at all being salvaged from the urban battle in Somalia portrayed in BLACKHAWK DOWN if, once the choppers had gone down, the Humvee convoys got lost in the city instead of being able to navigate accurately and at high speed? It's the only way you can fight RPGs on rooftops. For the gameplay dynamic in CMSF to be satisfying, we need to be able to move vehicles with precision and confidence because the U.S. forces have to leverage their mobility and superior training in order to overcome numerical inferiority and win. This pathfinding anarchy (sorry, it's not too strong a word) makes a mockery of the very concept of battle behind the game. </font>

I don't joke about war, sonny...it's nothing to joke about...unless we're talking about the French military...

Oh wait...I get it now...most of you aren't from America! That explains most of your lack of intelligent military tactical expertise! LMAO, and people wonder why the US is the greatest country on earth...

Yep...I've increased all of the battles to 2 hours.

Chelco: Roger, over...

I've got an outstanding sense of humor. Unfortunately, it's not up to you, stoat, or anyone else to decide when or where when I use it.

So, what I take from the above sophomoric responses: 1. You're mostly a bunch of fanboiz. 2. You probably have zero true military experience. 3. You have such a sucky personal life that you spend so much time together online that you all know what each of you is thinking...much like a married couple. 4. This isn't the place for any serious tactical discussions. :eek: Thanks to all for clarifying things for me.

Let me say one more thing about the map size. Bear with me because I'm simultaneously writing Tinjaw's letter of release! The reason the military would need large map sizes is that one of the hardest things for new recruits to understand are things like bounding overwatch and properly maneuvering forces, using terrain, to get yourself into the best position possible to execute a successful mission. I agree that, so far, the small maps have been sufficient, I was thinking more in long-term use and marketability. Steel Beasts is also a tactical sim, but look at their map sizes! There's a real good reason for this. So, CM:SF is a "small-unit, engagement-only game". I like to look at the long-range possibilities. BTW, if anyone has a job for an "okay" gamer who likes to shoot-off his mouth, Tinjaw will be available in two weeks.

I hope I'm not the only one who used that berm as a great firing position? In fact, I took-out all tanks with two M1's on those berms, as well as the bunkers to the right of the compound, and used my spotter Stryker from there to pount the crap out of the exposed infantry. Then, I maneuvered everything around the berm, blew huge oles in the east wall and leveled most of the buildinggs in the east and south with the M1's in security. Waltzed right in and took the barracks buildings, all in about 42 minutes, and on Veteran setting.

"Gamey"? Umm, sorry, no...ask any Army or Marine commander and that is EXACTLY what they try to do. I'm willing to bet that you would never find any military leader say "Well, we decided not to kill as many of the enemy as possible while eventually giving-up our objective and ultimately wasting the lives of our own men, all while failing to achieve the Commander's Intent!" Sheesh. </font>

"Gamey"? Umm, sorry, no...ask any Army or Marine commander and that is EXACTLY what they try to do. I'm willing to bet that you would never find any military leader say "Well, we decided not to kill as many of the enemy as possible while eventually giving-up our objective and ultimately wasting the lives of our own men, all while failing to achieve the Commander's Intent!" Sheesh.

Completely irrelevant here...the OP is talking about a game mechanic, not his play. </font>

I have to mention a little thing called TACTICS here. Why in the world would anyone consciously decide to send troops through a known chokepoint without pounding the sweet crap out of it with 155mm?! Seriously?! I pounded the crap out of everything that had even an inkling of enemy long before I committed ground forces, and I lost nothing - nobody. I used my M1's to provide 360 coverage around the camp then blasted the crap out of the guard towers and the forward barracks buildings and such, then I did an area mission in the inside of the compound, used my MGS's to create a few wall breaches then support the M1's in coverage, dismounted my AT teamsabout 200m away from the compound to take-out resistance on rooftops and provide antiarmor support, then ran my Strykers up, dismounted my assault forces, and cleared the buildings one floor at a time. Did this on Veteran setting. Won't even try Elite until I finish the campaign as Vet.

Have you ever heard a Mk19 firing? I have, and this is a relatively good representation...same for the Javelin.

The line color depends on the type of movement given (quick/move/slow/hunt/etc.). Also, if the route takes you through any kind of significant elevation, the line may disappear on some vid cards,...at least it does on mine.

I have quite a bit of experince in creating scenarios using a tactical AI in various games, and I would venture to say that it's likely NOT just the AI, but also the scenario designers. I'm not trying to dog anyone at all here, (I like the scenarios as delivered for the most part), but even a basic AI , if employed correctly, can seem very detailed and "human". Personally, I like using "time triggers" to start an AI unit on its mission or path. I think too many scenario designers use an "if/then" statement, which leaves too much to chance, because there's always a chance the the "if" never happens. I've played a few of the various battles within the campaign, and I think it gets a bit more complicated as you get farther in the campaign. I think this is very smart (IF it's intentional, if not, then it's just a lucky benefit!). :cool: Imagine how many players, especially new to the CM series and casual wargamers, would walk away from the game if it were too hard from the start? :confused: I'm enjoying CM:SF a great deal, and I'm a person with very limited free time. I like it more than any FPS that's been produced in the last 4 years or so, and better than any 3D RTS game, and I've been involved with some of the "big" beta projects, to include World in Conflict. :eek: Again, my only gripe is map size. If this game is ever going to have a chance beyond a squad/company-level trainer in the Army or Marines, that's going to have to increase to at least 50km x 50km or even more. I can't help but weigh every modern wargame against certain criteria...it's my job!

Vista is your main problem. Get the most up-to-date drivers for your vid card.

I haven't had any problems with it at all.

Fort Leavenworth

I had the same thing happen. The ATGM teams quickly engaged the T54s without orders. The I manually targeted both bunkers. One bunker was fired at, the other wasn't. I couldn't compel my ATGM teams to fire on the second bunker. The M249 had no problems targeting the same bunker and there was a red icon above the bunker (unlike the dead first bunker and dead T54s). </font>

First, My hardware: Athlon 64 3200+ (socket 939) 2GB ram NVIDIA Geforce 7600 GT, 256 MB Windows XP, SP 2 Second, game settings: Everything on "balanced" I'm having no issues at all. Game runs very smooth, no stuttering. I only play in Real-Time (turn-based is for wimps, IMHO! ). I really like this game so far,...and since my job entails using modern military games in the classroom, I'd think that's saying alot. Though I haven't messed with the editor, if it's fairly straightforward and relatively simple, I could see this as being a valuable training tool. My only reservation is the map size - 4km x 4km is definitely NOT what the Army needs for an entity-based training simulation. Any chance the game is HLA-compliant? BTW, I actually LIKE the camera controls! This is significant, because I couldn't stand the older CM games because of this, but now, I'm liking the RMC+hold paradigm, and I'm getting around rather quick. [ July 27, 2007, 03:32 PM: Message edited by: B00M$LANG ]

Unless I missed something in the documentation, I would like to be able to "acquire" weapons, ammo, and other equipment from dead or injured soldiers.

I've already created my own Syrian map to track my progress. Is that a bad sign?

The review was already done, so what was the harm? If there was any hint of conflict of interest (for real) we wouldn't have put them in. But there wasn't. And there are far more reviews out there than just these 4. You could read them or (shock) wait for the Demo to come out and see for yourself. Really... it's quite funny, in a morbid way, to see how nearly a decade of trust in us can go right out the window with some people because a couple of reviewers had something negative to say. Speaks more to the person throwing out the trust than it does us. Steve </font>