sburke

Not likely. I think this is more an artifact of how the walls are created. It is true across all titles. It becomes more noticeable in CMSF as Ian noted, because that is all you have. I would not expect to see this change. And yeah the "industrial" look does accentuate it. Partly because now you have multiple adjoining walls for it to show up and then removing walls doesn't help. I personally don't really like the attempt for the industrial look as it isn't at all WYSIWYG. The walls may be removed but units can not see through a building just because the walls are gone. I tried to do that once with an ATG positioned behind a building and removed two sets of walls. LOS did not extend and when you watch infantry move from building to building they still use what are supposed to be door locations. The abstracted nature of interior walls just wipes the immersion for me when you see what is supposed to be a big open industrial hall and it isn't at all.

@Broadsword56 once created a woodland in one of our campaign battles that incorporated bits of hedgerow, clearings, paths etc very interesting and tough fight

you just gotta love duffelblog

Not sure where you go that. Yes there are folks that object to the behavior represented in balconies however that is not a "bug" and is easily remedied if you don't like it in map design. They have their advantages and disadvantages just like any other terrain feature. I have never heard from BF that they intend to do anything with that. There are simply too many things involved there for me to contemplate the labor it would take and it is not a CMSF specific behavior. It is easier to either design buildings with no access to the balcony if you want the aesthetic of balconies or simply eliminate them.

Funny because that is exactly what people used to bitch about Updating to keep in line with patches. And as you may know already BF is planning to release a hofix for CMSF2 over the course of maybe the next week.

Nope you don't. That should inspire some caution at making pronouncements about what is or isn't being done right, wrong or indifferently. No it absolutely is not the best of all situations to have to wait on patches. There are limits though to what BF can do considering the resources involved. Sure they could test a lot more as you and a couple others have noted, however would you like to have waited another 6 months for CMSF2? Beta testing for CMSF was a bitch. I have no idea where you came up with the idea there was no testing. You should speak from what you know not from ignorance. A brand new title would have been easier. Everything has a price. BF could have gone the route of doing the base game then each individual module. Instead they took a shortcut to release the entire CMSF family and folks are bitching about that? Damn.. The number of people who do not have all the modules is a subset of the total number of purchasers. Possibly a small subset. The Marine campaign will be fixed shortly. The others to follow and in the meantime there is plenty of material to play with. I swear this forum really amazes me how folks can't see the forest for the trees at times. One issue was found with a campaign and the immediate response is "oh my god they released too soon" or "oh my god I found a bug how could they have missed this"? good lord. Perfect is the enemy of good enough. No software is ever perfect so was CMSF2 ready for release? In my view hell yeah. Was it perfect, no. Would it have been perfect in another 6 months. no. Would BF have to consider another pricing model if it was gonna take another 6 months or simply drop the project. Yep. Given those options I for one am thrilled they went through with it despite the teething issues it still has.

I'd have gone with Marines but that is just my bias.

It's a zip file. MAC not recognize zip?

heh not sharing a backstory, just a question. Sgt have you posted previously on that. Sounds familiar, but not sure if you actually have or not.

Did they melt?

That to me is a more feasible concept and frankly more appropriate to the middle east. It is a morass just like Afghanistan. Getting in is easy, getting out is hard. Vietnam in relative terms was painful from the perspective of not liking to accept anything less than victory but we COULD walk away. The Middle East is much more difficult being a strategic resource. I am curious that none of the creative backstories includes anything to do with Saudi Arabia. To me they represent the ultimate weak link. If the house of Saud fails and a radical Sunni state comes to power just exactly what would the US do then? US forces in Mecca? I am just waiting for the day the lid blows off and all options are really bad. Equal doses of pessimism and fatalistic realism. The Sunni/Shia conflict in Iraq becomes a minor family squabble in comparison to how bad this could get.

That would be the one that says big bundle at $35

If they got stuck in a ford that is just bogging. It happens. I generally try to go slow as well through fords but even that doesn't help sometimes. If the ford is too deep it will show as impassable. Getting 4 stuck though, it may be the designer placed some mud as well and the environmental conditions can also impact bogging. A LAV would likely bog as well. Being amphibious doesn't really help in mud.

Aren't and were not meant to be. LAVs are.

I think you should just say this is a totally imaginary situation with no semblance to reality and then just go ahead and do whatever you want. If you make a campaign most folks probably won't care about the back story. If you don't make a campaign no one will.... Trying to rationalize any of this being possible is simply a waste of time. Even if you posit a best case situation it still just isn't possible. 15,000 US troops are not going to be overwhelmed by anything in the middle east. Maybe if they were marching on Astana...….

Good luck on that map! Part of why I decided to tackle Sadr city instead - a grid works sooo much better with CMs limitations

Yeah the floodgates are creaking. CMSF2 is gonna be the hottest title by far. Woot!!

pretty much everything LLF said. Totally implausible. You could make a campaign based on a single unit, maybe company sized that gets cut off, but 15,000 men? It's your sandbox you can do what you want but you are asking for feedback and your backstory just isn't even close to a possibility. To make it worth creating it has to have some small slim percentage chance of possibility. This one doesn't.

If you have amazon prime it is on the video selection

It isn't about cheating. There are things that you can do in the editor that once you load into a btt don't seem to work. I'd created a ticket on it and discussion amongst beta folks. I was experimenting with different ways of mounting a platoon and ran into a situation that once I opened as a battle team members just disappeared. Recreating it was not consistent and the simplest way to avoid it was as I mentioned to not mount the troops in the editor. In my case there were no triggers or AI plan whatsoever, it was the human controlled side, no reinforcements set etc. I would check his file but the link does not seem to work. Likely a permissions issue on the file link he sent. PM sent

Not sure what that means. CMSF2 is a new install, the only thing you need to verify is a purchase and BF can do that. Once done you just purchase the CMSF2 upgrade version and install as a brand new game. Has really nothing to do with CMSF1 itself. Ping Steve, he will sort you out and you definitely want CMSF2. There is so much more in this game than just a "simple" upgrade.

I have seen something like this but caused by something completely different. When splitting teams and mounting in vehicles I have run into an occasional issue that team members go missing. If I unmount in the editor and reopen they show up again. It has not been consistent and the simplest remedy for me was to start them unmounted. As long as they are all in the same set up zone I can then mount them first turn and no ill effect. I could only make this happen when mounting them in the editor.

yep, the inventory shows if they are capable of using, actual conditions will determine if they wear them. and so you know it makes a huge difference in play. The side playing the uncons will definitely feel what conditions were like for insurgents in Iraq. Word of warning though. You'll spot their guys first but when your guys open fire they will reveal themselves to any insurgents they haven't spotted. Fire fights can be really interesting in these conditions - you get the drop on the first guys and then you find you have multiple rpgs coming your way.

5:10 am may be close to a breaking point where the nvg would come off. are you seeing both in the same turn?

book and an HBO drama. it was written by a rolling stone reporter embedded with 1st recon in the drive to Baghdad.