sburke

Wow credit to Mace. He didn't settle for just throwing rocks.

Maybe you should read your own posts The situation should be difficult. It shouldn't be difficult cos one is given inadequate resources. As to Carl's response. He is apparently uninterested in a discussion or alternate ideas so f**k it, I have other things I can do than this.

Here is a thought. Create a bare bones scenario/campaign of what you think you would like to see, doesn't even have to be playable, but just to get a feel for options. Then start the discussion. The first thing to understand is what can you create in CM before critiquing what is created. For example you are looking to create something extremely variable in terms of force size and somehow have victory conditions out of it to determine what happens next. The victory conditions however may not be flexible enough to allow for the amount of variance you hope to see. Where I am going with this is CM has a couple options for points that then determine victory levels to be able to create a win/loss result for branching options. You can't have a potential small versus large force on a map and tie victory conditions very well for branching to the next scenario in the battle. It might be doable, but it would likely have to be very creative as to what are the victory conditions that would work regardless of the enemy force size. I believe you could alter the enemy reaction by just having a portion of the force have no orders in some AI plans and in others the whole force be moving. However again what are the victory conditions in that battle that determine a successful recon phase and are the achievable given drastically different AI plans and force levels? honestly regardless of the answer I don't think you will see much of this. It would take a pretty extensive amount of work from what is really a small pool of contributors and that is assuming it can be done in a way that fits the suggested criteria you have listed.

I did do a scenario where the objective was to find a unit that had strayed into Venafro and to ID survivors. My only issue was I couldn't move those locations so replay value was tough. One of the reasons I am looking forward to an upgraded CMSF is to use supply units as hidden enemy weapons caches. There is I believe at least one scenario I have played in a campaign where your objective is to spot enemy units. The victory points you get for that determine your standing in the next battle of the campaign. If I am remembering correctly at least one example of that was in a German campaign for CMBN

I could make a scenario that had no one there, but I am pretty sure there would be a s**tstorm from the user community about how they wasted 60 minutes of their day doing recon on a map only to find nothing there. Let's review some responses from folks on this forum The Normandy campaign with it's notorious battle that raised a fuss cause player couldn't figure out one that it might not be winnable and found it unacceptable to just ceasefire and accept a draw. Erwin (sorry Erwin, not trying to be a d**k, but I just found it striking that he is complaining about the very thing that you were asking for) commenting on the CMSF forum about a scenario that was being created and asking for assurance he'd have the resources to complete the mission. The constant complaints when folks feel a scenario is too hard or they run out of resources or time in a scenario/campaign. No offense @CarlWAW, but the things you are pointing out as ruining the game for you are the very things time and again players have made clear they want. I realize you did not apportion blame in your post, but in reality, it is your fellow players who have helped drive the nature of scenario construction. Stuff that gets created that doesn't meet those criteria likely never makes it to being posted as the creator doesn't want to deal with the complaints. What you are looking for can be done, but it takes something different - a managed op layer campaign. Even then you will still have some predictability. No one is gonna go through the trouble of creating a map with no battle. I can relate to your feelings. I personally have no issue with a battle having bad intel and the battle that I expected not looking anything at all like the battle I end up fighting. Most players though aren't into that and I have seen more than one complaint by folks feeling that the scenario briefing failed as it did not prepare them for the battle they fought.

Okay gotta admit I had to google neckbeard. Still freakin laughing my ass off.

I'll pm you as soon as I am back.

Yeah figured it'd be something completely going elsewhere. Anyone who starts with the premise that Russia is anywhere near capable of a Cold War Fulda gap type attack on the west has completely missed the boat at how really limited Russia's ability to wage a large conventional attack on the west is now. The logistical piece alone is likely gonna fall apart on its own without NATO intervention.

I am out of town til mid next week, but I would love a link to those saves. It would help a lot. Thanks in advance.

Err. That is pretty rude. You just leveled an insult at just about every beta tester here. And no all you can do is not complain. In fact if that is all you do it will never contribute anything. You can just like anyone else here post a save, a test scenario etc demonstrating what it is you think is off. There are a couple beta testers in this thread as well so acting like if Steve personally doesn't post or Charles doesn't gurgle from his fishbowl that it is utterly pointless reveals a level of ignorance as to how any issue has ever been brought to BFs attention. you've been around long enough to know better, c'mon man.

Dude you should really ratchet it down. You are talking to someone actually experienced in the field and as far as anyone knows here your entire experience is playing board and computer games. To think you are showing a far superior awareness of what may or may not be needed is.. well kind of embarrassing. The rest of us are just kind of sitting here gritting our teeth and not making eye contact with anyone. It is like bringing your drunk friend along to the wedding and listening to him tell the bride how hot she is and she could do so much better (whlie he is so drunk he doesn't realize he is talking to the bride's mom). Your ignorance of these matters is matched only by your own self assured view that your views are brilliant. They aren't. Please do us all a favor and continue to argue your view if you want, but don't do so with this tone that you know far more than some ignorant experienced armor officer. It is just really painful to listen to. And then to link to a statement from McMasters which I don't even have to read to know you are likely completely changing the context on...... sigh Please just a little more humility. Or any for that matter

Maybe, but did you provide any test material? ?BF never responds to just complaints or anecdotal info. You can either help with a data set to prove your point or you decide you just want to grumble and not see any changes. It is all a matter of choice. As to small arms fire, I can't vouch for that and that is not a component of this test. Sooooooooo ?

Thanks @slysniper that is really interesting. I am back in town mid next week and will do a comparison save of both and pass the results up the ladder to get some attention.

There is mobility and then there is operational mobility. A CM map can definitely be large enough that mobility becomes very important. You really want that infantry platoon to march a kilometer or 2 before making contact? Or trying to cross a kilometer potentially under arty fire? That however is different than operational mobility, that is the point folks are making about the role of the Stryker and I do agree that piece you can't really portray in CM without a campaign layer. See what I did there ?Perfect segue into what we all know we want BF fix or do sumfink

The Stryker's issue isn't that we can't utilize long range fire, it is operational mobility. An 8x4 map doesn't demonstrate that much better than a 4x6 in CMx2. Wake up Erwin, we are talking Styker's not Elefants.

It might help first if you explain the concept you are going for. Most players want to see more of the low level action rather than something that looks like an RTS board game view. All depends on what your objective is with the recording.

Obviously? Why is it obviously?

Not true, I can tell you plenty of horror stories in my own field. People's willingness to jump in and offer advice for areas they are totally ignorant of is pretty amazing. Just view the comments section of just about any news article. @shift8 you are close, but you still go for the small solution. What we need is to mount a carrier battle group and an attached MEU on tracks. A combined anti air, mobile strike platform that has an armored and infantry capability. Plus cruise missiles. You have to have cruise missiles. And it is all sealed up with an Aegis package. The only thing holding it up is Trump deciding we need to keep the steam catapults. Other than that we should be fielding the new "land carrier battle group" by 2025.

Thanks slysniper no problem, there is actually a variation. I used off board. The rate of fire is I believe higher. Also in my test I used blue on blues as I wanted a wider variety of arty examples. I can send you a link later today and provid my test scenario for you to compare. The rest seems comparable to yours.

None of which reflects the behavior in question. This isn't about troops breaking and running or retreating, it is about a TAC AI response to incoming HE fire where they simply move and in moving are leaving the best position they have to weather that fire. Back to my example a "typical" us infantry platoon takes one round of 81 mm mortar fire and moves out of their foxholes and into the open. They don't vacate the area of fire and seek other cover, they simply climb out of their foxholes and go to ground in the open. This is really a simple example easily set up in 10 minutes or less by anyone here interested. I don't still have 3.0 loaded to compare behavior and am about to head out of town, but if we are still talking in circles next week I'll see if I can't set that up.

Fair enough, that is more detail for a baseline discussion.

Yeah the Stryker is a glorified closed top half track. Do not use it like a Bradley. And that guy has to get his weapon reloaded if his vehicle is in combat. The poor design for his weapons station is an indicator that the vehicle is likely not intended to be used in the manner you are using it What I typically do is have it start in cover, move forward, pause, target briefly then retreat. It should not stay exposed. I also try to keep it well out of rpg range. Consider it a truck.

Well this is why we need a baseline. You made certain assumptions above - the unit is under fire and in close proximity to the enemy. That is one situation. However it is not necessarily the only one. So let's change that a bit. How about a platoon spread out alll in foxholes. No enemy in proximity. They get hit with a medium 81 mm mortar strike. Within a turn almost the entire platoon has vacated their positions and is now in the open. Would that cause you to feel differently? that is actually a repeatable scenario and an easy one to set up.

well there really isn't any sequence when in comes to CM. CMSF being the oldest and not updated will also make you learn things that you will need to adjust playing other titles. There is supposed to be a plan to upgrade or r-release with current engine but no prospective timeline. Given that it is still one of my favorites.

my suggestion is to try one of the other version demos first. CMSF is a really old family, not updated recently and the demo probably hasn't been touched in years prior. (I play the full game regularly). Here is the link to the black sea demo - see if you can run that first before fighting this too hard. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=340&Itemid=584