H.W. Guderian

Maybe I was confusing in my post? I wasn't referring to player controlled forces and the AI that deals with how they react second by second (I honestly don't know the names of the different "AI's" so excuse my ignorance). I was trying to point out that playing Red vs Blue AI is seriously broken if Red has any armor. In this case the Blue AI: (1) appears to ignore the vulnerability of Strykers to T-72's (2) appears to ignore the AT assets Blue has on hand - namely the Jav's I'm not sure how others deal with Red armor when they play Blue with Strykers but, for me, parking the bus in a shady, hidden spot and sneaking the boots round with some Jav's is the only way I know how? As of 1.04 the "Blue AI" seems very broken to me - and I'm one of those players who has little free time and simply wants to regularly play a small, solo WEGO QB. Thats what I paid my $$$ to BFC for. But I'm loving CMAK again. =) It's real wargaming fun! Thank god QB's in CMX1 continue to deliver an entertaining gaming experience.

. . . and how bout a Stryker force not only retreating behind cover at the first sign of serious Red armor . . . but maybe the AI could even take the bold move of then deploying boots with javs to actually do something about such a threat? Any chance we'll see an AI that actually makes use of core AT resources in 1.05? At the moment AI Strykers appear to just bumble forward toward whatever AI "objectives" exist and then, if they make it, sit parked there with apparently no regard for enemy facing or any idea of deploying boots with javs to fend off armor or mech threats? I've moved back to playing CMBB & CMAK as CMSF solo gameplay remains often frustrating, un-immersive, and insipid. Holding out hopes for 1.05 . . . or 1.0*? Thanks in advance for any insight on related fixes in 1.05 and beyond.

So, is that why when I chose "armor" in QB's I get BMP's or even just a couple of Ruskie jeeps with FO's to face off against a horde of Bradleys? Can't tell you how frustrating it is to go through the whole QB "select - load - quit and try again" cycle just to get Blue vs Red QB's that are balanced (which does equate to fun for some punters). and MarkEzra: Thanks for all your work, and that of others, to make us new maps and scenarios. It is appreciated. Without that "independent" support my CMSF "morale" would be even lower.

If they are not on a holiday, they should be. Really, we should all hope they are on a "burn-out" busting holiday. No matter what you think of CMX2, CMX1, or whatever, without these guys we'll certainly never get the kind of mil-sims we enjoy.

Bon jour mon ami, I *HAD* split up my teams - the two man Jav team, sitting in a wood, decided to make its presence known by firing a few carbine rounds at some HQ unit that crossed its target arc . . . instead of waiting for a BMP or T-72?! [other comments above] ALSO . . . it seems clear from the responses here that after 3 months of CM:SF patching *** YOU CAN'T SET-UP AN AMBUSH *** !?!?! Maybe they figure we will always play the Yanks - attacking en masse - and so who needs to be able to do something silly like ambushing an attacking force? Disappointing. Maybe I'll go play CM X 1 again . . . . time is money and free time for gaming is GOLD. A tout a l'heure mes amis. Bon chance. (God my French is crap . . .)

Thanks for the reply mate. (1) I tried that . . . didn't seem to work at all? But maybe I'm wrong / going blind / on something? (2) Well I can tell you that it is a real shame for a Jav team to be spotted because it sprays a bit of small-arms at a distant HQ unit . . . instead of waiting for a T-72 or BMP to show up in the cross-hairs! We really need something like this in CMX2 - and not just for buses and tanks, but boots as well.

Ummmm .... maybe a dumb question but . . . I just played the excellent "In Harm's Way" by Paper Tiger - where the yanks defend against a much larger force. (1) How does one tell hidden units to "open fire" once targets are within a given range / arc / kill-zone? AKA - ambush. (2) Additionally how does one tell said units only to open up on Tanks & BMP's - rather than giving themselves away to simply pop a 2 man HQ unit. I'm sure there is a simple answer - but I can't suss it out? Cheers n beers . . .

First try = Total US Victory (difficulty = Veteran) Funny . . . to me this felt a bit like . . "Fulda Gap" - overwhelmed yanks facing masses of Red T-72's and BMP's. I almost forgot I was in Syria. **** SPOILERS(?) *** * * * * * * * * * **** SPOILERS(?) *** Javs, javs, and more javs . . . without them, forget it. As mentioned the a key is to split up the teams and give the javs clear / long fields of fire. (I even had 1 jav team 1/2 survive the whole scenario!) I put almost all the boots right in town - on the objectives - and hid in wait. (Wish I knew how to setup proper ambushes in CMX2?????) Had only one jav team and and an "observer" (Bat HQ) way over past the Garage - far stage right. They both eventually got totally smoked - as did the 40mm bus and the ATGM bus that I had backing them up on the right, as I tried to play "ridge-line games". Sneaking them to what I hoped was "just visible" hull-down spots on the ridge for 15 - 30 secs and then backing them off simply didn't work . . . OPFOR tanks and ATGM'S smoked em quick. Maybe it works better with Tanks? Back in town a combo of javs, AT-4's, and rifle grenades took out the tanks and all but 3 BMP's. My house-bound fire teams cut up almost all the OPFOR infantry. But if the 3 remaining BMP's were "smarter" they could have caused much more carnage. In the end OPFOR had one t-72 come across from the "Garage" (with my remaining ATGM bus chasing it's tail CAREFULLY), those 3 BMP's at the gates of town, and VERY LITTLE infantry (I assume most died in the brewed-up BMP's thanks to the javs or were cut-up piecemeal trying to get into town). I felt one key was to be very careful about only revealing positions when they had limited OPFOR's in sight - unless of course the target was "high-value". So, in case you missed it without the Javs (aka "hidden, long-range killing power") Team USA wouldn't stand a chance in this one IMHO. Oh yeah, given these guys are on the defence and not going to move much / at all I pulled every round I could out of the buses . . . that helped too - having oodles of ammo! Frankly, I doubt I would have had a "Total Victory" against anything but the AI. GREAT WORK ON THIS SCENARIO!!! ENJOYED IT, THANKS!

yes, Yes, YES! Same. What the heck is going on with LOS / LOF behind 8 foot tall concrete walls - and when will it be fixed? Was REALLY enjoying this scenario (great work Mr. Strike) and then the "wall LOS / LOF" issues just ruined my day. =(

Roger that!

. . . looks lovely! How much is a 1 Bedroom apartment? How soon can we move in? =)

. . . but they *haven't* been "caught in an ambush." They've decided to skip the gaping hole on the "safe" side of the house you ordered them through and instead ran around the front - in clear view of that BMP 40 metres away that your other squad in the house next door - the one on the radio - has had located for 5 minutes. OR They just stood around looking at funny muzzle flashes in thin air coming from the enemy squad they somehow can't see 30 metres away in plain view? Hopefully the "pathfinding" issues can be resolved (?) but it seems hard to get around the fact that while CMX2 looks "1:1" what we really get is "8 X 8".

I find this quote above a somewhat insightful distillation of the issues that, IMHO, limit the enjoyment of CMX2 and sometimes cause pure frustration. Seeing as CM:SF is a warGAME maybe the metrics of "enjoyment" or "player immersion" are a better topic of discussion than "realism" or what is "more realistic"? It appears that the typical number crunching power of current systems can't truly keep up with the apparent "commercial demands" for a CM game that "looks good", AKA has "1 to 1" representations, without LOS / LOF abstractions that become painfully obvious and dissonant given all the above mentioned "good looking realism"? One wonders how small must a map get or numbers of troops get before we could do away with the LOS/LOF "spotty" abstractions on "current systems"? I might take this opportunity to again remind Steve / BFC that some of us have access to supercomputing facilities and we'd love to see an "Abstractions? We don't need no stinking abstractions" module ported over to a Cray. Maybe sometime after 1.05?

Major, Thank you for continuing the calls for Native OS X CMX2 over in the "Beta-zone". Any ideas if we will ever see ADF included in a module? Could we ever get both? ADF and OSX? Guderian out.

"Unprecedented footage" of Australian troops under fire in Afghanistan. Squad is seen and heard taking cover and returning fire - eventually moving to flank the enemy. VIDEO FROM THE AGE MEDIA REPORT FROM THE AGE Are we going to get an ADF module BF?

Hmmm . . . If Windoze won't treat you right Steve then maybe just move to a solid UNIX based OS X platform? Thanks for the fixes.

Thanks BF / Steve for the coms and the effort.

All I can do is honestly advise you to start looking for a substitute. Some of these are the results of bugs, not of abstractions. There is a difference. The decision has been explained in detail in several threads. The short of it is this... LOS is the most computationally intensive game element, possibly excepting pathing. It was directly simulated in CMx1 because the terrain and units were so massively abstracted. Therefore, we had the horsepower to do direct LOS because it really didn't mean anything special to do it since we didn't have to be very precise about it. Now that units are not abstracted to the same degree (hardly at all), and terrain is vastly more complex, a modest about of LOS abstraction is required. The end result is that CM:SF, with its abstracted LOS, is still far more accurate than CMx1 was with its highly abstracted terrain and units. But if you don't see it that way, and instead wish to focus on a single tree instead of the forest, that is your choice. The choice, however, means you will never buy another Combat Mission game for a VERY long time because the LOS abstraction will remain for the life of the CMx2 engine. If, however, you really mean getting the abstracted LOS to work properly within the context of the game, then stick around. We'll have that in a fairly short length of time. Steve [/QB]</font>

No. It is not just you. . . . EDIT to turn on email notification.

Thanks, that was my point exactly. I can't understand how BF thought they could make an AI good enough to drop this abstraction almost completely. The AI is not bad compared to other games, but, you know, it's an AI... there are stragglers, soldiers that take detours, that lay down in the middle of the road with their backs turned against the enemy etc.; everything you would expect from such an AI. And when everything else in the game is modelled realistically(as is the case with CM:SF) then of course that sort of behaviour will get them killed, just as it would get a bunch of half-blind retards killed if one were to send them out in a fight in real-life. I'm pretty disappointed with this game. The more I play it the more I feel that realism has been sacrificed for 1:1 representation. I haven't played a scenario so far without having several men killed simply because they are AI-soldiers. If I remember correctly the manual says that this sort of thing should not have an impact on the overall realism of the game, but I can't see how it doesn't. </font>

Yes, yes, YES! What is up with this? Happens all the time and is very uncool. I felt that I've learned to "understand" and "trust" the CMX1 AI. With CMX2 I dread the silly things the AI does at the "small scale" (I assume therefore TAC-AI?)

Jason, Thanks for that insight mate. Given these facts I'm thinking, perhaps ignorantly, that there maybe cause to re-evaluate the consequences and power of Jav use in CMSF? In CMSF at the moment, it seems to me that if you are up against non-mech forces, and you have neither Tanks, MGS, or Air/Arty support the default option to keep casualties low is to stand off with all your Javs out, send in some scouts to acquire targets, and then blast them all (2 javs seem to often take down a building and that is bad news to opponents in multistory complexes.) But maybe the Jav's really are a "keystone" weapons platform that is correctly portrayed in CMSF?

That was a test firing and the target rigged to explode. Go look up some videos of the javelin being used in combat and you'll see thats not even close to the type of damage it creates. It woudlnt even need a top attack mode if it could do that. Even detonating the tanks ammo wouldnt create that kind of damage. The Javelins an awesome weapon, but dont be fooled by a sells video. </font>

For unsupported Stryker troops the Jav has proven to be the most potent weapon found in the game so far. "Don't leave home (or your IFV / APC ) without it". I have no experience to say if their potency is realistic. But given that YouTube clip above - maybe a "gamey" aspect is that we don't see tanks completely obliterated? BTW - is there any comment on what effect carrying a Jav and ammo has on a squads mobility, fatigue, ability to crawl, etc? EDIT - sorry, MORE ON TOPIC - yes it would be good to get a reality check on both the anti-pers capabilities of the Jav and the operational realities of pulling out 12 tubes per Platoon and laying waste to 6 city blocks. [ July 29, 2007, 04:33 PM: Message edited by: H.W. Guderian ]

Yes, yes ,yes! How does one add a "hide" or a "facing" or "both" to the end of a move? Without it you just get many seconds (60 - move time) of "I'm here, you can see me, I don't notice you, please smoke me now" OR, in RT you must keep an eye on all your moves and go back and "finish them with a hide and facing" . . . Ideas? Is this here somewhere or something that surely will be coming in V1.0X?