LRC

Seriously ... The last bit that is missing in CMAK. - Formation commands . - Group follow road . - Infantry with armor arc only . - Maps with geodesics . ...

Last time I played in urban terrain ( V1.10 ? ) 2 issues were limiting the fun of the game: - no sound detection ( bump in the armor round the corner is not really realistic ... ) - platoon exiting using the front door (under enemy fire) when back door is usable ( and in safe zone). Was this resolved in the last versions ?

What are the expected changes/upgrades/improvements planned for the user interface ? More specifically: - group/formation orders ? - follow road ? - path reroute when crossing un accessible terrain ? - mid point edit ? - warning/autostop when out of view event ?

Pandur, For clarification, item list #1 to #6 is a mutualy exclusive list => it would not make sense to have all items implemented ( to much overlap and overloading player with data). Anyway, when action is happening outside the field of view, there should be some kind of player notification. I hate finding cadavres when going back to a unwatched unit ... BTW, this would also better mimic real life battle coms "red co, red co, this is team alpha, we are taking fire, we are taking fire, argh..."

Jav targeting & guidance is based on thermal image recognition. What is targetable/not targetable is a question of algorithm. A path of rock contrasting with the surroundings should be targetable.

Looks like that a lot a persons have given some thoiught about this, but I did not see any feed back from BF. In a nutshell possible implementation from basic/limited to sophisticated/convolued are: #1- flashing icon next to unit #2- text next to unit (nervous/pinned/...) (CMx1 like) #3- on screen warning message or specific sound clues. #4- Clickable on screen warning message in order to jump to impacted unit. #5- On screen list of events. #6- Clickable on screen list of events in order to jump to corresponding unit Implementation #3 to #6 could also have an autopause mode when a new event pops up. However, when action heats up it could be more an annoiance than a solution.

Agree with flamingknives. If casualties happen outside the field of view, this reduces the added value of blinking icons. A sound/visual warning with a key command to switch view to the latest casualty would be more practical. Some games already implements this (with an autopause in some case)

After some testing, here are some observations on area targeting with Javelin: #1- Targeting only works on object (building, vehicles) => never works on terrain. Can not fire a Jav on a patch of rocks (even if you know that it hides a gun, a sniper and a forward observer...). #2- Short range (<200m) targeting result in a mix of rifle and Jav usage. #3- Targeting always requires blue LOS. If BF could confirm that #1 is a feature (not a bug), I'd like to understand the rational for this choice.

Agree that they are expensive. But if killing the gun save me 3 vehicles, this is a pretty good investment ...

Does anyone know if BF plans to include a "casualty warning" in future releases ? Here is what I mean: - I position an AT team to overlook the battlefield. - I go somewhere else and issue orders to other platoons. - When tanks arrive, I go back to the AT team. Both are dead....I don't know how and when ... For realism (and reduced player frustration) it would help to have some visual/sound warning ("casualty warning") when casualties happen outside of the field of view.

Is there any "special" to do in order to area fire with Javelin ? Here is my problem: - recoil less gun spotted 400m away but now hiding. - the area is visible by the anti tank team (LOS blue) - I click/select the Javelin weapon and then do a Target of the area. >> team is firing with their rifle (not with the Jav) ?????

In MOUT, short distance noice spotting is important (critical ?). I had several (nasty) occurence of squads bumping into an armor "hiding behind a corner". This is quite unrealistic because in operations engine are always on.

Steve, Here is a respin on the group command question. Consider the sequence for a group of 5 units " 1{deploy in V formation oriented North} + 2{move 400 meters North } + 3 {deploy in compact line oriented West} It is possible to code this sequence of orders by giving each unit a sequence of waypoints but it is not practical. With this in mind, group command should only be considered to be a way to simplify waypoints editing (like {deploy in V formation oriented North} or {deploy in compact line oriented West}) .

Steve, Is it possible to clarify the following " for the game AI, what is the difference between [a set of movement orders issued by the player ] and [ a set of movement orders issued by a group movement GUI] ? If difference is minimal, group movement should just be considered to be way a to automatize waypoints creation. But because it would be imperfect, individual waypoint editing would become a must....

What are plans regarding very short range "Sound detection" in urban terrain ? It is quite unrealistic ( and unpleasant ...) for a squad to bump into a tank hiding around the corner...

Yep. This is why some scenarios have to use "location markers" to signal that "Hey, they is a ford here!"

In some sense, CMX1 feels more realistic because the abstracted display/simulation "hides" some non realistic behaviors of the CMX1 engine. From a different angle, in CMX2 the 1-1 display/simulation highlights non realistic behavior of the engine. An example that is frequently frustating me, in actual MOUT when a building door is exposed to MG fire, the troops will sneak into the buidling via the back/side windows. In CMX2, troops can only enter via the door ==> and get slaughtered by the MG... In CMX1, they move through walls ==> this better reproduces the expected tactical behavior of entering via windows. Another example, are fords that are clearly displayed in CMX1 because of the basic display capability. In CMX2, it is almost impossible to read the screen and find the best way through a river...

I considering returning to TOW/TOW2 after a bad first impression 1year ago. Can you comment on progress/changes on the following issues: - tank crews/gun crews need to be micromanaged (ie, select who is the gunner, who is driver...). Are crews now able to manage themselves ? - tree cover was unrealistic (could immediately spot a static/non firing truck 1km away in trees) - non passable terrain is unclear/illogical (ie, non passable areas of grass or road...) - sqads were quite "tactically dumb" and micromanagement was a requirement to achieve decent results. It is more a game choice than a bug, but my preferences are more managing at platoon/company level and leave details to the AI...

Trying to summarize the previous posts. Could you rank each of the following ? problem for overall plan =========================== In open ground, impassable terrain is unclear. This can kill the best plans when you realize that this slope is actually a cliff... Night vision. It is unclear (no pun...) what is visible with and without night google. artillery screen which does not allow the player to know how long or how many shells will land or how many missions can be called in; similar issue with air support which obscures the types of weapons, how many runs are available, etc. All these would be known to the FAC calling them in. problem for a single unit ========================= In MOUT, tracked vehicles can not cross rubble (if the street is under enemy AT fire,the slow path via the rubble may be the best choice) In MOUT, squad can not enter/exist building via windows ( (if the door is under sniper/MG fire window entrance/exit is the best choice) In MOUT, vehicles hiding "just behind the corner" can not be heard. Units located in the same tile can't share spotted targets. Inability to place infantry smoke grenades. Not being able to use or hold a certain weapon/ammo Inability to split Syrian squads. Peaking around corners Allow the Stryker "air guard" to button up or at least duck down temporarily. A suicidal version of whack-a-mole doesn't play regardless of "doctrine." Conversely, allow Marines to fight from the troop hatches of the AAV's and LAV's. Allow the Recon Humvee to make use of the "Target" tool in-game to check LOS. I love that "unsexy" vehicles like this are in the game, why not make them meaningful? Allow teams to "Unaquire" extra items, at least while they are mounted. positive advantage ================== Dust Clouds on unspotted Units Visible Trenches In MOUT, Lack of friendly small arms fire.

Despite CM2x qualities & progress there remains some limitations that seriously hinder game tactics and realism. I'd be curious to gather your opinions. Here are my top 3 : In MOUT, tracked vehicles can not cross rubble (if the street is under enemy AT fire,the slow path via the rubble may be the best choice) In MOUT, squad can not enter/exist building via windows ( (if the door is under sniper/MG fire window entrance/exit is the best choice) In open ground, impassable terrain is unclear. This can kill the best plans when you realize that this slope is actually a cliff...

CM2x squads are completely deaf to tank sounds. As a result, in MOUT, they tend to bump on the tank that is just hiding behind the corner (and the tank also tends to blast them away of the game...) CM1X used to have a "sound detection" that was good enough to enable realistic MOUT tactics. Any chance to have this feature back in the near future (for example a ? icon or armor icon when at proximity (25meters) of a tank).

Once again about windows...(I give up on "entry via windows" after that last post...) If the choice is between #1 the platoon enter the building via the door that is on main street + main street is a sniper/mg alley #2 the platoon enter (slowly) the building via the side/back windows + building side/back is safe then forcing building entry via doors seriously modifies (diminishes?) the realism of MOUT tactics.

To go back to the original "enter via window" discussion... In 1944 Normandy, the windows are rarely more than 4ft from the ground and almost never have bars. Any platoon in CM Normandy should be able to enter buildings this way (except of course if they insist entering via the door that is under enemy fire....) In 201x middle east, windows with bars are common but are low and large enough to enable entry. A few rounds can easily dislodge the bars. So once again this is just a delay... And finally, this is a current MOUT drill (at least for European units).

IMYO, forcing building entry via doors makes MOUT very unrealistic because a squad can always enter a building. It is just a question of time... Consider the following: Case1: Door unlocked => 0 delay Case2: Door locked=> delay30 sec max Case3: Window => 15sec per body Case4: window with bars => 2min + 15sec per body In term of user interface,a basic visual coding could convey the door/window status: - door locked or window with bars => door/window visible or colored Red - door unlocked or no bars window => no door/window visible (plain hole in the wall) or colored Green

What are the recommendations for dealing with T72 tanks at very close range ? For squads, Javelin seems out of range and AT4 is limited to a mobility kill ...