Secondbrooks

Well they [tanks, IFV, RPG rounds] blow on top of roof as well, without any logical explanation of how it blows there. It should either hit wall of building or fly over the building, as flat roofs generally are not visible from ground level and therefore are not in line of fire... Some abstraction of same kind with this? Yeah it could be delayed fuze as well in case of builsings.

I liked the idea of tall pines and woods and scatterer trees in Cmx1... Can't see why it couldn't be same atleast in 'CMx2 going Normandy'-module. Simple to understand and easy to read they were, yet cowering basic types of forest. Maybe add something truly intresting 'i can't see longer than 10 meters distance'-type of forest. In CMSF there can be tens of combinations of mixed trees,bushes&brushes which gives no hard data about them, how they block LOS and LOF (which differs pretty much). If i station squad into forest and want it to have optimal position nearby, i need to do quite much "fireposition scouting": -how it sees here and there -is it too exposed to fire and spotting -does it see&hear it's commander And finally -do my RPGs end up hitting trees 10 meters away from firing position (and damange my own squad by that). Overall, as easily as i can get good results out of it i can also get bad results, where squad can't fire enemy effectively but enemy can fire it. Then again is it reasonible to improve existing system? Is there going back to system CMx1 had with premade types of forest in any way? I create alot forest fights for CMSF and feel this question to be quite important, but to my understandment this ain't exactly the hottest terrain gamers wants to be involved. [ April 27, 2008, 04:47 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Just opposite. AI ain't iniative, so it doesn't play well in defence if player can have space to move it's troops around map and form force consentrations agaisnt small part of defenders (most main campaing's attack missions shows this). If i have narrow pipe which i have to move across and there is not space to manuver, then it another thing.. AI does well static defence (well human can aswell by not doing anything), but defender usually has less strenght so it should read the situation and act activelly acording situation, in hope to gain any success. On attack then again computer has ability to force player to react, while it executes it's own plans. It has the iniative. Still it doesn't react to humans actions, but atleast human can't run the show by itself. There fore: I find statement that AI shouldn't attack quite absurd. Because i think that AI's "strenghts" are more present on attack than on defence. It is better attacker than active defender. Static ain't the way defending should be thought but that is pretty much only way AI can be planned to behave. Sure AI does worse some things, like crawl of death for infantry etc. which are not present on defence as they remain in place (but AI's skill to manage fire patches this in some way, usually quite well). I tend to not to play as attacker in scenarions as passivety of defending AI is just too plain.

Because guys don't communicate in realistic fashion, they are slaves of their chain of command: "Me not talking to you without link to my company commander, you guy from 2nd platoon". It would tie them even closer to chain of command rendering them even more useless without ability to communicate with their leader. For US it's much more okay due good reliability of maintaining CoC... For Syria definedly not.

Yankeedog' and Other Mean's suggestion are intresting. I give a thought to area fire as well: That what has been suggested would be only for unplanned situations (without new-age communications like with Stryker troops me figures). Forexample defenders should get minimal if any area fire penalties even without CoC their leaders have been there watched their area of fire and named the terrain etc. Defenceplan has been practiced multiple of times. Their actions can be expected to be planned, they are expected to know the terrain, they are expected to understand orders from one or two single words (shouted words travels long distances) they can be expected to be able to improvise better something which has not been planned. Current chain of command should be increased for defenders, maybe add option for hasty defence to make CoC to act like by default. Then again attacker knowing the terrain (by intel and/or first hand experience) planning and maybe even tranined, someway somehow should gain minimal CoC punishment and even improvise their actions without CoC. Question is that is current system better than making system far too complex? I think i forexample would neither care or be aware even half of things affecting this. One thing i know is that i'm on side of defender mostly Other case. What could we excpect to happen is we would be behind big gun and saw thru our optics that our guys are firing at building with their puny small arms? Or our guys from different platoon are requesting firesupport as we heppen to be around. Do we need CoC for help guys out or do we just fire our cannon at building? I quess there are early given orders which makes us do what we would, fire or not. Does CMSF include these orders? Well no, but Could be exected that ROE is allowing us to fire at anything suspicous or requested by forexample different company's guy and it doesn't require CoC. [ April 26, 2008, 02:04 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Area fire on buildings when squad starts it's assault. Can save the day for those guys. But overall i'm quite lazy in using area fire, basically if it's more that platoon which needs to be babysit by me then i usually ignore issuing 'area fire'-targets and by that let them suffer more casulities. [ April 25, 2008, 10:06 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Ah yes. I though my version is v2, but it wasn't. Barrier has been sorted out already. I reloaded it couple of times... Another being that i accidentaly oreders my ATGM teams to dismount from BMP in middle of mortar strike, while my intention was to move BMP out from barrage. Second reload was that i suddenly found out that i've lost whole company of BMPs and two my T-72s as i was micromanaging my platoon on far left flank... I just though my BMP company was ripping enemy attack to pieces with help of T-72s ... After that i think learned to keep my eye on all my men, not just one small part. Yes. I've noticed that my scenarios, intented to be small, starts to grow as it seems that small force just isn't enough to bring the whole set of battle. Maybe i just need to learn to play big forces properly, like previous example of my company getting wiped out and me not being aware of it (which indeed sounds to be utterly dumb thing to happen)

Concerning foxholes for proneposition (dunno is this correct english term) which we can see atleast at start of mission for each man... 1. Does it get created everytime man goes lying to represent microdetail in terrain. I think i've seen it to be created quite fast to lying men. Then again i've seen some deep holes for men at start of mission. 2. Is there various deepnesslevels of these holes? I think i've seen swallow and deeper ones when playing. Is ground tile's type (rocky, sand, grass) having importance in this? 3. Does that hole get deeper by time or is it solid you get what you find bonus? Do men dig or other way improve cover value of their hole by time? 4.Other factors? Or have i eaten wrong kind mushrooms when seeing these holes?

Wrong thread! To cover thread this was ment.

Toggle ATI left-click combatibility to OFF. Games unfortunately gets sluggish atleast for me, when doing this. But it's the only way to play mission's which have mines or IEDs. The reason are mines. i've posted it to bug thread, but i think i've been ignored About campaign. Nice story, briefing are very good, maps are nice, but i hate the size of battles, two times smaller and they would be just optimal for mt taste.... Well you can't have all, you know. Night fights and Syrian night blindness and ability to cause gray hairs with frienly fire (RPG!) even when being veterans and crack-level troops is combination which i think i never get used to. On my way to SF mission, 6th mission in campaign i believe, and going to get bit of artyshells to my neck (not my fault! as i will explain). In RG mission where i have to hunt down forward observer to help out SF in their next mission. I killed the bastard, but there might be bug: Enemy got points from objective, in village, which they were not even close and i had many teams and squads in there (touch bjective instead of occupy objective?). Atleast i could not see exact reason for enemy's points. There were only few guys left between manssion and village. Because of that i got draw and not victory and to my understandment i suffer from it in next SF mission in form of artillery. But hell, nice campaign. [ April 24, 2008, 03:27 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

I doupt we will have any. Same goes for foxholes with mousehole. I know i'm not close of being genius, but i have feeling that we might have enginelimitiation here involved.

Trees and brushes (and something which i maybe have forgotten) aren't drawn to distance... My kinda guys with poor computers can see trees just at very close, 200-300 meters, distance if not having trees disabled. I've wondered few times why my unit in firesupport doesn't seem to fire... Thewood Cover issues have been tweaked after that thread... If it's the same thread where i "published" some my limited tests about LOS blocking and cover from bullets which certain types of terrain seemed to offer (in bad english naturally), i think CMSF was yet in 1.04 state back then... 1.05 changed cover things quite much if i remeber correctly.

I can imagine what my imaginative fellow commander would say when i keep all his latest T-72M1V TURMS-T models (temporarilly attached to my company) and return to him my beaten militia company instead (which used to form my original core troops) ... Wait A minute! Now i know why our Batallion commander's quidebook (JVO), is suggesting that Brigades ATGM-company wont be submitted as whole to any batallion and Batallion ATGM-platoon as whole shouldn't be given to Company :eek: [ April 22, 2008, 08:00 AM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

umm... By looking what cover is there when men are lying down? Single squad can have various types of cover where it's men are lying in (3 guys in trench, 3 in crater, 2 in open and 1 got stuck into house 200 meters behind). Only way to know where they are is to look at each men.

With me reloading is more related to heavy casualities, which usually is tied to me doing something stupid. Hard to say do i reload because objectives are not met... I quess i do it sometimes, let's give it more thought: I quess it's dependant of mission size and amount work it requires to replay that mission. Some 'batallion bogged down in MOUT and mission lasting for 2 hours' kind mission is what i hardly ever replay, because sheer amount of dedication and work it requires to replay. Some 30 minutes understrenght company battle in wilderness is easier to replay. What was the objective? Do i think i lost to bug or bad briefings, objective markings or poor mission designing. If this is so then i tend to think that i'm moral winner and i don't have to replay. I'm just wrongfully forced to submit into "the bad outcome" by greater force There's one another thing: Am i playing that particular campaign first time? If it's first time then i have tendensy to try getting "clean" papers from it (=objectives met). While during on next tries, i'm more willing to play the mission with what i get. Yet the most important thing: My mood when playing. I might be reaching for pleasure and exitment or then i might be reaching just "power play" where defeat is not an answer (but i'm getting out of this habit... getting lazy) It's sum of many things...

I agree quite much in this. I'm not so much about core troops (wouldn't actually care less), but how troops under my command have performed... Hard to say whatkind it should be, but i would welcome somekind stopping moment between missions. I've found out that it's major spirit-lifter in many games atleast for me. It doesn't neseccary have to have anything functional, like upgrading units/weapons in some games. There has and will be idea of core units, 'my boys'. It's called humannature (for atleast part of humans). It might not be there when things go well, but after months of heavy fighting and tens/hundrerds of men dead + multiple amount of wounded and troops are getting weary to fighting/marching/being alert. Now these are good moments to give atleast little rest for My boys when My batallion receives attachments from higher command. It doesn't mean that they will be sent in first wave to be slaugthered (like in games), but overall they are prone to get hardest tasks and less rest. Part of units which will be tossed from unit to unit over and over again ain't easy one, i've read enough about this. [ April 21, 2008, 12:37 PM: Message edited by: Secondbrooks ]

Shout, curse, whine, cry, threathen, ignore, doing yourself, go boozing... There are ways, indeed there are. :mad:

Yes we indeed are. I hate it (but yet i like to play CMSF)... As US i don't much use (leading to unnessecary casualities), but as Syria i'm usually forced to it. Just today micromanaged my RPG-teams to play cat and mouse with 3 M1A2 SEPs + one Bradley standing in middle of road... one-by-one i ordered each team to rush to firing position, fire and rush back to cover. It was nice when all tanks were dead (cost me just one RPG-team), but i sure as hell hoped that i shouldn't play as each RPG-team's leader, basically i just had one or two teams/squads which were on playing with tanks while rest fo them (about 5-6) sit back and sucked they thumbs. Question is how would you program TacAI to do it that way, performing hit-and-runs with the way human could? I quess there's no other way than babysit it. I press pause each time i issue orders even if there is no such situation that i would need it. Couple of times tried to not press pause when issuing orders but i just don't like it atall. Yet i try to "simulate" "the-heat-of-modern-war" by not thinking siatuiation when game is in pause... :eek: just giving orders Ps. One thing i miss from CMx1 is to fine-tune movement orders by dragging waypoints with right mouse click... Or is it present in CMSF? That way issuin commands for whole platoon waas quite simple: Just click on general location like edge of forest and then drag them to correct places. Overall i'm trying to reduce level of micromanagement outside MOUT by keeping units in squad-line or squad-colum. They doesn't do too good job on maintaing their formation, but usually don't screw it complitely.

Right on spot! I would order that tank to reverse at T-72s. And after T-72s have finished with it, i would feed the remaining crew to wolfs. Simple as that, .50 cal can stay shut if that way i can keep my 120mm cannon firing as fast as it can (=loader alive).

Roof with high "wall" running on them are good cover... But against Bradleys it serves as good cover only if the ATGM team happens to be next to some other wall than the one(s) being shot at. Did some testing, and one way i was able to keep ATGM team alive was to but high wall to building's roof and order ATGM team to face opposite direction than from where fire came from. If it had low wall and ATGM team facing opposite direction they were wiped out under minute (usually they lasted 30-40 seconds) by three brads putting 25mm HEs to roof. If it had high wall and ATGM team was facing brads, they didn't stand a change, i think this was most dangerous situation for ATGM-team: lying next to wall which will most likely blow to they faces very soon. It was not very complete test, only did try two story buildings mostly and once one story building. There's lots of small things which are effecting.

My contact with Warhammer 40k is just Space hulk boardgame and bit later ancient PC first-person-shooter called Blood Angle's revenge or something, from there comes my bad memories with bolter. I'm more into Warhammer fantasy-universe and expacely bloodbowl. But now as we have experts here... Is bolter truly rubbish if we compare it to eldar, chaos or orc weapons used in same scale as bolter is?

I think bolter has way too bad tendensy to overheat fast and stop functioning, Well that was way back in 90's but i hated when genestealers just poured from vents and everywhere and my bolter jammed far too early each time... Not very nice to end into melee against creature with four arms capable to rip my imperial battlesuit to pieces. I kinda lost my faith to that gun back then.

Hello again Downloaded new CMSF's 1.07 install file from battlefront, installed it. Game ran fine in 1.07 (also with mines). Now downloaded 1.08 (patch 1.07 > 1.08 battlefront version) and again when red side is having mines or IEDs in mission : When playing mission as red or messing around in scenario editor in red deployment game just crashes. I've downloaded game's install file twice and downloaded patches (both battlefront versions, huger and smaller) multiple times but game is not working with mines when it's 1.08. But wait a minute! I have found a solution: ATI left-click combatibility turned OFF is the cure. I repeat: "ATI left-click combatibility turned OFF is the cure. " EDIT: Yeah. Found it while was still typing this... Someones like me are just too slow.

No mods. Now that i think of it, it might be some corruption in downloaded install file of CMSF. Have to keep on digging.

Mentioned this in Bug list already couple of times, but because i tecnically came back after 1.08, i think i have techincally suitable reason to keep on trolling also in this topic too... Eh... Anyways... Does mines and IEDs work on everyone? Because my CMSF crashes if mission has them and i click on some unit... Uninstalled CMSF and installed new 1.07 from battlefront-site (bought electronic copy of it). In this mines&IEDs does work, then i downloaded battlefront all-inclusive 1.08 patch (earlier tried 1.08 patch ment only for 1.07, incrential or something), and still no luck. Just crash... ****e.