PeterLorre86

Yea, thank you Philippe. This looks great, i look foward to playing through the war in chronological order. As someone who came late to CMBB this is a great and easily accessable collection of user made scenarios. Thanks agian.

Exactly. But to take it even further, there is no such thing as 'fair'. Fight by the means most effective with respect to your reasources, this is the point of war. Any concept of 'fairness' is simply a limitation. That is why war is such an ugly thing.

I suggest all of you go rent "Battle of Algiers". The film makes some intellegent points on fighting insurgency, parallels of which you cannot help to see in the current war in Iraq, including the lowering of ethical standards on both sides. " Journalist: Don't you think it's a bit cowardly to use women's baskets and handbags to carry explosive devices that kill so many innocent people? Ben M'Hidi: And doesn't it seem to you even more cowardly to drop napalm bombs on defenseless villages, so that there are a thousand times more innocent victims? Of course, if we had your airplanes it would be a lot easier for us. Give us your bombers, and you can have our baskets. " I dont think it is possible to argue that one means of killing is 'more ethical' then another. You must meet your opponent in the most effective way at your disposal, you cannot expect small groups of guerrillas to follow the rules of regular armies. Near the end of the film, a french colonel asks a group of journalists the question " Should we remain in Algeria? If you answer "yes," then you must accept all the necessary consequences. " This is the question we are faced with in the US today. An interesting thought. Why do we crave ever more realistic representations of war for personal enjoyment? I dont deny that i do, nor that i dont enjoy such representations in film, books, and games, but it certianly is interesting to think about.

I would love a more detailed explanation of terrian's effect on cover. I kind of expected this to be in the manual.

Did you turn hamachi off when trying to connect to the internet games? Make sure you try that first if not try this: I have not used hamachi in a while, but i remember being able to go to my network places, then network connections. In there you should see one called hamachi, disable that and try agian. You will have to turn it back on to use hamachi agian. No promises, but that may do the trick.

Talking about TacAI dismounting and selecting javelin and firing at the sight of armour: I can see that yes, it is taking alot of the players function out. In CM1 however, if i remember correctly, an AT gun with a move order while hitched to a HT would unlimber when the HT spotted armour and reacted to it (the HT changing its move path in most cases). The AT gun would then follow its move order which in the few cases where this happen to me, resulted in the gun surviving more often then not untill the point came where i could issue it new orders. Mabey something like this would be useful for how the TacAI deals with APC on armour situations?

Yea, i have to agree with you H.W Guderian, that its not likely all the problems will be resolved in just the next patch, realistically what i want is something that will make CMSF enjoyable to play. When 1.04 came out, at first i was pretty pleased with it, but after about two weeks i realised that none of the core problems had really been solved. It wasn't long before i stopped firing it up all together, going back the the CM1 series. I just hope 1.05 changes enough to keep my (and im sure a large number of other's) interest.

I think what we are doing is running in circles here. We want better AI do to lack of multiplayer, and at the same time better multiplayer do to lack of AI. I dont think that one is more important then the other. I guess we had hoped and still continue to hope for a better game all around. I truely hope 1.05 can turn this around, because from what i have read in the forums, it seems that people are loosing patience.

Could the CLU and missile be assembled once out of the hatch, thus making it possible to fire from air guard position? As far as the game, i think it would cause problems. You would have to be able to select which guy does airguard, otherwise you would end up shooting javelins at infantry. Having the Tac AI move the javelin to airguard after armour is spotted probably wouldnt matter, as once amour is spotted its not long before it destroys the stryker. I dont think you can expect this behavior simply because of the codeing problems involved. Not to mention it's not known whether this is possible in real life at this point. But Red vs Blue where red has armour is definatly a problem, AI needs to be able to recognize that it should dismount and take javelins after the first few strykers get smoked. Has anyone ever seen the AI use a javelin at all? Currently (1.04) i dont think AI has the ability to take from cargo.

:clink:

Hmmmmmmm... Could this be a hint that 1.05 is near?

Yes, AT-3 was what i ment, but actually, i may be wrong in my explanation. Playing a scenario earlier today i had my american ATGM Stryker do the same thing, fire the missle directly into the ground a few dozen meters infront of it. Come to think of it, my Stryker had an altitude advantage over its target. Target was 1000 meters away. Mabey this is something that needs to be looked at.

Damn, u guys are lacking in sense of humour. Fix or do somefink.

Huntarr, Hehehehe. I couldn't resist. Pandur + Sgtgoody I dont think the Sagger thing is a bug, to be honest. The AT-5 is an old, wire guided, joystick controlled missile. If you read the manuel section that talks about weapons, it describes this. With a conscript, and an early version of the AT-5, i think this behavior is just a simulation of what would happen in reality. I dont have the manuel with me, but i do remeber this being explained in it.

@Huntarr Fine, by that explanation, I "technically" agree with you. But i would say that is the work of the main sub-forum. Since in the Tech Support forum i see only one gameplay related bug, and thats on page 3 of the thread list. Well i guess you could say beta testers find bugs too. Every once and a while... By mistake...

Yea, that might make sence, although Tech Support seems to be more about issues with the game not running, graphic problems etc. Also fewer people tend to check that on a normal basis. A dedicated bug forum would be nice.

Looking at it that way is a good point, sure here on the forum, we have grogs who come in and tell us that X type of ammunition penetrates exactly Y mm of Z armour. But would a Syrian tanker in the field even have access to this information? Im sure some explanation of weapon capability is given in tanker training, but i wonder how accurate that is to warrent ruling out AP rounds from the start agianst specific types of targets. Also, target identification is an issue. How often does a Syrian (or any nationality) tanker really know exactly the model, make, upgrade of tank he is fireing at? I would say, in the heat of battle, with smoke, adrenaline, poor visibility and long ranges etc., that fact tends to be less precisely known. To me that says AP should be used in most cases. Tank to AFV, HE makes sence, but for Tank on Tank or AFV on AFV (of similar gun caliber) i would think AP would at least be the first thing tried, if not the only. Edit: Spelling

I would like a seek hull down command, similar to the one in CM1. Using stryker ATGM version, i tried using the HUNT command to get them to expose only the ATGM launcher over the ridge. Unforutunatly they drove to the top of the ridge line before they spotted the enemey, needless to say they where destroyed rather quickly by syrian armour. Strykers would be alot more usefull if you had a command to use that would limit thier exposure to only the weapons systems. Recon hummers would also be alot more useful if they would only stick their optics equiptment above a berm. I would be interested to know if the LOS/LOF issue would effect this, also, it if is possible from a design perspective for such a command to be implemented.

Thanks for the feedback, good to know its been noted. Hopefully it will be adressed. The AT-4s are really pretty effective agianst red armour, knowing some tanks are coming, and being out of javelins, its frustrating to see your only other AT assest evaporate.

A dedicated bug forum would be nice, I have not reported known bugs because I don’t want to clutter the forum (and start arguments) and I don’t know what a known or fixed bug is and what is not. You could at least have a sticky with a list of all known and fixed bugs. Adam1- HE being used against armor rather then AP is a feature. For said reason of potential concussion damage to vehicle components. Doesn’t seem like a good explanation to me. Maybe one or two exceptionally clever BMP commander would think to do that, but I imagine most would be thinking ARMOR, LOAD AP. I am not really convinced that in game, HE is more effective the AP. I mean, the components I see damaged like sights, tracks, wheels, radio, smoke launcher would be just as damaged by AP. A high velocity piece of mass hitting an external vehicle component is going to damage it, regardless if it is designed for HE or AP. But this debate has already run its course.

Or you can try it yourself, seems to happen every time i try it. In the test i used Bradelys, since the QB strykers i tried had no AT4s in cargo. I made a test scenario, with Bradleys, that also shows the problem.

I have, and can send you videos i made today, just let me know what ur email is.

On a related note (bug), has anyone noticed the bug with removing AT-4s from Bradleys or Strykers? Everytime i do this and debark the squad, i watch as all but one of the AT-4s disappear from the unit's weapon pannel. I noticed this pre 1.4, and will upload a video of it happening to better show what im talking about. Edit: Cant find a place that lets me upload the videos, they are too large, i can send them to you directly at request. [ October 04, 2007, 12:32 PM: Message edited by: PeterLorre86 ]

I moved them into another folder. I think that if you dont, the new ones wont be used. I could be wrong though.

Lol, i just saw you post your new map pack, great work guys, im downloading it now.