Alan8325

Steve, One thing I did not understand at all in CMSF (and CMx2) was how or whether a vehicle being knocked out is tied to component damage. I've seen vehicles get knocked out and, before the crew has left the vehicle, looked at the components and seen them all green. Also, I've seen vehicles lose almost all components and still not be "knocked out". Are the two types of damage (component damage and knocked out yes/no) totally separate from eachother? In other words, upon a penetrating hit does the system calculate the probability that certain components will be damaged and SEPARATELY calculate a probability that the vehicle is knocked out?

In CMx2, suppression and morale are separated. From what I understand from playing CMSF, higher leadership quality decreases the rate at which subordinates' suppression builds up and morale goes down under stress, and increases the recovery rates of suppression and morale hits. I'm not sure if it has any effect on spotting time or firing accuracy or anything like that. Those factors might only be determined by experience.

Haha, I wasn't hoping CM would turn into that. I was just saying that it wouldn't make sense to take player control away from units that are out of C2 unless there is more AI at that level that can do things like reposition in response to threats. Or another real person in the case of a multiplayer co-op addition.

Would be nice, but right now the player has to make almost all decisions for units at every level. Squad/unit level decisions like find hull-down position, pop smoke, move a team to the second floor, provide suppressive fire on a building or ridgeline, etc. are not normally passed down the chain of command, yet the player currently has to make those decisions for units in CMx2 anyway. I think until there's some level of AI controlling those, it wouldn't be fair to take control away from the player if a unit is out of C2.

Have you thought about restricting the information the player has on enemy contacts that are made by friendly units out of C2? Perhaps on "Iron" difficulty, or whatever the strictest realism/difficulty setting in CMBN is, units that are out of C2 that make contact with an enemy unit would engage as they normally would, and the player could still see and control the actions of the friendly unit, but no info on enemy contacts would appear to the player until the friendly unit is back in C2. This limitation wouldn't have much of an effect on situations like Bil's sending a crew to fight another crew in the woods, other than Bil couldn't see who the friendly crew is fighting until C2 is re-established, but it would severely limit the gamey tactic of using crews or other units out of C2 to recon "distant" targets.

I'm probably wrong then. I just remember knocked out vehicles in CMSF were deliberately made "invisible" to fire that is incoming to another vehicle. It's probably different in CM:BN.

The way it works in CM:SF is knocked out vehicles provide cover for infantry against all shooters whether it's other infantry or vehicles. Vehicles however are DELIBERATELY denied cover from other vehicles because the TAC AI system of aiming towards the center of vehicles means that the covering knocked out vehicle would receive an unrealistically high amount of incoming fire. In real life, a gunner could shift his aim to account for part of the target being obscured. In CMx2, the TAC AI can not currently do this. It can't aim towards the center of the VISIBLE area of the target. It aims towards the center of the entire vehicle. This is my understanding of why it's done this way. Someone please correct me if i'm wrong.

I'm assuming from this post that you don't have CMSF with the Brit module.

Moving backwards in time from modern warfare to WWII, purchasing a bunch of infantry on a map like this is something that I VERY likely would have done prior to watching this AAR. On the modern battlefield with precision air strikes, ATGMs and RPGs infantry often have the power to one-hit kill most types of armored vehicles anywhere on the map. I haven't played a realistic WWII sim for a while now, since IL2 I think, and I'm sure I'm in for some additional rude awakenings when I start playing.

What is the damage to the Sherman and M10 that received hits? I'm glad to see crew experience coming out on top over superior equipment quality. I think that is how it should be in most cases except for those where equipment quality is largely lopsided (Tiger vs. Sherman for example).

With highly realistic depictions of suffering it might happen the first couple of times, but I think most peoples' negative psychological impacts will be largely tempered by the knowledge that Moe, Larry and Curly will be right back in action the next time the scenario starts up again. Kind of like how Kenny dies in every episode of South Park. As for the AAR, I would be interested to see what kind of damage the M4A3(76) has after the penetration in turn 11.

Since flamethrower units and fire/burning effects are on the to-do list for the WWII games, hopefully this will include graphical effects that translate to improved vehicle burning effects as well.

Thanks for the French TO&E info! It will be interesting to see what gets deployed in Libya as the operation progresses. Paper Tiger's Road to Dinas campaign might play out in real life.

As someone who is more interested in modern warfare than WWII, I'm probably in the minority on this among modern warfare buffs but I'm perfectly OK with WWII taking plenty of development time before CMSF2. The CMx2 engine will improve significantly during this time which translates advantages to CMSF2, BFC will retain the interest of WWII fans which maximizes their customer base inside the relatively small wargaming niche, and I also like WWII even though I prefer modern and plan on playing the WWII games.

What does the French Marine (Troupes de marine) TO&E look like? For example what is the section size? Does it look more like a British rifle section or a U.S. Marine squad? I tried looking it up and couldn't find this info. I did find that the Troupes de marine are actually a branch of the French Army, as opposed to the Commandos marine, which are the French naval special forces and only number around 500. They too would be involved in Libya I would imagine.

Anyone know why England and France can't do a unilateral (bilateral?) no-fly zone in Libya? They, along with the Arab League members, are the ones who are clamoring for the no-fly zone most, and they each have formidable air forces relative to anything Qadhafi has.

Even later on in the war some interesting scenarios could come up with Syrian attack helicopters, which do not need airfields to operate, coming out of hiding from some obscure warehouse to take part in the battle. You could be on your way towards your objective with a platoon of Abrams when halfway through the scenario, the enemy happens to get reinforcements in the form of a couple of Hinds. Surprise!

What's even more funny is in this case the guy driving the BMP also probably calls it a tank.

Like this? http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Libyan-rebel-drives-tank-front-line-Ajdabiya-Libyan-leader-Moamer/photo//110314/photos_wl_me_afp/7f0b188862e047d91b42843a26e26419//s:/afp/20110314/wl_mideast_afp/libyabritainpoliticsunrestmideastanalyst_20110314210116#photoViewer=/110314/photos_wl_me_afp/7f0b188862e047d91b42843a26e26419

I agree that SOF units would be great, but I think the problem with including them is that they don't use conventional equipment and tactics and these all change depending on the mission as well. This would all have to be modeled in CMSF to do them justice, otherwise they aren't much different from regular soldiers set at "elite" experience, which you can already do in CMSF. In regard to Libya, there is a recent news article regarding fighting in the city of Misrata where pro-govt forces entered with tanks and were apparently pushed out by rebel forces later. This seems suitable for CMSF-scale battles and could make for an interesting scenario. From the article: "Some of the day's heaviest fighting was over the city of Misrata, where residents said pro-Gadhafi troops punched into the city with mortar and tank artillery and were pushed out five hours later by rebel forces. Misrata is 120 miles (200 kilometers) east of Tripoli. Rebel military commanders intentionally opened the way for the government tanks to enter the city, then surrounded them and attacked the armor with anti-aircraft guns and mortar shells, said Abdel Fatah al-Misrati, one of the rebels. "Our spirits are high," he said. "The regime is struggling and what is happening is a desperate attempt to survive and crush the opposition, but the rebels are in control of the city." "Now the Gadhafi forces are trapped inside the city," he said. A doctor reached by The Associated Press in the city's main hospital said tanks shelled its stores of medical supplies, setting them on fire. The residents said the shelling was almost over by early afternoon. The residents and the doctor spoke on condition of anonymity because they feared reprisals. Four rebels and five pro-Gadhafi troops were killed, al-Misrati said." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/af_libya

I don't think T-90s would be much different from T-55s as far as a "no tank zone," enforced from the air, would be concerned. If the US or NATO intervened militarily it would be along the lines of eliminating the Libyan Gadhaffi loyalist air power, which would have to include destroying AA defenses on the ground. This would be the start, as it is what the rebels are asking for, then possibly the destruction of tanks if they happen to be assets that prolong a stalemate or tip the balance in favor of Gadhaffi loyalists. With that said, I don't believe that the US or NATO would get involved militarily unless severe atrocities are committed against the rebels, such as the use of chemical weapons, or there is a clear, pro western leadership that has a high likelihood of emerging as the new regime after rebel victory. In Libya's case there isn't one at the moment, while in Egypt's case the military leadership, which is pro western, was clearly the power that would take charge after Mubarak's fall.

I read somewhere on these forums that there was a spotting bonus in that arc, but I don't remember if it was offical word. I haven't had the time to test it out.

Except for the units equipped with the LRAS. They are as blind as your BMP! EDIT: Are you using a target arc? With only two pairs of eyeballs in the BMP, perhaps giving the crew "direction" on where to spot helps more than in vehicles with more crew and/or better optics.

As far as AA (even on-map) being a threat to aircraft in CMSF though, I believe that that will happen at some point. It would, however, almost certainly be abstracted in a way that it's just implemented as a probability of a particular air asset disappearing from your CAS menu (been shot down) and maybe being unavailable in later missions, until replaced. Unless an actual CMSF scenario is a ground assault against an AA battery however, modern AA would likely be far off-map from your little 2kmX2km section of ground. On-map AA, if we ever get it, would likely be a probability that an on-map unit such as the Shilka or an infantry man with Stinger would aim skywards and fire at the abstracted aircraft, with a subsequent probability that the aircraft is hit, and then a probability that it sustained catastrophic damage, etc.

In real life, the company and battalion commanders would be making many of the decisions that the player makes in CMSF, who has to make ALL the decisions from squad level, all the way up to batallion level. I would place the higher HQs and XOs in good spotting locations in well-secured areas, as you are doing, and give them short cover arcs so that they don't open fire unless enemy units are in close proximity. I think this is easily in line with what happens in reality in terms of non-administrative involvement by these units.