Alan8325

Thanks for doing this!

If we are talking "near future" for CMSF2 my personal opinion is that China is the easy RED side, given their economic growth and nationalism. The biggest pro for Russia, if there has to be a decision to pick one relatively evenly matched "bad guy" over the other, is that much of the work on their equipment is already done. I'm not familiar with China-Russia relations to know if it would be realistic, but a hypothetical conflict with a China/Russia alliance vs. U.S./NATO would be interesting, as long as a game like that wouldn't take 10 years to develop. Of course the initial game wouldn't necessarily have to have everybody in it as there would presumably be at least 3 modules. Another option is to split it into different games like the WWII series. The first game could include the U.S. and Russia and involve conflict in eastern Europe with subsequent modules adding European nations and/or new elements of the Russian and U.S. militaries. The second game could then be U.S. and China and take place near the Korean peninsula or eastern China. Modules may include Korean or Japanese forces, given a hypothetical scenario where Japan throws out article 9 of its constitution to develop a larger military capability. IDK how far BF would like to take it but if we are talking hypothetical then there's pretty much an infinite number of possibilities.

There is also the LOS system where every unit on the map does periodic LOS checks to every other (authorized) action spot on the map. This means that each additional action spot that gets added with increased map size is basically another LOS check multiplied by the number of units you have. This is mitigated somewhat by some type of system that "authorizes" LOS from one action spot to another at compile time to cut out the obviously impossible LOS lines, like between two action spots on opposite sides of a hill. There are some problems with this system though, as illustrated in another thread. The one off the top of my head is one where infantry on top of a steep hill or cliff can't see over the edge to some areas that they should be able to see, realistically.

I think in CMSF the M707, along with all vehicles with mast-mounted sensors such as TOW vehicles, are simply crippled by the LOS problem. It's explained in detail in another thread, but I'm too lazy to search for it at the moment. In a nutshell all vehicles in the game have one point of LOS generation, which is at the center of the vehicle, and adding an additional one would be a coding nightmare that isn't worth going through for CMSF. IMO remote sensors will play a MUCH bigger role in CMSF2 and will probably be worth fixing by then.

Things should speed up now that Normandy is their full focus. The last few months have been dominated by NATO.

It looks like what needs to be done is make rooftops more like open ground in terms of protection from artillery or HE, but keep a higher amount of protection from small arms. Also reduce the overall protection of buildings vs. large HE munitions.

Always split when you can because morale and suppression with the different teams will be separated. In other words, if one team gets suppressed or demoralized, the other team will not necessarily have it happen as well. With assault, however, the entire squad is still treated as one unit and if one team gets suppressed or demoralized it affects the entire squad. You also get to choose exactly where each team goes when splitting whereas with assault you don't really know where the moving team will stop. If the distance to the next building is too far, they may stop and go prone before getting there. There are only a couple of advantages I see to assault mode and they are heavily outweighed by the advantages of splitting. First, assault cuts down on the amount and complexity of movement and pause orders, especially when advancing a dismounted squad along open ground. Second, it reduces the possibility that one of the teams will get out of command. The command issue will almost never crop up with splitting teams however, because the squads that are capable of splitting are primarily BLUE units that have decent communications equipment.

I'll believe that. The "Stuxnet" worm was believed by many to be a state-backed attack on Iran's nuclear facilities. The program is far too big and advanced to have been developed without a large number of programmers and significant funding, and it appears to have been designed to affect a specific type of Siemens controller used on Iranian centrifuges. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/11/20/stuxnet-virus-may-be-sour_n_786396.html

That's what I meant to say. It seems like it would take extra work to make separate C2 rules for the AI side, rather than have one set that applies to all units on the map regardless of human or AI control.

I wonder why the C2 rules don't just apply to all units on the map equally, whether they are BLUE or RED?

Would these be linked to what the AI-controlled units have spotted, or would the AI automatically know when the trigger events happen exactly when they happen? The second trigger mentioned should be easy enough, but the occupy/touch trigger I would think needs to be dependent on the relative spotting rules so that the AI doesn't know the human player units are in a certain location without having spotted them.

If ideal AI existed at the squad and platoon levels, yes, but the player basically has to play the role of commander at several different levels simultaneously. It wouldn't make sense, for example, for a fireteam to have to receive an order handed down from the company commander to move to the second floor of a building to get a better view, or a tank commander needing an order to get his tank in a proper hull-down position, etc. Since AI currently doesn't exist to make units do this correctly on their own, the player has to do it.

I was wondering this as well. I often couln't get visual C2 links yet when I'd see the enemy after hitting "ceasefire" I noticed that they usually had visual-distant C2. I'm assuming they are under the same rules and, since they are usually defending, they are assumed to have already had the time to establish visual C2 links. I always play in Iron mode, BTW.

Ah ok. Isn't it possible for some deployed weapons with tripods and all to be instantly picked up and moved as one package in an emergency though? For example, if the firing position is discovered and fired upon by the enemy, I would think the team could pick everything up and move it down a floor or back a few dozen meters before dismantling, if needed. IIRC this was modeled in-game with MMGs, but I could be mistaken. It is kinda confusing about the stated set-up and pack-up times though. The Javelin panel even states a 30sec pack-up time.

I would disagree with making the deploy or pack-up times for Gill longer. IMO it should be roughly equivalent in capability to Javelin, which is already much more mobile in-game than Gill. Gill accuracy definitely needs tweaking for the better, as has already been stated.

Wouldn't an instant impact fuse setting on a large munition still cause catastrophic damage to the roof of most buildings found in Syria and many casualties inside? Maybe roofs are just too strong as they are now. Near misses to buildings in CMSF cause more casualties to men inside than direct hits to the roof. Direct hits to the wall (on the same floor as troops) cause the most casualties. I'm no artillery expert but it seems wrong.

Was it a 1-story building? I can realistically see someone going up to the wall of the building and handing a panzerfaust rocket up to someone on the roof, but if it is a multi-story building it becomes a little unbelievable and I would say it's a bug.

Yeah, the 1.30 changes applied to everything IIRC, including existing campaigns which were all made in the editor at one point. That mission in TF Thunder originally had the unit named "Callahan", but since updating to v1.30 it is just A Co HQ, but the unit leader name should be Callahan now. I don't have a running TF Thunder campaign in progress to check, but can you tell if the unit leader name is at least correct?

In v1.30, there was a fix that made name changes to individual units apply to the unit's leader name in the unit info panel rather than the individual unit. Therefore you can't go to the editor and rename the A company HQ to "Callahan," but the leader name in that unit's info panel will say "Callahan" when before it might have said "Smith." Platoon level formations and up can still be renamed, however.

It must be a tough fix then. Lots of code changes to make it better?

That problem has been around with all fixed-wing CAS for as long as I can remember. I don't believe it's realistic, therefore I always save before CAS arrives and if the "faulty bomb release" happens, I reload the save and let it happen again.

Don't BMPs and BTRs also have the air guard hatches? I'm not too familiar with Soviet mechanised infantry doctrine and I did a quick check for pics on google but didn't see any depicting passengers ubuttoned on top.

I think it has something to do with there currently being no UI in the CM engine to allow the player to button/unbutton passengers. Therefore they can only be either permanently opened up or permanently buttoned. I guess the decision was made that in a high-intensity conflict nobody on a Fuchs will want to be outside or something.

About taking multiple hits and still going, there are several accounts of that in "Lone Survivor" by Marcus Luttrell. Fellow SEAL team members, according to Luttrell, took many seemingly critical hits from AKs, including some to the chest and head, and continued to fight alongside him, shooting accurately. Of course the account has the possibility of being played up for the purpose of selling books, but being SEALs, symbols of mental toughness to most, I have every reason to believe it is accurate.

An issue that is still there that has been there for as long as I can remember is the amount of protection that troops have on a separate floor from artillery strikes. This issue is easily seen by placing troops in a single story building and then hitting the roof with large ordnance to see what happens, then try hitting the wall to see what happens. You can test it by using a large on-map HE round, for example HESH from a Challenger. When I have more time tonight or tomorrow I'll post some pics.