Alan8325

I like using helo support as well, but this is the issue that bothers me the most with them, especially when; a.) you know that there are multiple enemy vehicles in the target arc and b.) you have crews on the ground that have confirmed that the struck (but not burning) enemy vehicle is knocked out and apparently don't confer this data to the helo. These are relatively minor issues as they usually just cause an extra missile or two to be used, but sometimes it becomes a headache when my AT assets on the ground are limited.

Aren't there multiple points of LOS generation in an infantry squad? Perhaps this can form the basis for some sort of fudge.

Euphoria is designed to animate "ragdoll" objects in games to allow the objects to interact more believably with other physics objects than would be possible with canned animations. It uses lots of processor power to good effect in first-person shooter games, but in games like CM I think that processor power can be used to better effect in other areas, like more detailed LOS, better vehicle physics, munition physics, explosion effects, AI, etc. With unlimited processor power it would be cool though!

I'm a fan of playing in real time and using the pause feature liberally to issue orders. It doesn't make for a bad simulation when you consider that it is up to the player to make almost every single decision for every unit on the map. Want your tank to be in a hull-down position? It can't do it on it's own so you have to tell it exactly where to go. In real life the tank commander would do this, squad leaders would make the squad splitting decisions, platoon leaders distribute tasks to the squads, etc. It would be impossible, for me at least, to do all of this without pausing, but I am slow. In other words, the player isn't just in the role of the company or batallion commander, he has to micromanage at lower levels as well. Of course I also like to play wego every now and then for the replays. I too am glad BF put in the effort to include multiple play styles!

A drone should be easier to code than a recon vehicle w/ mast. Only one point of LOS is needed for a drone and it should behave pretty much like any manned unit. Also, by the time CMSF2 comes around everything in the military will be unmanned anyway.

1.) Reload animations for vehicle-mounted weapons, such as M2, Mk 19 and TOW. 2.) Deploy animation for dismounted heavy weapons such as unfolding the tripod and fixing the weapon to it. Both of these would not only improve the game visually, but would also have some tactical value by providing the player with a visual idea as to the progress of the action. They would also have use in both the WWII games and a future modern setting game.

I can see some problems that might be keeping triggers from showing up for a while. First of all, will and how will a trigger interact with spotting? In other words, when a unit that enters a trigger area hasn't yet been spotted by any enemy units, does the AI still respond to the trigger, even though it technically shouldn't know anyone is there? Secondly, is the response to a trigger always the same or is it dependent on the amount and/or types of units on it or near it? Does it respond to one recon team on foot in the same way as a platoon of Abrams tanks? When these issues can be worked out triggers will be great additions to the AI but I'm not holding my breath.

HMGs, such as the M2HB and Dshk, can also inflict friendly casualties as there is a little "splash" or secondary damage from those rounds impacting. Usually it doesn't do more than cause "yellow" injury to friendly troops, but it also causes suppression, which is the more deadly consequence if your troops are in a hairy situation!

The things that come to mind with special forces are the special kit that they use for particular missions, not being limited by standard issue equipment and having superb combat training. CM:SF, being primarily a conventional combat simulator with some unconventional combat involved, falls into one of the areas where SOF would realistically be involved, however the kit for this would be very similar to kit used by conventional forces already in the game. A SEAL team fighting alongside Marines in Syria might look pretty much like an Army Recon team or a Marine sniper team with M4s and the options to select AT assets like AT-4s and Javelins. In that respect, SOF wouldn't really add much new to the game in my opinion, except for more visual variety. With that said, I think it would be nice to have a new unit experience level added either above "Elite" or somewhere lower and then bump up the capabilities of "Elite." This way, players could have the option to add some really absurdly tough units in the game if they want to, to at least simulate the level of training that SOF operators have.

Wow, Syrian air support is a pleasant surprise! As for ZSU-23s attacking aircraft, I don't think they will but the scenario designers can remove air support on the opposing side as appropriate, like akd said. For example, fixed wing may still provide support but there are no helos if ZSU-23 are around. Syrian air support wouldn't make much sense in most scenarios against the U.S., as they would be destroyed ahead of time, but having the option to make some fun (and more balanced) scenarios is certainly welcome. It will definitely be very useful for RED vs. RED scenarios and campaigns.

Even with the action spot system, soldiers can already follow trenches and gullies that only take up a fraction of the action spot. Even the little, barely noticeable gullies on the sides of gravel roads in CMSF are followed by troops. The system should be able to be modified for operations around buildings and bunkers. Bunkers aside, I've had some instances where I'd like a squad to run into a building along the shortest distance to the doorway, but they end up running out into the street first, getting exposed. Do they have to "tag" the center of the action spot or something?

Another bug mentioned in the thread linked below is the lack of damage to surrounding troops by exploding vehicles. It also seems that secondary explosions from cooking off ammo do not cause casualties or suppression anymore, except for the troops still on or in the vehicle cooking off. In any case, a JDAM direct hit on a vehicle should demolish everything around, people included. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92072&highlight=jdam

I think bunkers just didn't get a great share of modeling time for CMSF because they wouldn't play a huge role in a war like the one depicted and the bunkers that do get in the way would usually be bombed or hit from a distance with tanks or ATGMs. When attacked in this manner their "vehicle" status works OK for the most part. They should be getting an overhaul for CM:N though. Close range bunker clearing would have happened more often in WWII.

That's most likely what they are in the game for. The ZSU-23s were pretty successful in the direct fire role against ground targets, especially the ones higher up where weapon elevation limits on other vehicles caused problems.

CM:A is confirmed to at least have the 23mm AA guns available as units in the game. As for how it affects air support, there may be the system that is in CM:N where attack runs have a chance of being cancelled, but more likely it's just up to the scenario designer to add or remove appropriate air support elements according to AA elements on the ground. For example, if there are 23mm guns in the field, you may not have helicopters provide support but attack planes such as the Su-25 could still make runs effectively. If the story and scenario briefing indicate that there are numerous significant AA assets around, such as SAMs and ZSU-23s, the scenario designer may not include air support at all. I do not think that AA units on map will actually attack aircraft providing support though. That is why the scenario designer will have to make it realistic by including or not including certain things.

It will be interesting to see how air power and AA are modeled (or not) in CMSF2, which will supposedly have even technology between BLUE and RED. In CM:Normandy air assets will have a chance of not completing attack runs based on the amount of AA in the area, but this is WWII. With modern technology and air superiority doctrines in CMSF2 however, I think they will either have to totally eliminate air assets for one side like they did with CMSF or only allow air assets for one side to be used in any particular scenario. I'd personally like the RED side to have air assets next time though, even if it means realism has to be relaxed a little.

With Abrams tanks this actually isn't a bad tactic in some scenarios. Just make sure the front faces the bad guys at all times.

That's right, you can still issue orders while the game is paused in RT. You have no replay in RT which means you often find one of your units knocked out or killed without knowing what happend and you miss some cool moments. RT does, however, give you greater fidelity with orders. You can take better advantage of suppressive fire and smoke, for example, by ordering your units to move at exactly the right time.

Generally when playing as BLUE against RED, the biggest threat to your IFVs of any type is the RPG. Enemy tanks usually either get to go up against your Abrams tanks or your endless Javelin ATGMs, both of which are really bad news for any tank in the world. RPG effective range is 200-300 meters and as long as you keep your IFVs that distance from likely RPG locations you likely have them in good overwatch positions. Once you start playing with the Marines you will be capable of much more complex movement options with the squad splitting capabilities of their large squads. Their IFVs though, are about the size of a house and should be kept even further from the enemy.

There will, in all likelihood, be at least one more major update with the Nato module, which would also be downloadable as a patch to the base game. After that probably no more major updates, only bug fixes. The really major updates, however, like some in CM:Normandy, are only in new games and will never come to CMSF or its modules.

I wonder why adding new angles for buildings to be placed at (#10) would be so difficult to code? It would definitely make it easier to replicate real-life areas. Anyone know if this will be in CM:Normandy? I'm guessing, based on Charles' reaction, that it would be a "no."

Nice video! Do you know if the Russian military is increasingly using weapons and equipment from more private companies like Tsar-Cannon Ltd with the SVL rifle?

Hmm, I would think that doing buddy aid on the wounded would affect casualty % level and your parameters score if you are negating the 25% chance of death by doing so. So you are saying buddy aid on the wounded only applies an effect to the enemy's score in scenarios where they get points for certain targets?

A 2-3 man team carrying the whole system + 3 missiles might be far fetched, but somebody needs to carry the TOW components by hand to set it up on the tripod in real life. It probably involves several more people in real life to move the system by hand or several trips by the same people, but letting the 2-3 man team do it in CMSF is probably to avoid having to implement some kind of complex multiple-team splitting micromanagement nightmare. Similar to what they did with increasing the M2A3 Bradley seating capacity to avoid having to split the squads in unique ways to make them fit like in RL. Maybe the 10 minute pack-up time is a penalty for trying to move the system around too quickly in-game, when in real life it takes more people or several back and forth trips to move everything.

Do you know if troops killed (brown base) count as more points towards "Casualties" than seriously wounded (red base)?