Alan8325

I haven't really had a good chance to experiment with IBCT forces without creating my own scenarios in the editor up to this point. Are there any good scenarios or campaigns out there that make good examples of the strengths and weaknesses of the US IBCT units?

I think the Stryker MGS has a good ratio of rounds (10 HE, 6 HEAT, 2 APFSDS) for modern, asymmetric warfare, albeit low in overall quantity. The Abrams might do well to switch to some kind of ratio like this, especially with urban combat upgrades like the TUSK.

What about the hull MGs on some of the WWII tanks? These are kind of like firing port weapons with limited arcs and I would think the code for these is pretty much the same.

It might be code that will need to be added for CM:Normandy, considering that being inside of an armored vehicle during a firefight in WWII would have been safer than it is now. I'm not familiar with all of the infantry transports available during WWII but didn't any of them have firing ports? I know APCs with firing ports like the BTR were developed shortly after WWII. There should at least be code to fire from half-tracks in CM:N.

I've wondered myself why the AGS isn't a more widely used weapon on the Syrian side as I've found that the Mk19 is one of the most effective in-game weapons on the U.S. side. I haven't experimented with them much, but logically speaking they should be similar in effectiveness to the Mk19 because there shouldn't be many ways to make a technologically superior grenade launcher. Also, one would think that with smaller 30mm ammo an AGS team would carry more ammo than a Mk19 team.

For me it happens every time I deploy a machine gun on a balcony. I can't make it not happen. I'd like to see someone post a screen of a machine gun actually deployed on a balcony with v1.2.

I've searched a few balcony threads but didn't find any addressing this issue. It only happens when machine guns are deployed on balconies. They appear on the ground and also fire from that position, so it isn't just a visual glitch.

I play the same way. I don't consider frequent pausing "cheating" because in real life, many of the decisions that you would pause the game for, such as determining how to send troops down an alley, positioning on a ridge, moving vehicles in and out of firing positions, etc. would be determined by platoon and vehicle commanders. In the game, however, you as the player are the only one who can do these things and with a company-sized force on map there is just no way to do it accurately unless you pause frequently.

Will we ever see a more dynamic tactical AI that responds to battlefield conditions? Even a trigger-based system, like "if enemy vehicles are spotted in area A, then move AT units to area B" or something like that would add a lot to scenario replayability. It would also allow things to happen after the time runs out.

I'm no pilot, but I'm sure that even without radio communications, an Abrams tank is pretty distinct from Red vehicles from an Apache and even fixed-wing aircraft pilot's perspective. I don't know about Strykers and Bradleys, but they seem pretty distict too. So yes, I agree something should be changed.

I haven't had friendly fire incidents like yours, but I have seen enemy targets outside the air support request area be attacked by the aircraft. The area that you select with your FO probably isn't the exclusive area where the aircraft can look for targets but is more of a priority type of thing. I also wonder if more experienced and specialized FOs like the JTAC can make their air support requests fall more accurately inside the designated area.

One reason you notice this is that most of the Syrian units you are encountering are "conscript" to "regular" in experience while your troops are "veteran" and "crack." Also, the original campaign doesn't have some of the latest Red hardware. I don't know if you've tried the Marines campaign yet, but it is much more difficult. The Syrians have T-90s, BMP-3s and Airborne units that normally come with "veteran" and "crack" experience. As for the AI, a scenario can have several AI "plans," one of which is randomly picked at the beginning of the scenario. Once a plan is chosen at the beginning, however, it cannot change on the fly as a result of battlefield conditions. I believe Battlefront has plans to improve the AI in future releases, but I'm not sure.

One feature I recently discovered, since I'm too lazy to look at the controls menu long enough to remember what all the controls are, is the ability to CTRL+click a location on the map to instantly move the camera to that location. Previously I'd just slide the camera around whenever I wanted to see something on the other side of the map, like I'm inside some kind of invisible airplane. Edit: It doesn't.

Some good suggestions. I think it was mentioned in another thread that the MRAP would not be included because it is a vehicle that is designed more for the peace-keeping patrol stage of an anti-insurgency operation, rather than for the initial conventional combat stage. The M1117 probably falls in this category as well. Miniguns would be nice, but U.S. special forces units should be included first. Even though CMSF isn't focused on SF operations, there are still some types that can be effectively simulated. "Little Bird" I thought was already included as an option for the light air support role, but as someone said, maybe it is the Kiowa which is similar enough in function for me. Active protection systems would be cool but I don't think they are in service yet with U.S. forces. Doesn't the IDF use them already? Casualty dismemberment isn't too important to me, but what I think would add a lot of immersiveness to the game would be the severely injured (red circle) units having a small moving/writhing animation while they are on the ground to distinguish them from dead soldiers. +1 for UAVs, but their effect can already be kind of simulated by increasing intel at the start of the mission so you have indications of where enemy forces are in the beginning.

I see it too, but if you notice the time that the artillery actually fires, it is really what you set it to. I don't know why it says maximum, but at least it isn't really maximum. It always happens when I reload a Wego savegame.

Excavated positions would be great, but right now I don't think the game engine allows the kind of resolution in terrain height to make features like that. You can create a kind of dip in the terrain for a tank to sit in in the editor, but it doesn't do a great job simulating a real excavated position. The very first mission in the game's original "TF Thunder" campaign has these for the static tanks, IIRC. We would need to make sand berms, kind of like inverse trenches, for excavated positions. Maybe Normandy will include something like this. Anyone know if it's even possible to increase terrain height resolution in future updates of the CMx2 engine? What I mean by this is to increase the amount of terrain height variation within an action spot so that within a given area of land, you can have more peaks and valleys than is currently possible.

I would definitely like to see another CMSF in the modern era. CMSF2 sounds promising with a more modern Red force (Russia or China probably), but I think it's going to have to encompass air-to-surface and surface-to-air combat in some way to be believable. It would be really cool if aircraft were actually modeled in the game, 3d model and all, but more likely they will be abstracted again, but this time with on-map surface-to-air weapons having a chance of shooting them down.

No, it wasn't knocked out. It eventually got knocked out by another hit later though. I've seen vehicles get knocked out without showing any (or much) component or crew damage too. I've asked about this in another thread and the answer I got was that once a vehicle is knocked out, the component damage list is irrelevant. In other words, every component could be completely destroyed by the hit that knocks the vehicle out, and just before you see the crew bail it could still show all components as bold green crosses. EDIT: Here is the link to Steve's post explaining how the damage system works. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1134614&postcount=9

I don't quite remember but I believe it was in the side. It may have penetrated and just damaged the crew but not the components. There is no penetration vs. non-penetration feedback so it's hard to tell. The crew injuries were yellow BTW, not red.

I have both WoW and GTA IV, and as a matter of fact, I have a great time running over Euphoria-powered civilians in GTA after a long day driving in traffic. In regard to the unbalance in CM:SF, you have state-of-the-art T90s, RPG-29s and Kornet ATGMs, so other than Red airpower, you have many of the same conventional toys that Russia would throw at a Blue army in real-life. I don't know a whole lot about all the new stuff Russia has, but in response to poorly protected BMPs, they are turning T-55s into IFVs:

I've seen one of my Challengers take a hit that injured two crew members but didn't damage any vehicle components. It was during a quick battle by a T-72 and i'm not sure if it was KE or HEAT. Does CM:SF model crew injuries due to shock or concussion even if there is no penetration? Or does a penetration have to occur to cause crew casualties?

I was under the impression that the FN SCAR, which comes in 5.56 and 7.62 NATO versions, was the new rifle in service with special forces. Does anyone have up-to-date info on whether these are actually in the field? Wikipedia says 2009. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FN_SCAR

I've seen my tanks fire the M2 against other tanks while the main gun is reloading many times. Since the M2 is controlled by the commander there shouldn't be any delay with the main gun operation by using it. I'm guessing the point to this is to try to at least damage the external components, such as optics, on the enemy tank while the main gun is reloading. Sure enough, after reviewing the battlefield and looking at enemy tanks that have been hit by this heavy MG fire and not the main gun, I've seen the optics were damaged and sometimes knocked out. Maybe if there are any real-life tankers here they can pitch in on whether it's a realistic tactic.

Someone can correct me if I'm wrong, but IIRC destroyed vehicles block rounds that are directed towards infantry, but not those directed towards vehicles. In other words, in a tank-on-tank battle, destroyed vehicles are ignored. An RPG round fired at infantry can hit a destroyed vehicle that is in the way. An RPG round fired at a "live" vehicle will ignore a destroyed vehicle between the launcher and target. The reason for this is that it is currently impossible for units to target specific parts of an enemy vehicle and will always aim towards the center. This means that if a unit is behind a destroyed vehicle, nobody can target the exposed areas and they will always hit the knocked out vehicle while aiming for the center. It is sort of the most expedient workaround for the time being.

I've seen the same thing. I don't know if different tree parts such as trunk and foliage are modeled with different penetration properties in the game or if the whole tree is the same LOF-blocking object with no difference between trunk and leaves. Ideally a sabot round should pretty much ignore everything but maybe the trunk.