Field Marshal Blücher

I never thought I'd envy someone with a game bug . . .

Looks absolutely fantastic. I also can't wait! -FMB

There's even a mod to give Red air support proper names: Syrian air power mod -FMB

Do you mean in the Marines module or at any time at all?

I would really, really like some circular buildings too. I'm making a scenario with a water tower in it and I just kind of have to ask the player to "believe it's a water tower." -FMB

So does this mean that if I load the save game that the campaign automatically makes (i.e. during the setup phase) I will get the same attack plan every time?

I use area fire with tanks or MGSs against infantry in order to suppress/kill enemies they can't see but can hurt with their shells. I also use area fire with infantry (and just about everything else with LOF) for suppressing fire on enemy positions that I'm storming with another team. As to the command execution delay, it can make sense in some circumstances, but definitely not all. It would depend what you were using it for. -FMB

I don't know, but I think you've just been unlucky. I'm pretty sure I restarted Strong Stand at one point and got a different AI attack plan, but I might be wrong. -FMB

I agree with you, Paper Tiger. Saving during a mission and reloading it if you fail is extremely gamey, particularly in CM:SF when the scenario designer might have multiple AI plans. I only save during a mission if I have to stop playing due to real life reasons. Then, if the proverbial poop hits the proverbial propeller, I restart. -FMB

afreu, I'm playing on Veteran; I think Normal Dude is playing on Elite. I agree, the defensive part is relatively easy, but for me the Reserves are almost unmanageable. Paper Tiger, I might not actually be playing version 2 (even though I downloaded and unzipped it properly (??)) because they had a ton more points than I did (1250 compared to about 250 or so). Also, the enemy force composition didn't seem different at all from the first time I played it. Basically, I noted almost no changes. Guess I might have to try downloading it again. -FMB [ April 23, 2008, 11:06 AM: Message edited by: Field Marshal Blücher ]

Don't worry about it. I suppose my use of the word "culprit" made me sound a little defensive, which I didn't intend. I think that some of the TacAI changes work very well with the intended Blue-vs-Red setup, but I noticed some kind of odd "self-preservation" AI at work in Strong Stand that caused me to take unnecessary casualties (as I just posted over in the Hasrabit campaign thread). -FMB

Wow, the reserves in Strong Stand are really, really hard to use--which I think was what you were going for. One piece of AI that I think is really, really weird is when BTRs' machine guns can force my T-55 crewmen to dismount, rather disastrously. I lost a T-55 to this; my tank was actually fine except for some minor damage to non-vital systems but my crew got out and died almost immediately. SPOILER Tanks are key for the second phase, I found. It was just too hard without their suppressive fire; I only ended up controlling the Farmhouse and contesting the other two after losing 3 tanks and having the last one immobilized. I also took appalling casualties in doing so and so ended up with a Total Defeat. Oh well, on to the Guards Counterattack! -FMB

When you're looking at barrels, choose one of the options besides "1." I don't remember which one, but it's a different barrel, rather than the same barrel being on its side. -FMB

Well, as probably the main culprit of the "reloading after a failed mission" thing in the Hasrabit campaign thread, I thought I'd speak my mind on this topic. I am actually really, really excited by the idea of a dynamic campaign and the ability to have a good, hard fight, end up with a loss, and continue anyway. That's one of the things I'm looking forward to about playing this campaign. So why did I reload in spite of everything? I reloaded because I did not have a good, hard fight that resulted in a loss. Instead, I set up my troops sloppily and they got massacred as a result. I played so poorly that I felt that in the real world my persona would have been relieved of command immediately. I was so excited by the prospect of this campaign that I couldn't wait to jump in to the action. As a result, I didn't examine the terrain very carefully at all, selected terrible firing positions, and was just all-around bad. In short, I restarted for no other reason than that I felt I hadn't done the campaign justice and that I hadn't acted like a real commander, which kind of ruined the sense of immersion for me (which was otherwise excellent). I'm downloading the newest version of the campaign, and I will not restart from here on out. I think this is an interesting topic though, and I'm curious about other people's responses. -FMB

Auto-reversing occurs according to the logic of each individual vehicle. I'm sure that if the M128s started taking heavy tank fire but weren't hit they would also auto-reverse. However, it would be silly for them to auto-reverse just on the sight of enemy T-72s because sometimes they are required to fight enemy armour even though this isn't their primary function. Does that make sense? Sometimes you do have to micro-manage your units even with the improved vehicle Tac-AI. -FMB

Ah, that could have been it.

I think he's talking about QBs, and not about scenarios.

Hmm, that's weird. That's exactly what I did (on Veteran, too) and I still took a fair number of casualties. Same end result (lots of destroyed enemy vehicles on the top of the hill, no enemy vehicles got very far beyond the crossing), but I lost a lot more guys (20-30 in total I think). I did realize too late that one of my RPG-29 teams was not positioned correctly, and that might have accounted for some of my difficulty.

Well, just gave it another go and I did beat Ambush, but it was really hard. I positioned my ATGM teams differently, and that helped a lot. On to Strong Stand! Really enjoying this so far. -FMB

I found it extremely difficult. I got my behind handed to me almost immediately. I took nearly 50% casualties and had to bug out after only being engaged a couple of minutes. I lost 3 of my four ATGM teams, a whole platoon except for its HQ section, and another platoon except for its HQ section and one surviving rifle squad of four men. 30 KIA, 17 WIA. Not an auspicious start. Those enemy tanks are beastly! I'm going to have another go at it. I know you said to keep playing if I lose, but then I started Strong Stand and immediately had a whole platoon rendered combat ineffective (although not completely destroyed). I figured that after this, it would be pretty much impossible to beat any of the Special Forces missions that follow. The maps are beautiful, though. This one deserves another go! I can tell you out a lot of effort into these, and I think part of the reason I'm sucking is that I'm unused to this kind of combat (defensive combat with infantry only against armour). Hopefully I'll improve! -FMB

Oh, I see now. Makes sense, unfortunately. That map does look beautiful.

Yeah, bolters are really solid. Pretty good strength and armour penetration for the main weapon of an army. -FMB

Actually, shouldn't the AI treat that as separate buildings linked together? If you think about it, shopping malls contain dozens of different self-contained rooms, which could function in effect like different buildings. I could actually see the AI working with that . . . The only problem is intrabuilding combat, which in my mind is still a tad broken. -FMB

My first attempt at a defensive scenario was hilariously easy. There was simply no way to lose. Since it took place in the dead of night, in an earlier patch and against uncons, they simply never saw my troops before getting mowed down. I literally started the scenario, deployed some troops here and there, went off and read a book, and by the time I had gotten back, they had surrendered and I had taken no casualties. -FMB

I'm curious as to what happens when you downgrade Texture Quality. I was experiencing very low fps in a scenario I was testing. I put 3D Model Quality down and it didn't seem to change anything. Then I quit the scenario, put 3D Model Quality back up and Texture Quality down, and all of a sudden my frame rate had tripled! Additionally, everything looked the same graphically. Am I just not paying attention to the graphical quality, or what happened here? Let me just clarify: I'm really happy it worked out the way it did, I'm just wondering why. It just seemed like a win-win (or win-not lose) situation, which thus far has not been my experience with computer game graphics settings! -FMB