Roter Stern

I’m sorry to sound like “another grumpy little RTFM’er”, but have you tried reading the fantastic manual? I think it’s pretty definitive… page 126: The “Exit Before” option causes the Group to try very hard to get to the next Order before the specified time is reached. This does not mean the Group will do it, just that it will try. If it has taken excessive casualties, is immobilized or heavily engaged it may blow the set “Exit Before” time. The “Exit After” option does the opposite by telling the Group to stay at the current Map Zone until the specified time is reached. With this setting a Group never moves on to the next Order before the “Exit After” time is reached. Key words “time reached”, as opposed to “time on order elapsed”.

Good point about 1.03, forgot all about it … *crosses fingers for this Friday* None-the-less, do you recall what was the biggest LOS decrease you were able to achieve?

Actually I picked A because it was the first one on the list and I picked F (palm trees) because it was the most distinct looking from the rest of the tree-tiles. Since I was just trying to establish if there was a relative difference between the tree types, I felt that finding the absolute most and least LOS blocking tiles was unnecessary. That said, I’d live to see some actual number from your experiments. I’m glad you came to that conclusion – this is exactly what I’m trying to prove with this post – CMSF engine is so complex that to make any ‘blanket’ statements about it without doing at least some form of basic objective testing is simply inadequate. I was using just the basic “dirt” with no other layers other than the trees, just to keep the number of variables influencing the result as low as possible. But of course if you wanted to simulate a dense forest you would also add tall grass and lots of brush, which would unoubtfully have a significant effect on the LOS. I volunteer Hoolaman to perform tests on all 7992 Ground-Foliage-Brush-Road combinations (no, this number is not made up) to determine absolute LOS blocking distances. I’ll expect a conclusive result with in 7 days, at which point we’ll be judging whether or not CMx2 is accurate to what we expect in real life. Have fun mate! [ August 21, 2007, 07:20 AM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

I dont think it has anything to do with their Experience, and instead depends on the Branch of Service and possibly even Equipment Quality. I've seen Special Forces guys have those, and would also expect Republican Guard, perhaps also Mech guys, to have them as well.

Search is your friend... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=72;t=000029 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=72;t=000025 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=72;t=000010 and... http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=001716#000005 http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=002586 [ August 19, 2007, 07:13 AM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

YES, the game is amazing!

Hasnt all of this been covered at least a few times by now? Foxholes are in, btw ...or rather Shell-Scrapes ... look closer next time Here's a good place to start looking... Steve's Recent Posts

Sounds like a scenario that Germans and Soviets would love to play ... and also Canadians I’ve tried Blue-vs-Blue real quick before and basically it went from first contact to complete and utter annihilation of both forces in under 40seconds … certainly not something for the WeGo crowd

Don’t have much time to do a proper write up tonight, but I’ll try doing a quick one… Played the original version as Red in RT vs the AI. Here are the final stats… Personally I would’ve liked to see that result in at least a Minor Win for the Syrians… after all Red’s prime objective is to execute a fighting retreat and cause casualties, and at 75% Blue casualties I think that was more than completed, despite Blue being able to capture both positions. Perhaps adding the Bradleys and Strykers as an additional “unit target” will also help? I would also completely get rid of those F-16s, they are far too overpowering for a rather small force composition like that, especially considering that Red has no real armor. Overall an excellent scenario and a really well done map, keep at it!

Very good points, if anything the Somali force should be made exclusively of Small Combatant HQ teams - which are just 2 guys with a pair of AK's – and possibly an occasional 1-man sniper team or an RPG team.

I doubt it .. looks like an AT-4 from here, and those are basically useless against the front armor on the Abrams... as a matter of fact pretty much everything is

Does the text show up in the editor? Make sure you imported into the same side as you're tying to play.. i.e. in case the text ended up in Red's breifing and you're loading the scenario as Blue.

Need for Speed: Shock Force? lol

I've seen gunner/commander in the RV Stryker automoatically unbutton to fire and then button back up when done. Also keep in mind that if the gunner is killed the Styker will not be able to fire.

That was by far the most disappointing mission of the entire campaign - I just positioned the M1s evenly throughout the map and went to make dinner. When I came back in 30min the Syrians surrendered Not a single Blue casualty either. And yes, the briefing was unnecessary convoluted – clear mines that, position FIST this, pull back into the diamond for attack… and its funny how with all this build-up around that one objective there was no actual mission to capture it… sigh.

Uhhh! let's not forget the BTR-80

Are you saying you suffered a total loss of 500-to-0? With only 18 casualties? Geez, talk about giving up too quick Don’t forget that the Federal forces are hardly penalized for suffering heavy casualties, so unless all of your BTR’s are on fire and troops are broken and running away, there is no reason to not push forward As for the friendly fire issues, I honestly have never seen something like that in this or any other scenario. My only guess is that the RPG’s were aiming at an enemy directly in front of another friendly unit, and due to lack of experience or otherwise were missing and either hitting the ground or the foliage (here’s that word again ) resulting in friendly casualties. I’m sorry if it seems like I’m making it my personal mission to contradict everything you’re saying – I’m honestly not! I find it really funny that you think that units spot each other too easily in this scenario. I was an inch away from completely giving up and scrapping the scenario half-way though when I realized that none of the Red units are able to spot anything short of an entire platoon charging straight at them. I had two units positioned on Hills 2158 and 2155 (a distance of about 150~200m) facing each other unhidden for a solid half hour without either one spotting the other. What made a tremendous difference in the end is units moving around – a unit running is spotted almost instantly even at longer ranges. And that makes perfect sense to me, since movement produces the biggest visual signature of all other factors, even more so than gunfire. So it seems that cover and concealment actually have more to do with small unit tactics than anything else - something that will really come into play in multiplayer, or perhaps with a more sophisticated AI planning. Also if you’re really interested in realistic spotting, making sure you’re not playing on “Basic”, although even “Veteran” is a little too quick to spot units for my linking. [ August 15, 2007, 08:44 AM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

Well first all of don’t confuse having an LOS on a particular spot and actually being able to identify enemy units at that spot. For example I used vehicles for the first part of the test, where as initially I wanted to use infantry squads, because even the empty Control Lane was not able to identify it’s respective enemy squad at that distance, despite having a 100% clear LOS and being able to spot a vehicle in under a few seconds. And I don’t even want to go into LOF and how each round can now be potentially blocked or deflected by foliage… there is enough material there to write a PhD thesis on. Secondly this is not an absolute test designed to find out how well the in-game foliage compares to that of real life or even to that of CMx1. As for foliage seemingly not providing any cover in most scenarios, you have to keep in mind that we’re dealing with a mostly arid environment – basically a desert. So it is hardly a surprise that 30m of arid foliage doesn’t provide as much cover as 30m of lush forests of North-western Germany. That is something that can be debated endlessly, and is not my intent. Instead that was a relative test with-in the controlled parameters of the game, designed to demonstrate that foliage is now modelled in utmost detail and sophistication. Essentially you can argue that instead of CMx1’s three types of foliage tiles, we’re now looking at least 24 different types of foliage – and that’s not even counting in grass and underbrush, which would swell the number of combinations well into the hundreds. To me that is a beautiful thing, and whether a 3-density tree-D tile with tall yellow grass and a sprinkling of brush is supposed to block LOS at 30m or 530m is up to the developers to figure out and for us to accept. [ August 15, 2007, 07:59 AM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

Uhh-huh… So how much does this job pay? None? Hmm… I see… One last question… What kind of monetary compensation can we expect for participating? Love the presentation! Would love to try it out.

While I thank you for the comments on the scenario, I simply could not let this rather ignorant and uneducated statement pass by. Hence I bring you the LOS and Foliage – a topic important enough to have it’s own thread.

For an updated v1.06 version, please see this post on page 2. Post below unchanged for continuity. Prompted by this seemingly outlandish claim by a fellow forum dweller, who shall remain nameless … … I set myself a mission to find out once and for all whether investing my life savings*1 into BFC was a grave mistake or a stroke of genius. The Experiment: To determine the effect of foliage (commonly referred to as “trees”) on the Line of Sight between two given points. The Setup: A plot of perfectly flat terrain, measured 280m by 1200m, is to be divided lengthwise into five equal 56m-wide lanes. Each lane is to have a position marker at each end marking the center position of each lane. A pair of units is then placed at either ends of each lane – a Red AT-14 ATGM team at one end, and a Blue Stryker ICV vehicle at the other. Each and every one of the ten units involved is to have identical experience and other vital stats. The first four lanes are then filled with the same type of foliage of the varying densities – “1-tree”, “2-trees”, “3-trees”, and “grid” - the fifth lane is left empty as control. See pic.1 The Execution: The experimental scenario is then loaded up as the Red side and each of the five ATGM units is made to face the Blue Strykers 1200m away, but also given short enough arcs of fire to prevent unwanted engagements. Part one of the experiment is to observe if and when the ATGM teams will be able to spot their respective Stryker vehicles. Part two of the experiment is to use the Target Command as an improvised LOS Tool to determine how far the ATGM teams are able to see along the length-axis of their respective lanes. The experiment is then to be reset using a different type of foliage. The Findings: Part one immediately validated the experiment setup – the control lane #5 spotted its Stryker within a split second, followed by “Grid” lane #4 at 15 seconds, however none of the other lanes were able to spot anything even after 5min. Part two findings were as following – first using “Tree A” foliage: </font> Lane #1, 3-tree density – max LOS distance of 165m</font>Lane #2, 2-tree density – max LOS distance of 225m</font>Lane #3, 1-tree density – max LOS distance of 450m</font>Lane #4, Grid density – max LOS distance is infinite, along a very narrow FOV</font>Lane #5, Control – max LOS distance is infinite, along the entire width of the lane</font>Then using “Tree F” foliage:</font>Lane #1, 3-tree density – max LOS distance of 230m</font>Lane #2, 2-tree density – max LOS distance of 395m</font>Lane #3, 1-tree density – max LOS distance of 580m</font>Lane #4, Grid density – max LOS distance is infinite, along a very narrow FOV</font>Lane #5, Control – max LOS distance is infinite, along the entire width of the lane</font>The Conclusion: The empirical data is very definitive and undeniable – not only is foliage as a whole taken into consideration when calculating the LOS, but density and more importantly (and frankly stunningly) the type of foliage also have a significant effect on the LOS depth. Given the complexity of the engine involved and the sheer number of foliage+brush+terrain combinations possible we can only speculate about the exact effects each and every one of those factors have on Cover and Concealment, but one thing is for sure – my life savings are safe, my heartfelt thanks BFC! pic.1 *1 Figure of speech, No actual cash value, Not valid in Quebec [ February 08, 2008, 12:21 PM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

Not really, if you "clear" the briefing text in the editor, the 6 titles will still show up – so they seem to be hard-coded in Hopefully that’s something that we can see changed with a patch, perhaps even to allow for custom section headers.

Just played it though as Blue vs AI for a Total Victory or rather a Red Surrender after 18min. Lost one Bradley to the SPG-9 and had 4 men wounded. And not a single Javelin used --- Possible Spoilers Moved the squads up exclusively with the Assault command, seemed to work quite well. The mounted up platoon was sent onto the high ground to the west for overwatch and to later assault the village from the side. Speaking of which, your briefing mentions that the terrain does not allow for a flanking maneuver, does that imply that we’re not supposed to be able to use the Western high ground, or simply that a large scale “operational” flanking was not possible? If anything I’d make it tougher for the Blue side – I’d take away the two Command section Bradleys, as well as the FSV, leaving just the four IFVs organic to the platoon. I would also stagger the front trench line a bit, just so it doesn’t make a perfect 250m-long “line” target for the mortars. Perhaps also add a few more buildings, for some close-combat house clearing? All in all an interesting exercise in small unit tactics, quite enjoyable. Also a good effort with the briefing and the visuals, quite refreshing to see someone finally using those – really adds to the scenario immersion, good job!

I dunno, that picture-perfect Walmart'ish parking lot in the back doesn't look very middle eastern to me Just played it though as Blue vs the AI - which unfortunately resulted in a cakewalk... Although I can see this being a very interesting scenario for multiplayer - I'll try playing it though TCP/IP over the weekend. I'm not sure if even a better Red AI will help any - Blue's javelins are just way too over powering for anything short of a proper human player's tactics. That said, I love the way the map turned out - a lot of interesting elements, such as the building complex NE of the field - turned out really nice. Kudos!

I predict there will be X-Mas this year!