Roter Stern

That's single trees arranged along a grid.. i.e. to create an "orchard" sort of thing

In case anyone important is keeping tabs on this one, I just got to use the AT-7 Saxhorn and it had it's times listed fine ... 3min and 22sec

Great idea, I second it! (put that in your sig-line ) Doesn't have to be overly elaborate either... something as visually simple as a colored border representing the unit's condition from 'green' to 'red' would be very helpful.

:eek: :eek: Wow, some one is about to be smitten by the mighty hand of the God of Game Development I'm also pretty sure some one from BFC mentioned that the module development and core-engine patching will be handled by different teams, so work on the other one does not slowdown the process of the other.

I honestly don’t understand where people are coming from when they say that CMSF should not even contain the words “Combat Mission” in it’s title… I truly don’t… if anyone does, I’d greatly appreciate some clarification here. The game is still the most realistic war-simulator (I feel that to call CM a war-game is not appropriate) currently out on the market right now, no holds barred. The whole Real Time issue – while I will admit that it is clear that the game was built from ground up to function in Real Time, I honestly don’t see how that effects the fact that it’s still the most realistic war-sim out there. Oh and don’t get me stared by calling CMSF RT a “kiddie-RTS-click-fest” ... that’s clearly coming from some one who did not even bother trying the RT and played CMx1 exclusively in PBEM for the sheer fact of taking 5 or 6 hours per turn. If you ask me, that’s far less representative of the reality of warfare than playing in Real Time. Have you ever tried playing CMx1 over TCP/IP with a 60sec order-phase limit? Now that was intense. As for the lack of “well established” features… That is a common mistake of comparing CMSF to CMBB/CMAK … you simply can’t do that – those had years of polish to the core engine upon release. How much polish does CMSF currently have? Uhh I don’t know, how long did it take them to make the 1.01 patch? A week, perhaps two? If anything you should be comparing CFSM to CMBO, simple as that. And let me tell you, I’d much rather be playing CMSF right now than CMBO

Somebody help please ... with coming up with a better thread title? Ohh sure, how about "Help with mounting infantry onto vehicles"?

Let's hope not. That's verging too close to getting the customer to pay extra for what should be included in the first place, IMHO. Unlike this Syria caper, Commonwealth forces were hardly a bolt-on in the Normandy campaign and should be included in the first release. </font>

Well, I’m sure you’ll agree what even “big goofy boulders” have their applications in the correct context – much like rubbled buildings, while not inherently goofy, sure look goofy blocking vehicles access to the riverbed in my example above. But on-foot movement only slopes are a must as well. Ideally it'd be nice to see different slope movement characteristics depending on terrain... i.e. it's a lot harder to climb a 45-degree sand dune than a wooded slope, and completely impossible on a mud covered slope. Although I'd be willing to settle for <5m elevation allowing veh and inf though, 5~8m allowing only inf though, and anything >8m blocking all movement ... sort of thing. That and an "inf access only" terrain tile would be nice as well... i.e. "rough" But again, the real question is whether this was left out on purpose or just didn't make it in for initial release.

Well, like I was saying - the only thing even remotely close to "rough" terrain is the rubbled building tile ... but I'm sure you'll agree this look quite fugly, especially with the elevation leveling effect buildings have. (That's me trying to make a "river" bank impassible to vehicles... )

Wow, good idea with posting the object pics... sticky, perhaps?

Is it just me or does the game currently lack virtually any form of impassable terrain? After a rather extensive testing in the Editor, the only ways to block movement that I found is either with a “marsh” tile or with an elevation difference of 5m or more, which produces a “cliff”. However an even bigger problem I have is that there doesn’t seem to be a way to limit terrain access to infantry only. As it stands right now both vehicles and infantry can’t pass though marshes and >5m elevations, however they both can pass though everything else. The “3-tree” foliage tiles seem to almost be able to block vehicle movement, however I’ve had several vehicles – including a T-72 - navigate their way though an entire 3-tree forest. What I’m referring to is the way it was done in CMAK, where elevations could be set to produce a “slope” - which would prevent vehicle access, yet allow infantry to climb though, albeit very slowly. Same effect could also be accomplished with the “rough” terrain tile. Neither “slopes” nor “rough” seem to have made it into CMSF. I guess my question is two fold – has anyone figured out a way to reproduce this “limited access” effect, with out reducing to such silliness as using collapsed buildings to simulate the good-old “rough” terrain? And also, has the decision to leave out the “limited access” been a conscious design move or a feature which simply wasn’t high enough on the priority list to make it into v1.0?

Although now that I think of it, I did notice that ATGMs hesitate to attack the Strykers... perhaps because they are considered "light" vehicles, and hence not worth of using up a valuable ATGM in TacAI's eyes? However if you order a manual target command, they should fire away quite happily.

The AT-3 ATGMs that the BRDM-2 fires have a 500m minimal range - so make sure you're not in the dead zone.

Those are already in, actually. You can find them as independent "Grenade Launcher Platoons" part of the Syrian Infantry. However I haven't seen them appear as part of any Bn or Coy TO&E.

Now, the real question is whether you’re going to make the Abrams area-fire single shots or let the autoloaders go “full auto”? Personally I’d vote for full-auto autoloaders, but perhaps that’s just a Sturmtiger-demon lurking in me demanding every single building to be leveled flat.

Makes *perfect* sense, I'd even be happy to call it a "random feature" ... however, I just checked the Area Fire command with an Abrams - under exact same conditions as I tested the autoloaders - and it quite happily fires round after round of molten TNT into the ground ... depleting it's 16 HEAT rounds in just under 3 min. Also worth noting that an autoloading T72 carries more ammo than a manual loaded Abrams. As for the high rate of fire, isn’t is always claimed –by the supporters of the manual load, naturally – that a well trained crew is quicker than any autoloader? Smells like a cover up to me [ August 03, 2007, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: The Louch ]

Hooray ATI! - Loyal nVidia user since 3dfx stopped being cool

Good eye! I've seen the exclamation mark one as well, but playing Real Time, i could not rewind to examine the effect. Also notice how in the first screenshot it even lists the status of the 3 members, presumably the ones with the exclamation marks, as "Routing" ... very interesting

Is it just me or do autoloaders not reload the main gun when ordered an Area Fire? I've searched around, but it doesn't look like anyone has pointed this out as of yet... I've seen this behavior with both Blue (i.e. MGS) and Red (just about every tank) autoloaders - when ordered an area fire they immediately fire off the main gun and open up on the coax - when checked in Equipment Status the main gun gets "grayed out", i.e. not loaded. The main gun stays unloaded for as long as the area fire command is still active, with only the coax still able to fire on the area target. As soon as the area target is canceled, the main gun is immediately reloaded - with the Equipment Status panel switching the main gun back to "white" - and can be fired off again with a new area fire command. My guess is since the gun must returned to a neutral elevation position in order to be reloaded, it is being prevented from doing that by the TacAI which gives priority to keeping the gun elevation fixed on target in order to be able to continue firing the coax. Quite odd

Once the campaign file is put together it can not be edited anymore ... so you'd have to start from sctatch.

Indeed... it was very usefull for keeping track of who's going where

Why haven't I thought of this before... ...it took a lot of 'redtape', but the Syrian order for a large shipment of the Javelin ATGM system has finally went through: ...let's hope it doesn't come back to haunt us like the Stingers in Afghaniraqistan

Set mission to Red-vs-Red, buy which ever Red units you wish for each side, then switch the mission to Blue-vs-Blue and purchase the Blue units

Hmm.. the real-life BMP-2 is described as having a crew of 3 + 7 passengers... where as in the game it's a crew of 2 + 8 passengers. Perhaps the BMP TC *is* also the squad commander in real-life doctrine? And that’s CMSF’s way of representing it?

I'm still waiting for the spoiler