PrezCartman

Azzu, it's definitely due to the smoke grenades deploying seen it happen numerous times already.

I'm not talking about auto engaging. I mean even when I order the Strykers to fire directly at the unit when the have it in LOS. I am well aware of the issues with them engaging on their own.

Ok so obviously one advantage of being on a roof is that it makes it harder for forces below you to fire up at you. But it seems CMSF makes it virtually impossible at least for vehicles. In other words my Stryker gunners sit there and constantly switch between aiming and elevating and never actually fire even though they have LOS, but apparently not a good firing angle. Even if you area target the roof the same thing still occurs. Is this a bug so to speak or more of a tactical issue that the game displays in an annoying manner.

Gummi, Having already designed a few scenarios to test things out, I think this is actually a scenario design error rather than a bug, at least in regards to this scenario. I played it too, same result. The problem is if the AI is set to Assault they will crawl to wherever they're going as if they were under heavy fire, tiring themselves and taking forever. If you wanna make the scenario more interesting, 1.Open up the scenario editor 2.Click Load, Go in the Scenarios folder, Open the Al Huqf Engagement 3.On the left side click on the drop down menu where it says Mission, select A.I. 4.On the left side select Plan 1 (Red) 5.Click on the drop down menu that says Setup and select Order 2 6.On the drop down menu below that where it says Assault, change it to Advance 7.Click save at the top then load up the scenario again The AI will now advance much more rapidly. This can be applied to any scenario where the AI exhibits this crawling assault. I think this is an AI behavior the devs will likely adjust in the future, but right now this is the easiest way around the issue. However if your troops meet the AI's while they're still advancing odds are you will still cut them down, sadly it's hard to teach a computer bounding overwatch style advance at higher than just a single squad.

Hukka, I should have it done by the end of the week, still doing A LOT of tweaking on the points issue, amazing how hard it is to make asymmetric warfare good in terms of points. Also, I want to see what happens with the 1.03 patch, don't wanna release it then have the patch create any weird changes. Bottom line, should have it posted in the scenarios section by Friday afternoon as long as the patch is out sometime Wednesday or Thursday.

Guys if you read the change log for 1.03 they mention there was a bug in the height levels for one variant of the T-72 causing Javs to regularly not damage them. I can only assume that's the issue you're experiencing so give it a day or two until 1.03 comes out and then test that scenario again and see if it fixes it. I'm sure the devs would love to know.

Yea I know what you mean Mish I've had Strykers get nailed by a Huge IED from just a few meters away and have them survive with just minor tire damage.

Lol and to top it all off after they were immobilized my crews apparently decided to abandon ship. After they hopped out for some reason I couldn't get them to mount back up so I couldn't even use them for stationary fire because the crews bailed out without taking any incoming fire, just being hit by a friendly Stryker deployed smoke grenade knocking out their tires.

Childress, In addition as the US had learned in its experience in Iraq, the less you can blow up the better. In the scenario I'm designing that I talked about earlier you can lay waste to the Syrian military complex because the air force has already rendered it largely useless. However the school, civilian airfield, and farm nearby are targets that you want to avoid destroying simply because it will be one more project you have to deal with in reconstruction and hence the US troops should be penalized for its damage because it is counter productive. The US commander is still free to level the buildings but if he does so he will need to complete the rest of the mission nearly perfectly to still get a good win.

I'm sure someone has probably brought this up before but I just had it happen to me again and frankly it's rather annoying. I was advancing on a custom made scenario with a Stryker Recce Platoon 3 Vehicles across approximately 15m separation between each. My middle Stryker comes under AK fire and freaks out firing off it's smoke grenades. Both the left and right Strykers sustain maximum damage to their wheels and are rendered immobile making them effectively useless for the rest of my attack. I just want to know if this is an intentional design decision for realism or simply an unnoticed bug. I don't know much about the Smoke launchers on a Stryker and if them firing out could in fact damage nearby vehicles then I have no problem with it as it is realistic and I simply need to learn to employ better tactics. However if this is not realistic I would hope that in a future patch the smoke grenades can be set to do no damage.

I don't know if anyone has posted about this issue yet but I just noticed it a scenario I created and after seeing the problem I just did some actual testing to confirm my suspicion. If there is a building and in the very next tile there is a wall, the door facing that wall will not be useable even if the wall is destroyed. I found this out when I blasted a section of wall with an MGS then sent my scouts in to the building, except they ran to the door on the side not facing the wall and were cut down in the open. After some extra testing to find out the exact situation, it seems that there needs to be a space of at least a half tile between a wall tile and a building for a door on that side to work. So if you want a building along a wall either don't put a door on that side or make it a half or full tile away from the wall. Just a friendly tip cuz I know it annoyed the hell out of me in my own scenario.

Cam, Understandable but right now I'm just developing the scenario for AI play, haven't given much thought to the human element.

Hukka, It is very easy to punish for destroying buildings. Generally the US is going to have more firepower, not to mention the Javelin, and be more willing to bring down buildings. I am actually developing a scenario right now with a limited US attack against a mixed terrain area. The major parts include a small airport, family farm, boarding school, and former Syrian base. Because at some point after the war is over we want the civilians to be able to move back into their old lives without trouble the US commander is penalized for any building damaged except the Syrian military complex. What you can actually do is select a group of buildings, assign them a total point value for preservation for the US side and each building damaged will take away a certain amount of that overall point total. The Syrian don't have enough firepower to really damage any of the buildings so there is no reason to set it up to penalize them for destruction, plus they are largely irregular troops and hence care more about inflicting pain on Americans then losing a few buildings.

Wood, As I understood it, and looking at the scenario editor, it looks more like the modules will be interchangable to some extent with the earlier builds. In other words the three earlier CM games were all separate entities. The modules will be closer to an add-on for what already exists. Yes you will get new features, weapons, and such, but they will still include what has come before. I could be totally wrong but just my impression. Clearly the WW2 and Modern modules won't be compatible, but all those from the same time frame will be I believe.

Vet, My experience with the work arounds only applied in the campaign. I can't speak for custom maps, might be some issue with design.

Guys I'm in the middle of the Hims Homes mission, major urban area where you experience the same issues you are all describing. I assume it's a bug that causes it but here's current work arounds that I've found. 1.In regard to the squads refusing to leave a building. If you order them into another building they often won't move. However, if you order them out of the building, i.e. put a waypoint just outside they will go to it. Then once that waypoint is set, just set another in the building you wish to go to and generally I have found them going. 2.As for the squads not all moving. Pretty much everytime I have seen this its one fire time goes and the other stays. If you split the squad using the admin command and then move both fire teams into the same building and floor they will group as a single squad in a few seconds, rather than having to send them back to a Stryker. As I said it's definitely something that doesn't work right, but here's the solution I've found to get around it thus far.

At this time, no there is no arty smoke, but knowing BFC it will probably be added when they can get to it.

From what I saw it looked completely intentional. I think the range was under 150m. You can always just create a quick scenario put targets at different ranges and test it out.

Goody, yes i've seen a direct attack from a Jav in game. I was targeting a building from a rooftop. Not sure of the range but it was definitely pretty close, sailed right through a wall and detonated.

Even then it's iffy if the crew will fire at less than 550m. Made a test scenario myself and even with an elite crew they won't fire unless they're pretty damn sure it's going to be a kill.

Sadly I've had to do some modifying of my original idea. For those of you who haven't tested it out yet, hitting US troops at night over open terrain is just about impossible, thanks to the night vision and being inside buildings, they will engage long before your guys, even if US, can spot and return fire. So the scenario is more like a purple on red type now than blue v blue. I could've left it blue on blue but it would've required the attacking force having a much higher amount of supporting assets than I would like.

Hmm hadn't heard the one about the Mexican border, but I wouldn't be surprised. Of course if we get some more varied terrain types you can also do a US v. Cuba invasion scenario or any other South American country you wished, Venezuela is another possibility.

Louch, excellent testing, certainly valuable to scenario devs. I was wondering what the underlying terrain you were using was? I think this is definitely something that more testing can be done on. Particularly creating a ranking system of which foliage types create the most cover and also what the effect is with various terrain types. Who knows for all of those who want to simulate dense forests if you use the right trees and terrain it may be possible even in the current engine because it appears to me that Louch was using flat, open terrain for this test.

Bradley, That sounds like it could be quite entertaining. KNac the only issue with making it playable as both Red & Blue is that the AI is far better at defense than attack for obvious reasons. I'm not saying it wouldn't be possible, just that it will require A LOT of testing to make an AI that attacks in any way that could be called formidable. Although with that much firepower even the AI may manage to make a go of it. Either way I'd definitely be willing to try it out. Nac, Glad to hear at least someone is curious in trying something besides mechanized ops. I will start work on the scenario later today, hopefully have it done by tmrw or maybe early next week at least for a playable testing version. I'm using sat images of an actual location so going to take some time to try and get it to look approximately the same.

Louch, I'm also assuming that battle had US armor? If you read through I'm only planning on possibly having a few unarmed vehicles around simulating cars left by the locals, but the actual combat forces would have to be light infantry forces.