Hev

Seems to me there is a problem with the sound "spotting" I have had units 5 meters away from enemy armour that they couldnt see and no contact apeared! We will just have to wait for 1.06 to see if it gets fixed -.-

Did steve realy say that? seems to me that formations are what allow you to move safely through any given environment, sometimes moving in column isnt appropriate, or am i just behind the times on this one?

LoL, i have the same problem with Bradleys. I know it doesnt help those who play wego but us real-timers would appreciate a comand that would allow us to choose when we want to fire the missiles. that would allow us to perform ambushes with the missiles and to scoot to saftey! Maybe a cover arc dedicated to any atgm that the vehicle carries would do the job for the wego'ers.

given that the game mainly simulates the "front line" ie: combat areas that will be above the norm for most combat scenarios with all involved caught up in the brunt of the fighting, why cant the support times (including arty) have a minute or so shaved of them. This would keep all the support options up to pace with the rest of the game!

On the subject of the stuck infantry between 1.04 and 1.05 the bug changed from making half your infantry squad completely imoblile to making them (half the squad) just refuse certain move orders. Not once have i had troops become totaly stuck but now when they get stuck i have to keep giveing orders till i find the particular spot that the WHOLE squad will move to!!

I believe to use the optics on the recon humvees you just need to "open up" with the crew and they will use the device, with the strykers you can use the device from within the vehicle. Of course we have had no official comment on this so its just what i "think" ive seen.

To be fair its not just a bit messed up, in one mission you cant spot a bmp just 5 meters behind the wall even from a slightly elevated position!

Well im safe then

From the scenario design point of view it would be nice if we had a greater degree of choice over the weapons the aircraft carried. It would be great if we had the support choices included its loadout with a random setting thrown in for good meaure. It would be nice to be able to set up missions with totaly inapropriate air support seeing as you dont always get the most helpfull support!

i dont envy you guys (who am i kidding id sell my missus to get on the test team ) thanks for the update.

I know this has been mentioned before but i couldnt find a post i here so can we have a word from BFC on when they might fix the low wall bug?

I ran the same tests as brooks at a longer range (200 meters) and i found that generaly squads lasted ten minutes or so before taking more than one casualty. I ran my tests with different ground types using brush and rocks on the areas that i "painted" (the areas were about 20 meters square) I had the infantry occupy the area before opening fire on them with MG's (from a trench) at 200 meters. Generally the ground types themselves made no difference ( i expected troops in the rocky ground to last longer but alas it was not to be ) The cover did however make a diffence, any troops placed in the open got cut down within minutes but those with the brush and rocks would last ten minutes before taking multiple casualties.

Im starting to feel the need for more units, after all, variety is the spice of life!

Well Plugger, I/We accept your appolagy for not finishing the report but id like to be the first to demand YOU DO A-BLOODY-NOTHER ONE.........ASAP Please Bloody good job dude!

i do agree with you that the spotting is flakey, id love to know how the game allows you to spot infantry in cover at 200+ meters but not in a house thats only 50 meteres from your position (or even less). But, if the enemy is inside a building, waiting (a close in ambush) for you to walk through the door then there is no reason for you to see them untill your at the door at least. Problem is that raises the question on why/how can the AI do some thing that we apparently can't. Ps sorry for the off topic chat and @ Plugger that cant be the end of the AAR surely!!!

Thats not true Taki, you can do two things to aid your entry into buildings. One is to stack up on an out side wall for 15 seconds or more. Second you can hunt into the building. I found stacking outside more effective, but the risk is MUCH higher. If you go for the stack approach use some supprisive fire on any possitions that over look where you stack. You are right that the spotting "on entry" is flakey but i think they did that to give defenders a chance of an ambush.

I see how this is a very fine tightrope now, on the one hand you have realism and all its implications and on the other hand you have the fun of doing things that arent realistic ie massive firefights. My head hurts now.....

I did some testing last night, i put some infantry on differnet ground types with varying degrees of cover on it (just brush and brush with rocks) i found that the brush does offer reasonable cover to stationary men. I had US forces being fired at by Syrian HMG's and most of the squads lasted ten minutes at about 200 meters. I was honestly suprised at this. When i moved the US forces into the open! i found that after taking a certain level of fire that the troops pulled back to cover (a nerby trench) on thier own. And i suppose Zemke makes a very good point, you could have a setting for realistic (or as is) then increments lower than for less lethal, and anyone who doesnt use it isnt effected. Hard to argue with the idea when put like that!

Could the problem also be related to the new editor and us not knowing how to use it to make realistic woods, fields etc? Didnt steve mention that to get the same effect for cover in x2 over x1 you would have to layer multiple ground and terrain types in the same "spot" And again, im currious what the realities of actualy seeking cover from incoming are. as far as i know not being visable wont actualy protect you, to be safe you need something that will STOP a bullet between you and the bads. So, and heres the guesswork, given that today weapons offer SF over longer periods and possably deliver it more accurately doesnt that negate any advantages WW2 soldiers got from being unseeen yet still in LOF?

Quality so far dude, keep it coming

LOL, so that means because they are soldiers they WANT to die? And once again, if the airgaurd is that vital why hasnt the bradly got an active gaurd. The Airgaurd is a tactical option, and like all options sometimes it will be usefull and sometimes less than so!

Ok, i sort of see what your saying now. I havent quite had the same experience with the game as you and im not sure why we have seen different things. With out resorting to HE most of my fire fights (in urban areas) end with a final assault on the enemy possition. And even when i do call in the tanks to add thier wieght i can still find someone tucked in a corner holding onto life. Im currious if theres a way that we could test the idea. Maybe two tranches oposite each other, both occupied, if one force can kill another with out moving then we have a problem. Im off to try it now

Jason C- I still dont get what your saying, isnt that how firefights work? IE: Two opposing forces meet, in your example one side has more firepower to bring to bear so that breaks the deadlock. If both sides had even firepower THEN you would need to manouver. The question to me seems to be, why would you WANT to manouver if you didnt need to?

Look this is idiotic......i dont care what the docktrine says, if your taking even sparodic fire you ARE going to put your head inside the vehicle. Please, does any one realy think that if lead was pinging off the hull that occupants would expose thier heads through the hatch?

I dont see a problem with the game, when i do something stupid my troops die, when i plan carefully and bring maximum firepower to a manouver my guys usualy scrape through.