cabal23

My personal favorite right now is Eight Lives Down by Maj. Chris Hunter. A more accurate portrayal of a real British IED team.

That would make too much sense. You first have to shoot them dead, then you can take their stuff.

Will there ever be another TacOps or is it dead? I thought the premise was great, but lacks the polish many games have these days. It was great for when it came out for sure though!

Read the post more carefully please... I have to agree with the OP "causing a small explosion and making him instantly fall to the ground" Bullets don't cause small explosions.

brilliant mod!

So then how did you do it with Marines?

Was that sarcasm or are you for real. Obviously sarcasm. Have you ever watched Red Dawn? Next will come the ridiculous Space Lobster jokes that the old grogs around here still think is funny. God forbid anyone think outside the box just a little bit.

Nooooo, my beloved Red Dawn cannot be tarnished by a remake! That movie still strike a tone in me growing up during the cold war. It was really well done, despite its Brat Pack actors/actresses. I will be on that to create a Red Dawn scenario for sure!

The failure rate of commercial Humvee's is incredible. They are not built anywhere near to the standards that the military ones are. And most military people will tell you the military version also has a penchant for breaking down as well. A company I worked for bought one for promotional uses and to drive the winners of a contest to the Sugarbowl and that thing was in the shop EVERY week. Needless to to say the company flew the winners into the bowl game instead of risking humiliation when the vehicle broke down on the way. That vehicle sits on a lot now collecting dust as a big unmovable banner now withe companies logo on it. Get a real military Humvee if you need that level of offroading ability, or you could just do what everyone has been doing around the world for the past 20 years and get a standard 4-wheel drive vehicle. Humvee's are serious overkill and not worth the effort it takes to maintain them. JD Powers rated the Hummer a 5 out of 10 for reliability. Not great for what you pay for them. Almost all models rate this way on reliability. Performance is high, but what good is performance if you can't get it to run?

Well if it anything like the UK release we will be lucky to get a case at all. BF has been getting cheaper as the games go on. The game will probably ship in an old tuna can sharpied with the letters CM:N on it.

Since installing the new patch when I print screen and then try to open the image up in either paint or photshop all I get is a black screen. I am trying to create a tac map for my scenario which I have done plenty of times flawlessly. Has something changed with the new patch or could there be another problem?

Looking for an opponent or two. Send me a private message.

This is the least amount of fun I have had since my hemorrhoid operation. No fun at all. Over complicated missions that take too long and too much guesswork. And it runs quite poorly on my quad core with mid range vid card. Just doesn't look or feel that great. This is defiantly a pass unless you hardcore into games like this. I will stick with the other BF homegrown games.

Sorry if I don't get it. Are you saying Syrians don't resupply their troops with ammo? They have no trucks?

I hope that was sarcasm. You can never tell on this forum. One truck is all we ask for.

I think this engine would be perfect for a future war /realistic sci-fi game. The engine is solid. I assume the only real effort would be modeling all new models(really just uniforms) and vehicles. Then work with the weapon damage coding. I am totally simplifying because I know little about coding other than what I read here and on a few other sites. Here is an interesting list of just a few of the things that the military will see in the next 10-20 years. Imagine a game that is going to be showing what warfare is suspected to look like in 20 years years? It would require a little research and a little guesswork of how to balance it all out. Just check out these 10 things and imagine them in your CMSF game. I do think the game map size would have to expand a bit because some of these things are absolutely devastating to the enemy on a a very large scale. It makes me wonder where we will be in 50 years, because we are about to hit zenith of warfare technology. If I was BF I would hire a company to do it. I think there are so many options with this engine they could be exploiting in so many ways. The Russian company doing the Afghanistan module is proof. Everyone here has said make a World War 3 game, or give me more countries. Why not? Oh well we can only hope. Check out this link. http://www.askmen.com/top_10/entertainment_200/248c_top_10_list.html

"First off, that post was from 8 months ago." And what is your point? Has something drastically changed from 8 months ago from where the game stands now? I was addressing your first sentence of your post mostly because those points didn't make sense. "Show me a battle in Iraq that went 2 days with no resupply. " I never said anything about Iraq. But since you brought it up, how would you know they didn't? Your telling me not a single battle or string of battles ever took place for more than two days with nothing but the supplies a company brought with them(that is still a lot of supplies in all those AAV's)? "Last, how much have you coded in CM? Don't assume something is easy to implement.. if it was, it would have been done already." Sounds to me like Steve said there would be some sort of compromise with a continue on button. Don't start with the coding issues. We all know the one man coding problem with BF games. It isn't always a case of coding as it is the manpower. But I was never arguing that point. I respect Charles for the amazing one man show he is. I take back saying that it is easy to implement. But once again BF didn't really make it sound like it is that tough to do, quite the contrary. "No insult intended, but I rather see more added into CM:N then going back to work on CMSF." I think you let your sig at the bottom of the page got to your head. That is your opinion about Normandy. Because anything they fix in CMSF now will be implemented in CMSF 2. I think Normandy will be awesome (not really my thing though), but I want see the effort added into the next version of CMSF and that starts with this version. I am not insulted at all. Just that your argument was weak and I was debating as many time people do here. Don't get your britches all in a bundle. I even added a remark afterwords when I thought it out some more because I think the problem goes beyond the discussion we were having and more into AI. It's all good though. I will still keep buying the amazing products BF makes despite it may not include every feature I want. I love these forums because we can have these discussions and every now and then Steve pops up and says that it might be a possibility. That's all we are doing here. Talking possibilities, nothing more.

"Thing is, the player can easily adapt to extended time limits, that I'm sure of, but the AI cannot." After careful thought I think the problem is with the AI not the time limit so much. As someone already stated the AI is the limitation because once the AI finishes it's designed program. That's it. I think the discussion needs to shift to how can we one day create slightly more advanced AI commands. I have ready read the umpteen posts about how hard that is to increase the functionality of the AI, but a if X happens do Y would also be really helpful and make the AI more robust. I just feel the AI has serious limitations and increasing more time might just make it appear a failure. Because all the troops would do is sit at their final location and shoot at whoever comes into view, or run away due to morale. I think someone stated the AI is pretty much done after 3/4 of a normal game. I beg for a way to keep an AI moving throughout the entire game, but as stated it will never happen because of programming limitations. So I guess the end result is the game is what it is and be happy with what you have. I also agree a play on button would be a nice feature. I often forget I can go in an increase the time to four hours.

I can't accept that because as we all know this is a simulation. Water? Simulated. Heat? Already modeled. Ammo? Last time I checked there is enough ammo in any US vehicles to last quite a long time. Hours if need be. I also disagree that it is an operation if you give someone four hours, instead of two or one. I have read multiple books with battles that raged on for a day or two with no resupply(you might just have to fire light, instead of just opening up all guns blazing full on which would offer another tactical element to overcome). Also it would make sense for the scenario designer to allow reinforcements to arrive at the 2 hour mark to resupply soldier with water, ammo, and extract wounded(also going on while the game is going on, but it being simulated) I think people forget this is a sim, not a RTS. BF has stated many times, many things are simulated to avoid unecessary modeling. I have to say all those points are weak and refutable. I would agree with most people here that is an easy feature to implement and wouldn't detract from the realism of the game at all.

That is the nuttiest thing since soldiers running through walls or avoiding huge holes in walls and running around a building to use the front door. Sometimes weird stuff happens, but never enough to ruin my experience. I too have had multiple Javelins fly off screen or hit seemingly lightly armored vehicles and do nothing. Chalk it up to a bad batch of Javelins, most likely made in China or Mexico.

Very interesting read... From the miscellaneous section from the March 1943 issue of the Intelligence Bulletin USE OF SMOKE AGAINST TANKS The Germans have been conducting experiments to test the effect of smoke weapons used at close quarters against tanks. No information is available as to the type of tank and the type of grenade employed in these tests. However, it is known that the results convinced the Germans that smoke can be an important factor in combating tanks. Four experiments under varying conditions yielded the following data: a. Experiment 1 A smoke hand grenade was set off beside a stationary tank; the tank's hatches were closed, and its engine was running. Not only the suction of the engine fans, but leaks in the forward entrance hatch, the mantlet of the hull machine gun, the turret ring, and the turret ventilators, filled the tank with a thick accumulation of smoke. Opening the hatches did not ventilate the tank sufficiently. The Germans decided that a tank crew, fighting under these conditions, would be forced out of the tank after a short period, and that the driver and hull machine-gunner would suffer most from the effects of the smoke. b. Experiment 2 In a second experiment the conditions were duplicated, except that the engine was turned off. It was discovered that although smoke entered the tank, evacuation would have become necessary only after several minutes—and, even then, probably for no one but the driver. c. Experiment 3 A third test was held, this time with the tank moving and its hatches closed. Smoke grenades were thrown at the tank, and failed to lodge on it. The crew lost almost none of their capacity to fight, and were affected more by limitation of their vision than by the actual penetration of smoke into the tank. d. Experiment 4 In the fourth experiment, a moving tank with closed hatches was used; but this time a cable 6 1/2 feet long, with a smoke grenade tied to each end, was thrown across the barrel of the gun. (After a little practice, the thrower became quite adept at this.) It was found that evacuation of the tank was necessary after 30 seconds. Observation from the tank was, of course, out of the question. The Germans felt that if members of a crew were to show enough presence of mind to put on their respirators instantly, and rotate the turret through 180 degrees, it would be possible for them to avoid the effect sufficiently to bring the tank to safety. However, it was clear that in any case the fighting capacity of the crew would be seriously affected.

After reading an incredible article about General Dynamics and their new contract with the US military in Robot magazine, I thought it would be very appropriate to share. A few years ago people on this forum would have been making archaic space lobster jokes. I was very impressed so I found another article detailing the same info. But If there ever is a new CMSF, I feel robotic technology would make a fine addition, if not a necessary addition. http://www.gizmag.com/go/2595/

could it be because I am not running the newest patch version?

Not sure what i am doing wrong but when I drop it into my scenario folder or the baked folder it does not show up. Any ideas?

Hilarious and ridiculous at the same time. Not like those two guys would have been able to truly secure the objective while all their buddies lay bleeding around them. A few more turns and they would have been toast.