[CMSF for Nat'l Guard Training]

I'm pretty sure the argument was that "realistic" casualty rates would take too long to complete a match.

May I propose that in the next game(s) the "Iron" level of play provides "realistic" cause-effect w/regard to casualties/KIA.

["Just Around The Bend" *spoilers*]

Great thanks for the fix! Will be trying it post haste.

Your strategic hull-down positions shown above appear logical. Too bad one of 'ems mined. I wont tell you which one!

This map is also interesting to me because soldier's in a prone position are unable to provide cover fire at range. Due to the topography they is only LOS when standing and/or running (read: exposed).

This map's a hoot! Thanks

["Just Around The Bend" *spoilers*]

Thanks for directing me to that thread. I am going to make the fix and see if that makes any difference.

Hub thanks for the info. I have had some success with the TOW variant in the original CMSF and couldn't understand my complete failures here.

["Just Around The Bend" *spoilers*]

How do these marine ATGM vehicles work? Are they supposed to be able to spot and fire over a ridge or hill? Shouldn't they present an extremely small profile? Mine are just sitting ducks in this scenario.

They are ALWAYS slower to spot. - Even when being fired upon by enemy tanks from 800 meters away, they are often still oblivious to the threat.

Their fire rate is about 1/2 that of the red's tanks. It takes a long time to aim this thing. And it's (apparently) manually guided. There is no "shoot n scoot" mode here.

They miss their target 60% or more. Sorry, I haven't been keeping exact figures. I'm certain the miss rate is at least 60%. Feels closer to 80-90%. So much for manual guidance.

I've played the scenario roughly 10 times, probably launched 10-ish AT missiles. I've only ever managed 1 kill.

I can't find one advantagous position to put these guys.

[Coalition OoB for the invasion of Syria]

Someone posted this link a while back:

http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/middle_east_and_asia/syria_wall_2004.jpg

[Maps - Open format]

First, I understand Battlefront's position against modding unit models and performance.

However, what is their stance on maps/map editor? Are they officialy against opening up the .btt format?

If so, why?

[How about a Move to Contact Command?]

Yes please!

Why is it that squads have the common sense to use a trench for cover but lack that sense with ridges or hilltops?

too NEAR a ridge, guys walk over the ridge and get killed.

too FAR from the ridge no one gets to the ridge and I have to waste turns/time inching forward.

Ideally I would like the ability to draw a line and say "form a line here" or some such(o.k. you can guess I'm not real military). However, a "Move to contact" command would be a good start - in particular if we could combine it with a speed i.e.:

Move to contact + slow

Move to contact + move

Move to contact + fast

[Request for a fire position command]

I was thinking I would like this command as well.

"Target" is not a viable option for scouting, nor is "Hunt".

Some command or command combination that says "Crawl until you can see this hilltop" would be very useful.

[Idea for the CMSF Scenario Editor]

Also, while I know the game file formats in general are closed to the public, is it possible that the map/scenario file format could be published? I'd love to be able to make some simple tools for myself to aid in making CMSF maps/scenarios. [/QB]

I agree with this.

For whatever reason, Battlefront made the decision to go closed format.

Which is too bad. More/better maps would mean a higher replayability factor.

[Update on v1.03 status]

Originally posted by Statisoris:

I hereby bequeef my cat..

That word rocks. Someone should make it a real word.

[Here is how bad the movement code actually is, and it's not just "pathfinding"]

***ATTN! Thread summary follows:

A)There's a path following bug in patch 1.02, at any speed setting.

Developer acknowledges the bug and mentions an improvement in movement for patch 1.03.

C)5.5 pages of whinging

--Today's summary brought to you by "DISCHORD", giving you your life back, one post at a time.

--Look for more thread summaries in pages 5 or 6 of long meandering threads

[Bug: Trench not enough protection, infantry in open not suppressed easily enough.]

Edit: NM...

[Poll only like or dont no rants or comments]

Yes

[If you want to see IDF please sign here]

Originally posted by M1A1TankCommander:

Being... half Jewish myself, Id love to see both a Russian and IDF modules.

How does that work? Do you wear a half-beanie and get half circumsized? I'm thinking of going like 9 parts Rastafarian and 1 part Satanic.

[My Two Cents]

Originally posted by Paper Tiger:

It seems to me that you Battlefront guys are REALLY locked in to this hypothetical Syrian campaign. I really like the game but I don't "believe" in the scenario. Forgetting for a moment the urban COIN forces, there is no real challenge for the US in Syria. The US army will blow the Syrian Army away. Sure, it might get ugly but US Air Superiority and know-how will ensure that the Syrians never get any strategic advantage.

The resurrection of the Russian military that we're seeing now is quite an interesting one for us too. I'd much prefer to see the full gamut of modern Red Force equipment instead of restricting it to just Syrian equipment. And then let us do with it what we will.

I don't know why I hadn't thought of that, but that would be, ummm...VERY NICE! Maybe with the Marine/Brit-Canada/MixEuro add-on packs we can add some Russian tech into the mix as well!

[Airpower is awesome.]

I'm not sure a "point" attack by Apache should result in ordinance scattered across 1km.

Other than that I agree with you on the airstrickes/explosions. I hope in the future we can get shock wave implemented to further increase immersion.

[Are AT Explosions a little over cooked.]

Originally posted by rodbrew:

P.s. Then again maybe maybe it is accurate. Would love to see this sort of fire in SF though.

I hope that bird is okay.

Originally posted by sgtgoody (esq):

During operations in Mogadishu the US fired 16 TOW missiles into a meeting of Somali warlords. Not only did the building not come down but there were survivors in the room.

Curious: Why 16 TOWs? Aren't there more effective anti-warlord weapons?

Another TOW vid. Looks like not a whole lot of penetration taking place, and what on earth is that thing that jumps up off the ground just before impact in the close-up?

[BFC...Can you answer some basic questions]

Originally posted by Splinty:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Stew:

I have noticed that FOs inside FSVs sometimes spot poorly. The line of sight is the same (both can see the targets), but while the FSV identifies the targets accurately, the FO inside just sees "?" (this was at Elite setting).

Dismounting is one option, but wouldn't you then lose the benefits of all the FSV's sensors and the vehicle-mounted FBCB2 system, thus kind of obviating the whole point of having an FSV?

Is this a bug, or do we just need some better guidance on how to handle the FSV v. FO trade off?

If your FO is mounted in a FSVand they both have LOS, use the vehicle to call the fire, that's what it's made for. If your FO is with a dismounted squad use the FO, that's his job. If your FO is dismounted and there's an FSV nearby use the FSV because the FSV has satcom computer links to the arty battery and the FO only has a PDA and a radio. It should cut down your arty response time by a few minutes. </font>

[LOS/LOF problems?]

Edit: there's a post below regarding an update to come sometime soon. Let's see what is on the fix list. My hunch is small arms penetration issues will be on the short list.

[ August 03, 2007, 04:25 AM: Message edited by: dischord ]

[Event log?]

There's a faint white message that appears near the top of the screen stating when you have completed an objective, or when reinforcements arrive for example.

Is there some way to access previous messages? Sometimes I'm too busy clicking and it passes by without my noticing.

[Isn't Veteran the more realistic approach as far as in-game Intel?]

The manual states that at elite difficulty you might lose radio contact with some troops and the only way to find them would be to "click down" the chain of command (In the formation window?).

BUT, as stated above, you can actually see all friendly troops by just de-selecting any unit.

Do these two points not jive, or am I missing something here? Can anyone explain?

***My testing so far is limited to the humvee with no radio in campaign mission 2

[Can units breach walls ?]

Originally posted by Pandur:

today i played into the 2nd campain battle.

i breached a wall with an MGS stryker, and breached the house wall behind it wiht the same vehicle.

In this battle, I've found the south wall breachable by stryker, but the east wall (presumably the same wall type) is UNbreachable. Anyone else have this problem?

Edit: Upon further review, the above conclusion may have been hasty. Both walls can be difficult to breach.

[ July 30, 2007, 10:54 PM: Message edited by: dischord ]

[Training - Artillery red "x"?]

In the training mission, what does the red "x" in the mortar's info panel mean? Can't find the answer in the manual.

I can't notice any difference in performance between the two mortar teams.

[My infantry seem to ignore men]

I feel I might be having the same issue. Here in the final training mission my infantry sat in the first floor while Syrians administer first aid to their troops. They were in there a good 2-3 minutes before I moved em back out upon which they resume fighting each other.