Kieme(ITA)

You're still missing my aim, to make clear what happens. I don't go from thread to thread just to annoy people, I keep updating since I find more and more things to talk about. this thread is about a thing I didn't considered myself (hull down command) but I found it a useful discussion and wanted to make clear -or try to- my point of view, hoping to see something I'd like to in the future. I repeat: if you can't recognize this kind of support then, please, stop replying in such way (you can think what you want about my posts, just consider you only waste valuable discussions with sort of spam, and by responding to you I'm doing the same, so that this will be my last unconstructive comment.

Mouse gets too slow while working on a max zoomed out 2D map in editor map section. I've experienced some unexplained crashes and freezes during campaign scenarios.

I'm sure that if you could get a screenshot of such situation would help the devs even more.

What is needs is to understand how many agree. or disagree. Also, I've been asked by many friends of mine: what's about that new game? Since they had quite some difficulties in undertstanding what's going on here on the forums (since they didn't read them since day 0).

He is just a troll, every post he makes is one of complaining! If you feel the game is that bad Kieme, don't play it, and while you're at it, stop with the constant whining on just about every thread you post in, it's getting boring! [/qb]

What CMSF IS: -a very good small to medium/large scale simulator for both modern unconventional warfare (guerrilla) and modern land warfare setting in middle east. -a great step on graphics/phisics/modelling/detailing/part of gameplay [supports and editor in primis] What CMSF SHOULD (really) have had: -much more graphic optimization (in-game and in-editor) for at least some kinds of computer configurations -less bugs (more structural than graphical) -improved -you could cancel this first word- AI (a little better than CM1x series, or at least at that level) -retained at least some features common in old CM1x series (just some examples: QB random maps, unit pickup engine, LOS tool in-game and in-editor, extended unit information panels, unit kill list panel, detailed armor hits, elevation shadings) What CMSF COULD have had (to make it better with not too much effort but more time): -more independent scenarios (alike old CM1x games) -a Syrian campaign -more 3D objects -more units (both infantry and vehicles) Note that these last 2 might be improved in time (i.e. next game expansions) The others will be care of the player community but they could really be implemented with the first release.

I think that somehow it will be needed to get out from the Syrian context. As many pointed out there might be similar yet interesting and different settings... I also think that US inventory could be refurnished with a good variety of vehicles but the Syrian vehicle park would suffer too much because of its limitations... Syria will never have some more modern equipment dislike US side. So that I'd like to see an opening towards much modern soviet/russian equipment like: T-80 family BMP-3 BTR-70/80 family For sure this would help reducing the great disadvantage red side has today vs blue side.

I hope some more will come for poor OPFOR, too... Maybe some really modern armor?

I've also to say that WW2 tank fights might be much more interesting... -ranges were much lower (few hundred meters against 1.500/2.000 -and more- meters engagments of Desert Storm) -optics were much less accurate, this mean you can assist at a WW2 tank battle for many minutes before someone hits something, while modern tank warfare consider 100% chance of success of first hit as a priority. -armor vs gun was -with some exceptions- more balanced than today, actually similar tanks fighting each other could end the fight itself at the first shot, maybe the first one to shot would be the winner. So, modern tank warfare is really nice if playied even in Desert Storm way or in much more balanced way (let's talk about T-80Us against M1s... or NATO vs NATO tanks), BUT old fashioned WW2 tank fight is for sure much more "interesting"...

I agree with Utchoud, I like to play with T-72 against M1A2 Abrams. The only thing I need and ask is to get more tactical solutions and a balanced starting. Consider this: Obviously if you put a T-72 vs an M1 in open ground you don't have any chance for sure. But if you got some shaped ground with wadis, hills etc. and a big map you can outflank the enemy, get closer etc. etc. Obviously 4 M1s vs 4 T-72 is not equal. Soviet doctrine considered this as a major fact and this is why there was a very high ratio in favour of soviets when talking about numbers. So the soviet way of playing would consider tactics and numbers as the mainframe of their action... Just think like a US tank commander in WW2 would have needed to think about german Tigers... and you'll have russian way of fight. [ August 02, 2007, 04:46 AM: Message edited by: Kieme(ITA) ]

No no! Man, they are clouds! Really, they are clouds' shadows. Quite realistic, and a really nice effect.

False. AI stays in its setup zone doing nothing.

AMEN BROTHER I've been thinking this very same thing. Arab-Israeli wars along with unconventional warfare. Just think about the great vehicle park you could choose from! Israeli arsenal of tanks, AFVs, IFVs etc. is extremely large! Also you could go from Super Shermans to Merkava MK-IIIs!

There are spec forces for Syria

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

Yeah, detailed armor hits are there no more.

For me instead its like talking with a brick wall...

Some more russian made vehicles with great diffusion among arab countries would be: -Some airborne infantry units -PT-76 -BMD-1 -BTR-152 -BTR-50 -GAZ/URAL trucks -Trucks with ZSU-2-23 On the US side I'd like to see: -special units (infantry) like Navy Seals squads, and Rangers -M113s (maybe some upgraded version/AT version) -USMC forces -AAV7s (upgraded) -HEMTT trucks

LOL sorry for being so telegraphic

The problem stays even if AT missile is 100% OK.

That is exactly what the HUNT command does. Why do you need a "Hulldown" command that replicates an existing command? But hunt command doesn't work if there's no enemy. With a hull down command (along with a facing reference for the unit) you might get a hull down position "hull down in respect of a certain direction or point) even if enemy units are not to be spotted. So that you'll have a hull down unit ready to face enemies...

The Louch is right, I just noticed this problem... no way to determine LOS at all.

You mean that the game doesn't consider different turret side/hull side/lower hull side? If this is so, that's why they removed old fashioned detail armor hits...

You mean that the game doesn't consider different turret side/hull side/lower hull side? If this is so, that's why they removed old fashioned detail armor hits...