Molloy

I set up a test scenario of a platoon of BMP-2s (Republican Guard) facing Strykers at 250 and 500 meters (all line formation, 12oc facing respectively). They mostly fired AP rounds. However, as JasonC correctly stated, this should be catastrophic to the Strykers, but instead the rounds were ricocheting, causing little damage. Dozens of 30mm AP were impacting and yet the Strykers kept chattering away with their fifties, until the AT-5s finally silenced them.

The original animation was much better. Now, there are far too many ugly specs of gray/brown that clutter the screen with any decent volume of artillery fire. Bring back the elegant smoke!

Redwolf, Would you mind posting the save file?

A silly dig, nothing more.

^It's no surprise that Woodey lives in Phoenix.

Although JonS' use of Clausewitz's famous line makes sense in the context of the discussion, I find it interesting to note how its common use strays far from the original intent. The following analysis is by Christopher Bassford: "One of the main sources of confusion about Clausewitz's approach lies in his dialectical method of presentation. For example, Clausewitz's famous line that "War is merely a continuation of politics," ("Der Krieg ist eine bloße Fortsetzung der Politik mit anderen Mitteln") while accurate as far as it goes, was not intended as a statement of fact. It is the antithesis in a dialectical argument whose thesis is the point—made earlier in the analysis—that "war is nothing but a duel [or wrestling match, a better translation of the German Zweikampf] on a larger scale." His synthesis, which resolves the deficiencies of these two bold statements, says that war is neither "nothing but" an act of brute force nor "merely" a rational act of politics or policy. This synthesis lies in his "fascinating trinity" [wunderliche Dreifaltigkeit]: a dynamic, inherently unstable interaction of the forces of violent emotion, chance, and rational calculation."

With those settings, at Blue start-up my framerate according to FRAPS is 16. Im running P4 3.6, 2gb PC2 4200, GeForce 8600GT, updated drivers. [ August 18, 2007, 02:30 PM: Message edited by: Molloy ]

He means the "Training Campaign" set in Yakima, WA. The last mission of that campaign is a somewhat tricky MOUT scenario. I believe if you search around a bit you will find some screenshots and ways people approached it tactically.

Under Administration commands, select "Anti-tank team", which selects the squad's best AT assets (Javelin, if equipped). Issue them a target and they will fire the missile. [ August 17, 2007, 02:54 PM: Message edited by: Molloy ]

Love the new semi-auto Javelin.

The following comes a little late, and was with version 091, but here it is anyway... ********SPOILER ALERT******** ParaBellum, Earnestly, a great little scenario. I played it three times to completion from both sides, and played partial games in hotseat controlling both sides to test certain elements. It seems that any criticism I might have concerns current bugs/game limitations rather than your design. Examples of this are LOS/LOF problems (specifically with walls), and the reluctance (and sluggishness) of BMPs to fire either AP rounds or their ATGMs. The current state of the game makes expected outcomes more difficult, but not impossible, to achieve. I found your AI plans to be acceptable, however in every game (either as Blue or Red) I scored a total victory, badly mauling the computer opponent, but this is to be expected as it was generally in CMx1 and the Shock Force campaign. However, when playing hotseat, both sides slugged it out and it was much more balanced- I pulled out a minor victory against myself . I find that your initial setup for Red is not optimal in light of the problems listed above. Units in the open (even if behind a "wall" and hiding) stand little chance of survival; the same holds for units on rooftops (at least until some LOS/LOF issues are addressed). When playing Red against Blue AI, this wasn't a critical issue, as I could effectively ambush and engage the near hapless Strykers/Bradleys (who often get bogged and/or dispersed attempting to cross the road ditches) with RPGs from multiple angles simultaneously, inflicting heavy loses (2 out of the 3 games as Red I KOed every Blue vehicle, without suffering significant casualties). By setting up the Red forces in either level 1 or 2 of the buildings, often using other buildings rather than walls as LOS/LOF blocks against Blue lines-of-fire and avenues of approach, the outcome was even more lopsided, as the AI tends to employ units in a piecemeal fashion. The combination of RPGs and artillery was highly unpleasant for Blue (stay mounted—get hit by RPGs; dismount—get hit by arty). This was a problem for the AI, as they tend to bunch around the nearest cluster of houses (SE section of the map) facing the "Police HQ". For a human player, this is not so much of an issue due to a much more coherent and organized advance. When Playing Blue (my first game, with no knowledge of the above) I did the opposite of what the AI tends to do, and took my forces North, utilizing the open ground and facing to maximize local firepower superiority, even with the risk of increased exposure. However, I felt this was mitigated somewhat by the range, and by being exposed only frontally to two building facades of the Police HQ, rather than dozens of potential enemy positions and angles by swinging south to the housing cluster. This approach worked well against the Red AI. I used the F-16 air strikes against Wadi al Bugger, which was highly effective, and seemed the most obvious choice. This resulted in little and sporadic resistance after clearing the Police HQ and adjacent field. By the time the Bradley (and BMP) reinforcements arrived, I was already advancing on Wadi al Bugger. The Bradleys, Mk 19 Strykers, and Javelin armed dismounts made short work of the mech units in all games I played as Blue. BMPs simply do not stand a chance in open battle in the current state of the game (which seems flawed—IFVs should not dread an ICV like Stryker). Even when playing as Red, I was very cautious with them, essentially keyholing them in ambush for fear of open engagement (or rather, disengagement ) even with numerical superiority thanks to work of the RPG teams. In conclusion, your map is fantastic, and your scenario all-around is a nice size, tactically interesting, and fun! I don't how much can be done about the StratAI plans, as I am not that familiar with the editor yet. I think this scenario is good as is, and will only benefit when BFC resolves the bugs/issues which cause much of the unbalancing. It also has great multiplayer potential. Thanks ParaBellum, and I hope my input is somewhat helpful.

I have been very impressed by the vehicle smoke, both in its appearance/behavior and its low impact on game performance (at least on my setup). I have used the Stryker's in lieu of artillery delivered smoke to good effect. A platoon of Strykers can put up enough smoke (and accurately) to blanket most small to medium sized maps, especially with a decent wind. I use this to screen and conceal maneuverer, specifically to hide dust trails kicked up by my moving vehicles. Certainly not optimal, but can be used in a pinch.

I also experienced this problem (though intermittently, which I thought was strange). After playing with it a bit, I believe I have found the problem. Preset views 8 and 9 do not display the map if shadows are toggled off. With shadows on, the map is visible. [ August 16, 2007, 08:38 AM: Message edited by: Molloy ]

Hamachi is great. I was having router difficulties as well, and within 10 minutes of downloading the program I was playing without a hitch. A very simple and elegant work-around.

Wow...

I've played the scenario once from both sides and was impressed. I'm willing to play it several more times to help test it out. After that, I can post feedback here, with spoiler warning, or email it to you, which ever you prefer. Thanks for the scenario ParaBellum.

GDog and I are playing a PBEM game ("Trident Valley"), both running version 1.02 (from the start of the scenario), and we are experiencing the same problems. On the first turn, vehicles could move and fire as normal, but orders to dismount infantry resulted in the rear doors of the IFVs being lowered, revealing "invisible" troops that could be selected by their icon and issued orders, but to no effect. Toggling shadows (Alt-W), as recommended by fellow players in the Tech Support forum, had no effect. By the 3rd or 4th minute, all units for both players were totally unresponsive (and I mean completely and utterly). Additionally, the PBEM file size decreased each turn after the first (correlating to each additional loss in functionality), bottoming out at around 2MB and a map full of "comatose" units. We are perplexed, and would appreciate an official word on the matter.

To be more precise, GDog and I are playing a PBEM game ("Trident Valley"), both running version 1.02 (from the start of the scenario), and we are experiencing the same problems. On the first turn, vehicles could move and fire as normal, but orders to dismount infantry resulted in the rear doors of the IFVs being lowered, revealing "invisible" troops that could be selected by their icon and issued orders, but to no effect. Toggling shadows (Alt-W), as recommended by fellow players in the Tech Support forum, had no effect. By the 3rd or 4th minute, all units for both players were totally unresponsive (and I mean completely and utterly). Additionally, the PBEM file size decreased each turn after the first (correlating to each additional loss in functionality), bottoming out at around 2MB and a map full of "comatose" units. We are perplexed, and would appreciate an official word on the matter. EDIT: Posted this in the tech support forum [ August 13, 2007, 06:28 PM: Message edited by: Molloy ]

Yes*

First off, a very interesting and engaging post, Michael. I agree with you on the fundamental importance of a game's "level" of representation/abstraction. However, I must disagree with the appropriateness of what you call the "uncanny valley", the incongruence of expectations of "hi-fidelity" and the realities of current limitations with "1:1" modeling (not that it doesn't accurately describe many peoples response [you are certainly correct here], but that this response/criticism is the best way to view CMSF). In fact, I think much of the problem lies in positing "1:1" representation against "abstraction". 1:1 still contains enormous amounts of abstraction (expectations of "truly" modeling reality are ludicrous). What it does is simply shift what things are abstracted, to what degree, and what is graphically shown to the player. This also has enormous tactical implications for the player (generally speaking, the potential for a much more dynamic environment). In this sense, "1:1" isn't a finished project, but a long term (largely imaginary) goal of reducing certain types of abstraction in wargames to allow for the rich complexity and variability of "reality" to be better (but not actually) re-presented. Also, from a design "philosophy", I think the choice of a contemporary setting goes hand in hand with the level of representation and real-time play. It certainly is a risk, and one that I applaud, even through its teething process.

Currently there is no option for WEGO (turn based) multiplayer. It has been discussed much recently, a search would be beneficial if you want the details.

Different expectations. If a person expects to click on a shortcut, have the game run optimally regardless of their unique system configuration, and be simple enough that a tutorial walk-trough will allow them to "grasp" the game in its entirety from the get-go... then yes, Shock Force will come as a major disappointment. This is not to say that CM:SF is perfect, or that many of the criticisms (especially on the forums here) are not in any way valid (trust me, I have a list). However, I found the review to be unreasonably harsh (especially in his "exporting" of assumptions/expectations from radically different genres) and I hope the bad press doesn't greatly dampen sales...

Will do.

I had 404 as well, so I uploaded both versions uncompressed to megaupload. Because I couldn't download the second version (45min) I simply edited the first and saved it as "v2". The time (35min to 45min) is the only variable changed. Battle over Assad Airport (original) Battle over Assad Airport v2 (45min)