TOG

I don't say that player would have to actually call for every reinforcements. Just when it would fit the scenario and it could be up to scenario designer which units could be called, and which would arrive at some point of time anyway. It would give some more flexibility and I agree with Combatintman that it would give more options in branched campaigns. Next battle could depend on calling reinforcements or not. Time delay of reinforcements arrival could be a little bit shorter than in real life becouse battles in CMSF are shorter than in real life, or scenario designer would just have to set longer time limit. Anyway the delay of arrival since the moment of call would have to be set by scenario designer and thus it would be compatible with battle duration.

In some mission briefings you are told that some reinforcements are avalible if needed in some time. How about giving the player the option to call reinforcements when needed in some missions. For example, the enemy could receieve some victory points for diverting more enemy forces into the area. This way you would have to decide if it is really necessary to call for reinforcements or it is possible to manage without them.

I agree that going back to an earlier save during a battle isn't really fun. During battle you make some decisions and you should take responsibility for that, it adds realism. Some things just happen and you have to copewith that. But I think that an option to save the game during battle should be avalible and it's up to the player to use the game the way he likes. I rarely have time to complete one big battle at one time so saving during battle is very useful. Restricting player from doing some things isn't a good way. Everyone should use the game the way he likes. When playing against AI you only cheat yourself.

Will unit data and chances to hit and to destroy appear at some point in CMSF? I would be also happy to see some between battle unit info in campaign. Usually I don't even know which units are the core ones. A kind of simple list: number of men before and after the battle, some basic info. Will kill tracking finally make it or was it abandoned?

Sorry for the mess I created with the scavenging question. I was busy for a few days and read the feedback just now. I actually thought about scavenging small arms in world war two setting. I think it was more common back then. I remember how much fun it was in Close Combat series. Never thought about insurgents firing Javelins, but on the other hand M4 doesn't seem to be too complicated. In CM:SF scavenging weapons isn't that important becouse you usually have some Stryker or BMP around to get more ammo. I know we will not see it in CMSF. Just wondered about the WWII title.

And another thing. Will scavenging weapons from fallen comrades and enemies be possible?

Battlefront Are you planning to include some kind of higher level command elements in WWII or CMSF? I'm thinking about something like Close Combat Invasion Normandy or the planned Combat Mission Campaigns. It would definitely make playing campaign game more fun and would grately improve replayability of the game. Tomek Górecki

Anyway it would be nice if soldiers without ammo could harm enemy standing 2 meters away. Enemy who often is cowering or also out of ammo. The way things are now leads to strange situations.

That makes sense, given the soldiers can hit anything firing full-auto at that range.

Maybe they wait somewhere away between attacks to evade AA fire from enemy. Helos sure seem not accurate enough, especially when targetting tanks. Once saw AH-64 fire all its ammo on a single tank in few strikes. It was attacking generally from two directions and all the ordnance fired from one direction hit an embankment with a road on it. It wasted all its Hellfires that way. When helo attacks a tank for some time (more than one pass in a single mission) its accuracy seems to improve with each pass. Edit: Long waiting time for airstrikes makes tank hunting difficult. When I called Apaches to strike some attacking enemy tanks, tanks managed to drive across almost whole map before helos arrived, and I no longer could see them. [ November 01, 2007, 04:34 AM: Message edited by: TOG ]

Great idea!

I once saw one of my guys empty about five clips from M4 at full auto trying to hit a guy lying on the same balcony about 5m away. He missed. Then he ran out of ammo. It's a shame there is no hand to hand. I had three more guys in that team, and the enemy was all alone. After some time he stopped cowering and started to shoot at my guys. Luckily he was also a lousy shot. We need hand to hand.

Sometimes whem I try to make some map I get the feeling it's all flat and open between the hills. Is the rocky terrain just a slab of rock under your feet and occasional small stone, or lots of smaller and bigger stones that you can hide between. I think it's crossable by vehicles, so it suggests smaller stones. So what should I do to give infantry some cover (other than trenches and buildings). In CMx1 I knew that rocky terrain or woods give infantry cover.

Haven't seen that mod, must get it:) All I miss are some more reaistic body armour and tactical gear. Hope 7.62 will be even better

Yes, me too. Maybe Battlefront could provide some chart with all terrain tiles and their features. Maybe some numbers... If there are various features of course.

Well if you could turn this option on and off, I would like it. If it would get too frustrating, you could turn it off.

For me in QB's it's all about force composition. Only when enemy has red tanks and I have red mechanized infantry the battle is demanding. But force composition is still a lottery.

Me too, especialy when I play in RT. If after battle you could check all units (yours and enemies) info and kills like in CMx1, then you would usually guess who killed who. More detailed reports (killed T72 2nd vehicle 1st platoon 1st company, penetrated front hull with 120mm APFSDS) would be really fun. Also, when checking enemy infantry after battle a little number of active soldiers/ starting number of soldiers (3/7) would give a lot of info on how badly the team was hit.

There is a game like that. At least near that. It's Birigade E5. It's like Jagged Alliance in real time, but you can issue orders on pause, and it's full 3d. Graphics aren't really the best but it's sure lots of fun. Unfortunately it has some bugs. The game gives you a lot more control over your soldiers than Jagged Alliance. http://www.1cpublishing.eu/game/brigade-e5-new-jagged-union/overview It seems that soon we'll see a sequel called '7.62' There is also a very fun multiplayer, in RT but every player has some time limit for pausing. You can pause to keep up with action, your total pause time is limited for example to 5 minutes (you can adjust time limit)

I saw that too.

I guess that tanks are much tougher thiese days and it's almost impossible to destroy it with not specialized infantry weapons. And antitank infantry weapons have also evolved and now soldiers don't have to come so close to the tank to destroy it. Tank assaulting was always last resort action, but back in WWII AT infantry weapons were rare and in some armies almost didn't exist. Soldiers had to improvise on a large scale. Hence all the molotav cocktails, grenade bundles etc. Nowdays even the most underequipped fighters have few RPG's avalible, not to mention regular army units.

Tank riding makes more sense in WWII game, where on big maps there are places where you are almost comletely safe from enemy fire. At longer ranges you would probably get enough time to get your infantry down from a tank before it would got hit. In CMSF range, accuracy and lethality of weapons makes maps to small to use tank riding in a sensible way. Sometimes it could get useful, but it is not very important to realism of game.

Here is a better source, maybe this will be interesting for you: http://www.kbptula.ru/eng/str/cannons/2a28.htm there is not much info, but it mentions OG15 shell. If HE ammo is in use or not is another thing. Edit: spelling mistake [ October 03, 2007, 05:26 AM: Message edited by: TOG ]

Anyway in case of ATGM's probably range is the problem at least with AT-3 armed BMP's. The ones with AT-4's should have shorter minimum range I think (don't remember exactly). Other thing is slamming HE shells into back of a tank, where probably HEAT would have some chance of penetrating. (HE actually destroyed the tank after about 3 hits, so HEAT probably could do it with first hit). I was playing v1.03 and I think the problem with firing HE shells at tanks by various vehicles was supposed to be solved. Didn't try v1.04 yet. Actually I should post it in original thread about firing HE at tanks, but I couldn't find it.

BMP-1's 73mm cannon uses the similar ammo as SPG-9 recoilless rifle. The recoilless rifle uses OG-9W rounds (HE) and PG-9W (HEAT). BMP's 73mm 2A28 Grom cannon uses OG-15W (HE) and PG-15W (HEAT) rounds. At least according to Wikipedia.