CptWasp
-
Posts
169 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CptWasp
-
-
Yesterday I was another time in need of a similar command: I wanted a Bradley in position behind a building to cover a crossroad with its gun. With the move and the revers command it's difficult to find the right position, and you waste some precious time...
-
The same used when you use the target command. So the program should only "test" the LOS until it's OK.
-
I don't know if my idea is original. I know that there's a lot of posts about the lack of a Hull Down command, and if I understand well it will be difficult to see it implemented in CMSF.
But there is a similar command that can be much simpler to realize: move to LOS. You select a unit, then you select a terrain feature, a point on a hill, or something else; the selected unit will advance in hunt mode (cautiously) until the selected point is in LOS. LOS to a point is a much simpler concept that Hull Down from a point, and is a very useful feature: very often I want some unit or forward observer go ahead and spot for artillery, but the only manner to have it done is to keep the unit selected all the time in target mode, and to stop its movement when the target is finally in sight.
CMSF is great! Battlefront keep up the great work.
-
Maybe an option...
-
Steel Beasts is a professional tank simulator... you can't make a comparison with CMSF.
I agree that CMSF is a masterpiece.
-
I agree that they should ignore enemies far away, if they aren't under fire or direct danger
-
Yes, or maybe a log of such events (as in the Close Combat series).
-
Thank you Steve for clarifying this!
So the main benefit of the roofs is the improved visibility... and houses without balconies are better for ambushes.
-
Ok, I decided to go on after ending the fourth mission with a draw, 8 KIA and 53 WIA (I must pay for my errors!).
The fifth mission: no losses and a 300/0 and Total Victory.
SPOILER ALERT
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
I think this scenario is fun, but should be a little rebalanced: I took the hill but not the hideout and got still a major victory. Maybe it would be better to give points to the enemy for the hideout, 150 or so on. But I see that in the next mission you should attack the hideout, so my question is: if the hideout is taken in the first mission what happens?
Yes, it's far away, but I think it's possible.
Another thing. Enemies on the hill don't open fire unless at very close range: this is due to the fact that blue forces have night seeing equipment (thermal sights and so on), but red are lacking such equipment? Or you have defined cover arcs very close to the red forces?
[ March 13, 2008, 12:17 AM: Message edited by: CptWasp ]
-
Thank you Hoolaman. So you can set a cover arc in hiding mode... interesting.
I have noticed that hiding troops are less able to spot enemy; I'm right?
-
The hide command seems to be unreliable if on roofs or balconies; I'm right? Another question: when do hiding troops open fire? Only when under fire themselves? Give me some hint about cover arcs and hiding please, usually I attack so I have less experience defending/ambushing.
I must say you have done a great work, very instructive about CMSF mechanics, and I hope you will give us other campaigns like this one!
-
I have posted in another thread about the "issue" with being on top of roofs. It "ruined" a little the fourth mission feel, which ended with appalling casualties.
I'm thinking about retrying the mission...
-
Playing the fourth mission of the Ghost campaign I discovered (at my expense!) that troops on roofs are VERY vulnerable from long range fire in CMSF, even if fire coming from a similar height. Some roofs have a higher border than others, but it seems that this has little effect if my troops are opening fire themselves.
I'm just curious to know your impression about this, and if some veteran can provide his thought.
Thank you!
Luca
-
My report, first 3 missions.
Great campaign so far, thank you Webwing!
All missions ended with the surrender of the red forces. My losses are listed. No reload except one early in the third mission, doing some trials about the "slow" command.
SPOILER ALERT!!!!!!
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
A little difficult the start of mission 3, a lot of flat ground around and the sniper ahead. Maybe a mortar would help? I don't know.
Machineguns Elite RT 300/100 Total V. 4 KIA, 12 WIA, 2 MIA
Bridges Elite RT 500/100 Total V. 5 KIA, 18 WIA
Sweep and clean Elite RT 250/50 Total V. 4 KIA, 24 WIA, 4 MIA
-
Nice
Thank you
Luca
-
-
A T-72 collided with a wall, the high one, and it disappeared! It was not visible from each side of the wall, and it stopped moving or firing.
At the end of the game I selected "review map" and the T-72 was back here, "in" the wall.
-
I had no choice. I preordered the Paradox version at play.com and the page stated "printed manual", and NOT "some part of the manual".Originally posted by Lurker765:Since I have no clue what the Paradox version is like -- is it exactly the same as the BFC version?
Did the Paradox customers have a chance to purchase the full manual or choose not to?
I'm a Battlefront supporter, read my posts (if you read italian) on the NWI forum! I defended CMSF when a lot of other people were very negative about it.
Discriminating the Paradox version buyers is unfair: I live in Italy and the only hope to get the game in a decent time and at a reasonable cost is to buy it at play.com.
If I must ask a printable version of the manual to Paradox I will do so. But it seems to me really unfair. The manual has been updated, so ALL the players have the right to print a revised copy.
Now I hope to get a response FROM BATTLEFRONT, and not from someone else.
Thank you.
(Oh: I will NOT buy the Acrobat suite, money has a worth here)
-
Yes, abneo3sierra. The attitude of some members (but I never had a direct response from Battlefront, note! so maybe they will still consider my request) is really disappointing. A user has the RIGHT to print his manual. I will write the review of the game for NWI, and obviously I will consider this evident shortcoming.
I "popped up" the thread because other users of NWI pointed out this problem, and no one was in doubt about the fact that this was a shame and an incredible manner to lose customers
If a user modifies the manual and Battlefront "battles" against that user, I think this would be a ridicolous manner to kick away a lot of gamers.
Battlefront, don't miss this occasion to clarify your real intentions about customer caring.
-
There are a lot of threads in this forum where some players disagree with some little change to the game or other player requests.
I really miss the point of such disagreements.
Personally I don't need the extended time limit, but I don't find a single good reason to forbid other players making scenarios with a very big scenario time. Since I think that elevating the time limit should be a trivial task for the great programmer behind this masterpiece called CMSF, let player ask what they need... and if you don't need a feature, don't use it!
Peace
-
CMSF is a great game: but the lack of a printable version of the manual is a real shortcoming.
It would be really simple to prepare one with an Acrobat suite... someone can help?
-
Hi,
I noticed a bug since the introduction of the new "soldier" icon for humvees: in the final casualties count the number of "other vehicles" destroyed is totally wrong. In the last scenario I lost a single humvee, and the debriefing reported 41 of them lost!!!
-
Any news about cooperative play? Maybe in the next patch?
)) CMSF is wonderful, I think that with the coop feature it would be AWESOME. -
You can select the type of ammo in a subsequent step. The label is not relevant.
Ghost Campaign
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
I've done it
SPOILER ALERT
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
SPOILER ALERT
Tactical Victory.
I give you some feedback!
The campaign is very funny, I give it a 9/10
Only 2 missions have some little problem.
Hideout:
The game, at the present, put in great disadvantage troops on high ground. This is a small game limit, but in this mission it's a problem. I got a Total Victory using air support and artillery, they surrendered... but I was far from reaching the hideout.
The Palace
IMHO the worst mission of the campaign for 2 reason:
- where you start you are not in cover, and in less than a minute 4 Strykers where gone
- you really need more troops, IMHO. Some replacements for A company and 1/2 platoons from B company at least.
I had an incredible bug in The Palace mission: Javelin friendly fire! I open another thread about this.
The best mission is "The Bunker": wonderful work.
But I have a small suggestion. AI surrenders too fast, put some well hidden infantry in the rear area of the map, so they will remain in place till the end!
My results in a tabular format (Elite):
Machineguns 300/100 Total V. 4 KIA, 12 WIA, 2 MIA
Bridges 500/100 Total V. 5 KIA, 18 WIA
Sweep and clean 250/50 Total V. 4 KIA, 24 WIA, 4 MIA
Bridges Count. 200/200 Draw 8 KIA, 53 WIA
Hill 440 300/0 Total V. Nothing!!!
Hideout 300/100 Total V. 11 KIA, 30 WIA, 1 MIA, 1 Stryker
The Bunker 120/0 Total V. 24 KIA, 59 WIA, 2 MIA, 1 Stryker
The Palace 0/300 Total Defeat 32 KIA, 14 WIA, 1 MIA, 6 Stryker, 1 Humvee
TACTICAL VICTORY 88 KIA, 210 WIA, 10 MIA, 8 Stryker, 1 Humvee
Enemy: 592 KIA, 496 WIA, 38 MIA
Thank you Webwing... please do another campaign for us