Dietrich

I think I've come up with a hypothesis for why many who played and loved CMx1 either refuse to play or even hate CM:SF, namely: When CM:BO came out, they felt like they had found the Holy Grail of computer tactical wargaming. When CM:BB came out, they felt like they had arrived in Valhalla. When CM:AK came out, they felt like they had achieved nirvana, and they dreamed of what the next CMx1 game would be. When CM:SF came out (and in a sorry state), they felt like they had been cruelly betrayed, and then they swore eternal enmity with BFC and all who would not side with them. At least that sounds to me like a reasonably good supposition as to why some have precious little good to say about CM:SF, CMx2, and even BFC post-CM:AK. Their reasons for despising CM:SF seem to be: 1. It's not a WW2 game. 2. 1:1 is not all that the folks at the BFC forums make it out to be. 3. It's not a WW2 game. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it seems a tad hypocritical to snidely bad-mouth CM:SF as well as those who play it and the company that made it while simultaneously quivering in anticipation of CM:N. But do I hold it against them? No, actually. I too am deeply interested in WW2 and am very much looking forward to CM:N.

Not unlike the "debate" over br3@stfeeding vis-a-vis formula, even as the amount of evidence that the "normal" delivery route is overall better grows, the prevalence of cesarean sections grows, and physicians (especially surgeons) as well as healthcare facilities are apt to encourage delivery via C-section. Just as companies that make infant formula don't make any money if new mothers use what they were born with, surgeons and hospitals don't make any money (or, rather, don't make as much money) if expecting mothers deliver normally.

This suggests that snipers make good use of the magnified optics on their rifles. But don't FOs have binoculars at least? Don't certain spotter teams (in real life, that is) have more-specialized-than-binoculars optical equipment and even things like laser designators? Are such devices simulated (if only implicitly) in CMSF? I know that although if a foot-mobile unit has a radio, it is not shown in said unit's equipment list; but, of course, there are a couple ways to tell if a unit has a (functioning) radio. One thing I would like to see in CMSF2 is more (at least somewhat more) explicit modelling of specialist teams' equipment. For instance, the spotter in a sniper team would be shown with a spotting scope when stationary but with his rifle when on the move. Dismountable LRAS3 units would be great too.

I wonder what percentage of the people who lobby and protest against the death penalty have had loved ones murdered. Likewise, I wonder what percentage of the people who support the death penalty have not had loved ones murdered. I wonder what percentage of people in other countries/cultures lobby and protest against the death penalty (if such is practiced in their region).

I wonder what percentage of the people who lobby and protest against the death penalty have had loved ones murdered. Likewise, I wonder what percentage of the people who support the death penalty have not had loved ones murdered. That said, does the desire of those who have had loved ones murdered for the killer to be put to death effectively constitute some sort of wrong[ful] bias? I wonder what percentage of people in other countries/cultures lobby and protest against the death penalty (if such is practiced in their region).

As potentially valuable as a sniper team is, I tend to assign a pixelscharfschütze a 30-meter cover arc so that it acts more as a spotter than a sniper until a valuable target presents itself, at which point I either cancel the cover arc and let the sniper pick his own target or assign a new, very narrow cover arc which encompasses the unit I want the sniper to take out. Indeed, sniper teams are almost more valuable as recon assets and forward observers than as merely snipers. In fact, while alpha-playtesting a scenario of mine, a USMC scout/sniper team got an on-station F/A-18 to direct-hit a static tank on the first pass, whereas the scout/sniper HQ unit got either a "dud run" (the air asset lost one tick of an ammo, but no bomb dropped) or a miss from another F/A-18. However, it should be borne in mind that British sniper teams make good recon assets but do make make good forward observers because they cannot act as such due to their low rank.

My experience with the editor is only limited thus far, so what I'm about to surmise should probably be taken with a grain or two of salt. With the capability of having AI infantry Move/Hunt in addition to Quick and Dash (Fast), the degree of variety one could incorporate into AI plans would be increased exponentially, as would the variety of types of scenarios that could be designed. I may be alone in this, but I wouldn't mind more recon-type scenarios. Since units are more easily spotted the faster they move, AI infantry are by default more likely to be spotted because they never Move or Hunt. If AI infantry could Move, that would make ambush and counter-recon scenarios markedly more realistic. If AI infantry could Hunt, that would markedly enhance the realism of scenarios in which the player is, for example, engaged in MOUT defense. That said, I'm simply musing. I make no claims or assertions that the above would be easy, practical, or even possible to code in.

Pardon me, but I'm puzzled. I can understand why many (even most) of those who played and loved CMx1 would decline/refuse to play CM:SF and would even look down on those who do play and love CM:SF. I can understand why those same "no CM:SF for me, thank you" people would be practically foaming at the mouth with anticipation for CM:N. What I can't understand is why there are some (among them those who think CMx2 is a sham and a travesty as well as those who wish BFC had simply skipped CM:SF and gone straight to CM:N) who seem to be expecting CM:N to be "broken"/"fundamentally flawed" and also seem to almost be looking forward to that potential eventuality. Many more people (especially wargamers) prefer WW2 to modern warfare; and CM:BO was released 10 years ago. I surmise that it's those two factors -- rather than any inherent superiority of the CMx1 editor -- that account for the "orders of magnitude" greater number of scenarios. How many scenarios had been made for CM:BO by the time it had been out for three years? How many scenarios had been made for CM:BB by that time? I wouldn't be surprised to find out that the rate at which scenarios were being cranked out had increased at least somewhat by the time CM:BB was a year old; by that time, people were more familiar with the editor, and the number of said people was greater. Plenty of times while playing CM:SF (no disrespect to the modders who have contributed so much to the CM:SF experience!), I've mused: "Man, if this were a WW2 game, there would be a dozen mods to choose from just for that particular model of tank...." That's one of the secondary reasons why I'm so looking forward to CM:N.

Doh! I just realized that I accidentally omitted something from my earlier post. It was supposed to read: That should make more sense. '

Given the potential for rockets to miss quite widely (especially when engaging targets on or near the crest of a hill or on the roof of a tall building; an overshooting rocket can easily strike a couple hundred meters off the mark), perhaps it would be more realistic for the rotary-wing air support to be armed with ATGMs rather than rockets. In CM:SF, the Cobra is loaded up with ATGMs or rockets, whereas the Apache (as far as I've been able to discern) usually carries some rockets in addition to ATGMs when armed for anti-armor duty.

Gladly. It's the least I (as someone who has yet to contribute to the CMx2 community in the form of scenarios or mods) can do for someone who gives of his time and mental energy to create such well-designed and enjoyable scenarios and campaigns. As I progress through the campaign, I'll make note of any other typos or oddities and get back to you.

First of all: Thank you, PT, for making this campaign! I'm sure I will enjoy it thoroughly and will play it multiple times. *** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! *** So far I've only played the first mission, but I can report a few things: 1. The OOB in the main campaign briefing lists the MTVR platoons as having the same callsigns as two of the rifle platoons. (Or is that how they're supposed to be?) 2. In the first mission, the CAAT team Huey starts on-map, but when the AAVs arrive later, the reinforcement message mentions Red Wolf and Huey. 3. The second mission's OOB list mentions two Cobras fitted for AT operations, but the air asset tab shows AH-64s. (It would be uncommon for USMC infantry to get support from Army rotary-wing units, right?)

Cool GUI! Between this and your work on infantry and vehicle skins, as well as your in-the-works sound mod... well, it definitely looks like mod-age I'll be delighted to use. Keep up the great work.

Disclaimer: I have no firsthand familiarity with modern military firearms, not even the sounds thereof. I deactivated my other sound mods (to obviate confusion) then plugged in your beta and fired up "USMC Circle The Wagons". The M249 has a good "chatter" like LoftLeftFlank was talking about. I think that overall the sounds are very good; the Ma Deuce definitely conveys oomph. The new background wav seems to add immediacy to the experience. Partly because I play real-time, I tend to take a bird's-eye view of the battlefield. The small arms sounded as if I had the camera in a "grunt's-eye view" position. This suggests that this collection of sounds might be more suited for someone who plays with the camera usually at ground level or thereabouts. I very much look forward to updates.

Only a handful of times in 2.5 years of playing CMSF have my pixeltruppen suffered any harm from IEDs. Typically, during the after-action map review I spot one or a few unexploded IEDs and a dead triggerman or two. Would assigning AI triggermen the orders of [Ambush 75m]+[Hide] (i.e., the most "lay low and keep hidden" sort of order set) keep them from opening fire? Perhaps designers that include IEDs in their scenarios forget to assign triggermen to a group which will ensure they don't give away their position before they have a chance to do what they're there for. On the other hand: Are real-world IED triggermen armed usually? I was given to understand that a triggerman would eschew anything that would visually identify him as anyone other than a run-o'-the-mill local.

It's not unreasonable that in CMSF the collapse of a building, even a multistory one, doesn't equal death to the pixeltruppen therein. But if you drop not one but three bombs on a building and blow it to smithereens, wouldn't the pixeltruppen inside simply be killed by the structure-destroying explosions themselves? *** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! *** While playing the third mission of the "Tip of the Spear" USMC mini-campaign (by FMB, IIRC), the orbiting F/A-18s dropped bombs on several BMP-3Ms, but during the after-action map review I noticed that a couple of the crews (in one case both crewmen) survived the destruction-by-JDAM of their vehicles. Granted, I can't confirm that all of the BMP-3Ms were destroyed by JDAMs falling directly on them (one knocked-out BMP-3M sat about 20 meters away from a large but empty crater, while another sat about 15 meters from a crater marking where one had taken a direct hit), but wouldn't even a "mere" 500-pounder falling directly on a relatively lightly armored IFV blow it to kingdom come and thus instantly kill its crew?

As much as I enjoyed (and found satisfyingly challenging) your "USMC Second Storm", reading about your playtesting makes me look forward to the campaign even more. =) While I like your code-naming ideas overall, giving each of the four tanks a unique name sounds a little out of place. Also, the more-than-two-syllable names would perhaps be a little awkward. As merely a suggestion, perhaps a single name for the tank platoon, namely "White Horse" (in reference to the conquering first horseman of the apocalypse from Revelation 6:1-2), with the individual tanks numbered therefrom -- White Horse 1 for the platoon CO's tank, etc. I applied this 'rule' in playing "British Mettle" (which, IIRC, is one of yours, PT; and excellent job on it, btw!)... *** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! *** Knowing that a mech/armored force would be approaching from the east, I infiltrated a sniper team into the trees on the southern part of the ridge. Said sniper team got <?> contacts on one and then both of the T-72s in hull-down position on the far side of the map. About five minutes later, my TAC had two corresponding <?> contacts (which was good, since the sniper team was too low-rank to personally call for air support). Once the TAC had been informed of the enemy tanks lying in wait and knew their approximate position (he had LOS to that area but had not spotted anything there), I had him call on the Typhoon (a wide-area Heavy mission), which then knocked out both T-72s.

When I first heard about CMSF, which was actually a little after the game had come out, my first thought was: "What? Not WW2?!?" (I've very much enjoyed CMBB and CMAK over the years.) Then I played the demo and saw the potential that the fully 3D game engine had to offer, and the excellent modeling of modern weaponry finally sparked my interest in post-1945 military technology. Once I bought the game, I've been digging it ever since. Thanks very much to all the progammers, designers, model-makers, artists, playtesters, and modders who made this game what it is.

The first time I played Paper Tiger's "USMC Second Storm", I sent a squad of Devil Dogs (who were not carrying a greater-than-normal load) at "quick" over broken terrain (but I don't remember what the actual terrain type was) alongside the northern bridge. The pixeltruppen went from "ready" to "exhausted" in about five seconds, and they remained so for about 15 minutes. Since v1.21 came out, I've learned to be much more careful about which movement orders I give my pixeltruppen depending on the terrain. It's a bummer to send pixeltruppen hustling toward the objective only to find that they're exhausted halfway before they get there. Also, in my experience (as a real-time player) it's easy to issue a long-distance "quick" move order to a squad, turn my attention elsewhere, check up on them about 10 minutes later, and find them crawling along the ground because they're "exhausted", having become so about 5 minutes ago, but still doggedly striving to comply with the order they were given. However, I haven't played "Hammertime" post v1.21, so I'll be checking it out later.

First of all: I very much look forward to playing this campaign of yours, Paper Tiger, since I've thoroughly enjoyed all your scenarios and campaigns thus far. Thanks very much for the consistently quality work. =) There are three or four battles in the official USMC campaign which feature about one to one and a half rifle companies plus elements of the Scout/Sniper platoon, of the LAR platoon, and of the CAAT, along with the entire Abrams platoon as well as attached AAVs and MTVRs; though not every one of those battles has all of the aforelisted assets. Those are the battles which I'd like to re-play in wego mode. Yeah, I've long thought that a full-strength USMC rifle squad is like a platoon in miniature. And they carry more light AT assets per fireteam than their Army counterparts.

*gazes in puzzlement at three men running side by side off into the distance, then shrugs* I'm all for more tooltips. Isn't the IED jammer listed by name in the "components" panel? In the vast majority of the scenarios which have IEDs, I only notice the IEDs when I spot them during the usual after-action map review -- for whatever reason they don't go off.

Though I too agree that there should be a way to move wounded pixeltruppen to safety for buddy aid and that that would be one of the many little things which add up to make CMSF as immersive as it is, I figure that there are reasons this hasn't been implemented. For one, it would require new animations (dragging, being dragged) and certain changes to the action spot system. And (though I think I may be mistaken about this) it's not like the wounded soldier is going to bleed out if he isn't given buddy aid promptly; thus it's possible to get the rest of the squad to safety, deal with the threat that rendered that soldier a casualty, then go back and take care of him. It would be more realistic, though, for a wounded man to be treated promptly without needlessly risking whoever gives him buddy aid. That said, I do get fairly frustrated when I come up against "house from hell" situations, where my pixeltruppen "assault" into a building but then come under from adjacent rooms/buildings and lose three or four men. While the difficulty of getting the wounded men out of a building without risk to the rescuing soldiers is, as I understand it, a key aspect of "house from hell" scenarios, the fact that in CMSF I can't do anything for the wounded unless they get buddy aid where they fell means that I basically have to ignore them for the time being and deal with whatever took them out from a different direction.

Looks real good, Ryujin! I've been very much enjoying your USMC infantry mod and your M249 Para mod, so I'm sure I'll dig using this one too. Keep up the excellent work. =)

As I understand it, one of the main reasons that certain pixeltruppen either have assault rifles when they should have pistols or have pistols but no actual weapon in their hands is because CMSF lacks pistol models and corresponding animations for the handling of pistols. Though I'm not sure which particular scenario you're referring to, I can tell you that in some instances a scenario designer allots reinforcements to the AI side which are set to arrive at a time beyond the scenario's time limit. These reinforcements don't ever appear on the map, but they prevent the AI from surrendering before the scenario's time limit has been reached or before the player has had a suitable chance to achieve his objectives.

While the AC-130 itself is unavailable (and for valid reasons), its tactical capability can to a limited extent be simulated in CMSF with a US M119 105mm section in fire missions using one howitzer at a time (especially with Heavy/Quick/Armor settings). This may well sound fanciful to those who are more knowledgeable than I, but I've been mulling over the concept of a nighttime Rangers/SF scenario in which a short but sharp (pre-planned) barrage from the 105mm cannon of an "AC-130" demolishes the motor pool (seven or eight pickups and technicals) at the edge of an uncon compound before the Blue infantry rush in. Of course, one could call for one-howitzer fire missions throughout a scenario (though such simulating of an AC-130 would only "fit" in nighttime scenarios), but AFAIK the AC-130 is much more responsive than any indirect artillery asset in terms of being able to bring down fire accurately and promptly.