Dietrich

And why no AC-130? Would be grand to call for half a dozen 105mm shells onto enemy positions with (I suppose) greater accuracy and faster response than standard artillery, assuming direct contact with the Spectre.

They're called teats. Seriously, though -- okay, only semi-seriously -- what about modelling women in CM:Normandy, for the sake of having female Maquis or SOE agents? (But maybe I've opened a can of worms by merely bringing it up...)

Keeping squads intact (un-split) preserves their spotting capability, as far as I understand it. ...But if Yskonyn has LAVs, the accompanying squads are (if I'm remembering the TO&E correctly) probably scout squads, which can't use the Assault command because the typical scout squad is a four- or five-man team and Assault requires at least two teams of two men each.

I would recommend, not spliiting the squads, but rather using the Advance command to have your squads move forward by bounds. But as Delta228 suggests, use suppressive fire on the nearest buildings, perhaps using Target Light to preserve ammo somewhat (or you could go all out and level the buildings; it depends on the ROE).

Yes, but in what sense should Panzergrenadiers/Tankovyidesantniki, in your estimation, "have a better chance at tank-infantry cooperation"? Do you mean better communication between infantry and tank crews? From what I understand, 'better tank-infantry cooperation' would be a matter of the player's sense of effective tactics rather than of the game's unit-modelling.

WW2-era soldiers moved and held their rifles/carbines/SMGs different than modern-day soldiers for several reasons. The typical WW2-era rifle was built to serve secondarily as a close-combat weapon. Being bolt-action and having a solid fixed stock and fitted (often) with a bayonet, in situations where the enemy could appear suddenly at close/point-blank range, the rifle was meant to be held at the waist, ready for squeezing off a single shot (not having time to reload) before wading in and attacking with the rifle itself. The typical modern-day rifle is not built to serve secondarily as a close-combat weapon. Being festooned with components (optic sight, laser pointer, forelight, etc.) which, though built to be durable, are not so tough (compared to the rifle itself), and fitted with a sling (enabling the infantrymen to keep his weapon with him yet have both hands free when needed), the modern rifle, in CQB situations, is meant to be held at the shoulder, ready to squeeze off a burst or two at any suddenly-appearing enemy. Ironsighting means narrowing your field of vision markedly and thus is unsuitable for close-combat situtations. Modern rifles are typically fitted with optic sights, a fair number of which are designed for both-eyes-open use for greater situational awareness and faster target acquisition. Even the modern-day weapons which are generally not fitted with optic sights (AK-74s, AKMs, etc.) are semi-auto, if not full-auto, and so are better held at the shoulder and ready to fire at a split second's notice. Having said all this, though, I cannot specifically recall if in CMSF infantrymen (even USMC/US Army ones) have their M4s, etc., at the shoulder and ready to open fire while on the move via the Hunt command. In other words, when a request for artillery is made, the player hears the correspondence between the FO and the battery? What about how armor penetration is visually modelled in Theatre of War? In that game (which, admittedly, is not nearly as good as CMSF ), a penetration is shown at the corresponding point on the model by a fairly realistic-looking distorted black circle, and even when a tank's turret is knocked off its ring by a hit, the turret model simply tilts slightly. Perhaps a .bmp (or a set of .bmps) could be coded to appear on a tank's or model where there's been a penetration -- no changes would necessarily need to be made to the model. When a tank brews up, some sort of 'blackened' .bmp could be applied over the tank's default .bmp to show where the exterior has been scorched. But if these sound like hokey 'fixes', I understand.

Maybe in your neighbourhood. There ain't a single beautiful woman living in my neighbourhood, spotted or not. (Not that I look for 'em.... =P) That's why when I give the "Deploy Weapon" command to an MG team on a rooftop, they break out the tripod and go prone, and thus the parapet is blocking their LOS/LOF. You'd think they would deploy the bipod and plant it on the parapet itself.... 200 rounds fired or 200 rounds hit? No matter what body armor you're wearing, getting actually hit with just ten 7.62mm rounds would put you down. Quasi-hyperbolic statements like "it took three dozen rounds to put the guy down" leave out key details like what number of those rounds fired were actual hits. It's easy to say "I burned through two whole belts of ammo before the guy stopped moving", but that doesn't give clear information. What gets me is when I level a building with tank rounds or artillery shells and one or more of the guys inside survive and inflict casualties on my infantry which later approach the pile of rubble that was once a structure. * * * Seriously, though, perhaps the my-troops-were-scanning-the-terrain-for-30-turns/minutes-and-never-spotted-any-enemy-units problem just shows that such is in the realm of dedicated recon troops lying in wait for hours at a time, waiting for the enemy to relax his vigilance, and thus is beyond the scope of CMSF? Consider a makeshift alternative (though this is more the realm of scenario designers than players themselves): If you want your troops to have some chance of knowing where the enemy is, put a scout squad or sniper team someplace that has LOS to as much of the map as reasonably possible. This unit will simulate a recon team which has been in position for several hours, just keeping a lookout for enemy units. Then set your side's initial intelligence proportionately higher. Thus semi-faded ?'s will be present, giving your troops some idea of where the bad guys are.

Does 1.11 "Fix" CMSF? Yes. It may not fix it comprehensively or finally, but if by "fix" one means "make distinct and worthwhile improvements to", then I would say it does. *sigh* If it's in print, it's called libel. =P On a forum for a mod for a totally different game (not going to name any names; suffice it to say it was no game made by Battlefront), an exceedingly knowledgeable and well-read but often not very tactful forum-member said others at the forum had expressed Nazi-sympathetic views. He got flamed in response, but then he proceeded to post screenshots of the accused persons' posts in which they basically said "if things were they were the Nazis wanted them to be, I wouldn't mind". Just a friendly word of warning to anyone who may feel inclined to spout dogmatic assertions and then doggedly assert they never said any such thing.

@purpheart23: The M16A4's effective range is greater than that of the M4[A1], though my observation has been that (in CMSF) Marine riflemen don't necessarily open fire at greater ranges than their Army counterparts. But I'll gladly run the corresponding tests anyway. =) @cmfan: Thanks for the encouragement. I'll include Army MOUT platoon/company HQ units in my tests. As I mentioned in the "spotting changes in v1.11" thread, I'm also going to run tests with various units (infantry and vehicles) to get a sense of which types of units spot better (or worse) than others. In particular I'm interested to see if, say, a recon HMMWV or recon Stryker spots any better than a binocular-equipped scout team or sniper team. (As was pointed out in the "Splitting Squads - when is it worth it?" thread, the spotting ability of split squads is noticeably poorer than that of intact squads; but does that per se apply to sniper teams as compared with sniper squads?)

@purpheart23: I can, and I will. =) I don't foresee any noteworthy differences, though. The results so far suggest that infantry behavior, especially for support teams (sniper, MMG, etc.), is coded so that without a specific Target order the key weapon(s) in a team will fire first and foremost, with the M4- or M16-equipped troops acting as spotters and in local defense. (In the test with the Army scout squad, the M4-armed guys evidently opened fire in response to the apparent threat of the 'technical' actually opening fire on them.) The next series of tests will be with the same setup and same units (for both sides) but with specific targeting orders to look for any differences in interpretation of Target vis-a-vis Target Light orders between units, seeking answers to questions such as: With a Target order, will all the men in a support team open fire, assuming the target is within effective range of their weapons? How will said team's fire output differ with a Target Light order? How does range affect a given unit's interpretation of Target versus Target Light orders? That said, though, I'm interested, not so much in concrete data, but rather in getting a clear sense of how the TacAI of infantry units works. Before I ran these tests, I was hoping to see that, for example, in a sniper team only the marksman would open fire (without orders otherwise), with the other men keeping a low profile, and that is what I saw in the tests. @PSY: ...By Jove, you're right. I'm sheepish I didn't catch that in the several times I proofread the post before hitting the "Submit Reply" button. Thank you for pointing that out. =) Edit to above data: Too bad on this forum you can only edit a post within 30 minutes of posting it. *sigh*

My research indicates that SOF operators in Afghanistan tend to prefer 'technical'-style pickups (for example, a Toyota Tacoma with an M2 or M240 mounted above and behind the cab) rather than HMMWVs because HMMWVs are too wide to consistently handle the narrow mountain roads (where such even exist), and the MRAP has too high a center of gravity for safely operating in such rugged, steep terrain.

That's soon enough for me! =) I'm definitely looking forward to CMx2:WW2, but I've only just begun getting into (and getting used to) CM:SF, so I've got plenty to keep me busy in the meantime.

I think indicating whether or not there is more than one AI plan (whether just for one side or for both) would be good. Beyond that, it think it should be at the scenario designer's discretion.

Yesterday I did a few tests using Normal Dude's Firing Range 55 map (with the settings otherwise default for that map). I put a Syrian Reserve infantry squad on the roof of the second-nearest building and just let them chill there--no Hide command, no targeting arc, no orders at all. I put an Army rifle squad (settings in the editor were all at Typical) on the roof of the range tower and had them face downrange. They did not spot the Syrian squad after 10 turns (i.e., 10 minutes). Then I assigned the squad a targeting arc covering the entire building where the Syrian squad was sited. They did not spot the Syrian squad after 10 more turns. Next I put an Army sniper squad (again with Typical settings) on the roof of the range tower, with the same facing. They did not spot the Syrian squad after 10 turns. Then, as before, a targeting arc. They did not spot the Syrians after 10 more turns. To me this suggests, though conjecturally, that (in CMSF) infantry--even when positioned on the roof of a building (i.e., with no 'natural' cover), kneeling in readiness, and having no orders to hide or conceal themselves or take cover specifically--will passively try not to be seen. Later this week I'll run some more tests using the same unit and positioning for Red (though I may put the Syrian unit out in 'the open') and with the gamut of Blue units (infantry as well as vehicles) taking turns trying to spot them. I'll be back with the results. =)

"Commando mortar" = not fitted with a bipod?

(I intend this thread to be for discussion a la the Equipment Thread, but regarding infantry behavior, rather than hardware, especially in v1.11.) Using Normal Dude's Firing Range 55, I ran several tests to observe changes in infantry behavior with v1.11. US Army rifle squad: Target area fire (on open ground) 600m: only MG-gunners and designated marksman fired 400m: all soldiers fired single shots (no rifle grenades fired) Target Light area fire (on open ground) 600m: all soldiers fired, mixture of single shots and bursts 400m: all soldiers fired, with more bursts (except from designated marksman) US Army sniper team (w/ M107 12.7mm) vs Uncon 'technical' (w/ PKM): (without targeting order) 800m: only marksman fired 600m: only marksman fired 400m: only marksman fired 200m: only marksman fired, scoring a hit which made the technical burst into flames =) US Army scout team (w/ M240B) vs Uncon 'technical' (w/ PKM): (without targeting order) 600m: only MG fired 400m: only MG fired 200m: only MG fired 100m: only MG fired...at first. The MG-gunner emptied one belt at the technical, reloaded, and had just squeezed off his second burst with the fresh belt when three of the other men in the team (not including the MG-loader) all took aim and fired at the technical. This opening fire happened just before the technical itself opened fire on the scout team. I figure this simulates the M4-equipped men in the team (team leader, radioman, soldier) noticing that the guys in the bed of the technical were bringing the PKM to bear on them and the team leader thus saying: "They're getting a bead on us--open fire!" Secondly, while playing theFightingSeabee's scenario "Afghani Stan", I had an experience which served as a test (possible spoiler): the taxi transporting Afghani Stan himself bogged down within a hundred meters of the map edge, in full view of the sniper squad (w/ two M110s) I had in overwatch. Figuring it would be inconvenient to send one of my SOF mini-platoons down the road to take out Afghani Stan, I ordered my sniper squad to target the unit in the taxi. The range was approximately 530m. Both marksmen kept up fairly steady aimed shots (taking out at least three of the guys in the taxi), while the other guys in the squad refrained from shooting.

The better a scenario is designed, the more I'll replay it. The more interesting the mission a scenario depitcs, the more I'll replay it. The more times I lose a scenario, the more I'll replay it. =) Definitely. Knowing that the AI is scripted to act and maneuver in some different way makes me want to play the scenario again to see how it goes down. Depends on the scenario designer wants it to play out. More than one Red AI plan means more replayability. But if the scenario is supposed to go a certain way (if, for example, it's meant to simulate a historical battle), one well-thought-out AI plan (whether Red or Blue) makes sense. Blue vs Red AI. I should try Red vs Blue AI more, but my experiences so far have been frustrating and demoralizing. >.< However, I dig Red vs Red AI scenarios, such as loyalists crushing rebels.

'Soft' factors (experience, motivation, etc.) for SOF scenarios I'm interested in creating reasonably realistic SOF scenarios, partly because of their relatively small scale and partly because of the high-quality Blue forces involved and also because of the interesting-ness of their missions. In setting the 'soft' factors (as I believe they're called) for Blue, I'm inclined to make all the actual SOF guys Elite with Extreme (or higher) motivation. But is this reasonably accurate? Are SOF operators truly and consistently elite? Would it be more realistic for units meant to simulate SOF troops to have skill set between Veteran and Elite and motivation set between High and Fanatic? Also, should there be a minimum leadership rating (not less than +1, for example)?

Why would the spotting of a group of 9 guys be better than one group of 5 guys a stone's throw from a group of 4 guys? What real-world factors is this poor spotting by split squads meant to simulate? The "12 Missing" suggests to me that there were in fact some guys who bugged out. "Missing" in the after-action breakdown could be assumed to mean MIA, which could also mean wounded/killed without friendly forces knowing about it. I'm inclined to think "missing" includes individuals who fled the combat area. Sounds like a scenario I'd like to play. =) I dig company- and battalion-sized combined-arms scenarios, but I find small-scale infantry scenarios more immersive and thought-provoking.

Would not this apply similarly to attack helicopters? I've read about Apaches and Cobras and such being damaged (and even brought down) by RPG and 12.7mm MG fire, especially in Afghanistan. That being the case, why is targeting (by Red forces) of enemy air assests disallowed? The historicomilitary context of CMSF means that any significant surface-to-air assets (i.e., things that would be a threat to A-10s, F-15s, etc.) would have been targeted at the very beginning of the campaign and thus already taken out. Also, helos are the only Blue air assests that fly slow enough (and don't fly too high) to be effectively targeted by MGs and RPGs. But why is it that Red can't even target helos (let alone hit them)? However, I do understand: If helos could be targeted, they could be shot down (the CMx1 'explosion in the sky' is much too much an abstraction for CMSF), which means the helos would need to be 3D-modeled, which means opening a can of worms in terms of coding and such. *sigh*

Would-be spoiler alert! * * * * * * * * * * My recon HQ spotted that bunker (the one by OP 104, right?) from the building designated OP 103. I had them call for the orbiting F-18 to knock it out -- I selected "Light", but the Hornet still dropped a bloody JDAM just 10 meters from the bunker! lol I'll have to reply that mission and see if my sniper team (preferably the M82-armed one) can do anything to that bunker from above and behind (i.e., firing from a building to the bunker's rear).

Thanks for creating this, Seabee! =) It's very handy; and I haven't even started working with the organize-mods-according-to-scenario functionality yet(!) I agree. My monitor's resolution is 1680x1050 too, and the scrolling lists seem cramped to me. Also, I second Skinnedpuppy's recommendations.

Even if the enemy spots the sight, that doesn't mean they'll be able to hit the Stryker (or even target it) with an ATGM, and direct fire will only damage/destroy the sight, which is still better than risking the entire vehicle and its crew + passengers.

Kiitos, Mikko. =) I have a book of Finnish poems (Finnish on one page, English translation on the other), but I'll also look for works by Eino Leino. I love the sound of Finnish. Thanks for the recommendation.

The voice file mods I got for CMAK and CMBB were among my favorite mods. In one voice file mod I got for CMBB was a .wav (I'm not sure what was its 'trigger') with a guy yelling '[something that sounds like it could be the German equivalent of "What the hell are you doing?!", followed by] Schieß sie nieder! Ihr habt Maschinengewehr, ihr habt Munition -- schießen, schießen, schießen! Dauerfeuer!!" Much more interesting than merely: "Schütze, feindliches Ziel, feuer!" =) I suppose eventually someone will put together a voice file mod for CMSF. (Mord made one for the Uncons, but it sounds to me mostly like much shouting of "Allahu akbar!" *shrug*) I must have mis-heard them, then. *shrug*