Spooner

Hmm, I see it at 4.99 EUR which is still a very good deal! I'm in the UK, but I imagine that is good for anyone on this side of the pond.

I did look at the map file format used in SF, in order to be able to import height-map data a little while ago. It seemed that although there was a clear file-header that contained readable binary data such as width and height of the map, the area where I assumed the actual height-map was stored seemed to be encrypted (or compressed, but whatever, it wasn't obvious how to read it). We don't need to ask BF to spend a lot of time making import tools for us, but they could either release the format of the mission file or even just allow the file to be saved in an unencrypted form so we could decode it for ourselves. The latter is more usual, since I suspect there is some issue with actually releasing proprietary information like that, but modders often backwards engineer formats in order to use them themselves. Personally, I'd like to see 4km maps more the norm in the game, rather than being something that is avoided because editing a large map is so terribly difficult in BFs 2D editor. I understand why BF haven't made a complex terrain editor, but being able to import XYZ or image height-maps into the game, perhaps from satellite data or from 3rd party editors, would be a great boon, even if all the actual hard work came from the community. I'm sure there are many other uses we could put a knowledge of the file format too, of course, such as our own QB system (which wouldn't be in-game, but would create the individual missions out of game). (I've written a tool to help convert OFP maps to ArmA and am working on creating a deformable terrain system for ArmA, which shows what can be done with a bit more information, even if it is backwards engineered! I'd probably be able to work on SF community tools, but without any starting point, I can't do this). EDIT: I'm not complaining that SF haven't released the required information, since it is their info to do with as they please. Just really saying that it is a bit unrealistic to expect them to spend a lot of time making tools, especially the sort that are often made by the community, rather than making the game itself.

I really have no idea what you are talking about with the wandering camera view being "cheating". You can move all over the battlefield at the moment, but that doesn't help you see anything you couldn't see from locked first-person view (well, except in easy mode), since the game has a fog of war...

How about a compromise? +1500 to Syrians for 15% enemy casulaties (automatic fail), 1000 to USMC for capturing the castle (pass, assuming you didn't take too many casualties) and +500 to USMC for less than 10% (or maybe even less) friendly casualties (distinction). As chainsaw says, it is possible to be ultra-careful and only get one casualty (I only managed 6 and 8 casualties the two times I tried myself, but I know I could have been more careful and I haven't played in a while). Admittedly though, luck plays a big part at this scale, but having a pass and distinction level would make sense to me in this situation (sometimes you do just get lucky or unlucky, but I do think a good player should be able to get a distinction most times through being cautious).

Good straightforward map to teach you a specific tactic without any distractions. Looking forward to other things I can teach my platoon... I did get confused by the casualties level though, since the briefing says you can take no more than 15% casualties, but the mission actually requires 10% casualties or less. Many frowns when I had 11% casualties and still lost ;( I think 10% is the right number for the map, but either way, I think it should be consistent.

Well, as I said, I've tried it with two of my PCs (different locations with completely different hardware, operating systems and broadband connections). I've played against two different opponents from both of my machines. Tiny battles work (specifically Al Huqf Engagement), but small-medium battles don't (large battles aren't really appropriate for real-time, so that matters less). I haven't tested with a large number of missions though, since it is hard to convince people to waste their time when it is obvious that something is very wrong. It could be that the larger battles have a greater data transfer which is causing the problem or it could be that the problem happens after a period of time (so that very small, short scenarios don't have time to fail). Hard to tell exactly how long it takes to fail, since, as I said, you can keep playing for a while before you realise that the game has de-synced. The fact that some scenarios work fine and others fail implies that it isn't so obviously an issue with how we have installed the game or configured our machines though. Maybe that is a naive conclusion, in which case I apologise for making such assumptions. If BattleFront want more specific information, then I'm happy to provide it. If anyone else who has no problems with Internet would be willing to run a test-game against me, I'd be quite interested to see what would happen. I like the game, but would love it if I could consistently play MP battles. It would be great if there were a simple solution to this problem (that is, that those of us having failures were being complete noobs in some way ;P).

[sorry, double post]

This seems to happen with me all the time (both players with 1.07 or 1.08 Paradox directly over the Internet or via Hamachi LAN. Tried on combinations of 4 different machines, each with decent broadband connections. Both battles and QBs). If it just happened occasionally, it wouldn't be so bad, but it seems to happen so much that I've pretty much given up on MP games. In fact, the only map I've ever been able to finish successfully was Al Huqf Engagement (worked perfectly the 3 times I've played it in MP), which, since it is so tiny, supports the idea that larger, more data-intensive maps are the problem. If anyone can suggest other maps that have worked successfully in Internet games, I'll try those out... I'd even be happy if the game paused while it resynced, rather than the game just collapsing in a heap as it does now. Even just telling me that the other player had desynced would be an improvement, since right now, we tend to play on for a while before we realise that the game has gone FUBAR and waste even more time. Although I prefer real-time, I'd be quite happy with MP being only playable in WEGO mode if real-time is just untenable. I'm guessing there are other technical issues with WEGO which are preventing its release, but I am more hopeful that WEGO will be completed rather than real-time be fixed (de-syncing shouldn't really be an issue with a turn-based mode). And no, PBEM is just too disjointed for me to enjoy, so it isn't a real alternative for me or anyone I play with.

Sorry Steiner, I get easily confused! I was amused by the idea that a tactical game liek this was only for officers. I have never been, nor would ever want to be in the army at any rank, but that doesn't stop me being interested in tactical military simulations. Oh well, I suppose this must be why chess is only played by kings then?

@Cpl. Steiner (EDIT: I mean Adam1, not Steiner): If all the press was held off until 1.07, I'm sure they wouldn't have sold as many copies (even bad press means people are aware of the product and those interested in niche products like this are more willing to overlook imperfections) and so they wouldn't have had the money to actually "fix" the game up! -- I'm currently trying to proselytise heavily among my friends who play ArmA (you don't play that game unless you prize realism and tactics over a highly polished product, so they should be prime candidates for SF ;P ). Hopefully, 1.07 demo will make all the difference, since I didn't feel that the 1.02 demo was that good really, as much because of the poor choice of example scenario as the more obvious flaws in the system (personally, I took a leap of faith myself to buy the game, based mostly on the number of comments on this forum that stated that 1.06 was finally "playable"). [ February 24, 2008, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: Spooner ]

On a related subject, why can't a Stryker's gunner unbutton unless the vehicle also has passengers. Is this an operational issue (gunner mustn't unbutton unless there are also rear guard guys covering him), a graphical bug (the underlying system has him unbuttoned, but it isn't being shown) or that the button shouldn't be being disabled when their are no passengers?

Playing a tiny QB with Syrian special forces attacking Syrian fighters, the attackers just had ATGM squads. I've also had the same problem with stuff like a MGS platoon vs light infantry, as mentioned by the OP. Although a larger battle can be playable with varying proportions of troop types, when you are just fielding a single platoon, the random pick of units can more often create rather odd and unlikely battles, especially when support groups are picked (like MG or AT platoons) that would never really operate autonomously. On another note, I'd really like to have the ability to separately choose map-size and force-size. Although large engagements on very small maps are probably unplayable for anyone, I do find the opportunities for maneuver that small-medium sized forces have on "over-sized" maps to be very interesting. I also find that the smaller assault maps often have their objectives right on the edge of the map, so that the incredibly artificial map-edge has a large bearing on the tactics used in the map.

I had a similarly peculiar path-finding issue trying to blast between adjacent buildings. My unit was on the third floor of a 4-story building and I wanted to attack the 2nd floor of the adjacent 4-story building. I gave a single blast command to them and watched them do their stuff. I, perhaps naively, expected them to go downstairs and blast through the wall horizontally, so that the blast would disorient the enemy (not sure if this is modelled in game, but it should be). What they actually did was: 1) They immediately set explosives on the connecting wall on the 3rd floor. 2) Ignoring the hole in the wall, they walked up to the roof, crossed the roof and then walked down to the 2nd floor. OK, I should really have been explicit and told them to move down the stairs and then blast horizontally. Still, if they'd been able to go directly through their own blast-hole rather in an entirely different way, I wouldn't have thought it enough to complain about. In a different scenario (the standard hospital assault one), I had engineers behind the wall, ready to assault. I told them to blast into the building, but instead of moving about 5m to their side to walk around the wall before getting to the building, they set charges in the wall and then casually walked in the front door of the building. This is less of an issue though, since I might have wanted to blast through the wall in different circumstances, so I think I just need to be more explicit in my commands.

I heard from a top Pentagon source that once they can overcome technical problems with mass-production of their next-generation assault rifles, the unit will be chucking their old M4s (as seen in the above images) in favour of this beauty!