Wengart

I'm guessing it did, but in a different way than you think. There was, and still is, a tendency for tankers to leap from their tank and kill troops attempting to destroy it/close assault it (PTRD/satchel charges), after having dealt with the close assaulters they leap back into the tank and drive on. I play Arma 2 extensively and it allows me a lot of freedom, but its a different style of freedom. A2 provides you a lot of "freedom of choice" although if you don't follow the briefing you'll probably get killed, while in Crysis I can sneak around the jungle creating unique tactics on the fly to deal with my enemies (like throwing drill presses at them).

Crysis was by no means a terrible game, and in fact was a nice departure from linear shooters that dominate the market then and today. Its a game that encouraged the player to experiment and made for great anecdotal tales. Instead of talking about the scripted sequence that every player experienced the player can talk about how he rigged a house with explosives and lured a North Korean squad inside before detonating them, made his way through an entire mission without killing anyone, or punched a hole in a wall to escape encroaching enemies. Crysis showed an unrestrained revelry for player agency and was much more of a game than many of todays shooters could say.

One of the benefits, imo, for an automatic weapon firing on a moving target is the ability to put several shots near the same point in quick succession. This means that if the shooters first shot was a led a little too much the second or possibly third shot could hit the target. This requires no/little lateral movement which I would imagine (because I've not shot automatic weapons) to be much harder than simply making a "wall" of bullets for the target to pass through.

CM:A came out fairly recently and can be seen as a niche within a niche. So I wouldn't expect many scenarios for CM:A.

Processor Information: Vendor: GenuineIntel Speed: 2786 Mhz 8 logical processors 4 physical processors HyperThreading: Supported FCMOV: Supported SSE2: Supported SSE3: Supported SSSE3: Supported SSE4a: Unsupported SSE41: Supported SSE42: Supported Network Information: Network Speed: Operating System Version: Windows 7 (64 bit) NTFS: Supported Crypto Provider Codes: Supported 323 0x0 0x0 0x0 Video Card: Driver: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 DirectX Driver Name: nvd3dum.dll Driver Version: 8.17.11.9755 DirectX Driver Version: 8.17.11.9755 Driver Date: 11 Apr 2010 Desktop Color Depth: 32 bits per pixel Monitor Refresh Rate: 60 Hz DirectX Card: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 470 VendorID: 0x10de DeviceID: 0x6cd Number of Monitors: 1 Number of Logical Video Cards: 1 No SLI or Crossfire Detected Primary Display Resolution: 1920 x 1080 Desktop Resolution: 1920 x 1080 Primary Display Size: 26.65" x 15.00" (30.55" diag) 67.7cm x 38.1cm (77.6cm diag) Primary Bus: PCI Express 16x Primary VRAM: 1280 MB Supported MSAA Modes: 2x 4x 8x Sound card: Audio device: Digital Audio (HDMI) (High Defi Memory: RAM: 6135 Mb

Is anyone else having weird sound issues with the new demo? I don't get any unless i'm pointed in a very specific direction and at a specific height.

I think its Project Reality shares a name with a BF2 mod and an Arma 2 mod.

Last thing I heard, and this was a while ago, it was going to be abstracted. You would leave your men near some surrendered enemies and they would be "captured" very similar to the current buddy aid.

This all seems like things that should be documented somewheres.

From my experiences units will regain ammo and weapons after rendering BA, but the will never recover *all* of the ammunition. Usually the unit will recover a small portion equivalent to what your spy picked up.

I believe its not allowed because of UI/pathfinding problems that it may incur, and as a nod towards scenario designers (if he wanted you to leave by the back there would be a door there)

If you're playing as the Syrians I would highly recommend that all of your artillery be used as a turn 1 barrage, or by using delayed call ins (5 min,10min,etc..) as a rough and tumble TRP.

Intelligent suppressive fire (or recon by fire) of unconfirmed targets is a long ways off, and I doubt we will see it in a CM game. However, suppression known targets can be done *if* the weapons (DSHK,AGS30,SPG-9,ATGMs, and their NATO variants) are already in place. The problem is the QB AI has a habit of running these crew served weapons up with the advancing squads because they are all part of group 1. As far as I know the scenario designer cannot specifically allocate all crew served weapons to a single AI group, so the ability to plot Strat AI orders by unit type rather than AI group would be beneficial.

Any chance that we will see any Strat AI improvements for QBs in CM:N? As it stands now the user designed scenario strat AI is decent because the scenario designer can fine tune it, however in QBs it often falls flat on its face. The A.I. is incapable of laying down supporting fires during the attack as crew served weapons are often rushed forward with the infantry, infantry refuse to dismount from their personnel carriers turning them into metal coffins for entire platoons, nor can it keep a decent interval between squads, platoons or companies, on the defense infantry is often laying prone in the open when there are perfectly serviceable buildings nearby These are just a few of the problems with QB AI, and IMO they are the most detrimental to enjoyment. Expanding upon the current AI groups to allow designations by unit type, I believe, would be beneficial. This way instead of marking a plan for AI group 1 you could mark a plan for crew served weapons and another for infantry, and so on. This would prevent DSHK crews from running forward with the lead platoons and in many cases not ever setting up their weapons. Furthermore, a basic AI routine that would keep units advancing at squad, platoon, and company level with a decent interval would also be a significant improvement. Below are to examples of this I did in MS paint in a few minutes. http://s1115.photobucket.com/albums/k541/wengart/

The new features to the series list is pitifully small and Multi-barreled rapid-fire cannon hardly counts as one. So far we've discovered two that seem to be shoe ins for this list. But it doesn't end there. CM Afghanistan introduces completely new features to the series, such as: Drozd Active Defense system (on T-55AD and T-62D; shoots down incoming RPGs) Multi-barreled rapid-fire cannon (e.g. ZSU-23 Shilka, Kamaz ZU-23) New terrain such as Snow (on the ground) and Water Exit Zones (a new type of objective)

In the demo I rushed a platoon mounted in BMPs around the left side of the town using smoke from the mortars to provide concealment.

Shouldn't this be a bullet point on the game's page? Or at least listed as a new feature somewhere?

With a VGA adapter you can play CM on a 40" Television.

I was thinking about getting CM:A, but I expect that there will be a dearth of user made scenarios for it. So i will probably be relying on the QB system, which brings me to my question. Does the QB system in CM:A create usable forces for both sides on a regular basis, does the date have any effect on the forces available, and are the AI plans well thought out?

Okay so if there is a door then my men can fire abstractly through it by using an abstracted window. So how does this affect return fire? The men inside of the building can fire through the wall as if there is a window there. Is return fire treated the same? Or is the wall selectively permeable? Also, would it be possible to have an intermediate phase for building damage or some other type of UI indicator that a wall has damage. Even simple cracks running along the wall would be good enough. IMO if it has an effect on the tactical situation then there should be some way for the player to interpret this. One last thing, how are the QBs in CM:A. I'm assuming that there will be even fewer scenarios than in CM:SF which has had 2 modules and core game status to support it. I'm hoping that the reduced variety of situationally effective units has improved it (No more getting ATGMs to capture a small village, getting marine infantry units consisting solely of HMMVs). Actually one last last thing, do the dates set for QBs effect the which units are available, or does CM:A pull from all available units no matter if its day 1 of the invasion or the final days of the Soviet occupation?

If fire through walls is allowed when there is a door present how is return fire handled? Does it have to penetrate the wall?

If walls can indeed be cracked by damage then there should be some kind of visually indicator.

I'd assume if a unit was doing an ambush they would have time to prep.

Actually who does patches for CM:A? Will we have to wait for Snowball to fix the invisible window bug or will BFC do it?

Has anyone else noticed a tendency for men to fire through walls from positions where there would normally be windows?