stoex

Yup, I guess most of us know, since there was an announcement about it when it happened.

undercovergeek, PBEM is WeGo by default. When it's your turn, you watch the last turn replay, then have an orders phase to command your units for the next turn, then CMSF creates a savegame and you send it to your opponent by mail (or file transfer of some other sort), who does the same. Rinse and repeat. Perfect for people on opposite sides of the pond. On the other hand, at a turn a day, larger battles can take a long time.

More suggestions for the campaign title: 'Wasted Crusade' (or maybe 'Indiana Jones and the Lost Crusade'? ) 'Soil for Blood' 'Infidels Bleeding' 'Red Sands' ...and my favorite: '72 Virgins'

Yes, this is indeed the way it is supposed to be, and it will also persist into the next battle in a campaign (unless your troops are fully remanned, of course). It is confusing at first, but you get used to it when playing the Syrians . Just for the sake of stating this, it happens with the Blue side as well, I have seen it. Particularly weird when a Marines squad turns into a platoon HQ and it looks like there are only 5 of the 13 men left...I have even seen a Jav team become a company HQ in the recently released campaign "Rolling Lords of War" by Field Marshal Blücher and Bulgaroktonos. Don't know what the rank of one of those Marines Jav gunners is, but I guess this also has to do with the fact that the unit is at the same organizational level as the missing or killed HQ unit (CO level in this case).

Thanks for the official take, Steve. Glad to hear it's on the list and I'll be happy when acquiring is eventually improved. For now it's OK as is, and certainly not a gamebreaker - wouldn't want this to get in the way of more important work for sure!

Sorry, FMB, didn't mean to embarrass you there. But you did say you would change the briefing, so I thought I would alert folks to it while I was explaining about the AI plan tweak. I know there are a few people out there who will give up on a battle or campaign when they get beaten badly, so I thought I would give them a heads up on the fact that the new version may be the better one for them. For the record, I just finished the battle (original version, aggressive AI plan) with 2 KIA and 6 WIA and a dozen walking wounded. Took a few reloads during the battle, though, a couple for the simple reason that I forgot about my CAS and had some baaaad Blue-on-Blue blues. I will definitely replay this with the new version and without reloading just to make it more realistic than my recent success in GOD-vision. Downloading now as it just appeared on the repository, will also try the 'core force import' function again.

Thanks for the response, NormalDude. I have save games available from my PBEM regarding issue no.1, will email you about this right away. As for issue no.2, if you read my second post in this thread, I explained that I think the sound should be changed if it is merely ambient and meant only for the player calling in CAS. The way the sound is now (fade in - directional sound - fade out), it sounds very clearly like a flyover of a helo as heard by someone on the ground. It is also the exact same sound heard on an attack run (minus the sound of the ordinance), and both players hear THAT. By logic then, both players should hear the flyover as well, since they are equally close to the sound's origin ('next to one another' on the battlefield). If the helo is too far away for anyone to actually hear it and the sound isn't really a flyover, then the sound should be different, maybe the pilot declaring over the radio that he is searching for targets or whatever.

A while ago I posted in a thread a question about a possible tweak to the ammo acquiring system. Unfortunately, I can't find that thread now, so I will repeat my query here since there was never an official or beta tester response regarding this topic, and the upcoming release of NATO (and Normandy around another two or three corners) offers another chance of possibly getting this into the engine: Would it be possible to change the algorithm that determines the possible quantities of ammo to acquire from vehicles - particularly regarding small arms ammo? Currently CMSF offers the total number of rounds available (rounded down to straight 1000's in some cases) as well as half and a quarter thereof if applicable. In fully loaded MTVRs and AAVs, there is a lot of 5.56 and 7.62 available, therefore the options come out as 4000, 2000 and 1000 rounds (in the case of 5.56). This means it is impossible to acquire less than 1000 rounds of 5.56 from such a full vehicle. Only after some of the ammo has been taken from the vehicle do smaller amounts become available (I believe the smallest amount changes to 500 when there are 2000 rounds or less left inside the vehicle). Now, 1000 rounds is fine for a Marines squad, but quite a lot for a two or three man team (Jav, Sniper, SMAW, Platoon HQ etc.). From my personal standpoint, I much more often find myself wanting to acquire a few 100 rounds for such a team than wanting to take all 4000 rounds with a Marines squad. And even if I do want to do the latter, I could still achieve it by taking 1000 rounds several times over. I therefore ask whether these numbers could be changed to a different range, say 1000, 500 and 200 for instance. This seems a viable and sensible tweak to me for a number of reasons: -) It would make it possible to acquire any multiple of the smallest available number of rounds, for any unit, at any time, regardless of the total number in the vehicle at the time. It would admittedly cost a few more mouse clicks to acquire very large amounts, but I consider that a reasonable tradeoff. -) It would better allow players to conserve ammo, especially in campaigns, where resupply may be limited. Always good to have those rounds available in future missions! -) When you feel like you want or need to acquire ammo with small units, this would reduce the amount of weight added to their loadout. -) It also seems to me that this would be an easy enough tweak for Charles to pull off, merely requiring changing a few numbers in an existing formula, or possibly adding a line or two of code in the right place. I could be mistaken, of course . But it seems straightforward enough to me. Please feel free to voice your opinions on this subject - it will help in keeping it bumped until a beta tester or Steve stumbles across it .

Bumping this since there was never any official response regarding these issues. Could be a last chance for NATO or a possible later patch...

Thanks FMB! Explanation for others playing this campaign: The new versions include a tweak to mission 3 which removes the more aggressive of two AI plans (which is a real killer). The less aggressive AI plan should still offer a good challenge for most players. If you want the hardcore experience, go ahead and try the original version (where there is still a chance you will get the less aggressve plan. You WILL know if you get the aggressive one, trust me ). The other change is in the briefing, where the player is made more aware of the danger in this mission.

NATO is going to be plain awesome. The amount of new content, as well as the number of tweaks to the engine, leave me slavering! A million thanks to everyone who has worked to make this happen! Kudos.

Very much enjoyed the first two missions in this campaign. The second one is still difficult with the CAS in place. Took me several tries to complete it. Has anyone played the third battle yet? I am in the middle of it (for the second time) and I have to say, WOW. Not to give away any spoilers, but did you guys really test this thing? I don't think I've ever been this badly outmatched in a battle. The first time through (well, not through...) I got completely destroyed, for the most part because I followed the briefing...the second time around, I am 'cheating' and have played from the outset with full knowledge of the Red side movements, extremely cautiously, and it is still on the brink. I'm playing the campaign version where you can't continue after a loss, and even if I get a win I'm not sure I will have sufficient forces left to see the campaign out, but I don't really know what I could do better except have more luck. Are there any other first timer impressions about this one? I seriously think the designers may have overdone this battle a bit. The timing and placement of the Blue reinforcements is particularly discouraging .

I won't call it excellent news, because obviously I don't wan't to get anyone in trouble regarding their NDA...so I'll just say thank you to Elmar for the clarification, and thank you to MikeyD for posting a happy smiley in the forum for no reason except it's always nice to see a happy face. I'll add one of my own . Have a nice sunny day, all!

I noticed in the CM:A demo that BMPs in that game offer regular 7.62mm ammo for small arms as well as 7.62mm MG ammo for infantry to acquire (I forget the exact nomenclature for these ammo types, but you know what I mean). This is great!!! Will we be getting it with the NATO patch for CM:SF? Then we could finally rearm our Syrian squads...I kind of expect the ammo to be available on the new Syrian trucks, but will it also be incorporated into the BMPs?

Glad someone has started this project! Thanks Ryujin! My first contribution is a correction: Frag grenades can in fact cause friendly casualties. It happens rarely but it does happen, usually when clearing buildings or when the thrower is shot while throwing and drops the grenade among his buddies. There were screenies of the latter case in a thread a while back, but I can't find them. Friendly casualties are (of course) also possible from 40mm UGL (underslung grenade launcher)/GMG (grenade machine gun) rounds, just for the record.

Thanks to both scenario authors for the info. I'm going to start the campaign over as well, but I don't think I'll manage my success from the first mission again (no KIA/WIA for either the Army or Marines, just a couple of walking wounded among the Army men. I got really lucky).

I'll be darned. An RPG fired at my men in a recent battle had the exact same ID number. Since we're not talking about the same battle here (mine was not Red vs. Red), obviously this means the game is fundamentally flawed! I demand full retraceability of all ordinance used in game to country of production, plant, production batch, date - as well as documentation on export if applicable and allocation to the individual unit firing the round. Seriously, there are international treaties about these things!!! BFC, please fix or do sumfink.

I just tried what Jonny(FGM) proposed, but unfortunately I think it doesn't work in this case. Unless, that is, the CAS in mission 2 is not available from the start. If that is the case, I'll have to play until the time it should show up to be sure. Anyhow, the importing thing worked in principle, meaning it loaded my game, but CAS was not present.

With you all the way on that one!

sfhand, Your criticism of my post is not entirely unfounded, however I think that is mostly due to my phrasing and the fact I posted without menace but also without thinking a lot...let me clarify: I do not nor did wish to engage in any form of political discussion on this forum. What I really meant to say was that I didn't understand why someone would invite trouble upon themselves (like the risk of being banned) by voicing such opinions here in such a fashion. Anybody is free to their opinions in principle, but the choice of where and how to represent them is the line where one's own opinions can become open attacks on other members of society. Which is not ok and never will be. That line was crossed deliberately and so blatantly in the case at hand that it baffled me why anyone would undertake such a trespassing. The spirit of the poster in question made me think 'um, whut?' as opposed to the content of his post. That said, there are also posts where the actual content leaves me in the same kind of confusion - mostly when folks use a lot of military abbreviations or lingo which I simply don't understand.

I don't know, I guess "um, whut?" is just a refreshingly different sig line than all the variations of quotes about the respective member being correct (like my own...), the people who post links to various sites in their sigs (not that I'm against that, mind you), and the folks who use quotes from movies, books etc. Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to deride anyone else's signature, just saying that AkumaSD has managed to phrase a sentiment that made me smile in just two simple words. Aside from that, "um, whut?" is rather often what I find myself thinking when reading some posts in this forum. Like some of the stuff that got a certain member banned the other day, for instance.

Totally off topic, AkumaSD wins the inofficial stoex prize for the best sig line I have seen on these forums. Spot on, made me chuckle!

In a similar vein, I had an experience in a mission (can't remember which one), where a USMC sniper was firing at a taxi using the .50 cal. Shooting at the front of the vehicle from an elevated position, aiming at the driver, he nailed about 8 or 10 bullets EXACTLY in the spot where you would expect to hit the driver - meaning through the lower part of the windshield or slightly below the windshield, on the driver's side. The man did not die or exit the vehicle, but instead slowly reversed out of LOS, which took several minutes. Couldn't believe it. He had to have been dead or at least the vehicle broken.

Ah, I see. That one I have no answer to. I use Win7 and a GeForce 8800 GTS card (with DX10) and I have the flashing bug, other configurations I know nothing about. Sorry, the way you asked it wasn't clear what you meant.

LuckyDog, I've no idea how CAS works in real life. It's possible that it works exactly as you said. However, if the flyover sound we hear in the game really is just an audible clue for the player calling in CAS that the strike is about to commence, then I maintain that something should be changed... Simple reason: it SOUNDS like a flyover. If it sounds that way, everyone on the battlefield should be hearing the sound, just like it is with the actual CAS strike sound, or the sound of any ordinance exploding for that matter. If it is meant to be a sound that only one player can hear, then it should sound that way, too - in the case at hand some radio chatter between the pilot and the spotter would do nicely (we even have that already when the pilot acknowledges the call, and when he is announcing a run on target). I have no problem with not knowing that my enemy is about to unleash CAS on me - the problem is that one way or another, this particular sound is unrealistic and doesn't fit, since it is the same sound of a flying helicopter that plays during an actual attack run. If there is a chopper flying overhead, everyone should hear it - if there isn't, no one should.