stoex

Sorry, but I have to contradict you on this, Steve...here are screens of my infantry running through a wall between two buildings which is solid on either side, no doors, windows, or anything. Of course you will have to believe me that it is the same wall seen from both sides in the shots, but I assure you, it is: The wall from one side, with my squad already well into it...the wall hasn't even become transparent, which adds to the 'beheaded grunt' effect...clearly a solid wall. First shot from the other side, the squad is still performing its Houdini act. On this side the wall is transparent, though. Finally, the squad has completely crossed into the second building. The wall is now no longer transparent, and very obviously also solid. I'm not complaining or anything, this has only happened to me once or twicesince I've been playing. Happened to catch it this once (Abandoned Airfield, TF Thunder Campaign), and stored the screens for a rainy day, kinda. That's how much it bothers me, anyway...not enough to have posted when it happened . There has been another thread on similar behaviour before, but I can't find it and IIRC correctly it was argued away as having to do with a low wall intersecting the solid building wall in question. Anyhow, just wanted to pop this in since your attention was on this thread just now, Steve. Any ideas as to what might cause this? I can send these screens to beta testers as well if it helps, but I have no save game since it was in RT play. Don't know whether it would be repeatable either. Regards, stoex

I believe this is actually the reason why Google Earth is expanding to map the bottoms of the oceans. Lots more space for the list, and there it can finally 'sleep with the fish'.

Yeah 'Top Gear' is fun...I watch it when I have time. Funny but not extremely informative....

You are right of course, fireship4....very valid input from a RL perspective. While your first two statements are both nice ideas, I'm afraid they are probably either difficult to implement in game from an AI POV (deciding when to pop smoke and when not) or rather too low priority compared to other possible tweaks (reloading smoke launchers during missions). The reloading thing would also require a crew member to exit the vehicle, which opens up a whole nother can of worms. Would be nice, admittedly, but hardly feasible. Honestly I'm happy enough that the AI worries about concealment during ATGM reload sequences, at least under certain circumstances. That is what I meant by 'desirable behaviour'. As for the diesel injection for smoke trails....well, I think that is considered bad practice in RL as it can lead to engine failure, and it's definitely beyond the scope of CMSF IMO.

Bump. BFC, Beta Testers, any comments?

Thanks BlackMoria, I missed the link to the Tank Museum on the Wiki page. Just noticed now. Time for bed ...

Neat . Thanks flamingknives. Doesn't seem like a very viable thing to do on the whole, though. Very Science-Fiction-ish somehow. Did this actually make it beyond the prototype stage or is it a unique piece? But then they had a lot of weird ideas and prototypes for armoured vehicles in WWII, many of which were, well, kind of stillborns.

Ok, back after a quick test with pretty clear results: First off, it seems my recollection was simply wrong concerning the TF Narwick battle. My squad must actually have been too far away from the wall at my first blast attempt, then when I caught them running off for the faraway gap in the wall, they had obviously moved closer in the meantime and managed the second time around. Some part of the unit needs to be a max of one action spot away from the action spot the wall is on for it to work. This has been noted before. What irks me a little bit is that blasting units need not ever get realistically close to a wall to blast a hole in it. In fact when they are one action spot away (amounts to 4m minimum since the wall is centered on its action spot), they don't move at all until the blast occurs. Hadn't really noticed this before as I usually am right up against the wall/building when I blast. Now I don't really know how doing this sort of thing works in RL, but I figure an engineer would have to be within arms reach of the wall to set the charge, wouldn't he? Would he also have to kneel or stand up? CMSF engineers can do it lying on the ground 4m away, in any case. Also, no safety distance from the blast is necessary in CMSF, they will blow a great big gap in a wall with their heads not 4 feet away, in the same action spot. While I can certainly live with the approximation I see here, prone engineer vs. engineer getting up, running to the wall, setting the charge, running back and lying down would seem to certainly make a difference in terms of concealment. There would also seem to be a difference in terms of the time required for the entire action depending on the distance of the engineer from the wall. Takes about 11 seconds for a veteran squad, regardless of starting position, until the breach occurs. Sorry if any or all of this has been mentioned before, I suppose it probably has . Just adding another voice...

Here's another one since I'm in the swing (credits to Hohum at WikiMedia): Probably one of the weirdest things I think I've ever seen...what the heck does it do? Anyone? The description says it's a prototype, but that's all...

Yeah I liked them as well...seemed like ants on the battlefield and fled from anything they saw. On the other hand, they could tow heavy stuff pretty fast and were hard to hit since they were about the size of a modern day Mini Cooper. You can buy them as a model kit where they are described as 'Forced Recon' on the box . Now there's a pun. You'd almost have to force anyone to go out on the battlefield in that tin can... Isn't she cute?

I'm reminded of a very memorable battle I had with ATGM Strykers during the TF Thunder Campaign...I forget the name of the battle, the one where you have a very small recce force scouting for vehicles in a fairly large, rolling desert map. ***SPOILERS*** I had no trouble taking out the first group of Syrians in their BMP's since they where bolting across the map willy-nilly with their eyes closed (it seemed). I got to the last phase line very early, but severely outpaced my javelin teams with my ATGM Strykers. I had one Stryker on each edge of the map, but only one had LOS to the first group of tanks that showed up in the gully and caught me totally by surprise. The Stryker took out one tank, then another tank came up out of the gully about 150m away from the Stryker while he was reloading. He managed to pop smoke in time and beat a hasty retreat. By this time I was scrambling everything else I had to get more eyes on, even shunting my 12.7mm Strykers into view of the tanks for brief moments to keep them occupied. I finally managed to time it such that my ATGM Stryker came back into view just as my Javelin teams were launching their puppies, and by careful targeting and a bit of luck (a miss by one of the tanks), they were all destroyed with no damage to my side (except for the heavy stench of urine inside the trusty ATGM Stryker ). The second platoon of tanks was crushed within seconds as I now had ample overwatch on the arrival zone and plenty of metal death left to distribute! I must add that some of the things I did in the course of this fight are only possible in RT and might be considered gamey by some grogs (like pausing at half-second intervals to see when the tanks' barrels began to rotate and scooting appropriately). In WEGO I would have been toast within minutes of the first tank platoon's arrival. It was great fun though, and I was biting my nails all the way, whooping every time things worked out with not a second to spare.

Interesting point, akd... I hadn't thought of the variations for the same type of sound effect, but this may well be worth considering in more detail...It would almost have to be that the actual sound that is played for a certain event out of the available variations is determined on the fly by a random number generation algorithm, which is something that uses quite a bit of computing power (to do well), and the calculations get more intense the more numbers there are to choose from as you have stipulated. Not to say for certain that this is the actual and only problem here, but it is my guess that randomizing from greater numbers for effects like 'bullet zips' (which occur a LOT of course) may well bring some rigs to their limits. Certainly makes more sense than my first guess, low RAM. Random number generation is a REAL performance hog, in any case, and one of the more difficult things to balance for any application that needs to use it extensively. Like CM games for instance BFC, any comments?

Thanks Dietrich I thought so... Repeat: very sound and desirable AI behaviour there! And a thrilling little episode with a happy ending

Actually, MarkEzra, the reason why I haven't pushed this any further is because for me the issue with the 'thrown blast charge' seems to have been resolved by v1.11. See the date of my last post in this thread...At least I haven't had any glitches with blasting since the last patch. Odd because it was not something addressed in the changelog for v1.11 directly - it could fall into the 'general unit pathfinding update' though...don't know. If I find anything else strange about blasting I'll be sure to post it, of course. Cheers! EDIT: Dang it! Typing before thinking again...I DID in fact have a slight problem with blasting again the other day. Forgot about it because in RT it only cost me a few seconds in the game, which would be different in WEGO. Again in TF Narwick, Battle 3 (Airport), replaying with v1.11 to see how new AI behaviour changes things . Anyhow, I wanted to blast through a wall and run through. My squad was 1 action point away from the wall, I gave them the blast waypoint on the other side, and after thinking things over for maybe 5 seconds, the squad converted the BLAST command into a FAST command (orange line), turned and started sprinting for the nearest gap in the wall. I immediately stopped them, redid the order the exact same way - and the second time, it worked like a charm. So it didn't really bother me much but definitely an issue. No save game available unfortunately but might be recreatable. I'm on it. Cheers again!

Dietrich, That is definitely sensible and desirable AI behaviour...let me just clarify one thing: You say your LAV-AT popped smoke and reversed 'immediately after launchíng its second TOW' at the T-54. I take it the defensive action was actually taken after the second missile missed its target... Please don't misunderstand, not complaining about 'inaccurate description' or trying to be smart about TOW LOS technicality. No offense meant, just trying to be sure I understand correctly what you are describing.

PSY, Interesting article! There's a pun lurking somewhere around the 'designated tow vehicle'...something like: Interviewer: "Major, what would you say was the most important asset to your troops in the asymmetrical conflict in Syria?" Major Tom: "I would have to say it was our tow vehicles." Interviewer: "Ah, you're referring to the ATGMs that took out so many of the Syrian tanks?" Major Tom: "Uhm, actually....*sigh*...." Sorry about that, just came to mind. I'm sure it's been done before, too. Couldn't resist...

What I really want is the ability to assign at least one camera position of my own choice. That way I could snap back to that perfect angle where I can see all my troops onscreen at once, after I have moved away to give orders or whatnot.

I've always thought that it should be allowed for infantry to enter and acquire from vehicles that are abandoned/destroyed, but not on fire. Admittedly, equipment or ammo in a destroyed vehicle may be unusable even if the vehicle isn't ablaze, but one should be able to enter them and have a look. One way this could work would be to (more or less randomly) remove some of the equipment from a vehicle's stores when it is destroyed. Certainly an abandoned vehicle should be accessible for friendly units to resupply from. +1 to that, slug88. Another thing I find slightly unfortunate, though, is the fact that the first inf unit to enter a HumVee or UAZ always mans the controls and weapons. This means that if your 'designated driver unit' (whatever it may be) shows up at the vehicle after the passengers, the passengers will either have to wait outside, or get in for protection and then get back out again when the driver shows up. Another classic case for a pop-up a la 'use main gun? yes/no' -> 'unit is driver? yes/no' would be nifty.

+1 on that, Flanker15. I understand how vehicles will try to bug out if they get hit by something and don't know where it came from, but I really hate when a vehicle gets shaken up a bit, but not destroyed, by some AT enemy that my vehicle has LOS/LOF to and can easily destroy...and instead of getting a grip and blasting the enemy to bits, my guys pop smoke and reverse into a nearby forest. Gives the other guy all the time he needs to reload and set up his ambush anew *sigh* Examples: ERA Bradley vs. RPG, Recoilless Rifle, or BMP-1

A useful addition to tab is the really wide top down views for large maps (hotkeys 8 & 9). Also don't forget to use your mousewheel in any overhead view for relatively quick zoom. I give a unit orders, then press '9' for overview (which also makes the terrain scroll really fast with the mouse) -> select another unit -> 'tab' -> '2' or '3' Rinse and repeat. Note: you don't always get the exact unit you want from the waaay overhead view, like when several squads are fairly close to one another, but it gets you close enough and you can traverse the map quickly that way as well.

Yeah, I'm waiting for CMC as well. No idea what's up with that...there practically hasn't been any info since they posted that very enticing AAR several months ago. *sigh*

I don't really remember complaining anywhere in my post. Like I said, I was reporting...reporting with a BIG smile on my face . Obviously, this episode looked and sounded absolutely devastating, and no enemy activity was noted in the vicinity thereafter..... Unfortunately, I seem to have unintentionally overwritten the savegame or I would have posted a very sweet screenshot here right now . I think I'm going to miss the shotgun burst after v1.2 *sniff*. Even though it's unrealistic, it's just so gratifying.

c3k, +1 on the obvious turret/hull smoke launcher discrepancy...i hope this gets fixed since it is clearly unlogical and can sometimes mean the difference between life and death for vehicles. I have also noticed the thing about the direction of the smoke command when given at a waypoint. It doesn't concern me that much since I tend to let vehicles use their smoke automatically in defense and only rarely on direct orders. Certainly I never attach smoke to waypoints since I don't always know which way the vehicle will be facing when it reaches the waypoint (due to pathfinding around obstacles). Also I play RT exclusively which lets me pop smoke on the go when I think I need it. About the number of smoke deployments per vehicle, the only way I've been able to figure out to know how many rounds of smoke a vehicle has is to zoom in and count the tubes, then divide by four, as the discharges seem to come in fours for all vehicles. Most vehicles seem to have two bursts, some four.

Well after the Mk19 and the .50, I'm going to have to report my US 120mm mortars have just fired a shotgun burst as well. 8 rounds all in one go. Since the shotgun burst for the other weapons has been reported fixed by Steve in a related thread, I hope that fix will cover this behaviour for any weapon where it shows up. Just thought I'd report it in any case. Happened in RT play, TF Narwick Battle 3 (Airport), right after reloading from a savegame (yeah, yeah, I know). Within a second of unpausing the game after loading the 8 rounds came down on the area target at once. Normal ROF resumed after that.

Your prognoses are as always highly worrying, Dr. Seldon. Unfortunately they are also always profoundly accurate.