stoex
-
Posts
639 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by stoex
-
-
Also a good point, dan...
However in the case at hand there had been no action anywhere close to, or in view of, the unit in question. All other action was on the other side of a wooded crest from them.
All in all it was rather like I stipulated in my RL experiment a few posts back, actually. All quiet around the area, nothing else going on nearby, clear LOS as far as the target command was concerned.......WAIT A MINUTE!!! This brings something else to mind - back in CMx1 the LOS-line changed color to show the quality of LOS. It doesn't do that anymore in CMx2. In fact regardless of weather conditions the line is always baby blue if there aren't any obstructions....
I think the target line in CMx2 measures only terrain obstructions and disregards fog and suchlike entirely. This means that you can only tell to where your units can (theoretically) see without solid material obstruction, but not how far they can see. I don't even know whether that is modeled internally, but I certainly hope so.
EDIT: well, it does recognize smoke, and there isn't much fog in Syria ever, but still. There's 'haze', right? How far can units in CMSF see through haze? All the way to the nearest tree, it seems, regardless of whether the tree is 20 or 3000 meters away...
-
LOL c3k,
I was wondering...what exactly IS the meaning of all this cowbell stuff I keep reading about, anyway (including one unforgettable post by Sergei with a looped video of a long-haired guy hitting a cowbell with a drumstick
, had me literally rolling around laughing) ?I first thought it was something to do with the sound of Mk19 grenades hitting buildings (sounds a little like a cowbell to me), but since its going to be in CM:Normandy I begin to doubt that that is what it is...
Someone explain this to a stinkin' cowbell noob please?
-
Thanks c3k for the real life input...makes me glad I'm not feeling your pain *wink*...
As I have conceded to stikkypixie already, the haze in the mentioned battle will have been the deciding factor...still I must repeat that it was dawn, the battle began at 0430 under a decidedly pinkish-red sky and 'the situation' occurred at around 0500, so there will have been some light for sure.
I do agree with your statement about ambient light in full - i have been in the boondocks in pitch black and I know what it's like. For the record, though: in the great outdoors there is always at least a little bit of ambient light except under the most extreme circumstances of cloud cover, new moon, dense forest and thick fog. And the human eye can use this little bit of light very well once it has adapted to it.
A lot of factors must have conspired against my pitiable RPG team in the described situation and I do accept that it was probably OK the way it transpired by now. One thing that comes to mind now that I hadn't really processed before was that other units further away and with arguably somewhat obstructed LOS were IDing the LAV for some reason. Don't know what that means, just throwing it out there.
Points made about haze, matte paint, no reflection points etc. are duly noted and have reduced my frustration beyond the point that my rant alone could have
. Thanks again. -
you mean the question marks in general, stikkypixie? or the ones Other Means is stipulating?
-
About the cows...will it be necessary to have different cow physical models for various breeds (aside from the bull/ox/cow thing of course, which is three models right there), or is it really just a camo issue? If so, you cow grogs will be modding anything from Holsteins to Blue Lingos anyway.
I'd just like to see a Milka Cow Mod, personally....
That would also seriously solve the cowbell issue once and for all. The cowbell to end all cowbells
-
Good point there, stikkypixie...
Just checked it and it turns out the weather was hazy in that battle. However, it also turns out that it was dawn and not the middle of the night. 5 o'clock by the time the incident occurred. This relieves me a little (though it also means I'm a little silly for not having checked it before my gripe
), but I still find the particular spotting issue a bit strange, unless 'hazy' means 'thick fog' like in CMx1.It was only 120 meters for crying out loud :eek:
-
Thanks Thomm, always good to share the frustration even when we don't know what to do about it
. Glad to hear someone else having similar troubles...While you're here, what's your opinion on the modeling of the Mk1 Eyeball's spotting capabilities at night as stated in my previous post? Sorry these posts are so long and possibly tedious to read, it's something that helps me vent my anguish, I guess...
-
I petition for seperate and distinguishable question marks for infantry and vehicles. When you miss something showing up and then vanishing again (which happens easily in real time play), you have no way of knowing whether it was a scout, a squad or even a tank. This can cause problems, needless to say
. -
And another one on spotting, from a little ways back (also no screens, no saves, sorry...if anyone wants them, I'll take the time to recreate as well as possible):
This one was 'Road Kill' by MarkEzra. Love your stuff, MarkEzra, and this really has nothing to do with the scenario per se. Just where I noticed this particular problem the worst.
Also playing REDFOR here, discouraged by MarkEzra, but sometimes I just get the urge to be 'the bad guys' for a change
. Bright daylight I might add.The BLUFOR starts behind a crest round a corner in this one, and is not handled well by the AI, but I digress....in the very beginning they position an M707 HumVee in a stand of trees on the slope, which is spotted quickly.
First problem: When I select the M707 to see which of my units can see it, none of my units are highlighted. Also, none of my units can target it. Weird. But it's harmless, so I leave it be for now and take care of the trucks and Marines coming round the bend piecemeal. This goes on for a while, and when the action seems to have stopped, I decide to foray forward to see what I can see and maybe take out some enemies that don't seem too eager to make a showing. I send a 4 man Syrian command team (Veteran), loaded with RPG rounds, up to the crest to hunt for a firing position on said M707.
This works only halfway, because unfortunately, every time the team comes to the edge of a crest and spots the HumVee, they immediately all lie down behind the crest and lose sight contact. They keep lying down and never get up on their knees or even stand for a moment until I give them another move order. After several failed attempts this way I decide to take them up to the highest part of the crest, where there is a real 'edge' and a steep cliff falling away on the far side, towards the enemy. They get there fine and when they reach the cliff edge, in 'Hunt' mode, they suddenly spot several more HumVees, two trucks and a AAV sitting around in the BLUFOR assembly area. 'Great', I think, 'this could be fun!'. The RPG team immediately lies down again (smart of them in this case), with their heads and even some of their upper bodies protruding out over the cliff edge, clearly peeking over it...
Well, so much for WYSIWYG on that account, for immediately all the vehicles turn into question marks. I look at the situation from all angles (they ought to be able to see into the valley on the other side, I'm sure it's meant that way), then check their LOS. Sure enough, they can see over the edge, but only about halfway down the slope on the other side of the valley. Mind you, they are lying on a flat piece of terrain leading up to the cliff edge, not on a severe upslope or anything, and their 4 heads are all poking out over the cliff.
End of story is, I tell them to get up and get back since they're such useless nincompoops, and the moment they rise from the prone position, the AAV grinds them up with its MK19. All dead. Serves them right? Maybe. But still very frustrating...
Particularly since this is an item in the v1.11 feature list: 'Soldiers placed near the top of of a steep slope (looking up) are more likely to crouch than lie prone, so they can get a clear LOS/LOF over the rim of the slope.' I said they were in a pretty flat action spot in the end, but this shouldn't prevent them from looking over the crest, should it? Also, in the attempts before the last one, they were on upslopes sometimes and never, ever went to kneeling positions.
It almost seems to me that the internally assigned height of a prone soldier's Mk1 Eyeballs for spotting purposes is close to zero above ground level. Quick measurements done myself reveal that my eyes are about 60cm above ground when I am lying on my tummy, propped up on my elbows trying to see stuff. When I'm 'scared' and only raising my head slightly, trying to keep my shoulders down, I reach a height of 30cm. It also turns out that when I stick my head out over a sheer edge, I can actually see beyond that edge....
Thoughts or info on this, anyone?
-
Having just played a night battle from the red side, I would like to add some points and also a few questions to this discussion...
The battle was 'Insertion and Interdiction' by Mike Duplessis. Not primarily meant to be played as REDFOR, of course, but an interesting scenario with some intriguing surprises for the Syrians none the less.
First off, the Syrian regular forces and uncons a my disposal couldn't ID anything in the dark. They were fairly able to spot enemy units at ranges of about 250-300 meters, but only the Kornet launchers with their optics equipment could ID anything at all beyond 30 meters (!). I mean this quite literally. Target arcs didn't change anything either.
So here I am knowing exactly which Marines units are approaching me, thanks to the ATGMs, but unable to put any kind of small arms fire on them directly because trying to shoot at question marks results in area fire to an action spot, which is generally useless with small arms.
The absolute epitome of this was the inability of an Syrian army RPG team (regular experience) to ID and therefore fire at a LAV 120 meters away, standing broadside in clear sight (one would think, the target command showed LOS to everywhere within a 20 meter radius around the vehicle and everywhere between the RPG team and the vehicle, which had been ID'd by a different REDFOR unit close by). The LAV was on the other side of a slight depression in terrain, with no obstructions save for low grass to block LOS, and my RPG team had a tight arc covering its position. No go, however. At least 3 minutes passed (RT so not sure how long exactly) without the RPG taking any action other than spotting (they had a question mark at the exact position of the LAV all the time, of course), then they got blasted to bits by an Abrams that came out of the woods some way to the left of the LAV and spotted them immediately.
Now, I find this wildly unrealistic in terms of the RPGs ability to see in the night. Try going out in the countryside where it's really dark at night, with a friend, give yourself 5 minutes to adjust your eyes to the darkness, lie down in low grass and pop your head up. Scan the area around you roughly, but keep your main attention in the direction you're facing. Now see how long it takes you to spot a car parked, with its engine and lights off, about 120m away right in direction you're facing under the terrain conditions described above, using nothing but your 2 sets of Mk1 Eyeballs. See how long it takes you to roughly ID the size, color, type (compact, sedan, station wagon etc.), maybe even the make of the car. I guarantee it will take you less than a minute unless you both have extremely bad eyesight and no glasses or are, in fact, blind. Which are not characteristics I realistically expect of two Syrian army regulars. To this I slyly add the fact that a LAV-25 is rather larger than a passenger car, and makes a noticeable bit of noise even when idling. I'll grant it was probably not showing any external lights at the time, but you get my point
.Enough of the griping, then....the question this raises for me is: What is the meaning of the question mark icon, anyway? Does it mean:
'There's a person/vehicle here, but I'm not sure it's dangerous' and/or
'I can see something here, but I don't know what it is' and/or
'I think there's something here, but I'm just not sure' and/or
'At some point there was something here, but it's gone now' ???
The answer is probably all of the above, and yet none of them applies to the situation in question, as anybody who does my stipulated RL test will agree with. You may even agree without doing the test
.Another troubling fact is that the question mark is the same for one man foot units and huge tanks, which is not realistic and not helpful.
I'd love to provide a save game or screenshots of this, however as I said it was RT play, I wasn't saving much because the battle was going well overall despite the spotting troubles, and I don't have FRAPS. Well, didn't have FRAPS, as I have gotten it now to document such stuff in the future. Maybe I can recreate this somehow but it will take time for sure....
Can someone point out to me just how to justify the rather incomprehensive (to me at least) use of the question mark?
-
You can almost win this one without de-bussing any infantry, although you have more fun doing the real thing.
Yeah GSX, that's been my strategy so far...2 Abrams on the berm, 2 to go through the gap, worked under 1.10 (where I started with CMSF), still works under 1.11. Maybe a mobility kill on the berm Abrams, never more.
Then the arty to demolish the trenches and the base itself.
In three runs so far I have always gotten a Syrian surrender without even entering the base with any units, and my Infantry barely gets a breath of the hot Syrian air.
So many ways to trounce the enemy in Mission 1, though....good thing Mission 2 is more challenging!
-
Knotso - if you have applied patch 1.11 since you started a scenario you will not be able to load save games, unfortunately. The only exception to this is, as you have noticed, the save games between battles of a campaign. These work because they are independent of the game engine.
Your options are to uninstall, reinstall the version you started the scenarios in, and finish them in that version, or to toss your active scenarios into the trash and start them over in v1.11.
I strongly suggest the latter since 1.11 has a lot of improvements over any previous version. It ROCKS!!!!
-
-Persistant ground damage and unit placements/status for multiple battles that are on the same area.
-Multi-core support
Intersting point Flanker15.....I just finished Semper Fi Mission 1, and when Mission 2 started (which is set directly after the first), all my scouts started in exactly the same places they were at the end of Mission 1 (which may have been a coincidence since there were few units and they were distributed across the objectives). However, the buildings that my F-15 and arty had flattened were all rebuilt and quite a few other buildings demolished instead....which was a little weird.
Multi-core support should be a must these days, I hope this will be realized though AFAIK we haven't had any confirmation on this from BF yet....
-
Stingray: I'm so glad someone asked about the grass mod - my favorite question
But so many questions are still left unanswered: What happens when you tell M235 cow to unbutton? Where does the driver keep his M4A1? And does he need a shoulder length rubber glove to reach it? Furthermore, will chemical warfare finally be modeled by BF? An 81mm mortar strike with BSE grenades could really do awful things to the M235.
On the other hand, the 'Holstein' problem seems to indicate that the mis-ID-ing of units is back for CM:Normandy. GO BF!!!!!
PS Apocal: I think 'Blank Stare' is actually a 'target' type command and therefore not visible in this screenshot....
-
+1 on more tooltips!
Ammo count, equipment icons (I can never remember what they all are), specialist icons (engineer, AT, sniper etc.), type of ammo on arty/air support assets to name a few
-
Haven't ever noticed that the RPGs explode under the minimum range. I guess I've never had one hit a target under minimum range, though I sure as hell have come close
.If this is true it would seem to be some sort of bug, I guess...
-
AFAIK arming ranges for AT weapons are modeled in CM:SF...I remember a post by Steve to this effect some time ago, but feck me if I can find it again now
- Steve? -
Hmm, may be true....I've never tried basic training mode.
-
+1 to all those propositions
-
Falconander, this is worrying stuff....I haven't played CM:SF Hotseat yet and probably never will (except against myself for testing, still haven't gotten around to those firing ranges NormalDude set up
), but it sounds like a gamebreaker if it's the way you state :eek: -
According to fas.org the AT-4 arms at 10m. Point blank won't work
-
This links up nicely to the thread trying to work out the relative experience levels of Grunts vs. National Guards vs. Marines vs. Syrian Infantry.....
Seriously, though, that sounds like a suboptimal day of fun at the range, Sgt.Muhammed :eek:
-
Falconander, write MarkEzra a short email to the address given in the post just above yours. Tell him briefly what the problem is and attach the save game file as an attachment. Save game files are located in the directory where you installed CM:SF, in the folder "Game Files" (translated into whatever language you play in, could be "Fichiers du jeu", "Archivos de juego" or "Spieldateien"), and there in the folder "Saved Games" (again, translate).
Hope this helps
Further questions don't hesitate to ask -
donnieitaly, lets take it slow here: are you running XP, Vista or on a mac?
, had me literally rolling around laughing) ?
.
Any bones and/or progress reports on CM:Normandy?
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted
All right!
Seen it - now I've got a fever too...and CM:Normandy definitely needs More Cowbell
Thanks FMB!