A Canadian Cat

Asked and answered. The link above is Steve's response to: "Question: Is the new "evade towards the enemy" behavior a bug that will be addressed by these patches coming soon too? Or has this been addressed in a different thread? Thank you." To which Steve replied: "Yup, that's been tweaked a bit as well. Steve"

Nope, he is still running around.

He hit the wheel. Bad aim.

A nice little ambush against a Stryker. I really do like the corner peaking feature All set up and patiently waiting. He and other teams can hear the Stryker coming down the alley... Score. Unfortunately it was only immobilized.

Why? By your reasoning for the 50% of a two man team, then 60% of a 10 man team should guarantee 6 guys evey time. Why mess up the maths for just one slot make them all a guarantee. Just because the internal calculations that are designed for larger formations have this side effect for two man teams doesn't make it a bug worth fixing. Even is the analysis of the numbers that @BFCElvis presented are way more in favour of this getting more use it will would be pretty low on the priority list.

All hail @benpark

Thank you. I am glad you are enjoying it. Interesting ideas. If it were such a thing as a target delayed command like the target briefly but the other way around pause first and then fire then implementing pauses would be workable. The idea of the rules is to create a set of rules that are easy to follow and implement and that don't require tracking of state from turn to turn. I think if it were possible to delay area fire then I would support it. As the game does not offer that the implementation method would require remembering state (who was given AF orders the previous turn so they could be implemented the next) or add a lot of complexity (required a slight change of position with a pause and a target from the new location). How so? the area fire rules are based on contacts and C2 tracers have nothing to do with it. Now sure what you mean. The tracers in game are for our play-ability so we, the players, know what is going on. If a low volumn hidden enemy is shooting at you it can take minutes to get even a ? contact (e.g. sniper 500m away) but if an MG opens up yeah lots of people near by will have some or a really good idea where they are.

@IanL and I fought this shortly after C2 came out, so its been a while. Trying to remember what we were thinking and creating the supporting graphics are the hard part but this is all being done on the fly now, none was pre-written. My records say we ended the game January 26th. That is when I zipped up the turn files to my back up drive. So that day or a few days before that.

For sure with bigger scenarios we could use more. Personally I would like to see the AI editor overhauled so there are no limits. It's just a list after all so just add more. But that would require a different UI so that's not something we are likely to see any time soon. Agreed - perhaps one day. Retrieving stuck equipment is outside of the scope of CM. Steve has commented on this type of thing before. Remember CM represents the pointy end of the battle. Having guys hooking towlines and digging things out while potentially under fire is not a normal occurrence. Even if you can imagine a large map and stuck vehicles a long way from the fighting the game is just not designed for recovery ops. I highly doubt given Steve's previous comments that it will change. I was unable to find the post I was thinking about. If anyone else can find it please post. Yeah, also something that Steve has ixnayed before. Apart form the simple fact that crews of tanks and ACs that lost their ride did not normally jump into another tank (other than COs occationally), Steve has also said he feared gamey behaviour coming from that. I'm not sure how that would work but honestly, I think the current way is more realistic anyway. I cannot find Steve's own words but @ASL Veteran has a great post about this: That might be reasonable. I'm not really sure what the "rules" are for who can drive what. There is another thread going about CMSF where the rules for who can drive a Hummer, taxi and pickup truck are different. Artillery absolutely does detonate mines. You can even clear a mine field if you blast things enough. Yeah, I don't think this is really a problem. Forests are tricky and the game abstracts some of it so we are not likely to see changes and personally I don't think it is bad that there is some unpredictability in forests. I'll concede that being able to thread the needle 1000m through trees is a corner case that sucks but thankfully that doesn't happen much. In my opinion. Here is Steve's post about trees and LOS: The 8m action squares are a compromise for computations. It does lead to some limitations. Honestly though I have never felt that solider positioning was one of them. The face command and the Tac AI does a pretty good job. We shouldn't really be able to position every single solider that's a lot of work. My advice is to let go and let your men figure out what is best for them . Yeah, I know that's a dumb idea right Interesting. They are supposed to have good situational awareness while slow moving. One possibility given your pictures is that they cannot see from prone position but when the kneel they can given the terrain. Does this happen out in the open? If it did then I don't think that would be right.

Indeed @Bil Hardenberger it is always interesting to see and hear what the other side was doing and thinking.

Approaching the bridge objective A little further forward elements of B Co spot an enemy BMP. See, he can move assets without my overwatch units spotting them. Rats! A little battle field overview from about the 5 or 6 minute mark. The first teams from B Co 1 Pl reach the bridge. I order them to move into the steam bead and along it under the bridge. They don't do that and instead head right up on top before climbing down the hill. WTF – Why The Face as in the face of confusion and anger. But they make it unharmed. More of 1Pl move up and the next team gets much more detailed orders of how to get under the bridge out of the enemy view. The also ignore me and follow the same path as the first team. This time they take fire and someone is lightly wounded. Meanwhile one overwatch mortar fire spotting rounds started a few minutes ago so the ATGM teams are on the run to avoid it. As the fire really starts they are safe but no longer on overwatch. BMPs choosing their own targets The bulk of 1Pl are in position but again the HQ team decides to go over out into the open but this time one member doesn't make it. Meanwhile given where the fire at the bridge is coming from I move 2Pl up in the gully with the idea that they can interdict anything else joining the enemy threatening 1Pl and I can protect their flank. After about 10 minutes this is where where everybody is.

Yep. @Bil Hardenberger has that right. What I noticed was the feature that once an HQ unit is close enough to a radio they can get on the net. What I think I saw was that my HQ was close to one BMP and then the other had C2 via radio.

That's a very familiar experience.....I was sure I'd had Americans driving pickups until yesterday, turns out it was only taxis.  Yep memory sucks. Anecdotes are unreliable. Humans eh - it's amazon we ares till alive.

My supposition is that you can tell even without the HQs killed off. Move the platoon HQ far away so they are only in radio contact. Now move the company HQ closer and see if the squad gains visual and voice command. If so then they are getting it from thier company HQ. I am certain that I have seen this in game. Now when I say that I mean I am certain in an "it has happened to me therefore true" way rather than a tested and documented way

That explains the radio C2 icon that showed up for one of the BMPs. The HQ was close to one and then the HQ was able to use the radio to be in C2 of the other. Possibly a bit unrealistic... As to the HQ positioning the squads have no radio so if the BMPs are going to stay on the ridge and the infantry forward then the HQ has to be in between. Without the rules I would have kept the HQ mounted for better spotting by the BMP.

Definately a lot of people feel that way and it certainly is part of the fun. In the learning curve though some people might really appreciate some guidance. There is a lot to these games so executing someone else's plan could be helpful as a step towards learning the game and eventually planning on your own. So, I think having a plan on offer is a good thing (TM). Feel free to ignore it.

This highlights one of the things I really love about these games. I had no idea. You can take sensible actions and have little or no information as to thier effects on the enemy. I have had opponents give up saying I was slaughtering them not realizing just how bad the shape of my forces was. I have figured I was loosing badly only to find I was doing pretty well. I think it is also a good reminder that information is really important. If you can get a better picture of you enemy's disposition you can use that to make better decisions. How's that for a digression

Moving into position and the action starts B Company 2 Platoon await with scouts near the ridge line. Meanwhile 1 Platoon is moving through the woods towards the bridge. A Company 1 Platoon HQ has some contacts at the farm and their BMPs are in C2. Time for some area fire. On the spotting of the Platoon HQ and the company HQ BMPs open up on targets around the farm. The right two BMPs are from 1 Platoon and the left most one is A Co's ride. I give them target briefly orders of various lengths so that if something dangerous pops up later in the turn they will be free to engage on their own. Meanwhile 2 Platoon moves into their position in defilade at KT6. Over by the bridge lead elements of B Co are approaching the bridge. Sure enough after some area firing a BMP spots some targets on its own... And scores a hit. First blood to me. If only that were enough.

That should do it. I am not sure why some links were auto converted into pictures and some were not. Sigh.

I see that - fixing - again...

Yes, it can be very useful. You can use if for ridge lines but also for getting men in place to perform buddy aid for troops in a difficult corner of an AS. If you find that your men will not buddy aid the poor bloke in the back left corner because they want to take cover in the opposite side, you can issue a slow move order to an AS that leaves the move order over the poor bloke. Add a 45s pause. At the end of the next turn your team will be part way through their move right over the poor bloke. Cancel the move order and they will stay there and most likely take care of him.

Oh that looks like fun!

OK good. I did not track it sorry. Everything that goes that far gets looked at and either is fixed or a decision is made to not fix due to deemed a low occurrence and high risk. So, I am confident then that the right thing happened to it - sorry I don't know what that was.

The current trenches and fox holes do not protrude into the mesh for reason #1 you state below - to preserve the FOW. This is a game engine limitation since all map features are visible to everyone at all times. You know this - I'm just making sure anyone who doesn't is on the same page. The capabilities of them is supposed to be modelled like they *are* dug into the terrain mesh. While many feel they don't offer enough protection I am unconvinced of that. I'm torn by this. Probably ideally there should be levels of trench works since just digging a while in a so so location would not really give you much stealthiness while a good position with some camo could be, as you say, something very hard to see. I think they do though. While I have not done extensive testing typically you don't see soldiers in trenches and foxholes until they start shooting at you or you have a good view of the fortification system. Yeah that would be awesome. Sure, also true. And they do now. I know it doesn't look like that but the extra protection they offer is significant. Compare the casualties of men in the open - there is a significant difference. Also if you hide troops in fortifications they are totally protected from direct fire and only a direct in the slit HE shell will cause any casualites. I know there are / were stronger fortifications that could be constructed that those modelled in the game but the ones we have are pretty good for a rage of them. IMHO

? CMSF has the same fortification as the other titles. They do have the old terrain modifying trench - for backwards compatibility but everything else is the same. What are these weapons's pits you speak of?