Gazmaps

Id say its more about simulating asymmetric warfare and the complexities of fighting an enemy who blends in with the civilian population. SF is unique among st the other titles in this regard as its the only one that models insurgents (unless the Afghan Title does this - though its the only CM title I don't have so I wouldn't know..._). "QBs are QBs, there's a limit to what you can do" - well I have a very different opinion to statements like this - Id prefer to make things the best they can be - many of the points Ive raised are likely oversights - their is no reason not to get these working as they where likely envisaged to be ... "Combatants are just 'neighborhood guys with guns' and nothing else" - you don't really address the main thrust that their should be more differentiation between the combatants and Fighters. Im not saying combatants aren't heavily loaded up enough - actually I think they have a good balance here - Im saying its realistic to expect fighters as they are defined to have larger load outs - If your saying ISIS style groups (and those lower down the food chain) dont understand the principals of logistics - Id suggest the Syrian Arab Army and Iraqi Army would disagree.... Their is a spectrum of how well equipped, motivated and organized the various unconventional forces are - battlefront have likely made a balanced design decision on how they represent this spectrum (2 distinct groups - fighters and combatants) - I'm pointing out where some of the finer implementation of these probably does not align with the what was originally intended because they look like obvious omissions in the overall framework - and I think some of the ideas I'm putting forward would add more value to the game. "Maybe they won't spot me" - this is pretty much a key operational principal of unconventional forces - hence why battlefront has gone to the extent to model civilian density. "Steve wanted uncon limitations to be apparent and tactically significant" - theirs already loads - virtually nill C2, limited / low quality weapons, much smaller units sizes - ie 5 man teams max size, limited heavy weapons....The other soft factors are for players and designers to set or agree upon. Nothing Ive suggested detracts from this... I suspect BF aimed to have the differences between combatants and fighters be tactically significant as well - more so than they are currently implemented - what Im saying makes for more interesting and varied game play - while being realistic Cheers Gary

I enjoy these games immensely - so much so I was motivated to start making maps for the community (mainly because I feel I owe it - due to the hours of entertainment Ive had from other members (ie General Maltchett, Wyntergren and others who made some awesome maps!!!!!!) and battlefront for providing the framework. - Im trying to highlight bugs and suggestions with the aim of making these games even better. Ive been a solid PBEM player since the original CM. I buy every title even if I dont play them - eg RT and FB just to support the devs. Im going to respond to the Technicals as an example but the same applies to all the UNCONS in general; Your point can be debated as follows; If Technicals can be spotted straight of the bat - then why have combatant technicals at all??? I would suggest Battlefront have deliberately included Combatant and Fighter Technicals. I would assume their intent is that their are differences other than just appearance. As it stands now with the Technicals, their are no differences between Combatants and Fighter Technical s See below; (I know the res is not good - but the load out is exactly the same - ie the two identical reconciles rifles have 15 rnds a piece...) If you look at the cost of in the QB Editor; You can see identical prices for Technicals. Note To Battlefront: If you do get around to fixing these - be good to have Combatant and Fighter Technical Identified in the QB Selection Window, same as IED groups - at the moment its not clear what you are actually buying for Technical and IED groups. So - I would assume the Combatant Technical should get a stealth buff - otherwise why would Battlefront have them in their??? Then as per my original post - I'm also suggesting they be differentiated in say points and / or ammo load out In real life - hvy weapons can be disguised. They can be hard to spot at long ranges ie 300m or greater, if its surrounded by in heavy traffic (ie High Civilian Density) ....The pickup truck is just an abstraction, it may be a covered pickup truck, it may be a flatbed truck with a canvas cover....So what Im saying and what I suspect battlefront intended, makes narrative sense. Im suggesting this is a bug / oversight - which is pretty understandable given the the complexity and scope of these games. As you can see above, the same applies to UNCONS Infantry. Their load outs are almost identical as well (its only about 30rnds difference in the squads - and thats not RPG rounds - just small arms ammo) - hence I'm guessing the 1-2 point differential in the QB points cost . Youll also see the constant 50 point overhead that I mention in my initial post. I hope by raising these likely bugs and making suggestions on changes, it will improve the game overall. I broke the initial post into three sections; Likley Bugs Little / Easy Improvements Bigger / Harder to implement Fixes. I came up with some interesting ideas on how make UNCON playable maps especially on how to use Preserve Objectives etc...Have some more changes to make - but Ill get that up on the CMMOds site when its finished (may take a couple more weeks).... I focused on QB, Human vs Human matches - so that's what my posts are typically aimed at. Cheers Gary

I know what you mean mate and yes what you have said is a good solution for making scenarios - but what Im saying is that flexibility would ideally be in the QBs and particularly QB selection. That's where the real fun and challenge of CM comes into its ow I think - Human vs Human anf this uncon dimension opens up a whole differant style and options of gameplay - and its very interesting

Hello, Started a PBEM with UNCONs vs Conventional. I suspect this has uncovered some bugs??? and some potential enhancements (in my opinion....) 1. Combatant Transports have no apparent "stealth buff" - they seem to be spotted straight of the bat and shotup. This doesn't make sense to me especially for taxis 2. Combatant Technicals are the same as above - perhaps this is deliberate - but why have combatant technical s if they dont get the "stealth buff??? Ok so maybe some small changes to improve the game play; 1. Fighters and Combatants seem to be almost identical - except the "stealth buff" - perhaps have some simple differences; ie bigger ammo loadout for the Fighters as opposed to combatants and I suspect this would fit narrative wise as well 2. Perhaps apply the same principal to Technicals - with the Fighter Technical getting a higher ammo load out. 3. More Indirect Fire Support Options for insurgents - at least upto 120mm mtrs and off map rockets... 4. Allow UNCONS access to fortifications - especially mines!!!!! Some more Radical Changes 1. Let UNCONS have access to individual Armour ed Vehicles - say T64s and BMP1.... 2. Change the stealth buff for combatants so to make it not just a one off. Ie if they are spotted but can break contact then they go back to been hard to detect. This with the ability to control the Civilian Density I think would add quite a bit more asymmetry in PBEM games. Ideally you would make them easier to spot as well - but the players can control this using the civilian density... 3. The QB cost of insurgents groups comes with a fixed overhead of 50pts regardless of the size ie small to Huge. The overhead should be scaled to be dependent on the size of the group and perhaps the upper tier dropped from the current 50 pts to say 40 or 30..... Whats people think??? Cheers Gary PS - Ive heavily modded one of the stock maps - "UK Armoured Assault" and Urbanized it - going to do a second round of edits, then Ill look to get it uploaded. the aim was to setup a large map that is good for large UNCON vs Conventional PBEMs.

no - but will now cheers!!!! Yep thats done it all working

Hello, Im unable to get vehicles for selection in QBs for uncons. Is this just me? When you setup a QB and choose uncons it lets you select "Infantry Only" - Im guessing this might be the issue... Cheers Gaz

nice!!! where did you get it from?

Is it just me - but is this missing? Ive been thru the shockforce2 manual but cant find any info on how to use the IEDs, spies etc.... If Ive got this right can we get this added? Or some keano - write up a detailed post. Cheers Gaz

just for context I redid Turn 10 and sent a new tun 11 to my opponent - Im still waiting for him to resend Turn 12. Im guessing the error occured on his machine as I m sure his mahcine is doing the processing. 1, How long have you let the game run without making any adjustments to the orders? 1 turn, 2 turns, 15 turns? If you leave everything alone, do the men eventually start to move? mmm - the problem has only just arisen in this particular game - I know from previous expereince if I delete all the orders in this current turn (turn 12) and redo the order then it will work on the nxt turn - I will get the opponent to do the same, I m pretty sure the opponent get the same issue as well. I havent really tested what happens if just run the game - because it complicates the PBEMs if you know what I mean.... 2. When you gave new orders on turn 12, did you give the exact same orders to all your men? Or did you reduce the number or length of the orders? In reality will likely be very similar 3. On turn 12 do all the men start moving right away as if nothing was ever wrong? Still waiting to get turm 12 back from opponent 4. Does this only show up in Huge battles or are you seeing the same thing happening in ALL the battle you play? ha ha I only play Huge Battles - Ive seen this happen in CMBN and CMBS - which are mostly what I play. 5. Is this a PBEM only problem for you or does it show up in single player battles as well? I have played the campaigns on / off but usually get bored and stop playing - but Ive never seen the same error in those...

https://www.dropbox.com/sh/3jwfc1vd0bfukn6/AADIoSmzn1X0eysfdsJpvZv8a?dl=0 Ok good point. Try this link. Also a screenshot showing the "Planning" status. Units that were not given any order in the previous orders phase are normal - they just have "spotting". Yes we are both on 4.0 If anyone want to chk out the game file ask me for the password and Ill send this thru. Cheers

Hello, I have had a number of games in CMBN and CMBS - where usually at least one in largish games (I have now seen it it in Huge ME in CMBN) Units will not complete any movement phase given in the previous orders phase. So in my orders phase (say turn 10) I ploy mt new orders. I send Turn 11 to my opponent. Turn 12 comes back and I find none of the order plotted in my Turn 10 orders phase are being executed by the troops. Im beleive the turn is being processed in Turn 11 by my opponent machine. All the movement and command lines are still in place - however the troops dont move and instead show "Planning" in their status. This will happen for all vehicle crew members as well. I think that any movement orders still been completed that where made Prior yo Turn 10 do still get executed by the troops - but they stop as soon as they get to the turn 10 orders. I dont know about the current game - but I know in previous games this happens to the opponent as well. We then delete all our order (so for me in turn 12) make completely new order and then the game seems to carry on. Anybody have any ideas? Cheers

No idea - different hemisphere...

BS eh? Syrian Democratic Forces - Syria Democratic Party / Libyan Freedom and Democracy Campaign - Libya Iraq - well should be evident enough.... Look into those groups and who's funding / supporting them - particularly the SDF Its that sort of ignorant opinion and dismissal that's seen hundreds of thousands if not millions of people killed since 1991 in the name of democracy without any push back whatsoever. Far more people have been "slaughtered" as you put it since Ghaddafi / Saddam were deposed than ever under their regimes. That Arab spring in Libya was anything but a spontaneous revolt. The UK I know for certain and I'm guessing by association the US and France where actively engaged with intelligence collection operations 6 months prior - well above the normal level including covert reconnaissance and I suspect co-ordination of various anti establishment groups. The same sort of ignorant dismissal is found amongst the Islamic Fundamentalists - its questionable which is more dangerous and damaging.

But back on topic - Id be curios to see how battlefront do "Space Lobsters"!!!!!! then do BS2....

When has that stopped the west from trying Iraq, Libya, Syria.......democracy is just a contemporary motivational tool - like religion was in the crusades

Hello all, Looking for any interested players for a huge assault on the Ortona map. Was thinking Luftwaffe defend vs an Allied Assault (setup for 2:1 attacker advantage). Will have modified VL and Startup areas (potentially) Only people who can commit to finishing the game please. Cheers. Gaz

You looking at real time or pbem?

I think the zala helps give some balance to the game, it helps offset some of the advantages of the us abrams and javs. the tungunstas also help the balance. The us can have invulnerable survelliance as well if the us player decides to swallow the cost. they get a better platform that has a laser designator so can precision strike anywhere on the map , can observe much larger areas and is invulnerable unless the us player decides to use it as a strike asset , I don't see why you'd want to ban Zalas.... the only thing the zala brings to the party is it's a cheap surveillance asset and not the best at that.

Well some good points made. i have no idea what the real likely effects would be but sounds like even if perhaps slightly under modelled the game is actually not far off. Intuitively I'd have thought that he ends that size would have more effect on subsystems ill add that where my opponent has parked his tanks right on top of trp I've pretty much immobilised all his tanks (about 4 of them). i just do a heavy short bombardment on the point location and it hasn't failed yet to immobilise a target - though he typically is taking hits from atgms at the same time. No point doing longer because if you've not immobilised him by then he's got away. i next try to degrade his systems with follow up bombardments so I can bring up the big guns to more safely finish them off. or in future I'll bring along a 203mm piece to deliver the killing blow - the Atk helos have also been handy though very variable in results.

I think your misunderstanding the point I'm trying to make which is; - Only direct hits cause subsystem damage (not near misses) - Im assuming either the subsystem damage you show above was caused by direct hits or - Theirs something going wrong with someones application Which is what I was trying to explain in my original post. So your results are likely exactly the same as mine. To me it all sounds about right - except the subsystems only take damage on direct hits. To me this seems odd - as I would have expected subsystem damage from near misses. The example of the IED (like a 155mm or 152mm based one) sounds like a good comparison - but Im guessing the effects of such IEDs on Abrams is not really made publicly available as Im sure the US military doesnt like to give this info away. Im guessing insurgents see either an immobilized tank, destroyed tank (dont recall hearing of many of these) but Im guessing the US military wont want to give away how / if the subsystems are degraded from such attacks and the operational effectiveness of the tank reduced. The poor part of the comparison is that IEDs of this nature I suspect are mainly bottom attack and usually buried. Its more of an improvised landmine rather than an IED as such. Im also raising an inconsistency; ie why do Javelins (which is a shaped charges) destroy an armored target (bmp3) from a near miss while a 152mm shells can damage tracks but nothing else on Abrams from a near miss??? Now I like the game. I like to be able to apply "real world tactics" or some limited version of combined arms to get a positive result - I like how the game rewards that way of thinking - I'm just pointing out ways I think this can be further refined. And for redfor all things being equal has a bit of a disadvantage - I think that if my assumption is correct, "that large HE will cause more damage from near hits" then this actually makes the simulation; a. more realistic and, b. more balanced I like what combined arms does in the game - but I suspect under modelling HE effects leads to Gamey behavior and some unrealistic effects - like platoons of abrams that are immobilized but lethal killing machines still - because all their subsystems are intact.....

Well in my test where I lined up 25 Abrams and snogged the map with loads of 152mm, - I saw the odd kill from a direct hit (I'm pretty sure never from a single hit - but successive direct hits) - the odd non killing penetration or armour spalling from direct hits - consistent damage to tracks from near misses - though seems multiple near misses usually required to completely immobilise the tank. - no other sub system damage from near misses. - gradual subsystem damage from each successive non-penetrating hit - but not the main weapon. i find it hard to believe near hits from 152mm he will blow of tracks but not damage subsystems. Actually I find it hard,to believe,they don't damage any subsystems unless getting direct hits.

Been away for a few days but here you go. the other interesting observation is that the BMP shows no damage to any of the subsystems (except the tracks) but is destroyed??? I like the game because its a good simulation. Its great to see how you can use the toolkits of the various sides to overcome the opposing adversary's. The US tanks and Javs are very powerful in the simulation as I suspect they are in the real world - however it would be a more balanced and interesting simulation if the advantages of the redfor where perhaps not under modeled. My understanding is that the Russians like pre planned artillery and lots of it - I have certainly being using it to combat US tanks in the game - be good to the full effect of this as I suspect its a very valid tactic.

Well I just had a javelin miss a bmp3 - detonated next to it leaving a large crater and knocked out the bmp3. now my understanding was the javelin is a shaped charge? So how does the blast from a missed javelin Ko a bmp3, yet near misses from 152 do no damage to an m1 - except damage to the tracks? it just seems a bit inconsistent to me. in this game this is the first of about 6 javelins that's actually missed. The bmp moved back, I suspect after the missile was launched. Thus leading to the near miss.

Just playing a game im ruskies vs us and facing of against a coy of m1's. ive found Russian 152mm will typically imobilise the tanks if you can get multiple hits near the tank. since seeing this thread I've also done some testing. results 152mm - multiple near hits will immobilise the Abrams. - direct hits will degrade sub subsystems (not near hits - these have no effects except on tracks). Usually seems to take 2-3 direct hits to knock out all the sub systems - though never damages the gun - knocks out optics, radios etc...) - some (small number of direct hits (low probability) will destroy the Abrams - though dont see this often and have not seen on first hit - so indicates multiple direct hits necessary? Result 203mm - will regularly penetrate and destroy the Abrams (not guaranteed on first hit but much more frequent than 152mm) id like to see more sub system damage from near hits from 152mm - I'd have thought thermals, optics, aps etc would all get damaged from nearby HE impacts not just direct hits. wondering if you'd get concussion / blast injuries to crew as well from direct hits???

I just went back to rerun the tests - your correct - the 88 are spotted at the same time as the trench (at 1000m) - I was getting the Trenches spotted first with 75mm Pak 40 tests (at approx. 500m)- which I have in the same file for testing. But this has also highlighted another issue. From my first lot of tests where I had a lot of mixed variables ( so not enough samples of testing a single variable) I wasn't picking up on another "oddity" but was highlighted when I reran to confirm Vanirs point above. I loaded a test just with 88s (at 1000) and just with 75 (at 500) and then noticed that the spotting was also variable because in some cases the spotters are not standing up!!!! At least this is the only thing I can see that is causing the variations. Some guns are not spotted at all, or not for some minutes while others get spotted within the first minute. When I go and chk the spotters I see where guns have not been seen it is because none of the spotters are standing up. The FO squads that do spot have at least one guy kneeling. So I think other than saying 88mm are spotted out to 1000m in fairly short order (if in wooded tiles with tree trunks) no other conclusions can really be drawn from any of the above tests. Ill need to figure out how to get the spotters to standup / kneel - maybe change to fanatical or maybe put them behind a wall? edge of the wood-line. I haven't tried with tanks as its generally not tanks spotting the AT gun that's the issue. The issue is Infantry observers from stand off rangers spotting your ambush positions well before the ambush can be sprung. I agree with what your saying that they where most devasting in the open desert - but my argument is they can (and historically where used in western Europe - and likely to good effect) to do this however they need to be concealable and Id argue despite their size at 1km they can be concealed - that is the crux of this discussion. Ive used FO's as they have binos (and all the good opponents I play against will use bino quipped units as spotters) and I don't need to spilt squads etc. Its just a quick unit with 3 men to use for testing - its convenience mainly. I don't think different unit get bonuses based on unit type - I suspect it is the veterancy, leadership stats etc that will modify their ability. Well I ll see if I can get some good photos - but I think maintaining a working resolution might be an issue. Also position of sun, cloud cover light levels - will all make a massive difference as it would have in the real lift application of these scenarios. I think sailor has a good approach - Im just being to lazy to figure out the sizes / scale ratios for fixed sized items at varying distances.