Jock Tamson

(-; indeed. But with a bit of Cumbrian, Welsh, Irish and Shetland. Which is probably why I'll be voting "no". I would love the Battlefront games to get to a point where, when you suddenly have an hour spare, you can fire up a QB and get a surprising game out of the AI. Don't get me wrong, there have been many good scenarios over the years, but I'd like a more flexible, sandbox style framework for QB missions.

Just needs to integrate a matchmaking API -Gamespy or similar.

For me, the biggest step forward would be greater scope for modding - assuming that Battlefront are not planning a major overhaul of the AI framework. There is a mod for Arma2 https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cVRPr3YLfmM5TNl9-7sPmiKYstpje0i_X2N9lpvQ_1g/edit?pli=1 that essentially provides an in-mission AI commander. All the scenario creator has to do is lay down the AI units - or write a spawning script for randomization - and define the objectives. After that, the mod does the rest. It is very customizable - specific squads can be reserved for recon, the AI commander can be configured to prefer using covered approaches and combined arms attacks etc etc. We are getting to the point, IMHO, where we have great graphics, great maps and great simulation, but without a dynamic AI opponent the game is crippled for those of us who don't want to play, or can't commit to, multi-player.

I wonder if there is something to be learned from the world of Arma here? Vanilla Arma 2 (and 3) offers little in the way of AI without modding. With mods - which either change or add to the game's core AI FSMs, it becomes an entirely different experience, and has arguably kept it alive for single players particularly, and devolved quite a burden away from the devs. A typical set of mods that I play with: 1. A strategic mod, which scans the map for points of interest and issues orders to AI squads, with reference to objectives that are set by the mission maker. 2. A group management mod, which allows the user to define the framework governing the ways in which squads will work together once in contact 3. A tactical mod, which influences the behaviour of individual units when in combat - for example the response to danger, suppression, seeking cover etc.

at long range presumably the trajectory of the round is more of an arc. Enough for it to reduce the effective thickness of the plating to eg 25mm at a 50 degrees slope? edit: YD beat me to it

Hoping the icon / text issue in this thread will make it into the next patch. Clicking on enemy icons is a necessity to gather who has line of sight to the spotted enemy, but then being told that it is a LMG team you can see and not, say, the LMG from a full rifle squad is a real killer for me. Logically, if my guys can see one enemy carrying an MG34, how can they possibly know it is only an LMG team? Additionally, having no text would give us another reason to pore over the replays, to garner intel about what we are facing.

The mounting idea does sound like a good one. In Arma 2, for example (which can be played at a tactical level from birds eye view) each building has an index of building positions built into it, which can be occupied by AI.

I think this is ok. Most players realise that a LOS from a given waypoint at the moment is not a guarantee of perfect LOS, replacing the place waypoints/check line of sight fandango with a single key press (perhaps only available during pauses or turns) is a UI improvement as much as anything, which would free up time to enjoy the other aspects of the game.

The later Close Combats handled the Strategic LAyer quite well I thought. The interlinking of the battle maps gave you reason to try a last gasp capture of particular Victory Locations (eg in order to secure a line of retreat)

Either the current workaround for LOS should be removed (ie placing waypoints and checking LOS from them), or there should be a single key press quick check as suggested in the OP. The former appeals to me - thus necessitating using scouts in their proper role - however at the moment it seems to me that most scenarios do not allow anough time for these sorts of actions. However, I would happily play the game like this. If the current workaround remains available, then it makes no sense to me not to tidy that up into something that makes checking LOS less of a ball ache, as suggested. Because at the end of the day we already have a means of doing this, it is just not a very good one. In real life, a platoon commander might order a machine gun team to take up a position where they had LOS to a hill top. In real life they would find a spot where the could see the hill top. In real life they would try and take a covered route to that spot...if they had the time. In CM, half of the "danger" and planning is that you place them in a spot where they don't have LOS to where you want them to, which is a pretty artificial risk. The danger should really tactical, that you order them to a spot that your opponent already has a unit with LOS to, or that you order them to a spot that offers LOS to multiple points (and thus is also a riskier tactic), or that you place your tank in a spot where it is going to be under gunned to penetrate targets in the area you want it to watch. Anything that makes the game world easier to comprehend and allows more time for tactical considerations is a good thing, IMHO. Perhaps a combination of the two would be best - no checking LOS from waypoints, and a single key LOS check on Action Spots that are within, say, 200 metres of one of your units.

Yes, I worry about this for urban combat in OMG when it comes out. It would be nice if infantry adjacent to a building and not hiding treated it like a wall, with the lead man looking round the corner that they were set to Face.

Hopefully the removal of the text will be a do-able fix. In an ideal world I would take it further on the harder levels and not identify the type of unit either ie not distinguish between calibres of AT guns, use a more generic description, likewise for tanks etc.

We are often told it isn't a module. Therefore it's a young gripe in the context of this release. I've accepted that there are some things that will not change in CM2, not unreasonable to hope that this isn't one of them.

I have to say I am really really enjoying CMFI so far. I played CMBN on a very high end machine so performance was never an issue, but everything feels so much slicker in CMFI, with the upgrades coming, OMG and Easter Front, and Engine 2.0 CMSF these are exciting times for fans. That said, there is one issue that I still find frustrating - playing on Elite or Iron and clicking on enemy floating icons and being told that it is eg "1 Squad B Team". There is no good reason I can think of why I should be given the squad's name. Apart from the obvious issue - that I now know I am dealing with a half section - what if: I engage them and they break off contact, retreating into the village (I think). I occupy their building 20 mins later. I see there are two enemy dead. Later I am engaged by enemy forces deeper in the village. Oh, it's "1 Squad B Team".... so I've got a pretty good idea how many there are. That shouldn't be possible. JT

With the Jocks by Peter White http://www.amazon.co.uk/Jocks-Peter-White/dp/0750930578 very gritty account of life at the sharp end as a subaltern in the KOSB, Sept '44 to May '45

US doctrine was to use tanks to support infantry, and tank killers to destroy tanks. Patton's conviction that tanks should be used for breakthroughs rather than taking on enemy tanks and the subsequent debate among the top brass effectively stopped the M26 Pershing from being available in significant numbers before the end of the war.

Seems to me these questions are based on a false premise. The combination of these items was not what was required to win in Normandy. The existence of a second front in the East was what was required. Without that, the Allies would have struggled to avoid defeat in the West.