Glubokii Boy

We need a bit of both i guess...if everyone is quiet, content and patient...that has a tendancy to SLOW progress...
Eastern block car design during the cold war comes to mind ...A lot of 'content' car buyers (not willingly perhaps...but still)...resulting in perhaps not the greatest leaps in car development ever seen...
A bad comparison perhaps...i know 
But we need 'whiners' also...everyone can not be a 'good example' imo...A Little bit of demand, preasure and nagging never hurt any company i belive

They 'ran' with the rest of the world on their heels, so a little respect for these exceptional soldiers would be appropriate. I know you're just kidding, but still.

Pretty much a waisted effort imo...
A few paintings on the walls and 2d furniture does not really improve things much...
I don't think you will be able to get any 3d stuff in there...atleast not something that effects LOS/LOF and protection...
The fighting inside buildings are pretty highly abstracted IIRC...
Anyhow...Thanks for your effort to try and improve the game 
 

I confess...
 
I have been trying to quit for years...You get the wierdest sideeffects...uumphf, uurf
"whats that pink Pz IV doing in my livingroom",  "iirk, uurg..."
"ooohhgf ! Look !!!... there's a 25 year old blond in my bed !! " , "aaahhh, oohh...NO, NO NO...Come back !!!!"
"please...."
 
 

How right you are...
Do you see this BFC ? 
I'm sure IanL is a... somewhat olderish guy (that is...a man that might not get all that many presents any more on his big day...)
Let's make this guy a happy man on his birthday by releasing some new stuff for him to enjoy...shall we ? 
 

How's this for a speculation...   In BrotherSurplice AAR-thread - "Sabres at Dawn AAR - BrotherSurplice vs Rinaldi (H2H)" over in the Shock Force 1 forum Bil Hardenberger hinted today at the possibility that he would start a new AAR-thread  very shortely.   Hopefully this will feature one of the soon to be realed modules.   This got me thinking...perhaps it will be the CMRT module "that will take us to the end of the war"...A few weeks of some nice reading and then perhaps a release of the module on...   ...why not..the 8th of may. Seems like a good day for such a release...   This got me thinking some more...It's been a long time since we have seen any new releases from BFC and they have stated that they are working on several projects at the same time now and that these projects are making good progress...Releasing all these projects within a short timeframe will not be a problem they said...   I know whats going on now !!!    They have completed the CMRT-module "that will take us to the end of the war". They have completed the CMFI-module "that will take us to the end of the war" and they have also managed to squiz in a little surprise...a CMFB module "that will take us to the end of the war"...   And they will release all three of these modules on the 8th of may in a special VE-day bonus bundle !!!    Would'nt that be nice ?   

Ahha !
might this be a little teaser for some long awaited information on the upcomming releases...I hope so 

With regards to blurry text...check your Nvidia settings...
Having the FXAA anti-aliasing option turned on have resulted in blurry text for several CM-players in the past. If FXAA is turned on...try disabeling it...
It worked for me...and many others

Finally,  somebody has come up with some sort of reasonable answer instead of just ranting off..... Thank you.

Thanks for stating it that way.
I will say, as a beta-tester, coming to grips with this behavior has been difficult. The NDA prevents a lot of what I'd like say (and is a nice way to dodge ) but realize that the HE fleeing behavior was not seen as a deal-breaker before v4.0 was released...or it would not have been released.
Think about the myriad of situations your pixeltroops have been in. Think about how often they do the right thing...and you don't even notice it. Think about when they do something wrong...and the situation which it took to get that behavior.
Without giving too much (anything?) away, I follow two basic courses of investigation: there are areas I dig into to find stuff; and there are times when I get a whiff of something not quite right. In the first case, I start with a set of presumed behaviors and try to stress them to their outlying limits. In the other case, I happen to notice something in passing...and then the Eye of Sauron focuses upon it.
There are fewer and fewer of each. And the gameplay effect of most are very minor.
I can field multiple battalions and have total mayhem reign for four hours...and notice only a few odd cases of behavior. Most (all?) can be explained by men panicking under fire or other reasonable explanations. Think about the magnitude of that achievement: several hundreds of "men" acting realistically over multiple square kilometers whilst killing and being killed and trying to achieve a terrain objective.
The HE behavior slipped through. Now, what if the fix is worse? Maybe men will stick in their locations, but then tanks reverse towards threats. But only if unbuttoned and the threat is known but out of LOS. And only on odd numbered turns. 
Occam's Razor: if the fix were simple, wouldn't you have it already?

You drama queen. There's a huge difference between that and keeping us informed by throwing us some real bones from time to time.

I think that BFCs decision to go for a VERY limited information sharing might actually be one of the reasons these speculations happen...
Sure...On the pluss-side...they don't have to answer all that many questions and can concentrate on working...but a negative result of this quietness...is...
SPECULATIONS ! 
 

Yes...It is kind of wierd !
Since this patch will change the way the Tac AI behaves when troops comes under fire...atleast indirect fire...One would think that it would be a good idea to have it finished Before the playtesting of the upcomming modules starts...I guess it is to late for that now though...surely playtesting for the modules have been ongoing for quite some time now.
But still...It ought to be BFC priority nr 1 to get this done...to see if any tweakings needs to be made to the scenarios/Campaigns of the next releases.
Maybe they already have it finished ? but will not make it public until they release the first if these modules or something...

From the Nr 1 thread on this topic...A post by sgt Squarehead
"It may simply be down to an area being 'block painted' in an AI Setup or Move order.....Setup is always best done manually and I've found that if you paint one tile per vehicle in an AI group, it will often attempt to assign one vehicle per tile when carrying out those orders in game. "
I agree with this fully. Both that the cause for the problem also is most likely a 'block-painted' waypoint and the best qure for  it within the current game engine is to use multiple seperate tiles painted. The benefit of this is also that you will be able to specify the desired formation (line, vedge etc..) you want the AI Group to deploy in. In this particular situation paint 4 seperate tiles...chose the formation, the spacing and the excact location by painting the desired tiles...
Like the sgt mentioned...by doing this the AI will usually asign 1 vehicle/tile...most of the times atleast 
 
 

YES !!          
Just kidding...
If by "I am just wondering: is it a simple as changing a variable from 16 to 32? " you mean... - Will this ONE TWEAK turn the AI into a truly masterful commander ? -   Then the answer is NO, unfortunatelly, but giving us this option is the greatest improvement to the AI we have any chans of getting within CM2 imo.   To make the AI truely challeging we would also need something like CONDITIONAL TRIGGERS or atleast a significant increase in avaliable trigger options and not being limited to UNIT IN ZONE and ARMOUR IN ZONE (friendly and enemy a) as it is now.   - unit spotted
- friendly unit killed
- enemy unit killed
- unit value in zone higher then (maybe using QB purchase point to determin unit values)
- unit out of zone
- AI-group casualty level higher then
- Specific unit in zone (unit objective nr)   - AI group bombard zone
- commit reinforcement group   Etc, etc..   Will we get this within the current game engine ? Not very likely imo. Atleast not any time soon.   An option could be that BFC somehow managed to significantelly increase the situatunal awarness and tactical skills of the AI to a level somewhat resembeling a human player. Will we get this ? NO WAY !   Will we get 32 AI-groups withing CM2 ? We might !!   If by "I am just wondering: is it a simple as changing a variable from 16 to 32? " you mean... As far as programing goes...Is it as simple as changing a SIMPLE LINE in the game code ?   I highly doubt it. If it was i would be truely amazed that BFC has not done it already...     An increase in the number of AI groups is our best bet to improve the AI in CM2 imo...It ought to be doable... 

My guess is that it is not included. I can't recall ever reading about it in the manuals...How this messaging should work etc..
It might also be one of those little things that are not so simple to fix as it might first seem...
For example...If the designer chooses part of a formation to be the UNIT OBJECTIVE (ONE unit objective) asigned a spotting task...A platoon or a Company maybe...
How should spotting this be 'messaged' to the player ? A message everytime the player spots one unit from that platoon/company  ? 
or
No message at all until the entire platoon/Company have been spotted...
Neither is perfect imo...
I would also like to see some kind of confirmation that the task have been completed but it might not be quite so easy as we would like...

YES !!          
Just kidding...
If by "I am just wondering: is it a simple as changing a variable from 16 to 32? " you mean... - Will this ONE TWEAK turn the AI into a truly masterful commander ? -   Then the answer is NO, unfortunatelly, but giving us this option is the greatest improvement to the AI we have any chans of getting within CM2 imo.   To make the AI truely challeging we would also need something like CONDITIONAL TRIGGERS or atleast a significant increase in avaliable trigger options and not being limited to UNIT IN ZONE and ARMOUR IN ZONE (friendly and enemy a) as it is now.   - unit spotted
- friendly unit killed
- enemy unit killed
- unit value in zone higher then (maybe using QB purchase point to determin unit values)
- unit out of zone
- AI-group casualty level higher then
- Specific unit in zone (unit objective nr)   - AI group bombard zone
- commit reinforcement group   Etc, etc..   Will we get this within the current game engine ? Not very likely imo. Atleast not any time soon.   An option could be that BFC somehow managed to significantelly increase the situatunal awarness and tactical skills of the AI to a level somewhat resembeling a human player. Will we get this ? NO WAY !   Will we get 32 AI-groups withing CM2 ? We might !!   If by "I am just wondering: is it a simple as changing a variable from 16 to 32? " you mean... As far as programing goes...Is it as simple as changing a SIMPLE LINE in the game code ?   I highly doubt it. If it was i would be truely amazed that BFC has not done it already...     An increase in the number of AI groups is our best bet to improve the AI in CM2 imo...It ought to be doable... 

An AAR...Thank you !! 
Even if it is not CMSF2...It isn't...is it ? In the briefing picture it kind of looks like the irrigation ditch contains WATER ! but in the other screenshots it does not...
Ooohh, well...CMSF or CMSF 2...it does not matter...An AAR.
Lovely !! 
The map looks like a tricky one to attack across if the enemy have some long range firepower. Best of luck !
 

I think that the maps...the way that CM2 handles terrain is one of the best part of these games...
Elevation changes (even the smalest ones) have a significant impact on the gameplay (cover, concealment)...The different types of vegitation etc is not just there to - LOOK PRETTY -
as is the case in so many other strategy games...many other games might have better Graphics...but thats just what they have...better Graphics...How these Graphics actually influence the gameplay is imo less impressive...
When it comes to the maps/terrain and how realistically they impact the game...ones again CM stands in a class of its own ! 
Sure...Spotting, LOS and LOF are not perfect...there are times that we se very frustrating results when it comes to these things...but the overall experience blows the competition to pieces !
The newbies might have a bit of a learning period to get to know the shortcommings of the system...but ones aware of them they are manageble...
 
 

Good morning/afternoon/evening everyone. This is an AAR of a PBEM played with the British Forces module of Combat Mission: Shock Force. The scenario is "Sabres at Dawn" - I am attacking with a British light armoured reconnaissance force and @Rinaldi is defending with a Syrian reserve mechanised infantry force.

 
So, without further ado, let's do a quick analysis of the situation. My primary task is to attack and clear a compound known as the "East Yard" approximately 500m to the North-Northeast of my deployment zone. My secondary task is simply to destroy the enemy in the field. I must not suffer over 20% casualties and must have my force "arrayed for future operations", which presumably means I must keep ammunition expenditure to a reasonable level and have as little vehicles immobilised as possible. My force consists of light armour and mechanised reconnaissance infantry, supported by ATGM teams and rotary-wing assets.
 
My enemy is defending positions in and around the East Yard, north of a deep irrigation ditch running west-east across the Area of Operations (AO). Intelligence states that there are no enemy units South of the irrigation ditch. Presumably, given the low quality of my enemy's units, his intent is to hold his position for as long as possible and bleed my forces as much as he can before being eliminated. Enemy forces are estimated to be a platoon-sized force from a reserve mechanised infantry battalion equipped with BMP-1s. It is possible that they may be supported by ATGM teams. Due to my enemy commanding a reserve unit, it is likely that the equipment, training and leadership of his units are of a low quality. However, several things should encourage me to caution. Firstly, my own force is small and very light, designed for reconnaissance, not assaults on fortified positions. The BMP-1 is not a fearsome machine in Shock Force, but even its low-velocity 73mm cannon can easily pop any of my vehicles if it can land a hit. Secondly (and more importantly), Rinaldi is a highly skilled and experienced player of Combat Mission. I myself have very little experience, with only two other PBEMs under my belt (one of which ended prematurely because my opponent got bored, the other of which ended with Rinaldi kicking my teeth in). I can expect my opponent to quickly develop a very clear appraisal of the situation, with great knowledge of the capabilities of both his and my own units. He will likely try and engage me at as short a range as possible to try and offset the advantages that modern optics and firepower give me. He will be on the lookout for any weakness or mistake and will exploit such opportunity ruthlessly. I must be very careful if I am to avoid being severely embarrassed here (doubly so, as Rinaldi takes great pleasure in denigrating the fighting ability of my countrymen ).
 

Now for the terrain. The AO is small, only about 350x600m. To my immediate front and right, the ground is open and rises steeply, before gently falling off to the north. To my left, the ground rises more gently, with an MSR running North-South and a small Orchard running North along the edge of the map. The aforementioned irrigation ditch runs east-west, bisecting the AO. The briefing informs me that the ditch is unfordable, with only two crossing points, designated Tweedledum (to the north-west) and Tweedledee (to the north-east).
 

North of the irrigation ditch, the terrain becomes more complex. There is a small compound immediately North and to the left of Tweedledum, known as the "Tool Houses". North of the Tool Houses there is a gentle hill, designated "Point 228".
 

Immediately North of Tweedledee is my objective, the East Yard, a sprawling compound of one-storey buildings. North of the East Yard is another hill, designated "Point 225". Both Point 228 and 225 are covered in trenches. There is a thick haze covering the AO, the temperature is warm, the ground is very dry and there is a medium breeze blowing from the west.
 

Finally, a view of the AO through the eyes of my enemy. He has some excellent positions to take advantage of, with a large obstacle to his front, the complex semi-urban terrain on his left and right, and elevated fighting positions to his left-rear and right-rear.
 

Now to identify the key terrain (KT) of the AO. The first KT is the hill immediately to the front and right of my deployment zone. This is one of the highest points on the map and will provide excellent sight lines and fields of fire to the North.
 

The second KT is Tweedledum and the Tool Houses. Tweedledum is one of only two points where the irrigation ditch can be crossed and the Tool Houses could provide cover and concealment for forces defending the crossing point. The Tool Houses could be a good place for a forward observation post.
 

The third KT is Point 228. this hill provides sightlines and fields of fire across almost the entire AO, and the reverse slope offers an excellent place to conceal forces, for ambush or counterattack. Any advance towards the East Yard will be enfiladed by fire from Point 228.
 

The fourth and final KT is the East Yard and Point 225. The East Yard is my objective and must be cleared, but is also likely to be the toughest nut to crack. If he so wishes, Rinaldi could hide units deep in this compound as my units approach, before making a potentially devastating point-blank ambush. Point 225 provides good lines of sight over the open ground south of the irrigation ditch and would make another good location for an observation post.
 

Now for a detailed assessment of the force at my disposal. I command a small company-sized force from "A" Squadron of the 9th/12th Lancers. Firstly, we have the Command Troop with the Squadron Leader and Second in Command (2iC) mounted in Sultan APCs. A Tactical Air Controller team is mounted in a Spartan APC and will be directing the fires of a single Apache gunship.
 

Secondly, we have 1 Troop, consisting of four Scimitar light tanks. These little fellows are fast, agile and equipped with a hard-hitting 30mm autocannon. They wield the heaviest firepower of my force but are very lightly armoured, only really able to resist small arms fire.
 

Thirdly, we have the Support Troop, consisting of the command team and four four-man scout teams, all mounted in Spartan APCs. Each scout team has a SAW, a sniper rifle, an under-barrel grenade launcher and three light anti-tank weapons (LAW). These infantry teams will be needed to clear out the East Yard and conduct dismounted reconnaissance, but are all very fragile. This is undoubtedly the most vulnerable but also the most important part of my force.
 

Last, but definitely not least, we have the Guided Weapons Troop, consisting of two Javelin teams mounted in Spartan APCs. Each team has five missiles. The Javelin is an excellent weapon, accurate and very hard hitting. These teams will likely be the best option for knocking out AFVs and other hard targets.
 
Troops thus covered, all that remains is the time; it is currently 0530 and I have 50 minutes to complete my objectives. Phew, so much for a quick analysis! I still haven't really thought much about what my enemy might do or made a tentative plan yet. However, this post is getting rather long so I shall leave that for my next entry. Stay tuned!

Totally agree with the wish for more ruined buildings, also a ruined state for walls that matches what a bit of artillery soon produces would be great.....Placing a million flavour objects is not the ideal solution for linear ruins TBH. 
 
 

You are most certanly not alone...but i think that this limitation primarely shows itself when designing AI-attack scenarios.
Not very many people seems to be doing this. Maybe because of this very reason...to few AI-groups. We can't get the AI to perform good enough...   If the player commands something like a company sized force in a defensive scenario then the attacking AI will pretty much need a battalion sized force to provide any kind of challange. If we limit ourself to only using one AI group/platoon in this battalion attack we will still need something like 12 - 15 AI Groups.   ( 3 companies with 4 platoons each ( 3 X inf.platoon plus 1 X hvy weapons platoon)) equals 12 AI-groups plus one or a few extra for battalion support weapons (on map mortars for example).   This leaves pretty much nothing left for supporting armour, some halftracks maybe, recon untis, breach units, reinforcements etc..   Having an entire platoon in each AI-group is not even good enough in many situations imo. It has been made even  more apparent now in V4.0 that includes the ability for the AI to use areafire...   The AI will not do so on it's own (as far as i know). The designer needs to give the AI-group that order at each waypoint. Sure...You can give an entire platoon of infantry or tanks ( 1 AI-group) an area fire order...no problem ! But this might not be what you want.   You want PARTS of the platoon to area fire at a designated area while the other part moves forward... Simple solution ! use 2 AI-groups/ platoon. Now one group could provide suppresive fire while the other moves forward. much better !   You might want to split the platon into 3 AI-groups to better control the advance and have the ability to area fire at two different locations as the third teams moves forward.   Other examples. Some platoons contains their own light mortars (brittish). Keeping this mortar team in its own AI group to provide some indirect fire (area fire command) while the rest of the platoon ( a seperat AI-group) advances would be a good thing.   Some platoons might have attached bazooka/schreck teams. It might be a good thing to keep these in seperate AI-groups. Some might have breach teams etc.   Using only one AI/platoon is very limited imo. Having the freedom to use more would be a fantastic improvement in epspecially AI attack scenarios. I really hopes this will happen !

Here we have to disagree...
A good way to solv the very problem you mention above would be to give the desiger more AI Groups.
I'm pretty sure that this would be far easier to program compared to getting the AI units to act in a more belivable way by their own...To get a more human-like AI the computer controlled units would need to have a better understanding of what each unit does...how to do it...when to do it...why to do it...The AI would need to be able to interpret the terrain to a far greater degree in order to be able to use it to its advantage...both the terrain 'under its feet' as well as the over all terrain situation...What kind of impact will that hill 150m of to the west have on the movement across this field...for example. The AI would need to have a better understanding of both what other friendly and enemy units are doing right now and might be doing soon...
Getting the AI to have this kind of awareness would be a massive undertaking to program...It would be far easier to program additional AI Groups...
Let us scenario desigers HELP the AI a bit more ...It needs it...
Having more AI Groups would not neccesarely complicate scenario designing imo. It would require more work to program...yes...but it would most likely cut down on the playtesting and subsequent tweaking quite a bit...The designer will have a far greater chans of getting the AI Groups to perform as he wish first time out if he can keep them smaller.
A small example...An infantry platoon with a machinegun attached advances down a street...
Have them in one AI-Group...the designer would have very limited controll of wich team moves where, when they move, what they do when they reach their next waypoint etc...
Splitting this platoon up into maybe 3 or even 4 AI Groups would give the scenario designer the ability to make sure that the advance up the street is well timed and coordinated...The machinegun could be placed to suppress (area fire) suspected targets up ahead and provide direct fire against any enemy that shows itself. The squads could be ordered to advance up the street on both sides (without zig-zagging across the open street to get to the next waypoint) at a pace and intervall that the scenario designer seems fit. The squads could also be ordered to area fire at certain objects as they go along if desired. The HQ team could be held back at a sutable distance to be able to maintain C2. At the right time the machinegun team could be brought forward to their next supporting possition...
Things like these ... More AI Groups would help imo
 

Sounds cool ! 

May we trouble BFC/playtesters for an AAR showcasing one of the soon to be released modules..
The forums have turned very quiet ones again...We need something...