MOS:96B2P

Very cool and useful.

Cool!! This sounds encouraging for a possible "Transferable" situation. But then there was the below information ............................ "Sigh" Thanks for the response. +1

Thank you, Sir.

@Kaunitz nice video, thanks for sharing. It makes me want to play some CMRT. Nice shot where the mortar (I think) landed inside the SU-76. +1

Below is a screenshot of an OpFor Organizational chart I created. I couldn't get the bottom row to show (still learning). It has potential. @Combatintman you might find this program interesting.

No problem Shork!! I don't mind if people know my name is Karl with a K . (Got to be careful of those "C" Karl's) I'm only a "third wave" beta tester and may not even have access to the CMBN mantis area since that was before I tested. I will refer your inquiry to senior Beta tester, scenario designer, mod creator, creator of "Who's Turn is it" and all around Combat Mission Guru @IanL. ........... Ian, I know you got to be a busy dude right now but could you help a brother out?

This is an important and interesting question. If it is "transferable" BFC would probably stick, more or less, with the announced road map. If it is not "transferable" the follow up question would be, "What would the first game of CM3 feature?" Also of interest, Steve from BFC said they would not use open GL in CM3. I'm not a computer guru but does changing from Open GL to something else (Direct X?) make a "transferable" situation less workable? Below is a link to what Steve said:

Steve from BFC said the below which I'm paraphrasing: Eventually we will have a new game engine. Obviously it will be written with contemporary technology in mind and won't be OpenGL as we view it as a dead end. It will also benefit from 20 years of experience with how best to simulate tactical warfare on a computer. It's only a matter of when, not if. Link to full statement below:

Hmmm, I've used Evade in games since 4.0. However I've not watched the behavior again under controlled conditions. The UI will allow you to give pinned troops a movement order making you think they will respond to orders. However after the big red button is hit they ignore the order (as long as the pinned is maintained). But you might be saying the pinned troops would have run away even if I didn't give them Evade under 4.0. I guess this might be true especially with the 4.0 artillery run off bug............. After the patch I guess some things will need to be tested again.

Interesting stuff. +1 This might be useful for scenario design also.

The following are from notes I took after doing some experiments with the Instant Command Evade in June 2015: The Evade command will generate a waypoint to move pinned troops who will not otherwise move. The waypoint location and movement type are changeable. The UI will allow other movement orders to be given to pinned troops but the orders will be ignored. This command is initially a Fast waypoint. The difference between a normal Fast waypoint and an Evade waypoint is that the AI will actually attempt to execute the Evade waypoint. The AI will ignore the normal Fast waypoint or any normal waypoint as long as it is pinned. If the pin is lifted in a timely manner the AI might then follow the normal waypoint movement. The following is how I most often use Evade: A fire team (generally scouts on point duty) becomes pinned. The overwatch teams send suppression fire down range. I may give the scouts Evade. This results in a Fast waypoint. I usually change the Fast Evade waypoint to a Slow waypoint and move it to a more appropriate location. So instead of being KIA in the fetal cowering position they are KIA while crawling to safety. .

Here is a screenshot of a CMSF1 VBIED. And a VBIED detonating. The four different size of IEDs. And an IED triggerman (CMSF2)

Very cool thanks for sharing. AIRBORNE!!! +1

Below is my current IED drill: 1. Click on IED combat order Target to activate IED1. 2. Click on ground to Target first OpFor to pass or click on specific OpFor unit2. 3. Check that triggerman is in range3. Notes: 1)Radio triggerman needs LOS to IED to activate during game but not during setup. 2)For small & medium IEDs OpFor must enter the A/S to detonate for large & huge OpFor must enter adjacent A/S. 3)Triggermen needs to spot OpFor by IED to detonate. And some general notes on IEDs: There are four sizes of IED: small, medium, large & huge. There are three types of IED: Wire 100m, 10% failure / Radio 300m, requires LOS to activate, 20% failure / Cell phone 600m, 10% failure. IED teams consist of the bomb and the triggerman. To work the IED must be activated and the triggerman in range (if radio LOS also) and not panicked with an undamaged trigger device. If this criteria is met when the triggerman observes OpFor enter the Action Spot (adjacent AS for huge or large device) the device will detonate. (The triggerman will not detonate the IED unless he can spot OpFor next to it.) An IED can be activated and detonated by any triggerman. Example: A Wire triggerman can activate and/or detonate a cell or radio IED. Any IED triggerman needs to be within 300 meters and LOS to activate a radio IED during the game and during setup. Any IED triggerman needs to be within 100 meters to activate a wire IED during the game and during setup. Any IED triggerman needs to be within 600 meters to activate a radio IED during the game and during setup. Have a BLAST!!

Hello Shorker, I just attempted it and got the same results as you. I also changed the equipment from typical to excellent, thinking maybe this would add trucks, but still no motorized vehicles at all. I can't explain it.

Steve from BFC said the below in italics. The forum thread is linked at the bottom. The engine is not capable of dynamic weather. If it's raining at the beginning of the scenario it will be raining until the scenario ends. Ground conditions, can change from the simulation side of things in limited ways. Such as ground getting soggier as time goes on. I don't know how long the ground conditions take to change but apparently they can. However, I don't think the "listed" ground condition in the Conditions Menu ever changes what's listed. Example: At the beginning of the scenario ground condition is dry but weather is rain. One hour into the scenario the ground condition changes as far as bogging etc. However I think the Conditions Menu will still read, dry. I don't remember ever seeing the menu change during a game even though the actual ground conditions, in game, can. This would probably make testing how long it takes ground conditions to change (from dry to wet during rain etc.) difficult. But @Bulletpoint could probably spend his weekend testing this and let us all know on Monday ...............

Hmmm ......... are you sure? My understanding is all white vehicle smoke blocks IR. And as you said, artillery, black smoke and throwables do not block IR. Throwables, I like that, good description . @Michael Emrys I don't think WP is IR blocking. Only vehicle produced white smoke is IR blocking AFAIK.

Ah, okay. It is what it is. Maybe very heavy civilian density in an urban environment and weather set at thick haze (like a dust storm) Looking forward to doing some experimenting in the CMSF2 Editor.

Ah, very good. Hmm, this is what I'm afraid of also...................... Well, in single player, if the player was controlling the unconventional forces and the AI was controlling the conventional forces I guess it is still workable.

It would be really cool to have the above vehicles in a CM game. +1

I'm trying to make myself wait for CMSF2 before I start testing the civilian density setting because I don't trust that the settings will remain identical between the two titles. However reading this very interesting thread is making it difficult to wait........................ . I'm probably not understanding the screenshots. To me it looks like both the crack combatant team and the conscript combatant team are both two action spots in front of the Humvee? But from reading the post I think the crack team got closer before being spotted (which would make sense) than the conscript team? The "giveaway" action is an interesting find and realistic. I think there may be another complication to player vs AI scenario design. The stealthiness of an unconventional unit is, in part, based on how the unit moves. A Quick command is more likely to get a team spotted than a Move command. I think Move is the most stealthy in relation to civilian density. Slow (crawling) is considered suspicious. With PBEM this works. The player orders the team to Move towards the VCP. However when the player is against the AI the AI plans are created by the scenario designer in the editor. In the editor there are five movement type orders the designer can give to the AI: Max Assault, Assault, Advance, Quick and Dash. All five of these commands involve some type of running. So, it seems, the AI can never use the stealthiest of the movement command Move. The AI will always be running up to the VCP I think............... hope I'm missing something............. @Combatintman do you have any insight on how an AI controlled team can approach a VCP without running at it?

I think it is an elevation difference that hinders an entry after a Blast. If one side of the wall is at a different elevation than the side the demo team is on the demo team will complete their movement by running around to a different entry point (typically a door). The elevation difference is usually easy to spot because one side of the building is a little sunk into the ground. It is my SOP to always check the elevation (sunken wall) before Blasting.

BFC has said somewhere on these forums that the CMFB title will go to the end of the war. So there will be at least one module for CMFB.

Hmm, that's interesting. The manual came with the original CMSF1 release. Maybe there was already some "tweaking" of how civilian density works between the original release and CMSF1 v1.32. Can't wait for CMSF2 to be released so we can get in the Editor and figure this stuff out. Nice screenshots. They pretty much prove civilian density works a bit different than the way it is described in the manual...........

Another interesting and useful topic you have started. I have it on my list to test civilian density and the effect it has on spotting unconventional forces. I'm waiting for CMSF2 to be released before I test just in case the behavior gets "tweaked" going from CMSF1 to CMSF2. In the Editor civilian density can be set at one of six choices: none, sparse, light, moderate, heavy or very heavy. The greater the civilian density the harder it is to spot unconventional units. In the Editor unconventional units are divided into three groups: Fighters, Combatants and Specialists. In the CMSF1 game manual page 102 it states, at the beginning of a battle all Uncon Specialist units are simulated as civilians to the US player. I think the civilian density only applies to unconventional forces that are in the Specialist category. The manual also describes that three factors determine when the unconventional (I think just specialists in relation to civilian density) units are spotted: terrain, movement command and proximity to OpFor units. A lot of interesting scenarios will be possible with unconventional units and the Engine 4 upgrade.