Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


domfluff last won the day on November 2 2020

domfluff had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About domfluff


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. We don't know what this is going to look like for CM. The way it works for other Matrix games is that the PBEM files are hosted on Matrix servers, and you can set up open challenges (or closed challenges with a password), and therefore have pick-up PBEM games. CM has issues as a competitive multiplayer game (without some house rules and playing with sensible people), so this will have all of the inevitable issues, but the end result is something really exciting. Veterans may still prefer doing this the CMHelper way, with people they know, but this *will* increase the number of multiplaye
  2. If there's anything additional for CMFI, it'll be battle packs or vehicle packs, not full modules.
  3. It's stuff Steve has said on this forum. There are five heights that the heightmap uses - crawling man, standing man, small, normal and tall vehicles, and the LOS table is built from each height to each other height, in each square.
  4. The LOS tool (as in, the Target line, as well as the Hull Down command) uses a pre-calculated grid of different heights, which is generated when the map is created. This is one of the reasons why this is so fast - even in early versions of CMSF, where the game was not as well optimised as it now is, and hardware was generally weaker to boot, the Target tool never lagged out the game, because all it is doing is referred to a lookup table. This is firmly distinct from the actual unit line of sight, which is traced from the eyeballs and is calculated when they need to actually fire. This is
  5. Recon vehicles tend to spot faster than tanks (even in WW2), because they're usually open-topped. The difference is larger in the modern titles, of course. Dismounting crew to recce is standard doctrine everywhere, and there is nothing weird about it. The vehicle lets you get into, and importantly, out of trouble, quickly. The vehicle in most cases will also have a radio, so you can send those spots up the C2 chain. Whether the vehicle itself is heavily armed and/or armoured depends on doctrine (which is and was a fluid thing), but it's not a co-incidence that recon elements tend to b
  6. If you use BMP-3s incautiously, you'll see a lot of mutual kills I don't have footage of it, but my favourite was a glancing hit on the front of my Panther, that bounced off in a high, near-vertical, really slow arc, before arcing back down directly onto one of my squads.
  7. Yup. They're also the ones with the radios in WW2 titles, if anyone does. I often use my HQs quite aggressively, spotting with them, running them back and forth between units to share spotting contacts, etc. It's a risk, obviously, but I think there's a lot you can gain from that.
  8. Eight squares would assume no radios and voice distance, but sure - visual distance is longer than that, and is still "in C2", albeit to a worse level. There's a trade-off, was my point - you spot faster with shared spotting information, and the fastest way to share spotting information would be for the HQ to have the spots (a leader recon). Therefore, for the unit to fight at maximum efficiency, you'd want an HQ up front and spotting things (possibly with a short arc to not engage themselves). The trade-off is that putting the HQ in a position where they can spot things means that they
  9. Based on Josey Wales' testing, he didn't see a difference in the recovery from suppression based on the formation HQ's leadership value - in that sense it didn't make a difference, and the results are a binary "in C2" and "not in C2" thing. If that is the case, that doesn't mean it's not important. Suppression of the HQ unit will break C2, so a higher leadership HQ unit will stay unsuppressed for longer over the course of a firefight, and therefore maintain C2 for the rest of the formation. You could avoid this by keeping the HQ unit out of the fight, but since information is shared in s
  10. This was definitely fixed, a while ago. It was actually improved over CMSF 1, in that Quick moving (what the AI defaults to) will still be covered by this, when it would not in CMSF 1
  11. There is also the IED mine in CMSF - it works like the other minefields, but it's a single, massive explosion (with a 0% failure rate, or at least as much as mines can fail).
  12. As always with IEDs, I think it's useful to consider the manual's failure rate as a best-case scenario. The triggerman still has to spot the target, not be obscured by dust, not be suppressed, not be distracted by a passing kitten, whatever. I imagine if you ran a thousand tests, the failure rate would be significantly higher than stated.
  13. Yup. ATGMs are essentially one shot weapons, but if that one shot trades efficiently with a Bradley, you're up significantly. I typically try to fire one shot then Fast move to relocate. ATGMs are best used in at least pairs, and dispersed - this creates a C2 problem to solve, but it means that you can more easily score flank shots (more important for Abrams), and can't have both assets suppressed at the same time. When relocating it's important to pop back up in a different position (i.e., far from the contact marker you'd be leaving behind as you break line of sight). This means w
  14. Red vs Red and Blue vs Blue are both fine in CMSF multiplayer - it's just the mixed game which I'm suspicious of. In general I think I prefer Red vs Red, but that's mostly because the more advanced stuff pushes it more towards one shot kills and heavy punishment for mistakes/random surprises. To be entirely clear, I do think it's possible to win, but you have to do all the work. You can also sometimes do everything right and still lose. In the broader sense this is true for anything "lower tier" in a competitive game.
  15. I'm deeply suspicious of Red vs Blue in CMSF in a multiplayer sense. I'm sure it's possible to win as Red, and it's possible to have balanced scenarios, but the disparity is so large that this is extremely difficult - even in an ideal situation, you'll be working significantly harder than the Blue player to keep level. Still, if you're up for the challenge, this is the theory: Imagine a Quick Battle, where the enemy are a US Bradley platoon. These are three squads with attached assets, javelins and the Bradleys themselves. Each element outperforms you in every way. The main threats in
  • Create New...