ncc1701e

Hello, It is working fine in CMBN but in CMSF2, the Dismounted option for single vehicule is grey-out. Looks like this is not working as intended. I don't know if this is was reported before. Cheers

When it will be time for a new CMBS module, will it include uncons? Or, is the subject too political that Battlefront will censor itself? At least, will we have BM-21 Grad rocket artillery in our TO&E? Thanks

Or NX1701A

Happy New Year 2021 to the Battlefront team and to you @BFCElvis! With the recent announcement of the 5.0 Engine Upgrade, I really hope all of the above requests could be added to your wishlist for the next engine. Thanks a lot P.S: Is your car the right size for a license plate like this?

Fourth one: Revamp the Support Targets interface Today the Support Targets interface are pretty useless since it can only act at the beginning of a scenario for indirect fires. It contains only two button: 1. The target to hit 2. The type of mission (Destroy, Damage, Suppress, Smoke) I am requesting to add few additional buttons in the interface (see carefully the following screenshot 1. The AI group that will perform the attack. We can then select off map artillery units and/or air units to perform a dedicated mission (if they are in the AI group of course) 2. The possibility to delay an attack by Exit between ...and OR better to select a trigger to wait for before calling the attack And, a small note, if in the same AI group, I am selecting a FO team plus some off map units (artillery or air units), I am expecting the AI to move the FO team in a good spotting position. Here it is for my list, I do not think I am asking for the moon in term of changes in the interface. And, I really think these small changes can really beef up the AI of my scenario but not only. Thanks @BFCElvis for your consideration.

Third one: Enhance the Unit Objectives interface I am requesting to pass the maximum number of Unit objectives from 7 to 16. And same than for the Terrain Objectives interface (see carefully the following screenshot), I am adding a third button that is a trigger possibility on an Unit objective. This third button contains the same choice between A.I. Trigger (friendly), A.I. Trigger (friendly armor), A.I. Trigger (enemy), A.I. Trigger (enemy armor) With the first button untouched, I can design that if an enemy unit is spotted, I can trigger something else. An air attack for example... see next post.

Second one: Revamp the Terrain Objectives interface I am requesting to pass the maximum number of Terrain objectives from 15 to 32. The first button is indeed combining two functions (one for usual objective, one for trigger). Thus you have to use two triggers if, for example, the occupation of one terrain objective is also a trigger to go to another objective. I would request to change the interface as follow (see carefully the following screenshot) : 1. I am splitting the first button in two. First button still serves to say Occupy, Preserve, Destroy, Touch, Exit 3. A new button, the third one, is a choice between A.I. Trigger (friendly), A.I. Trigger (friendly armor), A.I. Trigger (enemy), A.I. Trigger (enemy armor) This allows much more flexibility and avoids to use two objectives for the same above example.

@BFCElvis I am playing around AI since a lot of time now and I would like to design something cool in terms of AI responsiveness. I think few changes in the AI interface may change and ease a lot AI design and level up the AI of my scenario. So, here are few requests for you to implement. Few of them are not new. First one: Increase the number of AI groups Dividing units into small AI groups is the key to make good AI behavior. So I am requesting to pass the maximum number of AI groups from 16 to 32.

Absolutely, the number of action spot is important. As per your tutorial request, please check also this one, it can give you an insight of how the AI works: Cheers

@BFCElvis, did you notice this thread? Just want to make sure this is something that will be adressed in the next patch. Thanks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_British_Army https://ospreypublishing.com/the-british-army-since-2000 https://ospreypublishing.com/the-british-army-in-afghanistan-2006-14

Yes, you are absolutely right. It doesn't work in QB. And your idea is good for sharing equipment in QB.

Are you sure? For me, the first flight of MQ-1C Grey Eagle was 2008, April 15th. The MQ-1 Predator is in CMSF2 timeframe not sure for its successor.

The RQ-11B Raven is already available in the game for US Army or US Marines. The good news is that you can purchase the RQ-11B Raven for Canadian or Dutch armies in your own scenario. I have just tested it, it works fine. See these Canadians working with a RQ-11B Raven.

I very much like the information sharing of what the drone sees and the ability to bring indirect fires with just the drone's LOS. It is pretty well done. One thing I would like to ask that seems consistent to me with a 2007-timeframe. Would it be possible to add an armed MQ-1 Predator with two AGM-114 Hellfire missiles for the US player? I see there is already the MQ-1C Grey Eagle in CMBS. I assume it is armed. Bringing this code back by patch in CMSF2, to add a MQ-1 Predator, then seems possible although it may not be desired today. I think it will add a lot of new possibilities to the game. Thanks for your consideration