Is only my idea

[joeroma]

Hello to all

To begin with I must say that despite now CMSF game since it was released is still a great game, perhaps the best of its kind.

But I must say that in my opinion, there may be adjustments that for me make perfect:

One point of the game that I am not convinced so is the infantry.

In my opinion, the player should be able to decide the posture of the soldiers; example, if they are lying down or kneeling or raised.se was in an urban environment, get lying is a waste of time, which can affect about moving rapidly soldiers.

If you put an option like that of "Theatre of War" (lying, kneeling, raised), it would be absolutely perfect.

My limited experience as a military Officer of Mountain Artillery, tells me that it is essential to decide the formation of a team of soldiers, precisely in order to adapt to different types of land that may encounter.

Then there is the question of infantry animations that, in my opinion, are bad.Maybe is a particular that no one note, but would make the game even more realistic if animations were more realistic.

I hope that this is the post in the thread is right.

Maybe in the future there will be a mod or a patch that adds this.

Hello to all

[Topo]

mmm...

ex alpino?

In my opinion, slow, hunt and quick movement are similar to what you want.

Saluti!

[joeroma]

Si ex Alpino

O meglio.Tenente Alpino per sempre.

However noted that only when, for example, landing troops from a vehicle, they have a bunch, with no particular logic, moreover, some bring before the others, as if they were to shoot him.

In my opinion the management of Theatre of War is absolutely superior to CMFS, with regard to the infantry.

If you enlarge it to CMSF, it would be perfect.

Saluti

[Secondbrooks]

My thoughts.

True: Formations would be good for some situations.

True: Stances would improve infantrysquad's behaviour and survavility for some situations.

With alot of micromanagement i think player can stretch the gap betwene him and AI even more. With alot of micromanagement player can boost actions of his troops even more.

Still: No more micromanagement. CMSF already demands lots of it. My personal feeling is that micromanagement-level is already too much, it's not most immersive wargame to play because of relation between scale and micromanagement. CMx1 had much more right combination in scale and micromanagement, i think.

Still: Expacely with present movement commands i'm quite unhappy. 'Hunt' is broken, 'move' is silly. Platoon leader and other teams are unable to use assault... Overall i have feeling that CMSF's platoons are machines which have not been syncronized to work as a one machine. Am i only one who thinks this to be silly that platoon isn't capable to move as one machine when assaulting? Getting my Syrian/US company and platoon to move at enemy lines (underfire) feels giganting and sometimes undoable task as my RPG-teams, MG-teams and Platoon leaders team/squad (with quite a firepower incase of Syria) can't use it's fire when moving and they move in different speed than riflesquads when they assault, quick being too fast and slow being too slow (and tiring).

[Scipio]

Still: Expacely with present movement commands i'm quite unhappy. 'Hunt' is broken, 'move' is silly. Platoon leader and other teams are unable to use assault... Overall i have feeling that CMSF's platoons are machines which have not been syncronized to work as a one machine. Am i only one who thinks this to be silly that platoon isn't capable to move as one machine when assaulting? Getting my Syrian/US company and platoon to move at enemy lines (underfire) feels giganting and sometimes undoable task as my RPG-teams, MG-teams and Platoon leaders team/squad (with quite a firepower incase of Syria) can't use it's fire when moving and they move in different speed than riflesquads when they assault, quick being too fast and slow being too slow (and tiring).

I agree, most infantry movement commands doesn't make much sense, and they don't work very well. It looks to me like a squad is visually displayed as group of individual soldiers, but organized in program terms still like the three-man abstraction of CM1.

Or in other words, one of the most wanted CM1 features - individuals soldiers - was impleted, but the basic simulation/organisation of the squad in program terms is still (mostly) the same like the abstracted three-man squad of CM1. Unfortunatly that doesn't work well for movement and cover.

[Cpl Steiner]

Well with the 13 man Marine squads on the horizon, and talk of big changes in infantry behaviour for v1.1, largely to cater for the bigger Marine squads, I reckon BFC is fully aware of these issues and is addressing them as we speak.

[Field Marshal Blücher]

Personally I hated the infantry system in ToW; that's part of the reason why I stopped playing it. I agree, however, that CM:SF does need improvement. I also agree with Cpl Steiner in that I think BFC is coming out with some good stuff in that regard.

[joeroma]

it is true that too much micro-management could be harmful, but at this point is essential: if I want to move a single soldier, only one, do I need to do, why could a tactical utility.Se I want my team rifles you have in horizontal line because I want to cover as much space as possible, or because if I do not want that if one falls granade kills me the whole team, I have to be able to do.

In this case, precisely because CMSF is a tactical game, we can not put a team of 10 soldiers, without having virtually no control over it. (Not counting the commands of movements that are unnecessary to say the least).

In an urban combat, where it is important to move quickly, I do not think ever to put my soldiers lying in a square or a street.

As for the Marines, even worse, are 13 men for each team.

However for me, it would be perfect to include management of infantry TOW.

Hello to all