Just had my 1st taste of the 1.11 patch, and...

[19Kyle72]

Just had my 1st taste of the 1.11 patch, playing the original SF campaign, since I've played Mission 1 something like 4-5 times now (don't ask).

Here's how Mission 1 has started out for me every time in the past prior to using Patch 1.11:

(1) I put all of my Abrams on the berm so that they're hull down.

(2) My men grab extra ammo, and I setup their Strykers to roll at max speed towards the main road.

(3) Just as my Strykers reach top speed, my Abrams, peeking over the berms, begin opening up, intermitantly pounding the Syrian bunkers with few, if any, Syrians leaving the structures, preferring instead to hold their doomed positions till they're roasted...

(4) And my Abrams wipe out all of the Syrian armor within 3 minutes, with the Abrams receiving minimal damage, if any at all.

Here's what happened last night after the Patch was installed:

(1) All of the above except...

(2) The Syrian forces started pouring out of their bunkers after about 45 seconds of receiving punishment, and they ran like mad for the trenches. This, in my humble opinion, is a smart move.

(3) I lost TWO of my precious Abrams within the first minute and a half.

Holy cow pies!

In regards to having my two Abrams getting creamed, I can only say this: the most noticeable thing in regards to the armor combat is not that the Syrian armor took my tanks out, it's that my tanks pretty much exclusively kept firing on the bunkers, while a minimum of two Syrian tanks pounded away at their frontal armor.

Weirdness, or...?

[Battlefront.com]

Interesting observations! I'll task one of the lads with playing around with this. There's a chance that the armor's TacAI is figuring the relative value of their targets a bit off. Or it could be bad luck, I don't know

Steve

[theFightingSeabee]

I've played mission 1 many times also. I usually keep my dudes on the berm with my apc's who are just ammo crates with wheels. Then fan my tanks through the gap. I've noticed that some of the tanks near the bunkers are difficult to see. If I remember correctly, without actually checking for sure before posting this, that there may be some lower terrain over there that's hard to notice. I dunno, maybe I'm wrong.

Just manually target the tanks.

[19Kyle72]

I think that the problem MAY have been me.

But... "Shhh"... Don't tell The Wife.

She doesn't yet know that I'm capable of making mistakes.

;-D

I tried a slightly different approach with the berms: I positioned the Abrams close to the berms' base, delayed their ascent towards the crest by 30 seconds, unbuttoned, and then made sure that they hunted their way up to a stopping positions that was either "hull down" or "partial hull down."

That extra set of precautions, never before necessary, paid off. Not as dramatically in my favor as pre-1.11, but much closer to it than what I experienced in the above report.

Now I'm quite positive that there's still a close Syrian tank on the right most side of the map that's not being targeted, even though the targeting arc I gave a tank commander is certainly covering that zone. I was playing in the We Go mode, and said tank appeared in the last 4 seconds of Minute 1, only to disappear at the last second even though it wasn't moving. I shifted my targeting arc as described, and the tank wasn't spotted at all during Minute 2, so perhaps the AI is still concentrating too strenuously on targets that should be a lesser threat than a tank that was spotted not even seconds before at a much closer range?

Everything is running much more smoothly than before, and The Blue Bar: I LOVE it and I am confident that I'll soon ask it to marry me, wife or not!

The enemy AI strangely seems more aggressive than before, as I'm getting basted in lead and errant RPGs at a rate that seems more robust than before 1.11. Whether the added aggressiveness is real or just my misguided and very tired perceptions is still up in the air, but either way, I am stressed out in a good way.

Have to hit the sack.

Good night guys!

[Battlefront.com]

Thanks for the follow up. Glad to send you to be stressed out "in a good way"

A couple of the testers ran through that battle and a "sandbox" test. They didn't notice any problems with the Abrams having "target fixation" (which is what we call this sort of problem) issues with the bunkers vs. the tanks. Everything worked as it should. So my guess is that you had some bad luck and the Syrians some really good luck.

Steve

[Pvt. Ryan]

I have also started replaying the campaign and I noticed that the Abrams targeted the bunkers before the tanks.

[Chainsaw]

You guys actually drive the tanks up ON the berm? :eek:

[PSY]

You guys actually drive the tanks up ON the berm? :eek:

That was my reaction. I thought I tried driving vehicles up it back when the game first came out, and was unsuccessful. It could be I was using Strykers instead of M1's, or maybe it was the somewhat less than ideal state of pathfinding when CMSF first came out, but I definitely couldn't get the vehicles up there.

In any case, skylining oneself on top of the berm doesn't sound like a good idea.

[RadioactiveMan]

I also have never driven my tanks up onto the berm... I always send them down to the gap by the road. I park my strykers by the less steep spots of the berm and peel off the anti tank teams. The javelins move into position on top of the berm and I try to have them launch just as the tanks round the corner... Then I bring up the artillery and pound the crap out of everything! Works pretty good.

[GSX]

I put 2 Tanks hull down on the berm slopes, not on top. No matter what version, the result has always been the same, dead Syrians. I havent noticed any fixation on the Bunkers.

The other two Tanks race for the gap and sit on the highway for about 5 minutes pounding anything that moves, or is seen. Then, once the berm tanks have completed their work (possibly another 5 mins) they join the other 2 in the road.

Basically, the 4 tanks win this one. I wont spoil it for anyone but my Strykers probably dont move to drop of the Inf for a while yet and then I dont go through the front door. I end up unloading a platoon on the main objective and then doing some snazy top floor to bottom floor house clearing through the complex. If I have time, the tanks then enter from the rear of the bunkers and do some major rolling up supported by an MGS or two and a few empty Strykers.

[Other Means]

You get so much HE in that scenario you end up king of the rubble.

[19Kyle72]

I'm surprised that so many are so surprised at my "Abrams hull down on the berms" tactic. I'm a little relieved that GSX has my back on this though!

Great minds think alike (I guess)!

When the first phase of enemy armor has been destroyed, I send two of the Abrams (one from each set that's perched on a berm) down the main route to pound anything that needs it. The other two "berm Abrams" are then used as heavy support for my troops when they're ready to enter the first set of buildings, and I use them to call in arty from a vantage point you can't get anywhere else.

Plus when the second wave of Syrian armor later enters the picture their attention is badly divided up between the two Abrams on the ground and the two up on the berms.

I never thought of placing my anti-armor infantry units up on the berms. I'll start this one over tonight, and give that a try, more than likely leaving two Abrams on top alongside the anti-armor units.

[PSY]

I'm surprised that so many are so surprised at my "Abrams hull down on the berms" tactic. I'm a little relieved that GSX has my back on this though!

I'm still not quite sure how to set something up hull-down with the CMx2 engine. Are you guys playing turned-based or real-time? Do you essentially tell it to go up to the top of the berm but use a Hunt command so it stops as soon as it sees something, and hope that positions the tank just right with only the turret showing? Seems like there would be a big risk that it would actually go to far onto the berm before spotting an enemy and then end up stopping directly on top of the berm. I guess I could see micro-managing it if you're playing real-time.

Also for you tankers out there, how steep of an angle can you park the tank on without worrying about the tank sliding back down or is that generally not a concern? I suppose it depends on what kind of surface you're on (say loose sand vs. hard rock), but I assume CMSF doesn't model at that level.

[stikkypixie]

You can put a waypoint to where you want to go, highlight it, and then select target. That way you can see the line of fire from that waypoint, and also whether you are in a hull down position (relative to where you're targeting). It's quite easy to do in WeGo. Sometimes and very short reverse order is needed to get in to the best position.

[PSY]

You can put a waypoint to where you want to go, highlight it, and then select target. That way you can see the line of fire from that waypoint, and also whether you are in a hull down position (relative to where you're targeting). It's quite easy to do in WeGo. Sometimes and very short reverse order is needed to get in to the best position.

Ah, I forgot about the click on the waypoint and target trick. Thanks stikkypixie. Now we just need to get our waypoints dragable again, then it will be easy to check a waypoint's LOS, then drag it slightly forward or backward as needed.

[Pvt. Ryan]

I've noticed that in 1.11 when my tanks and MGSs fire HEAT at soft targets in trenches the rounds always fall short and never make it to the trench. It's as if they are trying to fire through the ground to the spot where the unit is, but the ground stops the round. For example, in the scenario being discussed, while driving up the road, my tanks and MGSs will expend all HEAT rounds without ever causing a casualty. I have to call in mortars to take out the HMGs in the trenches.

[Chainsaw]

I would never get the idea of sending my tanks up there, siluetting them like hell on a berm with the whole front covered with tanks and ATGMs! I send my tanks down to the gap and let the strykers leave the ATGM teams sto crawl up on the berm, fire javelin and then hide a while before engaging again.

But hey, if it works for you it works...

This kinda reminds me that someone somewhere sayed that untrained enemys are the worse enemys to face, as they never follow the "rules" and just do something that is so unrealistic to a trained soldier that it actually works...

[19Kyle72]

Chainsaw,

"This kinda reminds me that someone somewhere sayed that untrained enemys are the worse enemys to face, as they never follow the "rules" and just do something that is so unrealistic to a trained soldier that it actually works..."

Hey, I'll take that as a compliment, thank you! ;-D

I think that the main advantage of having the tanks hull down is that the majority of the vehicle is blocked by Sweet Mother Earth. Also, I assume that CMSF models and calculates for the AI weather conditions and the sun's positioning in regards to whether or not they can see clearly, and whether or not they suffer some penalty for staring into the sun. Which, in Mission 1, the rising sun is BEHIND our backs, so I've always tried to take that into consideration. Most of the time, it's nearly impossible to setup on approach with the sun being on a good angle behind your units, but when I can use it, I do.

Can anyone verify as to whether or not the sun's positioning influences the AI abilities to perceive their environment and affect their capabilities. I hope that the answer is "Yes"!

And I too would LOVE to be able to grab and reposition waypoints on the fly. I worry a tad that with the invisible "action grid" system that its usefulness might be somewhat stunted, but the number of minutes I use deleting and reclicking just trying to see if I can put a waypoint somewhere is enormous. Yeah, grab-capable waypoints would be just as awesome a feature as the new blue bar. No doubt about that in my mind.

Steve, we expect to have it done by tomorrow evening. That leaves you plenty of time with your friends and family, right?

;-D

[GSX]

Er, going hull down isnt hard. Position your vehicle below where you want it to be (the berm) and then hunt it to the top. In this scenario it will definitely stop hull down.

You can almost win this one without de-bussing any infantry, although you have more fun doing the real thing.

As I have played this campaign under almost every patch I have to say that it has always turned out the same. If your given an hour plus to complete a mission, then, take your time. In reality, it may take 6 hours, so use your heavy weapons and conserve your fleshy ones.

[stoex]

You can almost win this one without de-bussing any infantry, although you have more fun doing the real thing.

Yeah GSX, that's been my strategy so far...2 Abrams on the berm, 2 to go through the gap, worked under 1.10 (where I started with CMSF), still works under 1.11. Maybe a mobility kill on the berm Abrams, never more.

Then the arty to demolish the trenches and the base itself.

In three runs so far I have always gotten a Syrian surrender without even entering the base with any units, and my Infantry barely gets a breath of the hot Syrian air.

So many ways to trounce the enemy in Mission 1, though....good thing Mission 2 is more challenging!