Is 1.21 the end of the patches before NATO?

[Field Marshal Blücher]

I still hope to get the NATO Module before Christmas...

Given that the NATO module has not been officially announced yet, the probability of this happening is exactly zero, unfortunately.

[zwobot]

So will there eventually be Target Reference Points?

[Battlefront.com]

Yes. They were omitted due to a lack of user interface to get them onto the map and hooked into the game environment. That code has already been written for Normandy and therefore will be available for all future games. The specific code for TRPs has not yet been written.

Steve

[zwobot]

You say "available for all future games", does this mean TRPs will not be introduced for CMSF with the NATO module or corresponding patch?

[Wiggum]

You say "available for all future games", does this mean TRPs will not be introduced for CMSF with the NATO module or corresponding patch?

I hope i will be introduced for CMSF with the NATO module or a future (maybe final) patch.

[Battlefront.com]

John Kettler,

Given the above, I find it very difficult to wrap my head around the notion that depression and elevation limit modeling don't matter and seldom come up.

The limitation has been in CM since 1999 when you guys first started playing the game. It's still there now. The number of times this has been brought up in the context of some sort of tangible game problem (in a real game, as opposed to something specifically setup for this) can probably be counted on one hand. Therefore, based on the fact that you guys aren't shy about pointing out game problems... we can only conclude that it isn't a significant problem.

Again, the fix for this is extremely time consuming and will cause player frustration and even confusion because it is very hard to convey such information to the player in a meaningful way. Given how few times people feel this is negatively affecting their game playing, given the thousands of other things you guys want to have included, and given how limited our time is... gun elevation/depression is on none of our ToDo Lists. It likely will never be simply because it's not a good place for us to spend our time on.

Steve

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Elmar,

Ironically, you just reinforced why this is such an non-issue If it isn't problematic enough to code the TacAI to handle it, then it's not actually happening in the game. Therefore, if it isn't happening in the game then there's no reason to waste months of resources trying to fix a problem that doesn't really exist.

Put another way... if you don't notice it then the problem doesn't exist. If you do notice it, then a problem exists. Whether the problem is significant enough to fix, or not, is a different question to ask.

We agree that the problem exists in theory. But in reality it shows up so infrequently that it really isn't much of an actual problem. Given the massive development effort that it would take to fix this problem, and the frustration it would cause the player, this is definitely something we're not going to tackle. Probably ever.

Steve

I'm not really in favour of a proper fix. As you rightly say that's a lot of effort for a small problem.

But I am in favour of shifting the problem to the person at fault: the numpty who parks his vehicles next to enemy occupied tall buildings.

Currently the cunning player hiding his AT team in (for instance) a bell tower is set for disappointment, being blasted by a tank firing nearly straight up.

If an elevation restriction is put in place without AI changes, at least the vehicle which is so badly placed is the victim. That'd be a more just and realistic outcome.

[Lanzfeld]

Yeah...maybe a 45 degree angle max with no AI changes? This way it would almost never haandicapp the AI unless he parked his tank next to a tall building. After he took a nade or two the tac AI would back him away if he was still alive?

Just a thought.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

45-ish degrees was along my line of thinking. Quite generous (typical seems to have been 20 degrees max elevation) so as not to interfere with play very often but would prevent firing at units in situations that are quite visibly ridiculous.

[John Kettler]

Steve,

Appreciate the reply and understand that coding was and remains both the 800 pound gorilla and the elephant in the corner. Given that this kind of modeling is such a headache for BFC, I'm curious as to how or if it's handled in the apparently ultra groggy Steel Beasts Pro? I think part of the problem in the CM games is that LOS traces to the base of the building, rather than the unit being aimed at or visible portions of a structure. This has also been an issue with artillery targeting, where, once dust was in, continuation fire became very difficult to do, where in reality, the FO can see the burst plume quite readily tens of meters above the impact point. The same would be true of artillery landing in treetops, yet this bit me personally playing The Melon Patch in RoW, generating huge misses. Speaking of artillery, I'm glad TRPs will be back in for CM:N, but I urge you again to please include separate registration for mortars, provisions for in game registration, recording of new targets, refires thereon, and defensive concentrations. U.S. practice was to register mortar concentrations even before the troops dug in.

Elmar Bijlsma,

In the military magazine article I mentioned, there was a telling graphic in which the two sides' principal armored weapons were positioned at the base of a small skyscraper, and the viewer was shown which weapon could reach how high. Even the Bradley, which is fitted with antiaircraft sights in addition to those for engaging ground targets, was at a major disadvantage in MOUT, as confirmed here. (Fair use)

http://www.pmulcahy.com/tracked_apcs/us_tracked_apcs.htm

"The ChainGun and the coaxial machinegun can be elevated to +59 degrees (+57 on the M2A1 and later) and depressed to -9 degrees. They cannot be independently elevated or depressed. Both are stabilized for fire on the move, at a full clip. This was thought to be adequate when the Bradley was designed, though urban warfare in Iraq has shown that in the case of elevation, it’s not enough. Ideas were floated to try to increase the elevation, but the construction of the turret simply makes this impossible. (This has led to an experimental retrofit of an external M-249 SAW [see below], and BCs are sometimes seen with M-16s or SAWs in their hands, or even the excess M-231 port firing weapons that are have fallen into almost-complete disuse with the M-2A2 and later versions of the Bradley.)"

The following paragraph in that same section on the Bradley also indicates some issues with the TOW launcher I was previously unaware of.

By contrast the BMP-2 can elevate to 74 degrees, the direct result, GRU defector Suvorov/Rezun tells us, of the battle against the "flying tank" or attack helicopter and CAS aircraft.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMP-2

The much lower tech BTR-60PB can do 30 degrees, per Isby's Weapons And Tactics of the Soviet Army, Fully Revised Edition, p. 171.

The BTR-70 also has a 30 degree elevation limit (Isby, p. 176).

But the BTR-80 is good for 60 degrees. This smacks of both Afghanistan combat experience and the "flying tank" issue.

http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/btr-80.htm

M1 series elevation is 65 degrees, per this site.

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/abrams.htm

If there's any good news for the U.S. in this MOUT comparison, it's that the T-72/T-80/T-90 family can elevate only 18 degrees, per Isby's Weapons And Tactics of the Soviet Army, Fully Revised Edition, page 138. This helps explain the terrible tank losses in Grozny, as part of a long list of Russian mistakes.

"The Chechens learned quickly how best to use the buildings of Grozny as defensive

positions. They found that the main guns of the Russian tanks were unable to elevate enough to fire upon the upper floors of the buildings, or low enough to fire upon the basements."

Taken from Lessons From Grozny, p. 15. smallwarsjournal.com/documents/mccafferty.pdf

Regards,

John Kettler

[cabal23]

I seen this.I had US troops hiding in the 4th floor of a medium sized building and then a Syrian tank rolled up right beside the building.He turned his turret into the building aimed at my troops and fired away.

How on earth could he see them and better yet how on earth could he hit them?

My squad was wiped out completely and my jaw hit the ground while i was scratching my head.

Bump that...been there in a similar situation.