L.Tankersley

Try Hide plus Target Arc. (Just guessing based on past experience with CMBO.) Enter your license key -- there should be a button or link to do this at the bottom of the nag screen.

And here I was thinking it wouldn't be needed. Well, we'll see what the full game has in store...

I have seen it on all 3 demo scenarios, but interestingly I was replaying the Closing the Pocket scenario today as the Germans and while early on I saw the problem, about halfway though the game suddenly it started working properly -- i.e., foliage swapping back into view as I moved the camera away. When I noticed the change, I had just switched back into the game after checking email, but I don't know if that's related. (And I definitely had switched out and back into the game other times without the problem going away.) I haven't fiddled with the 3d quality, I've got it turned all the way up. I might experiment a bit later.

> it may be something to do with your graphics card. Color me unsurprised; if BTS cares I have an ATI Radeon HD 5450.

I like the idea of the ALT-T option to show only the trunks of "nearby" trees, while showing the foliage of trees further away from the camera. However, I have found that when using this option, once a particular tree has been reduced to a trunk, it never shows foliage again*. So if I fly the camera all over the battlefield, every tree will be shown trunk-only regardless of distance. Please fix or... * not entirely true; if I context-switch out to another application and then switch back to CMBN, the state of the tree foliage gets reset. Plus I get to watch the textures get swapped into the graphics card.

I'm sure I caused some friendly fire (which isn't, really) HE casualties when I neglected to cancel a tank's area targeting on an area being assaulted by infantry. Don't know about small arms/MG fire.

Sure; I imagine that the concern is with you (the player) doing this based on knowledge that the guy actually making the call for fire wouldn't have IRL. But since there's no requirement that there actually be a spotted enemy unit anywhere within the strike area, I don't know that I really buy that.

Hi, Kip! Based on my thus-far limited exposure to CMSF, I guess I would agree that it is a potential diamond-in-the-rough. But it's still pretty rough. Not having been following the forums closely, I haven't seen the statement/explanation you reference above. Can you point me to it to assuage my curiosity? Regards,

The biggest piece of feedback I would offer about the artillery/air system has to do with the actual targeting process where you click on the map to designate your target. In CMx1 (sorry to dredge up that hoary old chestnut) you could call in fire on a target that wasn't in your spotter's LOS (albeit with a pretty punishing accuracy penalty). In CMx2, apparently you cannot. And more significantly, you also can't invoke any of the area/linear fire patterns unless the specific points the user must click on are within the spotter's LOS. I can understand this in the case of a point target, sort of, but imagine you're calling fire in on a city block. If you can't see the center of the target area, you can't target it precisely. And if you can't see a point at the appropriate radius from the center point, you can't select that radius. This strikes me as (a) annoying and ( unrealistic. Especially since sometimes you can work around this through spotting e.g. an upper building level at the appropriate radius, but other times you cannot. I can see an argument for not letting you call in fire on something you can't see yourself, I guess (although at least for the US, with all their advanced SA capabilities in the model, one would think that this information would be disseminated between units quite a bit more quickly than it is in-game), but it seems to me that you ought to be able to allow selection of various impact patterns without requiring LOS to the (pretty much completely arbitrary) points on the ground that the user must select, since these are artifacts of the UI, and not the system being modelled.

Hi, all -- Sgt AA just alerted me to this thread (from purely altruistic motives, I have no doubt), and it's cheering to see some of the cool results people have generated. BTW, if someone has actually put McAuliffe's tutorial into document form, I'd be happy to host it along with (or as part of) the Mapping Mission download. Things are pretty busy for me, and I haven't looked at the code in a long time, but some recent events have made me think again about returning to the code to look at adding CM:AK support. We'll see if that happens. I will at least try to replicate Sgt AA's problems and see if there's anything that can be done. Regarding your questions, my initial thought (based on hazy memory) is that you should be able to open 1.10 files in 1.12 and vice-versa, but I will investigate. Your question about 16-bit vs 32-bit -- are you asking about bitmap color depth for underlays? If so, I would expect that if anything posed a problem, it would be 16-bit; 32-bit bitmaps should always work. Regards,

Ok, I kind of remember that the defender can create "fallback" or "secondary" defensive positions, if allowed by the scenario/operation. It may not be a bug, per se, but I would contend that if foxholes that magically fill themselves when captured by the enemy aren't a bug, then they are at least broken by design. ;P But note it wasn't ALL of the foxholes; just the ones that were in no-man's land. That's suspicious to me.

So, I'm playing an operation (Blitzkreig, from the CMBB CD) against L4Pilot, and we've run up against something neither of us has noticed before. I'm attacking as the Germans. At the end of battle 2, I had forces occupying some ground on which Russians had dug foxholes. Some of my troops occupied these foxholes at the conclusion of the battle. At the start of battle 3, all of these "captured" foxholes that were in "no-man's land" had disappeared. Foxholes I had captured that were within my setup area remained. Has anyone else noticed this? A search didn't turn anything up, but maybe the issue has been raised and archived. BF.C please fix or do sumfink. [ February 13, 2007, 07:20 PM: Message edited by: L.Tankersley ]

"It looks cool that way" is an acceptable answer, too. Haven't really had time to be following the development recently, but from a quick glance here it's looking pretty cool. Looking forward to the release! Regards,

Re: unit icons Just wondering if there's a reason why you're using a diamond icon for blue/friendly forces, and a circle icon for red/hostile forces, since that's the opposite of standard (e.g. MIL-STD-2525) usage?

Just checking in here ... sorry some of you are having trouble with the download. I have seen the "invalid archive" problem before in the past with files I've hosted, and it seems to be something to do with the host system, not the download (that is, multiple different downloaders, including me, have seen the same problem). I don't see that problem with this file, though (just rechecked), so maybe it's a transient issue. If you all can sort the issue out on your own, that's great -- but for limited numbers, anyway, I could email the package directly. Just send me an email. Regards,