Mitra76

The two games are different in style, the comparison means little; the only thing in common are the 3d figures. AP is more platoon\company oriented in order management with a good part of game played in the 2d map. CM is more on the direct control of single units and platoon.

Metacritic is a devil tool Perhaps you read of Creative assembly declaration about how they do the game for have 90% on Metacritic. So they create the game on for like to a few of professional reviewers who will play for few hours the game

Yes mitraglia corresponds to french mitraille and to english canister.

My pleasure; the exact translation tells the ammunition type was introduced starting from the 1936; the ammunition withdrawns from the 1935 was the canister type (mitraglia). Probably the translator merge the lines. Effetto pronto was not thought as a Hesh but at the end it worked like a HESH, because the distance reduced his efficiency, thing not possible for a true HEAT. The trigger of ammunition was in the back like in a AP warhead but with the form of a HEAT, so the explosion was caused after the full pressure of warhead over the hull (which having the form of a HEAT cannot penetrate), a true heat will create the explosion jet before the warhead was completly pressed, creating a single point of fusion in the hull. The confusion is from the form of EP, extenally like a HEAT but inside like a AP. In reality also EPS are not fully HEAT because at the model 42 was considered a full HEAT. I don't know what this the difference between EPS and EPSmod42, perhaps a improvement in the design and warhead.

The "granata perforante" in the list is armour piercing; the 65mm was sufficient for stop 1940/41 english tanks a part the Matildas; it had less velocity than the 47/32 but the is heavier and with bigger expl.charge. The Effetto Pronto (HESH) and Effetto pronto speciale (HEAT) for the 47/32 start to be used late, so it was a necessity continue to use the 65mm

video yesterday test: stress test in multi with units for 8 players

Don't forget that in Sicily the italian divisions was mainly coastal defence divisions of very very low quality. The bulk of trained divisions was lost in Africa and almost complety destroyed in Russia. Only Livorno,Napoli,Aosta and Assietta divisions was combat divisions, but they never see combat during the war just to Sicily invasions.

Well on TW center last time I try to promote real warfare 2 northern crusades in other games section I received a series of PM from the moderator TB666: " Do not make another thread about this game, you got 1 thread and that's it. At the moment you are starting to look like a advertisment account. Make another thread about this game or another game from this development team and I will consider it advertisment and you will be infracted for it. " " What did I tell you about advertisement ? I know you come from that site that you just posted and that you have in the past suggested that people should go there(which is odd since it's all in italian). No more links to that site and no more bumping or double or triple posts. Last chance. " " You have posted more then one post with this link. I also told you to stop double posting. There is a edit button, use it. If no one posts then no one cares. Bumping the thread will cause the thread to be locked. " PS: on TW center there are specific sections for single software house so the adv is done by them not by me. He lost time to edit my posts and the posts of users who reply in the thread and at the first occasion closed the thread because is open from much time. Considering I was not a professional spammer and my only objectives it was to inform about the game, the only explication is the TW center is a subsidiary of CA/Sega.

Binary divisions was a fascists period change following Ethiopian war experience where three regiments divisions resulted too heavy. The idea itself was not bad, because the principle was to use two divisions in coordinate mode, leaving to army corps the duty of quaternary division, and increasing the support weapons for each division. The problems were: the italian industrial system was not so big to create and mantain the increased weapon request, at the 1940 the reorganization was still incompleted: the complete reorganization was foreseen for the 1943 like the full equipment change after the losses of spanish and ethiopian war which consumed the bigger part of war ministery resources for new equipment. More than this respect Germany situation, the fascist regime was slave of industrial complex and not the contrary, Mussolini fear more the Agnelli than the allied (being a regime based on consensus the possibility of strykes is considered with terrors). NO industrial mobilization was declared, no standardization was considered, you can see the planes: the country with less industrial capability produced more planes model than any other. Simply the regime don't force a single model to vary industry houses.

Some time ago I did a analysis about how work the QB: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99482 I think the main problem is that the parameter "type" doesn't work properly and the system has a incremental logic: it take the platoon and if has still "money" take the company of same platoon, so you risk to have a fill tank company ad place of a tank platoon+ a infantry platoon + mech platoon

Multiplayer test did yesterday with Tartari

How about to do some multiplayer test this week-end; saturday I have time; i have created a steam group for see online easily the other players: http://steamcommunity.com/groups/WFG-TOWonl I suggest to use tunngle for play: http://www.tunngle.net/ is easier to set and work better than hamachi, and avoid problem of NAT, router and similia

According to Guicciardini, this was the reply Trivulzio gave to King Louis XII of France when this last asked what was necessary for make a war. I think a first step (I don't know how easy is) could be improve the auto QB; if my analysis of some time ago is correct ( http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=99482 ) a good step could be limit the automatic choice to platoon level without take full company also if the battle point are sufficient for take it, this will force the system to take more mixed troops.

Superfly i amaze you don't know: for make war you need three things: money, money and again money! (for who don't know it is a famous phrase of renaissance's condottiero Gian Giacomo Trivulzio) Like all the wargames CMx2 is not sure a low cost games nor a mass game: I suppose Battlefront know how many boxes can sold of game and how much the expenses are for determine the unitary price. I'm not unhappy about the prices of CM series (of course I would be happy if they cost less, because i'm not stupid ), I assumed they are not low cost products and pay the upgrade for old versions is not a bad thing as far the upgrade contains a good number of real improvements. The only thing I don't like is see the CMSF1 not upgraded for the technical reasons, because i think it has still much potential: also without change the game himself I think a external tool which permits to generate QB scenari with manual choice like in BN it will give a big impulse to multiplayer of game.

Yes the semovente is a designed for direct shoots, is similar to Nashorn as idea. The 90 mm has similar values to 88 mm as perforation with AP and HEAT. Also the Semovente 75/18 when use HEAT shoot can destroy Sherman tanks

I'm candidate me too ; follow my suggestion, use google drive, is the best for big files

WHy you don't use google drive? 5 giga of online space, you just need to sincronize your local directory and the online directory, without take time in upload processes.

Sorry I re-read the manual; I must give the hold position command

Exist a mode for disable the unit AI? Is pretty difficult keep the tanks alive when they always turn the flanks to AT gun every time for hit a infantryman

I follow with interest me too this mod. I would like to proof also the game in multiplayer, is from the time of first TOW that I don't try the game. How about decide a week's day (or more) and a time (depending from the time zones), and meet at example in a tunngle lobby?

Why don't give in "subcontracting" to a minor software or in a collaboration contract (like for CMA with Snowball) the development of new modules or variant for CMSF? Of course if economically is profitable. I understand Battlefront points on moddability, also if I don't agree completly (it depends of the grade of moddability you leave), but if I can make a parallel wht the company where I work, when our lines of production are full and we can produce directly, for not lost a gain we make a subcontracting contract with a third for use his production lines; we gain less respect to a direct production but anyway more than not produce at all.

I saw now that also in CMBN manual the "type" parameter for QB automatic purchase is listed, but in reality in the game is not present. Is it a print error in the manual?

ME, medium battle, mix and excellent quality gives more frequently at example a average of good units, respect the normal, because it take platoons more frequently respect the company, if the first unit is a expensive one (so no sufficient point for take a full company). Usually a small battle with average gives a company or a company + a platoon, if I raise the quality to excellet usually I have two or three good platoons.

Always theoretically speaking (I don't know how hard should be in the real routine), a good mode to improve the system will be to set the option for avoid to take companies but only platoon level unit at maximum, this will increase the possibilities to have different types units, and a secondary option for avoid to take rare\limited formations, which are too expensive for tiny\small battles.

I evaluated in these days the QB in CMSF (I think I generated more than 200 QB from CMSF and CMA), as programmer I consider it as a fascinating routine, also if has problems, but due to complexity and number of parameters I think is normal. Also the comparison with CMBN QB help me both for differences and similitude. Please note this analysis is a mine intellectual game (a little crazy but it was fun), it is not official or done reading the source code, as far I know can be completely wrong. The first part is similar to CMBN, you have a hidden amount of points to expended for your force; the amount of points for attacker and defender is determined by the battle size, battle type (ME, probe, attack, assault) and by the force adjustment parameters. The service parameters explain himself. The next important parameters is the “Branch”; at first I was deceived thinking it was linked to button of “branch” in the scenario editor, but this is false; the branch of a TO&E is given by the branch of single units present in. The US. Army Armor branch is not present in the scenario editor button, because is in list with mechanized forces, but the branch is anyway different (as you see from the unit icon on gui bar), and the editor take this not the editor subdivision. I found only a case of mixed branch (for company level not battalion level): the Canadian recon troops on Coyote vehicle have the troops with infantry branch, and the vehicle with mech. infantry branch, so they are taken for both the branch. I don’t know if this is a bug or a desired effect, it offer anyway interesting possibilities of mixed branch. The fit parameter is identical to editor functionality and the quality parameters works in similar mode to parameter in CMBN QB human choice selection of quality (that in the left-middle part of screen, with typical as default). This permit to generate, between specified limits, the soft factors and the equipment of units selected, in a mode similar to manual selection in the scenario editor, when you leave the soft factors set to typical. Fit and Quality parameters have a important part for evaluating the “points cost” of a unit; higher is the quality select higher will be the randomized soft factors and more expensive will be the unit cost, the contrary when the quality lower. The CMBN quality parameter in human choice QB works at the same mode, so you have a visual example of the process. The next steps are the more largely hypothetical derived only by observation of frequency, but I think there is a good possibility they are near the true routine. As I told before the “type” parameter indicate a TO&E in the selected branch; could be a company or a battalion, anyway is always the first level of TO&E you see in the scenario editor. Each army has different subdivision so it is difficult to indicate the correct “Type” for each TO&E. Second observation the AI work always for company and platoon level, never for partial company or platoon, and in this is different from the “suggestion” functionality in CMBN. In CMBN automatic choice the AI can take battalions, companies, platoons, sections, and can eliminate from the TO&E units for decrease the amount of points or rarity necessary. In CMSF the AI take or a full company or a full platoon (or section). If you see over the map the units generated by the QB never have the battalion indication over the company, nor the company for independent platoon, much different from the units inserted using the scenario editor, like they wasn’t taken according to the hierarchy but extracted directly from the database. Sure some particular types of units are excluded by default like the camion units and independent forward observers, because useful in scenarios not in QB. So as first step the system extract the first valid unit from the list, according to a random factor determined also by criteria: the rarity of units (that you see in the scenario editor), the level of unit (he try to take before a whole company or independent platoon if possible, if not he tried to take one of the sub levels of the same company) perhaps the “type” parameters and other criteria I don’t know, perhaps other much more complex (like reduce the % of possibility a already taken unit type\code name can be take a second type). Then the AI generate the soft factors according to quality parameter, this determine automatically also the value in points. The unit is taken if his point value is under the points amount set for the battle otherwise is excluded. After the first unit is taken the amount of points for the battle is reduced of value of this unit and the other units which values go over the new amount, are excluded from the new extraction. And this sequence of controlled random extraction and amount reduction go ahead just it is no more possible take other units with the residual amount (perhaps exist also a limit of expense in point for a single unit for avoid to use all for a single unit, I don’t know). Note also the support\artillery enter in this process. The extremes of this selection can be seen in two cases: the amount of points doesn’t permit to take any units (set the battle tiny, minimum purchase adjustment, quality excellent, republican guards), in this case no unit is taken, the map is blank. And the amount of points is too much respect the base of TO&E (set huge map, assault, quality poor, maximum purchase adjustment, us army armor) so you start to have duplicate of same unit (at example two company A of same type) like you selected a second battalion, and you have a big number of support\artillery. So my suggestions for have a good QB forces more frequently is: 1 - avoid branches with few TO&E and too specialist, especially with the other rare and limited, this is valid especially for western. Select mix in these cases, more TO&E units you have, more the “always” units you can have. 2 – With little battles, set the quality to poor or fair (depending also from the battle type) you will have more point amounts an so more possibilities the AI choice more units. As alternative, choice a battle of superior dimension (medium at example) and set Excellent as quality, you will have bigger map with smaller OOB. 3 - some Canadian troops are under valuated in points terms, so they are taken in mass. Avoid them.