A Canadian Cat

Indeed the target machine specs need to be carefully chosen. I am fairly sure that BFC will not force us all to upgrade to some 2026 level of tech that we don't even knows the vocabulary for but they will also not likely support really old or low powered stuff just because a handful of people are using it. When I refereed to legacy systems above I really just meant that if you needed to use a 32 bit library that only exists as a 32 bit library or you are fixing bugs in a 32 bit app that your company released years ago. I did not mean it was worth staying with 32 bit programming for new products so they run on Windows 95. That ship has sailed.

Hunt stops when contact is made. That includes spotting an enemy. The decision to withdraw and possibly pop smoke is made by the level of threat and what is known. If a tank gets hit by something and cannot see the shooter they will nearly certainly withdraw. If they spot an enemy and begin to engage it before the enemy does the reverse they will almost certainly stay and fire. All options in between. Crew skill enters into this as well.

I am a coder and 64 bit would be the default for new development. The reason to do 32 bit work would be to support something legacy - either your own code or some specialized library or something. Yes, more working memory would lead to the ability to support larger maps, more forces. In the modern context more memory available for a 64 big application is somewhat decoupled from graphics performance since that would be handled by the GPU. However CM has traditionally used a lot of CPU power for CM specific work so it is unclear how this would play out in a new architecture. At the time the old engine was made GPUs were not as advanced and BFC wanted to make sure the game could be played without top end GPUs. I imagine the considerations will be different now but how that actually plays out in the design I have no idea. I am not a game developer so I lack any insight in how those choices are / could be made in a modern context.

Sure there are.

Oh yes it works no problem. Same code distributed by all three methods.

Oooo there's a logo. Excellent that the first step.

This is the way

Awesome summary @Andrew Kulin. I added a bit of colour / answered question or two. It's the Matrix account. I'm like you though and same id for both. At first I didn't realize they were really separate but they are - sigh. No, there is no difference. You really need to make sure you do enter your email. I am not sure if you can still log in without it (I think it was during testing that you could at one point) but if you do skip the email you are pretty much guaranteed to have issues. Good tip.

Alas I am still working on the 2.0 release. Or more accurately I am not currently working on it. I will get back to it soon, I hope.

Indeed. I have come to the same conclusion as @IICptMillerII. Plus, in a tournament setting you cannot even reliably contact your opponent.

Oops sorry I thought you were the OP saying that some had upgraded and some not. I get it now. Yes, as you said both sides (all sides) need to be on the same version and upgrade at the same time. To the OP @Tom Konczal you can get that noisy effect when upgrading a saved game or a PBEM. It should go away after a minute or two. If it doesn't then there is not anything that can be done, other than going back to the old version and replay a few turns and wait to upgrade after you are done with your game.

Good post with some good thoughts. Thanks. I like the idea of some places along the wider front get prioritized. By the same token some places can be de-prioritized - I'll skip going through the middle of that field thanks, we'll move around the forested edges instead. Using terrain is super important for sure. I might consider adjusting my usage a little based on thinking about your post. You know it it was "obvious" it was still a good a reminder. We all need that now and then.

No. Steve has said that the engine 5 update will not be an overhaul or replacement of Open-GL. He has said it will be looking for optimizations to make things better but *not* a rewrite. To make our gaming live better. I think that would not be a waste of time at all.

I love your list of just three things. There is an awful lot of stuff / work covered by this one.

What @slysniper describes sounds a lot like how I got an M10 .50 cal to fire:

I just ran into a post I made describing my system: I am unsure if the drop box link is still live. Let me know if anyone wants it and it is no longer working.

You can get that when you upgrade a saved game and run it in a newer game version. It should / usually goes away after a minute or two. You guys should all be playing using the same version. It is normal for playing different versions to not work at all and the few times they do it is no unusual for you to end up with corrupt files. Just don't do it. On windows it is easy to install a separate version so you can run the old one or the new one. So, if you have laggarts you can keep playing them and also have some fun with the new game.

I am unaware of any engine optimizations that are included in the Down Fall patch. What you are seeing is entirely a placebo effect.

Oh ouch. That sucks! We have all suffered similarly at one time or another. It is too late to save this file but may I suggest creating a back up regime. You can go whole hog on backup software and removable drives or you can just have a script .zip up a directory and copy it some where with an incrementing number. I have a set of .bat files on my windows box that I use when working on scenarios so that I an zip up the folder and keep the last 10 .zip files for the project. DM me if you want to talk details.

Yeah. Don't use that method. The HD point is determined by either the final move point or the target specified on that final point. Above, people are talking about the first method. Do not do that. If for any reason you make a mistake your tank will drive to that point - which is nearly certainly not what you want. You may ask "what mistake"? If your tank starts out in a place where they already have LOS to the HD place then it will never stop moving since it never reached HD. So what you do is add your move orders out of LOS of the place where you want to be HD to. Then specify the HD move command up to the crest of the obstruction. Once there set a target order to the place you want to be HD for. This is a bit iterative just keep tweaking until you get the target command set. This way the worst that can happen is your tank stops at the top of the obstruction. Which is much better than driving down the other side and into the open.

No the core units file is not saved inside the .cam files (or no one know where it is - I actually don't know for 100% certainty). The extracted scenario names are constructed using the campaign file name, the count and the internal scenario name. So, not quite the original names. Yes, you would have to do that. I am not aware of anyone having done that yet. Please report back if you do.

No, the experience setting and available equipment already do this. What we should likely do is up the experience of dedicated scout teams when designing scenarios. As long as the training advantage is appropriate for a given force. Modern NATO armies do select some of their best soldiers to receive recon training, for example. So, if the training infrastructure is in place it would likely be appropriate for a dedicated scout formation have a higher level of training than the line infantry.

Not as a specific "enhancement". However smaller teams are harder to spot so a couple of scouts will be harder for the enemy to spot. Again not as some kind of skill enhancement. However in some TO&Es those formation s will have more experience and better equipment. If so those things will make a difference. That is a factor. So is equipment (scopes, IR, etc).

My MO is to try using group orders for company sized units. What I do is select the whole company, change the focused unit to something either on one of the edges or in the centre depending on where they will be moving. Then I plot some moves for all of them. Then I just check to make sure nothing too crazy was plotted for anyone and adjust as necessary. If the units are in a reasonable formation before the move that is all I need to do. If not I pay attention to the end points so that platoons are in a formation I want them to be in the end. Also I usually add some pauses so that small units (HQ, LMG, FOs etc) don't get ahead of the squads. Last thing you want is the company CO to be leading the charge all by themselves after a few minutes. All of that is for units not in contact. Any contact or likely hood of contact and there is no way I'd do that for a company sized force. Then I would do platoons at the largest and there would be a lot more adjusting and pauses and changes for quick to hunt going on as appropriate for the terrain. Not to mention ending in cover of some kind if possible.

That thought has occurred to me as well. How many heads of state have been killed by any drone so far? I think the number is zero, right? If you mean more people will have access to these weapons, maybe that makes it more likely but will non state actors really get more access than they already have? I'm not sure it changes much to be honest. Clearly this possibility has to be something security teams are paying attention too but I'm not sure the chances go up a lot really. Clearly state actors are refraining from doing such a thing and the non state actors that might don't really have access to many resources with a long range so their choices of targets are limited by geography.