semmes

Once the BeGr issue solved (functional in the turn after arrival), even if we know neither why nor how... A few times, both sides are able to play the scenario but it crashes when clicking Turn if PBEM or it's only working depending on who is starting the game. The only thing I have been able to read is updating Dbox, anyone has been able to find a magic cure for that? or an OTC remedy?

Troops just arrived as reinforcements, a sniper assigned to them was able to receive orders. Version was the first thing we checked. The date in the scenario (Aug 44) it's not the problem. It seems, that F&R does not have Sturmartillerie bde.

CMRT. I created one scenario, the BegleiterGr are greyed-out for my opponent (he cannot give them orders), they work for me in the editor and in battle; I don't have F&R, he does. In some scenarios I have "old" Soviet Rf bn that I cannot purchase anymore (the new ones are different in the editor), they seem to work for everyone. Anyone any idea what could be going on there?

I am away from my laptop now, the one before last Microsoft Visual C++ 2015-22 that you can download, I cannot remember the version. Old driver and the latest VC++, that is what is working for me; no Adrenalin, obviously. I just read about a 08/03/2023 Microsoft Visual C++ 2015-22, I didn't use that one. It could the W update, in my case it was after a W11 update. I know this works, I don't know why.

I have been using AMD integrated graphics in laptops all the time (10 years?) without a hitch, not the highest settings, but around Improved/Better/Excellent. After a recent W11 update, CTDs all the time. I went back to an older AMD driver and the newest Visual C++, not the one of the update, and problem solved. I didn't try new driver+new C++, if it's working don't repair it. Yes, NVDIA is better, but there is no need to "avoid" AMD, (using Deep Blue would be better too).

Intended for CM2.

I have been using AMD integrated graphics in laptops all the time without a hitch, not the highest settings but around Improved/Better/Excellent. After a W11 update, CTDs all the time. I went back to an old AMD driver and the newest Visual C++, not the one of the update, and problem solved. Yes, NVDIA is better, but there is no need to "avoid" AMD (using Deep Blue would be better too).

You got the "impression", right. A test, 10 or a 1.000 will give a sample, an approximation. The limited tests I have done confirm my impression, leaders and gunners take a disproportionate number of casualties; even when the code keeps the LMG behind to the right, where it cannot fire. A total of 16 casualties, everything else is irrelevant because there were no special circumstances. For example, 18 units took casualties, is it relevant to know how many more units were there, who took no casualties? We just had a patch, lorries are still charging forward. Someone forgot, again, to write the code to tell them to stop after Passengers Dismount. Yes, I do complaint.

I was testing AI plans, so this is not a test, only an impression; that has been happening all the time. An AI ridge, mostly occupied by teams, under artillery fire for something like 10 minutes. 18 units, they lost 4 leaders out of 19 and 3 gunners out of 6; 9 more casualties. In this one I wrote it down, but it is always surprising to see how AI squads were able to keep one or both of them; not at the end, but the first casualties. I don't know if there is a different code for the AI, but, if there is, it seems to make a better use of "random"; even if three out of six, with a lot of riflemen around, looks like a huge coincidence. But hey!, we got the graphics for the PzIII fixed.

CMRT. I noticed something like that with lorries, but now I was testing concealment (more about that), so I sent teams along long 3 tiles front woods. Move order from point A to point Z, but the may move to C or D (right or left), or H and T. They will move out of cover, into mines and anywhere else. About the, limited, concealment test. In one of them, first 5 casualties, 3 leaders and 2 soldiers; no LMG, no snipers. Out of 5 leaders and 15 soldiers. Three trees provide protection, everything else is chaos, not random; there is a certain higher probability to see troops moving in the open. The only relevant factor is if the unit had the eyes open at the right moment, those "observation cycles". Between 8 and 170m there is no other relevant (enough) factor. Worse, moving through a wood (number of trees irrelevant but from what tile they are looking out seems to be relevant [my RL life experience has a problem with this, in a patch of grass surrounded by trees/bushes I will see more than among the bush/behind a tree, because I will get myself where (in a Combat Mission) I cannot see]) the expecting side may get fire by an invisible enemy, so is not going to fire back, is not going to throw (irreplaceable) hand grenades; they will graciously let themselves get killed. Worse, one guy with a rifle (even a SMG) cannot hit an enemy standing up and turning his back 8m away and then I get too many pot shots hitting crossing targets more than 200m away. That is completely possible, WW2, millions of rounds, but here, it looks like... Critical hit (0%): 30%, critical hit (100%): 30%, 50/50: 40%. A good OP is not such, it's just luck. (Talking about a firefight).

I had some Gr walking towards a village, then a MRL barrage fell among the houses... and the Gr started running to the rockets; as they run towards the bullets. I do understand that this is the Beta version and that, as soon as the testers see that, they will correct it. That's why now we have: Fire! (AI) = Run! instead of Fire! (AI/no AI) = Take cover! Hopefully, in something like 20 years, they will star selling the actual game...

As happy as (American) Indians fighting for US, I guess.

Indeed... Now, if I sell a pack of scenarios and I get $1 for each download and 1.000 in a year... or, more realistically $0.1 and 100 downloads a year... is there any point? On the other hand, getting a game or DLC for a pack of 5 or 10 scenarios, so they can add them to the game being sold... That would be nice and I don't think any player is going to complaint for having 40 scenarios instead of 10. I would say people create scenarios because they want to play them, but having that incentive, I don't think it's going to push anyone back. They are being created, so... is there any point?

Allow me to clarify. I was talking about authenticity. I don't know about "efforts", it seems that you do. If you mean "results", then yes, I do think that the results of those efforts you know about are terrible. I have seen a lorry, I have seen an ammunition box: "Six Ammo Boxes". Could you point out to me where I mention "real effort"? Someone wrote in the code "6", it could had been 40 or 100, so that when you edit/create an scenario, you need one lorry, not 16; besides "authenticity". Could you point out my use of the word "perfection"? The code could be that after one minute, the LMG 42 is going to use a 250 ammo box, if not moving. I do object about your "a few things" and that is my point about -lack of- authenticity. There are more imperfection in the world!, really?

Six ammo boxes.

I would say you are quite generous with the word "details". Yes, if I compare it with the WW2 version of The Game of The Goose it is great. If I compare with what it has been done wrong and could have been done right, I could call it terrible. What if we don't compare it to anything but just look at its own quality? I wonder what do they think, in the Professional Version, about the magic pixel through woods and houses?, just another detail? It is necessary to carry the war to the North in order to find a way out of the impasse... in the South. Pham B. Dong.

What authenticity? That of an ammo lorry carrying 6 ammo boxes or that of a LMG 42 only firing 50 rounds drums? Vietnam, in terms of the UN Charter, was a war of American aggression. D. Ellsberg.

I have a Su-85 actually firing through one wall of a two storey building at a Marder; the closest wall has been already demolished while firing against infantry. Quantum CMRT? If the code for area fire just selects a point around the target area, we get pure magic... just like Christmas

I run out of AA ammo in something like half an hour. Let's see if I get this right, I have to dig deep pits surrounded by trees to place some AA guns so I can get some extra ammo; a lot of pits. A great game indeed. We, not the game, whoever is trying to design a scenario, have to invent a ridiculous, full of fantasy Mcguffin to to sort out problems created by the code. Also, the magic pixels through woods; the AT not looking at those 900 trees in front, together with houses, barns, folds in the terrain and bushes, but at tree number 1017, 76 degrees to its left, 1900m away; one 105 HE killing one guy 257m away, backwards, through a wood and at the same time twenty 120 HE rounds kill 3 guys out of 5, four of those rounds within 10m of them (completely possible, but when you put them together is a bad joke); one 57 round kills 3 guys (one tree), eight 75 rounds kill five guys (three trees): 1 tree = nothing, 3 trees = bunker; probably, providing in the game, some information about what covers mean in the game would be useful... apart from magic. A very good game if you compare it to the WW2 version of The Game of the Goose.

Message sent.

Message sent.

I think he means "playing" a balanced scenario, not counting points at the end. The only winner in 1812 was Tchaikovsky. S. Short.

Melee?, WW2?, I hope not. That is my point, surrendering but not surrendered. In another game, once they surrender, the enemy gives them orders... so you can get them out of the way. Maybe something about who is closer?, if anybody is in an adjacent cell?, something? Unless, of course, is just another one -like the only-one-side armour- to add to the pile of "is not happening often", a fantasy game but... "not often. War is much too serious a matter to be entrusted to the military. G. Clemenceau

Also, you could do two scenarios, one with AI -and more AI troops, less troops for the player or different quality, or even changing the map a little- and the "balanced" one for H2H. That's what I do. We are the unwilling, lead by the unqualified, doing the unnecessary for the ungrateful.

Why not? I would say there is plenty of room for improvement. I have been told that the firing range for Police Officers armed with pistols is 10-15m; of course, that's RL, nothing to do with this. What I was doing, why I was doing it or even if I was trying to do anything at all is a completely different matter; as "the outcome of the game" is. I was talking about what is actually happening in the game, just that. Would it be different if it's one guy in a barn firing at troops entering the farm, 50m away? By the comments about crew members I would say it's not, it's the same thing all over. That about killing prisoners, has it been "reviewed and adjusted" too? There are new pilots with fear and there are new pilots without fear but there are no old pilots without fear.