Other Means

How do you model something that hadn't been tested in combat? </font>

It's completely realistic only being able to create smoke to the front: What, you think they just "throw" grenades? With their "hands"? (that piccy looked a lot better in my imagination)

I can't think of a single Sci-Fi book that would have interesting infantry combat in. For a grand strategy/ship combat game something from Larry Niven's Known Space would be good.

I far prefer the solid block, it gave me a better idea of the height differences and you can see through the back of the map now.

IMHO this comes back to the same 3 roles the player is fulfilling on the battlefield; God, Company Commander and Squad leader. With the smoke issue, as the CC I’d have zero control but as the SL I’d still know where I was and where I should be heading – so as the player, I’d like the ability to turn the smoke off (or very translucent) to enable me to give the orders the SL should be able to give. Of course, wearing my God hat I can have them act in an integrated way with the rest of the units which I think is unrealistic, which is why I’ve been lobbying for command movement and area fire delays, but that’s a separate tale.

1) No way to speed up time. I think it's on Steve's To Do list, along with a thousand and one other things including "take a day off already" 2) "If hitting it with a hammer doesn't help, use a bigger hammer". I've never seen bullets take down a structure, but larger HE has no trouble.

Got an image to show what you mean?

Similar to what I do, I have a some web space as part of my ISP package so I give my oppos the ftp details. Works very well, and AFAIK it's quite usual to get that kind of deal. If anyone's having trouble it might be worth checking if they're entitled to some space.

I've had a PBEM CTD in 1.07 but a re-send by my oppo sorted it. Not had a failure like that though.

Oh I don't know, could be a great "I dream of Jeannie" mod

I totally agree. A "disengage" or "break contact" command would be an excellent intermediate step in the Oh S#$%!!! process. </font>

Sorry yes - it's a joke between he and I.

If you've nothing to add then GET OUT OF THE THREAD* <font size="-3">*said like the ghost on the train in Ghost</font>

Steve had said they want to introduce event triggers etc, so maybe this is place-holder functionality until that comes along.

That's what I was thinking of doing, I didn't think about the blasting. Hmm.

Great, I'll give it a go then. <font size="-3">Try not to laugh</font>

If you'll be so kind. 1) Do we have a type of terrain that is impassible to AFV's but not infantry? 2) Do we have any terrain that will slow down AFV's? 3) Do we have a type of woods that are impassible to AFV's? 4) Do we have any kind of cover that's impassible to infantry but not AFV's? Thanks for any help you can give me, you can probably guess I'm thinking of taking the plunge, it's just so hard to get an idea of elevation without going into 3D mode.

Splinty, I think BD6's point was that you NEED those patrols, and they need to be done on foot. Doing what you were doing as it's the best way to beat the insurgency and paying for a hulking great truck to drive around is only going to mean less money is available to pay for soldiers, and as IED's can be built to any size - or something else done - we actually gain very little when we increase protection above small arm levels, and if it gets to the point we need to, send a proper AFV in. And with less soldiers, you're spread thinner, so you get what happened in Vietnam. The 300m around each patrol is 100% American. But when it moves on they revert to who actually lives there - the insurgency. I'd also add that long term, it actually means more casualties as you need to be there longer, in a more protracted, bloodier conflict, so his point makes sense to me.

What the game started under 1.06?

I guess the thing to do is start loading up different mods and seeing what the FPS hit is like. Guess it'll be very machine dependent. Maybe later on, the way the crap hung on Strykers is different could be the same for infantry, so we get a random-ish sample of uniforms etc.

Does this come under "a few little tweaks"?

DU? Damn. So heavier than lead (18.95 g/cm3 vs 11.34 g/cm3 - I knew those figures off the top of my head, honest) but still - given the energy in modern penetrators I'd still wonder if it's a smaller ratio of protection than you'd get in WWII, given that the percentage area covered looks about the same.

Thanks all - as usual the theory exceeds the practice by a fair amount. Judging from this pic, the track guards are very thin, so I'd expect quite a lot of non-penetrating hits to be M-kills, if in the general area. So overall I'm wondering if the amount of immobilisations are out of wack - given that in (e.g.) WWII even the slight armour over the tracks was proportionally bigger than that what's now present.

Pardon the aside - in full NBC lockdown how waterproof are they? After all if some nerve agent can get through - ? And yes, I know having the drivers hatch open would tend to be against protocol

Jason, I do give the community that kind of effort. I'm a beta tester; unpaid and actually helping to make CM better - something we all can enjoy. I appreciate some of the things you've posted, I've learned things from them and I'm not too proud to say it. However as I said originally, it wasn't a response to you, it was - stay with me here - a joke. If you feel there's no place for that on the forum, just skip past them. As to your feeling I occasionally enjoy being an ass, I can only think that it's because I shot down your cover map proposal as that's the only time we've ever really interacted. I wasn't being an ass - it just wouldn't have worked. Please note, I am only responding to posts that directly address me - I will continue to do so, but would prefer not to.