Other Means

Coolio - it works for me, obviously. I started a thread ages ago where I suggested sharing them but I guess it's a pretty personal thing. I don't use the relative ones at all, so if you do, you're out of luck with mine, sorry.

Here's my hotkeys file. Save the page to your desktop, back up your existing file and use this. Happy?

Oh yeah, that's the "gamey flank exploitation prevention" feature

That'll be addressed in CM:WWII I'm sure

I think Dale's point is reasonable. It's not related to scenarios, he just wants to be able to buy his forces. This was allowed in CM1, so it's obvious that BFC thought it was a good idea too. IAUI, the reason it's not in SF is the difficulty of assigning point values to everything, not due to any change of heart. Who knows, in CM2WW2, it might make a comeback as the points values are already established (although arguable) in CM1.

I know some people though the introduction of 8*8m action spots fundamentally undermined what the engine was capable of doing, while Steve obviously thinks that it's an issue that can be overcome, and is really a matter of introducing proper squad AI in certain situations and correcting LOS/LOF issues. Has the introduction of 1.04, which fixes a lot, but not all, of the LOS/LOF issues, while overall feeling more solid, persuaded anyone over to Steve's point of view? Do people now think what was seen as underlying issues were really the result of bugs that can be addressed, or do they still think that the whole thing is irredeemable?

It'd be nice if they could be combined. Wonder if it's possible?

Overall, the ideal end state is having the Tac AI decide which weapon is best for each situation and putting them in the correct position to take advantage of the fact. This includes infantry spotting for corners, MG's in windows, AT teams where they can hit AFV's, squads following breaching procedures etc. IMHO it'd be best to pursue that rather than introducing a half-way state of splitting squads against doctrine, introducing all the factors of design, coding, testing, release etc for what will essentially be thrown away when the final solution is available. Although I see your point, it's something I'm prepared to wait for the best solution for rather than diffuse the coding effort. Unless it can be done in a day of course - in that case go for it. Bear in mind, this response is just to the question of positioning within a squad (and the greater issue surrounding it), for the argument of having them separate for flexibility and just because, I've no opinion either way.

I think it's because by the time the *squad* is in LOS, the front *soldiers* are exposed, giving the uncons free shots. That's why having the soldier on point be associated with the action spot may change things.

What I'd like is the Hunt command has the point man check round the corner and check towards the side of the map opposite where they entered first, then the opposite way, automatically at every corner. He should do this with 25% exposure if possible. An animation would be nice. Re-positioning AT teams towards AFV's should also be automatic, if possible.

I suggested this: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=52;t=003080;p=4 Here, and Steve said it might work, so that could address many of these issues.

Steve, how is that possible? What is the commercial sense in doing that for them? :confused: </font>

Not so bad eh?

Someone started an AAR about this a while ago, then he realised he'd done the setup wrong (units started free or something). I think the pain of it pushed him over the edge. ..but yeah, go for it. Love a well written AAR.

Well, in theory anything is "possible", including implementing a CMx1 style abstracted system. The relevant questions are if the feature request is "practical" or "desirable". On the practical side... probably doable with a modest amount of work and no direct linkage in terms of what the abstracted figure's actions represent. Meaning, you might see a Javelin and MMG fire at the same time from the dude's feet, but an M4 in hand would simply be held in the firing position showing that the unit was engaging in combat. Major amount of work to make the abstracted figure's visual actions mean something other than basic stance (walking, crawling, shooting, etc.). </font>

yeah but but but the whole thing is based on action spots, as the idea about the point man being the one with the LOS check is completely irrelevant if the 8x8m grid (if I understand this correctly) only has ONE LOS/LOF point in the center of it. I like the idea of the point man being the only one with the LOS check, but what happens when they spread out along the edge of the roof or along a trench perpendicular to the target. Its the action spots in the 8x8 grids that are messing us up I think. </font>

Agreed, but with a different slant - see here.

I wonder if the whole 1 - 1 thing could get a quick win by the squad action point being given by the soldier on point. That way no-one gets killed before the LOS check is done. Of course, tail end Charley gets into more danger but I think that'd be less of an issue (except to Charley).

Gotta love this forum.

Quick question Steve, in your copious spare time I'd like to see unit abstractions based on distance from the unit, as currently when I play I get a lot of dots with fire coming from them, e.g. When what would be ideal is seeing the actual soldiers when I'm close and a unit abstraction when I can't see them due to them being too small. I'd still expect all the calculations to be happening, just the area overlaid with a unit abstraction indicating the units status etc. The icons showing the status is a reasonable stop-gap but to get a real feel for what's going on unit abstractions would be ideal. When you zoomed in the abstraction would be replaced with the actual units, as below: This would allow an overall tactical "feel" for what was going on, while when you were close enough you could actually see what was happening. The down and dirty 1 - 1 when you're there, with the command level feel for your tactics at the same time, instead of having to hop from one to the other to see what's going on. Is it possible? If so I'd love it to be on the TO DO list.

Well, now I do! Thanks! Best regards, Thomm </font>

Good point. It does seem a lot of work to use the UI.

I just press "delete" and it cancels - not trying to be funny but did you know about this?

How constructive of him. Maybe you should give up those massive royalties on this one Kingfish.

A heavy Churchill should bounce PzGr 39 on the nose from an 88/56 at most ranges and angles. It's what it was designed to do. All the best, John. </font>