JonS

agusto, may you be blessed with many +1s.

Forget it. Judging by what i have read from you in other threads, i think that your intent is most likely to look up the hardware i bought and then tell me that i either bought it for a bad price or that it' s not good or whatever. And even if you wouldnt find anything, you would probably just make something up. I wont support you trying to piss me off.
 
And even if the next thing you tell me is that i misjudge you, that' s your problem, i neither trust you nor do i like you, bad luck.

His new PC is significantly better than his old one in every possible way, he just will have a hard time finding applications that actually need that much calculating power.
 
 
Stupid comment, there are numerous applications that require high end hardware that goes way beyond that of the average gaming PC. Think of servers, animated 3D art, brute force attacks, etc...
 
 
Yeah, i told him that this is not necessarily going to be cost-effective in terms of performace per euro...but he wanted it anyways! He' s the customer, it' s his money, i had fun building it, no problem.
 
 
Absolutely not!
 
 
Depends on what you call high end. I mean, the term "killer high end machine" is already that inaccurate and badly defined, there is really no point in argueing a "killer high end machine" and what' s not. But you could have definately built some above average gaming PCs that run contemporrary games at maxed out settings with reasonable FPS.
 
Anyways, i dont want your destructive comments in my thread. If you have a bad mood take it somewhere else.

Sorry but no one in his right mind would spent 3500€ for a desktop pc (+ the money for you to build it).
"using only the best components available"...you mean all the greatly overpriced stuff nobody actually need ?
I actually doubt his new pc will be that much better then the old one...
He could have just updated his old one for 500€ and would have a killer pc.
What did he say, what will he do with his pc...casual pc stuff and gaming ?
Did you recommend him to spent less money initially but he refused ?
 
Sounds like you had a hard time spending all 3500€ on just one desktop pc, you could have build 3 killer high-end machines with that money...

Dumbest operation name I know of is Operation Oration
 
I quite like CMFI:NoR (North of Rome), but my vote is worth exactly what you paid for it.
 
 
* dear god. A quick google indicates there were at least two Op Orations during WWII. WTF were they thinking? Edit: ... or maybe it was conscious meta humour?

Dumbest operation name I know of is Operation Oration
 
I quite like CMFI:NoR (North of Rome), but my vote is worth exactly what you paid for it.
 
 
* dear god. A quick google indicates there were at least two Op Orations during WWII. WTF were they thinking? Edit: ... or maybe it was conscious meta humour?

Playtesting to find bugs is still playtesting, even if the scenarios are not checked.
 
And you'd be pretty quick to shout if the upgrade had bugs.
 
And "miracle" because any engine upgrade is going to be non-trivial exercise.
I work in IT ( not gaming industry ) and that's true across any software platform.

What playtesting ?
The scenarios are not updated at all.

And what miracle ?
No matter of CMBN, CMFI or CMRT, it the same game essentially. So how should a engine "upgrade" with a few additional features be a miracle ?

Yes. Yes, you do.

Kettler, you really are a clueless, witless, mong. It is no wonder that US military purchasing ended up with wonder junk like the Sgt York and the A12 with clowns ... sorry; "analysts" like you working for them.
 
THINK about the numbers you just provided, if that isn't beyond you: The British dropped imports from 55M tons to 12M tons after the first month. Why do you think that might have been - a sudden, desperate shortage of shipping? (Hint: the answer is 'no')
 
The British had adequate food for their population. No one was on 'short commons'. Rationing was introduced so that the food was spread equitably, and to stop rampant inflation and purchasing of luxuries bought on by a suddenly fully employed and well paid population. They dropped the tonnage being imported by swapping out bulky, low calorie density foods for much higher density products, and by massively ramping up home production of previously imported foods.
 
Stop doing google dumps and pretending that's you knowing WTF you're talking about. You don't, and this thread is example #5286 of that.

Someone evidently still has no understanding, thereby showing that that rule of thumb still applies.
 
Hint: Some food in Britain was rationed, but that was NOT because there was a shortage of food.

Kettler, you really are a clueless, witless, mong. It is no wonder that US military purchasing ended up with wonder junk like the Sgt York and the A12 with clowns ... sorry; "analysts" like you working for them.
 
THINK about the numbers you just provided, if that isn't beyond you: The British dropped imports from 55M tons to 12M tons after the first month. Why do you think that might have been - a sudden, desperate shortage of shipping? (Hint: the answer is 'no')
 
The British had adequate food for their population. No one was on 'short commons'. Rationing was introduced so that the food was spread equitably, and to stop rampant inflation and purchasing of luxuries bought on by a suddenly fully employed and well paid population. They dropped the tonnage being imported by swapping out bulky, low calorie density foods for much higher density products, and by massively ramping up home production of previously imported foods.
 
Stop doing google dumps and pretending that's you knowing WTF you're talking about. You don't, and this thread is example #5286 of that.

Childress,
 
I've known since high school about the bugging, but knew nothing of the film. Thanks for passing the word!
 
sburke,
 
Judging by what you said, you apparently have no understanding at all of what any real level of V-2 attack on the embarkation ports could've done. By the time embarkation began, the Allies had long since broken the back of the V-1 problem. The buzz bomb sites were pummeled, and the V-1s themselves were clobbered by VT flak and fighters. That crisis was now more of an annoyance. The V-2, though, had no hard kill defense, nor even early warning. BOOM!--followed by the sonic boom!  A CEP of 4.5 km was more than adequate for targeting the embarkation ports, to which seemingly endless men and supplies streamed.
 
Everything to do with the invasion was meticulously planned and scheduled, and that end of the country could fairly be called one vast target. The harbors were full of ships, the quays groaning under the load, the roads jammed with one way traffic, vehicular and marching. There were explosives and POL all over the place, not just in dumps on the docks and being loaded on vessels large and small, but under overpasses, camouflaged in road cuts, in open fields or under the trees, The airfields were dense with thousands of planes, fuel and ordnance, too, and trains were coming in by the dozens crammed with everything imaginable, much of it combustibles and explosives, and being unloaded as fast as possible. Now, start randomly dropping 1-ton warheads into this Swiss watch of an operation and what happens? Things start falling apart in a hurry, with cascading effects foreseeable and not. Remember, even a slight delay in loading results in missing the tidal window, which, coupled with the wholesale disruption of the loading operation and lots of randomly inflicted mass casualties and equipment losses,
 
A scientific reconstruction carried out in 2010 demonstrated that the V-2 creates a crater 20 m wide and 8 m deep, ejecting approximately 3,000 tons of material into the air.[42]
Missile strikes that found targets could cause large numbers of deaths — 160 were killed and 108 seriously injured in one explosion at 12:26 pm on 25 November 1944, at a Woolworth's department store in New Cross, south-east London.[41
]
likely postpones the entire invasion for months! In practice, had Hitler been able to drop, say, a 1000 V-2s onto the embarkation ports it would've likely delayed the invasion by a year, IMO. As it was, the V-2s which did hit England caused severe societal strain on a populace that had been through first the Blitz, then the buzz bombs, and had been on short commons for years, to boot. Worse, in order to make good the losses I envisage, scarce seagoing transport capacity would've had to be diverted, further squeezing the British populace on the food and fuel fronts. I firmly believe a V-2 rain on the embarkation ports would've been a strategic level disaster for the Allies.   Regards,   John Kettler 

blah blah blah blah.  Really, you think the V2 2 months sooner was gonna stop D Day?   Okay they missed the invasion, but certainly  2 months later they could target the primary port on the continent supplying allied troops, Cherbourg... hmm no, didn't demolish it you say?  Well then it certainly must have made a huge dent in Market Garden hitting the allied airfields which were once again loaded with aircraft,,, umm oh wait.  Okay not that?   Oh I know, Antwerp was absolutely essential to the allied offensive.  Certainly they pummeled that town rendering it useless.  Hmm no?  Damn.
 
Regarding D Day, the earliest the Germans would have launched the V2s is AFTER they knew about the landing.  Considering they thought for the longest time Normandy was a diversion that would have extended that window out even further.
 
Nah The Germans first of all would have to assume it was the invasion.  No matter how you cut it, they at BEST were several hours late.  In reality they were weeks late.   Disrupt the timing...hmm there was a massive storm that totally screwed the landing logistics far more than a couple bombs, Normandy must therefore have failed right?  right?  Wrong?
 
 
Anything else you need to write a dissertation on or provide a link to we pretty much all already have? 

Glad to serve, John. However the Trent Park transcripts remained classified until 1999. Are we talking remedial high school?

Well, someone evidently has no understanding, thereby showing once again that rule of thumb applies.
 
Hint: check when the first V1 landed on England.

Well, someone evidently has no understanding, thereby showing once again that rule of thumb applies.
 
Hint: check when the first V1 landed on England.

Well, there is this great mod that brings back the armor and penetration data..
 
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110835-alternate-silhouettes-v6-for-cmbn2-cw-mg/?hl=silhouettes 

This is one Action Spot...Yeah, most likely a map won't look this stupid but it's to illustrate what's already been stated.
 

 
1. House
2. Cart
3. Firewood
4. Tall Yellow Grass
5. Stone wall
6. X3 Trees
7. Garden
8. Brush
 
Every one of the things in the picture has an effect in the game, from cover to spotting to movement. This ain't CMX1 that's for sure.
 
EDITED: Not to mention bleed over from one tile to the next.
 
Mord.

I disagree. There are only a few types which are difficult to distinguish, and displaying the ground type gives only half the story, which, in the complicated web of factors, has as much chance of being deceptive as the information you get from the ground textures.

37x base tiles = 37
plus 1x brush = 74
plus 44 x foliage = 3,330
plus 9 x road = 29,970
plus 374 x wall/fence/hedge = 11,208,780
plus 16 x modular buildings = 190,549,260 (I'm going to ignore independent buildings)
(I'm also going to ignore flavour objects, which do affect concealment)
(I'm also going to ignore elevation, which affects quite a bit)
plus 22 x bridges = 4,382,632,980
 
Roughly 4½ billion different terrain tiles. That's why there's no tool tips.

37x base tiles = 37
plus 1x brush = 74
plus 44 x foliage = 3,330
plus 9 x road = 29,970
plus 374 x wall/fence/hedge = 11,208,780
plus 16 x modular buildings = 190,549,260 (I'm going to ignore independent buildings)
(I'm also going to ignore flavour objects, which do affect concealment)
(I'm also going to ignore elevation, which affects quite a bit)
plus 22 x bridges = 4,382,632,980
 
Roughly 4½ billion different terrain tiles. That's why there's no tool tips.

37x base tiles = 37
plus 1x brush = 74
plus 44 x foliage = 3,330
plus 9 x road = 29,970
plus 374 x wall/fence/hedge = 11,208,780
plus 16 x modular buildings = 190,549,260 (I'm going to ignore independent buildings)
(I'm also going to ignore flavour objects, which do affect concealment)
(I'm also going to ignore elevation, which affects quite a bit)
plus 22 x bridges = 4,382,632,980
 
Roughly 4½ billion different terrain tiles. That's why there's no tool tips.

Hi folks,
Creating a scenario in the Combat Mission editor has been described as the-game-within-the-game. I know a number of people who’ve spent more time playing with the editor than they have playing the game. Creating a good scenario - and hopefully getting positive feedback on it from players – can be an incredibly rewarding process, and I think it’s a shame more people don’t give it a go and use the scenario editor they’ve bought and paid for.
Over the next couple of weeks I intend to create a scenario ‘in public’. I’ll be walking through the process I use to create a scenario that’s going to be included in the forthcoming CMBN module “Market Garden”. Along the way we’ll be looking at various aspects of the editor, some of them in a fair amount of detail. There’ll also be some riffing on how I going about designing a scenario, what I think is important, and my philosophy of scenario design. Where possible, I’ll answer any questions you might have about the editor, and you’re encouraged to add your own editor tips, tricks, and suggestions. It is my hope that this thread will answer a lot of questions about using the editor, and encourage more players to dip their toes in the pool and start making more scenarios!
At various points I’ll refer to ‘story telling.’ I think that most things we do in life revolve around telling stories. To me, creating a scenario involves telling a myriad of independent and inter-related stories, to set context and explain why things are the way they are. Some of the stories are told to players explicitly with written words, but not always. I’ll expand on this theme as we go along.
In my estimation, and regardless of the specific content of a scenario, I think that a good scenario should present the player with a number of meaningful problems that have to be resolved. Each problem should be solvable in a number of different ways, but should also require the player to actually think through the problem, come up with a plan to overcome it, and then execute that plan with a modicum of competence. To put that in concrete terms; setting a company of Tigers against a platoon of Stuarts on a large flat, open, map doesn’t really present either side with a problem to be solved – the German player simply doesn’t have one, and while the Allied player certainly does have a problem, there’s no plausible solution.
I’m writing this series of posts while I’m designing the scenario, so it’s likely that some early decisions will be changed later on. In my experience, designing a scenario seems to mostly consist of solving a seemingly endless series of design problems, from finding useful sources to wrangling the editor to do what you want. I try to keep in mind that I need to stay flexible. What seems like a good idea initially sometimes ends up being unworkable, or just not that much fun. Either way, I’ll change the design. Feedback comes in to the mix here too – what I like might not appeal to others, or my storytelling isn’t good enough, and my style of scenario design has altered as time has passed.
Scenario design is an intensely personal and creative activity, and these posts are not in any way intended to be prescriptive, pr a set of rules that must be adhered to. Instead it's an outline of how I go about this, and some guidelines that you might choose to follow. To misquote German doctrine; scenario design is an art, a free and creative activity, and so each designer needs to find their own way of skinning these cats.
What follows might also seem like it's a rigid linear sequence, but I really don’t work like that. Instead I flit about depending on what I’m thinking about and how I’m feeling. While working on a CMBN scenario, for example, I spent a couple of weeks working on nothing except the map. One night I got fed up with it all, and instead played around with the forces for a while before eventually going back to finish the map.
If you are new to scenario design you should definitely read George McEwan’s Scenario Design Manual. George clearly explains how to use the various parts of the editor to create a scenario. I don’t intend to go over ground that he’s already trodden so well. Instead I’ll be taking a more philosophical approach to scenario design, and hopefully explaining how I get the different mechanical elements of the scenario editor working together to tell a story.
 
Anyway, enough of that. I hope you enjoy the thread.
Jon
 

There have been a steady stream of updates and improvements to the editor as Combat Mission has matured, and I expect more in future games and upgrades. This series of posts uses the editor in CMBN: Market Garden v2.10, which means you might be getting a sneak peak at some of the new things in that module! Because of that, and depending on the game or module being used, some elements discussed here may not be present or may function in a different way in other games/modules.
 
Table of Contents
1 Outline Scenario Concept
2 Research
3 Refined Scenario Concept
4 The Map 1 – Preparing Overlays
5 The Map 2 – Elevations and Roads
6 The Map 3 – Buildings, Walls, and Trees
7 The Map 4 - Detailing
8 The Map 5 – Finishing Up
9 British Forces
10 German Forces
11 Objectives
12 Walls and Bridges
13 Scenario Settings
14 Designer's Notes
15 Briefings and Imagery
16 Programming the AI
17 Testing
18 Polishing
19 Scenario design is easy. It just takes time.
20 Forms and checklists
 

The naming of weapons and the ammo they use are completely separate. It is NOT, and never was, a case that the M1 rifle used M1 ammo.
 
The naming schemes used by the US military* is also highly inconsistent. The previous riffle was the M1903 (based on the year it was introduced into service), while the next rifle was the M16 (based on ... who knows?).
 
M1car is carbine ammo, as @Baneman noted. And yes; @Marco's UI helps a lot keeping this stuff straight.
 
BTW, this isn't BFC's "fault" - they're using the correct weapon and ammo designations. They could, I suppose, try to 'simplify' things by renaming the M1 Garand to Standard US Battle Rifle and the .30 cal M2 ammo to Ammo For Standard US Battle Rifle, but that would run into justifiable howls of outrage from purists, grogs, and anyone else with a passing interest in this stuff, it would create problems with the UI because of the length of the names, and it would still be confusing because Ammo For Standard US Battle Rifle is also the ammo used by the M1919 .30cal MMG (or 'Standard US MMG') and the BAR, and the M1903 scoped rifle, and probably a few others.
 
* and all other militaries at various times.