Elmar Bijlsma

Seems like the ground texture is indeed missing for some reason. Have you tried re-installing? Or, since that is a bit of a hassle, try installing a terrain mod from the repository or GreenAsJade's. Worth trying if that solves it.

Hey now, don't be expecting an informed opinion from the crowd you seemingly have gone out of your way to keep uninformed. Where is Wikileaks now, dammit!

Perhaps you should've been more clear as to what you are seeing? Or not seeing, as may be the case. I've heard of invisible Humvees, that arose from improperly applied patches/modules IIRC. Could be something similar, though it's a bit odd that the campaign seems to be the only place you see it. Have you checked if everything has installed in the correct location? Hate to give the standard advice, but have you tried re-installing?

Depends on what kind of wargame you like. I like the AGEOD games well enough. It's not the greatest UI ever, but is about as good a strategy game as there is. There's the Distant Guns/Jutland games if you like Naval warfare. Apparently they will be ditching their rather onerous DRM so I'll be picking that up when they do.

Uhm... what anti virus do you use? Even with dodgy sites and whatnot something like AVG or McAfee should keep you safe(ish). I haven't found a virus in years.

Wait... 1.21 is required before installing NATO/1.31? Really, that is quite silly. Anyway, sorry I got it wrong then.

Installing in order of release is your safest way to go. So: CMSF>Marines>British>NATO>latest patch. Starting over from scratch or installing from CMSF+Marines boils down to the same thing, really. Be sure to un-license the game on any old machine before starting all over on a new machine. And of course read the instructions on the download page and during install process carefully. It's not there for nothing.

He's talking about tracer bounce, I am sure.

But that's just it. A log won't help. A battalion sized battle will produce a solid wall of non stop text. How will that help situational awareness? btw, I play almost exclusively RT. This is a discussion forum. I think you are going to have to get used to some people not agreeing with others. I do not feel I was rude in raising my objections to this idea, nor do I think merely doing so is rude in itself. I think I raised reasonable points and don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to voice them. Programming time is after all finite and it's in everybody's interest that BFC get a full picture of this communities likes and dislikes.

Honestly, I have yet to play any game where I made us of such a feature. I generally know what is going on. I certainly don't miss the significant occurrences, and for tracking minor occurrences such a log is next to useless due to information overload. Such a log is probably distracting a player from what's going on more then it informs him. Watch the action, not the log. A firm NAY from me regarding this feature. Programming time can be better allocated on other features, imho.

There's no way for the AI to reload when it suits your plans. It can't possibly know. If it does so automatically it will as often as not get it wrong. Best to leave it to chance. That way when a reload happens at an inconvenient moment people will think it mostly unlucky, rather then an AI being directly to blame.

He's right you know. No Panzerfaust Launcher anywhere I could find. Not on the vehicle or with any of the troops.

No doubt the hilarity stems from those illiterates who do not know how to spell paedophile correctly.

What OM is politely trying to politely point out, and I am not, is that that picture is too goddamn large by such a wide margin that it is just plain rude. 3.656px × 4.124px, really? Put it behind a link, would you?

Combat Mission Forever.

I wouldn't go so far as to give SK kudos. If you let the DPRK sink your warships and bombard your towns then that is pretty much a fail, whatever rationale is behind it.

I would like it if snipers could have a 'setup' a la the MG of whatever length is deemed needed. Once done, BIG bonus to spotting and accuracy. Before they set up I'd be happy if they perform as infantrymen with big rifles.

Largely along the same lines as my budget, though I got the US in to a little of a surplus. If there was a Bill Clinton option, chances are I gave it a checkmark. I took a bit more out of the military budget, downsizing navy and airforce. I am increasingly of the feeling that the US military has more hardware then it'll ever be allowed to use. Any war that needs that big a fleet will be fought with nukes (btw fewer nukes then the US has now. ) or will not be fought at all.

Well that is good news.

Well, I think it shouldn't be too much to hope for to have some Dutch looking buildings. Perhaps it's all the same to you but I find the difference noticeable. I can generally tell a photograph made in the NL from one in FR. And that's without giveaways like a boulangerie instead of a bakker. Yes, yes, not an architecture sim, I do realize that. But it'd be nice for Arnhem to not look like Caen.

And what would appear to be a pintle mounted .30 instead of a .50.

Was there a Chinese embassy nearby? Or a wedding? And that's nothing. If you are a Brit or Canadian you are damn lucky no bombs get dropped.

*dials 1-800-8428462* Hello? Someone just hurt my brain.

A possible explanation I'm considering is that the location of the bulk of a Sherman's ammo is stored right in the area where a gunner would be most inclined to shoot it. Here's a cutaway drawing of a Sherman http://www.warchronicle.com/men_and_weapons/tanks/tankinside.jpg And right in the middle of it, roughly where you expect people to aim, it's practically all ammo storage. For comparison a Cromwell http://www.richardchasemore.com/flyingmachine/page17/page5/files/page5-1014-full.html There, in the middle of the hull there isn't just ammo but also the engine compartment just behind. A shell fired at the middle could just as easily hit the latter as the former, dramatically reducing the chance of ammo cooking off. Could it be that simple? Anyway, that's just thinking out loud. If someone can come up with something better to explain the Sherman's singular reputation for brewing up, I'd be very interested

Sorry I wasn't very clear. The petrol engine thing gets trotted out a lot, and as the most erroneous I focussed on that. In hindsight I should have addressed ammo stowage too. Thing is, early Shermans aren't exactly stowing their ammo in some unusual way to make them cook off. If you look at the Panther ammo stowage, you'll see most (all?) rounds are in the fighting compartment, completely unprotected. So I can't see why their ammo is stored any safer then a Sherman. So I'm highly sceptical that the method of stowage in Shermans was at fault for their reputation. It was a situation helped by better ammo stowage, but it is not at the root of the problem, IMHO. To be very clear, I expect Shermans to frequently ignite when hit. But that should be the natural result of what gets hit where with what. Not some mysterious combustion bonus. Since for the Shermans this typically means weaker armour hit by more powerful German guns, they should still go *woosh* more then most other tanks. As they should.