Elmar Bijlsma

While minimum specs aren't known yet, given the CMSF requirements and BFC's history of developing games with lesser machines in mind, you'd be hard pressed to even intentionally buy a machine that is below minimum spec. I really wouldn't worry about it too much.

Ah, sorry, I misread your example to mean that soldier C would also be involved with the whole buddy aid thing. I'd have no real problem with your solution. Nonetheless, I feel it's a pretty marginal thing.

Do we really want buddy aid to be more then it is? BFC have always indicated they intend not to include casualty handling over the minimum required. And I agree. If I need to be managing how first aid is administered because some of you couldn't wait one minute to get a MG back in to action, I'd be very cross indeed.

Well, if you are buying a new laptop then it should be able to run CM:N with some ease in any case. More "oomph" is always better, but you shouldn't worry about minimum specs.

Except I didn't say that. It is however mildly radioactive, more so then typical materials. To claim otherwise is ignorance. Indeed, in close proximity it can be hazardous, though such danger would require prolonged close proximity. FYI, and I think I may have mentioned it before on this forum, DU is, like lead, a great radiation shield material. It can block significant radiation while it's own can be blocked with not much more then a coat of paint.

DU is radio active, just so weakly that it's not a significant threat unless something silly is done with it. However, it is highly toxic and inhalation of small airborne particles (which given the circumstances of military DU usage is pretty easy) or water contamination can lead to all kinds of nasty ailments. It's toxicity is considered by most research to be a significant risk to health.

I'm with YankeeDog on this one. Theoretically, spotting nearby targets might be easier when unbuttoned, but only at such short ranges that doing so would be prohibitively dangerous. As such, I don't do it, except perhaps when hunting armour in the near blind Red armour. This seems to work better then doing so buttoned. However, the differences in spotting is hard to quantify and as such I wouldn't want to vouch for any of it.

This has been suggested before, though typically not in the Tech Support section . Have a look in the "Strategy and tactics" section. The stickied threads in particular are a valuable guide to getting more out of your troops, including getting them to do multiple things during a single turn. Welcome to the forums!

I do not see how the blast of a HEAT type warhead would be lessened by it exiting the vehicle. The shockwave would still do what it does to any object it encounters on the way out. Neither over-pressure nor heat would be diminished by the eventual freedom of the blast. I would assume the open hatches preference is more likely due to a wish to exit a burning vehicle post-haste.

I'll do the impolite thing and answer a question with a question: Why does knowing the numbers matter? A bullet intersects your soldier. He either gets counted hit or he doesn't. Knowing the workings changes nothing, it adds nothing.

The nerf relating to explosions has been known pretty much from day one, I believe. Less well known is that a bullet crossing paths with a soldier will not necessarily result in an injury/fatality.

In any case, the effects of HE and small arms fire is nerfed to account for the exaggerated density of the troops.

Wasn't the MG on the halftrack removed and used by the infantry when dismounted?

Someone should probably point out that this file is hidden in one of the .brz files. You'd need to unpack them with the unpacker provided. The edited file should then go in the mod folder (usually CMSF/DATA/Z)

45-ish degrees was along my line of thinking. Quite generous (typical seems to have been 20 degrees max elevation) so as not to interfere with play very often but would prevent firing at units in situations that are quite visibly ridiculous.

I'm not really in favour of a proper fix. As you rightly say that's a lot of effort for a small problem. But I am in favour of shifting the problem to the person at fault: the numpty who parks his vehicles next to enemy occupied tall buildings. Currently the cunning player hiding his AT team in (for instance) a bell tower is set for disappointment, being blasted by a tank firing nearly straight up. If an elevation restriction is put in place without AI changes, at least the vehicle which is so badly placed is the victim. That'd be a more just and realistic outcome.

You get to win WW I.

Their? Don't mind me,it's not my language you are butchering.

But the uniform portrayed here can't be directly linked to the Holocaust. You wouldn't react like you did to a Luftwaffe uniform, would you?

A) BFC aren't big fans of photographs of dead bodies. Camouflage uniforms wouldn't have been the typical garment of camp guards. SS=/= Holocaust C) Why single out the SS as evil when the Wehrmacht hardly got out of the war smelling like roses. Look, I find the fascination people have with the SS a bit... iffy. But let's not get hysterical, shall we?

I've seen the situation you describe in CMx1 exactly once, and only because I created the scenario for it to happen on purpose. It requires pretty extreme terrain. As long as there is no maximum depression to hinder shooting from behind a ridge, I wouldn't expect restrictions in elevation to be all that problematic during typical play.

You do realize the action spot is only for the rough initial calculations and that the actual spotting is in fact true 1:1?

Steve, could you clarify spotting from vehicles? Who is doing the spotting, from where and with what? I thought spotting was done from the individual vehicle stations with the appropriate equipment for that station.

This seems to come up regularly, mostly by criticaster who for whatever reason seems to think this proves them right on the inferiority of the CMx2 engine. Most of the delays stems from both the engine, the module system and the external team being new. Yes, there's been delays and will be again (I don't think we'll be seeing CM:N as soon as Steve hopes) but things wil probably get better over time. And in the mean time we should get a steady trickle of content. I don't see the problem.

Having given it some more thought, I actually wouldn't be opposed to some (generalized) elevation restriction. In the end it's probably better to have the tank at the base of a tall go "whatever" then for it to be free to plaster the enterprising infantry upstairs. It'd be a better balance of risk/reward for the player. Parking a vehicle next to tall building that wasn't recce'd should be a bad idea. It shouldn't cripple the AI too much because, as pointed out, it shouldn't come up too often.