Elmar Bijlsma

You did miss something. Aside from the obligatory RTFM this was discussed 12 hours ago in the arty & aircraft thread. In short: The 2 concerns the amount of guns in the package. The + means quality of matchup. Is it some random ground pounder calling in the jets (-)or is it a specialist JTAC(+)? The green dots is the battery status. Are they busy/tired?

In a world of youtube commenters, I prefer Dan's style. Good manners never goes out of fashion.

You followed the instructions in the patch in relation to old savegames?

I thought the time bug was related to the world clock (sun etc) not the time available to a player? As to time limits, it's part of the game. And not without reason. There may be operational reason why speed is required. In WW2 the Germans especially had a reputation to counterattack rapidly and fiercely, so it was deemed essential for an attack to be driven home quick so defences could be established before the inevitable happened.

Well, it pretty much had to be a middle eastern country, being the baddies du jour at the time of design. And no doubt it helped that Syria was quite like Iraq without actually being Iraq.

Nah, that seems to be the Russian AT-4 ATGM, not the US disposable AT launcher. Couple that with the .50s and something seems to have gone spectacularly wrong with converting the savegame to 1.2. Have you tried completing the game and seeing if it clears itself up?

With this thread being linked to today this idea deserves a bump of it's own. Still one of the better suggestions to provide essential feedback to the user. Current system leaves quite a lot to be desired.

I yield the floor to c3k

In theory, yes. In practise, politicians still have to okay troop deployment. Witness the NATO effort in Afghanistan where more then a few nations disgraced themselves with a rather minimal effort and/or with strings attached. Not that a lot of the blame for that can't be put at the feet of the USA alienating it's allies.

There is already a way to see the loadout of a given aircraft, the ammo screen centre right of the console. But without a tooltip giving more information you can only make sense of it if you already have some idea of what it's carrying. Which isn't all that helpful, really. I hope that with CM:N BFC tooltip EVERYTHING.

Uh... what? That makes no sense. On what grounds wouldn't the 35mm be allowed to fire on ground targets? Seems to be more of the same silly rumours about .50 not being allowed to do so. Don't recall anyone telling off the Argentines.

That's from the forum switch. Beta testers used the new boards earlier then the rest. Our profiles weren't so much imported as dragged kicking and screaming. I had my join date surgically altered to get it to what it should've been, for a while it was Dec 2007 for too.

That vehicle might have had a jamming device. And wasn't there a dude rate in any case? I honestly don't know much about IEDs as I never run in to IEDs much. Even in the scenarios that have them I tend to manage to avoid them. On just one incident one really can't judge what went on.

*Pinetree's unit bases. Very satisfied with them. *I've got a sound mod of some sort, with which I've chosen to replace most of the stock small arms fire. BFC tends to model them a touch feeble sounding for my taste. *The weapons icon mods, from scipios hand, to replace the green icons. I'm using a number of other mods, some quite excellent, but the above three are those that make a big difference for me, where the stock may be less satisfactory. As for the how: Place the mods in a folder named Z inside the DATA folder. Make it if it isn't there yet. You can use the mods .brz format or an unpacked vrsion. These should override stock textures/sounds. AS ever, follow instructions provided with the mod if there are any. If you are a bit picky you can use the BRZ unpacker to extract BRZ files so you can pick and chose from the files included within. Just place the unpacked files you like in the Z folder and discard the rest. Should work fine.

Thanks Dieseltaylor, those got a snigger.

I think JonS is thinking along similar lines as me. Each scenario could state a budget of points* and let you pick QB style to get a force together for that scenario. So your hand picked core force gets to battle in a small scenario where the designer allows the player to pick a force of 500 points from his previously selected core force. Supporting (non core) units can be made available by the designer if he so chooses. This idea I believe can provide the double whammy of allowing the player to identify with his units and to give him more influence over the shape of his campaign. Having attentively read your lengthy post, I still remain convinced that this suggestion is the best method to provide substantial improvement to the current campaign system. *or whatever mysterious system you are going to be using.

I let someone else answer the specific, but I'll comment on the general. Not all vehicles are created equal. some have viewing methods (Thermal Imaging?) that can see through smoke. However, not all smoke is created equal either. Some smoke blocks even those Imagers that would see through normal smoke. As to which vehicle can do what, smoke and viewing wise, I'll be damned if I know!

Steve, clearly, my heated debating style is going down rather badly. For that, I apologize, and I'll promise to moderate my tone. Having said that I'm getting rather tired of the repeated insinuation, here and in PM, that there is anything more to it then I am impassioned about the issues under discussion. I've told you repeatedly that that I'm not out to get you (or whatever) and that I'm just that strongly opined on the matter, yet you would seemingly rather disbelieve me on this. I'll say it here so maybe this time you'll take note: my more hostile tone (again, only on some issues) of the last week and me leaving the beta is not because there was some sudden drop in regard for you. I've always had some fundamental disagreements on some issues discussed here, but had previously felt it'd be bad to publicly have a heated disagreement with you whilst on the test team. With me opting to leave beta, yeah, you are seeing a bit of a change in tone. Don't mean I love you less, Steve. Not trying to dodge deliberately either, some phrases just catch my eye, or ire, more then others. Anyway, back to the real issues, I'm sure the spectators are getting bored of us two bickering. I'm still rather unsure what suggestion made in this thread, by me or anyone, was "the slippery slope to RTS". It was this statement that I did indeed find laughably overblown. All of the ideas expressed here were a far cry from healthbars and Zerg rushes. Still not sure either why you'd think allowing the picking of a core force at the start of a campaign would required a completely different campaign system. What I'm suggesting is as simple as this: At the start of the campaign the player get X amount of points (there's that word again!) to buy a core force, then normal campaign play starts like it would in todays campaigns. Everything could stay the same as it is now, except the core force is hand picked and perhaps replenished and/or adjusted with player earned points in between missions. You've clarified what's on the books with QB and I'm happy about it. I'm still wary of the non points system (whoah, nearly said pointless system, wouldn't that have led to unfortunate misunderstanding! ) but if it's in essence similar to Ye Olde QB, I'm pleased. So tís only the campaign that divides us.

Wait! All that moaning and you end up giving them a complete trashing? True, you needed a lot of saving and loading, but I'm beginning to wonder how much trouble you were really in. Sub-optimal results are a result too, you know?

Ouch, that colour doesn't make that otherwise charming font any easier to read.

One of the voice actors is a Liverpudlian, fwiw. All of them were British.

Yeah, you post too much! Pipe down! :D PS I think most Europeans use the same (probably French) system, like the Americans. It's them wrong headed Brits that are being different again. They'll be driving on the left side of the road next!

Well, it wasn't so obvious to me as you kept mentioning my name and the two things I talked about were Cherry Picking your core forces for a campaign and the identification of core forces and the possible misuse of non core forces. If you claim that to be the slippery slope, I'm going to mock you. Yes, Steve, I'm out to get you. After more then two years of me sticking up for BFC when not a lot of people did, you have unmasked me and my sinister motives. I'm highly critical of some things because... I'm highly critical of those things. I'm still supporting you on other areas to this day, but that gets conveniently forgotten by you as portraying me, by way of insinuation, as some scheming, unreasonable meanie with is so much easier. Disappointing.

Amen on the drag-able orders.

A trend that BFC have admitted to observing in the past. They included the IBCT and LMTV truck with the British, didn't they? Not that there is anything wrong with that. It just gets a bit wearisome to see the Yanks perpetually catered to more then others. It's only natural, but wearisome.