Ted

I think everybody just wants to burn Washington.....

Did you hire a guide? I'm looking to go sometime in 2014. Where did you stay? Any recommendations?

This is from the CMBN Manual: "The M1 is the standard United States 81 millimeter caliber mortar. It is based on the French Brandt mortar. The M1 is capable of firing WP (White Phosphorus) ammunition, designed to lay down screening smoke, but with definite anti-personnel and incendiary applications. Note: in the game, units close to a WP shell impact are subject to possible damage." "Rate of fire .............................................. 18 round/min sustained ................................................................ 30-35 round/min maximum" I am going to assume (and find out soon) that if the mortar lists Smoke 6 WP 6 it will shoot the smoke first.

A few questions. I have a mortar that has 6 rounds each of smoke and WP. Is there a way to command which they fire first? Will they always fire the smoke rounds first than the WP? I would like to use the WP on entrenched infantry to block sight lines and detrimentally effect the infantry inside.

The bunker is just on the other side of a hedgerow (at a road intersection). So it may be better to move a squad up and duke it out instead of sneaking up an engineer to toss a satchel? Wish I had me a spawn of Satan about now. How many points do you think a SoS is worth?

I am going to move up on a bunker with an engineer unit. Do I need to give an order to throw a satchel charge either by using the target or area fire command or will the unit know enough to throw it on it's own?

Try upgrading to the latest 2.5.4 release. Maybe that will fix it (?)

I know a lot of the clubs are running tournaments and it may be hard for club members to commit to one more. Well, we'll wait awhile and see where this goes.

No I didn't and you're at the top of the list CM2 BF Tournament List: sfhand slysniper

Sure I'll host it. I've ran a couple of tournaments over at the Band of Brothers so I do have an idea what will be needed. I would need a co-host though (If you were thinking of possibly volunteering ) I agree. I'd like to see an open tournament for all BF forum members. Good point. That didn't osccur to me. Really all we need for now is one scenario to start the first round. I figure the first round would take about 4 to 8 weeks depending on the size. That would give a designer time to develop the second round scenario. Of course, the thought of playing two scenarios at a time, if possible, could speed the tournament up. Yes there will always be players who dropout either from indifference or real life needs. That's a good idea about having players who've all ready finished their games finish the games for others. We could have an alternates list also. We could limit the original sign up and any late arrivals could be put on an Alternates list and would be able to pick up where others had to dropout. I'm serious enough. I'll do it if there is interest. I not getting a warm and fuzzy from the community though. This thread has had almost 150 views and only a few have responded.

Your right Erwin but I thought I'd just throw it out there for discussion. Any other ideas for a final? Or should we just stick with two winners.

I was thinking of a more open tournament that would enable players to meet others and find new opponents. Inter-club play is always an option though. How many clubs would we be talking about? What if someone doesn't belong to a club?

Just want to point out that there is a discussion thread about putting together a tournament over on the CMFI forum. Please stop by and give some thoughts and ideas and if you're interested (or not).

Looks good Erwin thanks. There are so many well run tournaments at the WeBoB and the Blitz that the details should be easy to put together. I was thinking of the idea, if the idea of one victor is necessary, we could have a mirrored ME final or something.

Just wanted to throw out a feeler and see if there is any interest in putting together a tournament. (I get the distinct feeling the RoW days are over) Here are some thoughts.... 1) Four scenarios, 2 CMBN's, one American one Commonwealth and two CMFI's, again one American and one Commonwealth. (I had a idea we could ask some of the more of the prolific scenario designers to create one scenario each for the tournament.) 2) Players would choose either to be Axis or Allied for the tournament. 3) Since scenario balance may be an issue we could have two winners, best total score Axis and best total score Allied. 4) To encourage designers and perhaps enlighten other players AAR's (After Action Reports) would be mandatory. Don't get discouraged by this idea, they could be anything from a few sentences to a play by play breakdown. AAR's are a great help to designers and can be an eye opening for fellow players. ("Oh, so if I would gone left I may have done much better." or "So that's how I should have used my artillery." etc.) I know this has been discussed and discussed again but has anyone come to a conclusion if the Nabla scoring system works or not? And does anybody have the formula? Anybody interested? Thoughts?

I find myself always looking forward to the next one.....

I have a couple of questions on the Repository. Why the difference in sub-categories between the games. For instance.... CM Battle for Normandy has: Maps Mods Scenarios and then below the categories are organizers and equipment lists etc (and some mods?) All well and good. But then CM Commonwealth has only: Guns and Vehicles Uniforms and the below that everything else mixed together, different mods, scenarios, maps etc. CMFI has no sub-categories at all. Why the differences between the games? How come when you "Order by" the Author it doesn't list the results alphabetically? Or is the "Author" different from the "File Author" Is it better to sort by Submitter?

I really enjoy these force specific background mods. Gives you something to study while waiting for the game to load. Many thanks for putting this together umlaut.

The links for the sample chapters and table of contents doesn't seem to work. The link with the 2004 comments knocked me off the fence though

Using the editor with a premade map is more than just creating a quick battle. Needles to say with the editor you can do initial setups anywhere on the map, create fixed start points and vary setup zones, reinforcements can be brought in over multiple turns in multiple locations and victory locations with point values can be assigned, something that cannot be done in a QB. I believe there are a lot of well constructed maps both that came with the game and designed independently that scenarios can be made from. All I'm saying , for me, having point values giving relative strengths of different units in the editor would make it easier for me to have a good starting point.

I was wondering the same thing. Why points in the QB and not in the editor? (I'm sure this has been discussed before) I'm trying to design my first CMBN scenario and have very little clue of relative strengths especially in the infantry aspect. I find myself going to the QB and writing down point values and then going back to the editor to choose troops.

Will an increase in a squads ammo load out slow it down or tire the squad sooner if it is moving quickly?

You need to send Green As Jade an email and he'll set you up with a Dropbox where you can get it.

Great. Thanks guys.

Do we need to save a PBEM games before patching? What is the procedure again?