Wolfe

Click on the D/L Mods Here link, then By Designer, then the Plus key next to mike8g's name. Alternatively, you could choose 'By Type' and then in the 'Other' category. - Chris

I aim to please. I haven't actually played either game, but from what I understand they are rather complicated, even more complicated than what I'd like to see in a future SC2. Personally I'd rather not see any player-directed diplomacy in SC2. I like the event engine very much, but would like a bit more flexibility (e.g. Italy may be ceded southern "Vichy" France when France falls if they capture a good deal of French territory before France concedes). This wouldn't happen all the time, of course; a bit of randomness is always welcome in my book. I've not picked up HOI yet, but I don't think I want to see SC headed toward that level of detail and micromanagement. Setting up trade routes? No thanks. I'd rather not bother with that. But I'd love to see more (smaller) hexes both on the Russian steppe and in the ocean. - Chris

... continued * An idea for Air Fleets that may or may not work. Air units that always act in a support role for each ground attack. It will coordinate its attack with attacking land units to give a greater offensive punch. Using air power with each attack will definitely grind it down, particularly if your opponent is using his air power to defend against your air. The computer would start with the strongest air unit and work down, cycling back through once it runs out of supporting air units. Air units could still attack directly, but give them a large hit on their readiness if they do (to simulate the amount of wear and tear large directed bombing campaigns induce). This would remove the never ending soften-them-up with air strikes before attacking with ground units tactic. To refresh your Air Fleets, you'll have to move them back away from the fighting, let them rest (and/or reinforce), and then move them back into the fray. If an Air Fleet is under the same HQ as the attacking ground unit, maybe it could get an extra offensive bonus for better coordination. Strategic bombers would not participate in this sort of support, but would instead be used to attack resource hexes or enemy ships/subs only. * Amending a previous idea: Reduce spotting abilities for fighters, bombers, and carriers (max spotting: 3 hexes). They can currently see too far into enemy territory, IMO. But give carriers the ability to do two reconnaissance sorties every turn to scout for enemy units. Long Range Air tech should not increase spotting distance either. * But for sea hexes, leave the air spotting at the plane's maximum range so it can still act in an ASW detector. A plane's maximum spotting ability would need to be shown somehow. * When an enemy ship or sub moves through a plane's FOV, it should have the possibility (but not necessarily certainty) of being spotted. If it is spotted, instead of always letting the plane know exactly where the ship is, have the game randomly pick a hex along its previously travelled path and mark this as a 'Last Sighted' hex. That way the player can know that a ship or sub group was sighted but not be given exact knowledge of its location. If the player then goes to check out the sub sighting with his navy, the game would then delete the Last Known marker when it comes into the ship's spotting range. And if the ship or sub is really sitting on that exact hex, the searching ship would get a spotting bonus (-say, double- because it's actively looking in that area), but would still be able to miss the ship or sub pack if it fails a LOS check. So the enemy ship/sub can still remain hidden despite the best efforts of the combined units. Would be a nice FOW touch. * For water hexes where the spotting arcs of enemy planes would overlap, split (average) the viewable hexes between the fighters. This way German fighters in northern France and British planes in southern England would still be allowed to cover the channel but would not automatically be given the ability to spot enemy troop build-ups next to land hexes. This could encourage players to keep planes in certain areas to keep prying enemy eyes away from an invasion force. * Changing an idea I wrote above. Instead of limiting a carrier's spotting ability, simply don't allow it to spot overland (similar to the limit on planes), but allow full spotting over water. The player shouldn't have to make the carrier do sorties to do spotting; too much micromanagement. But don't allow carriers to restrict enemy air spotting range like air units (mentioned immediately above) as this would give away the carrier's position. So spotting on land would be restricted to only a couple hexes, but spotting over the ocean would not be. * An air unit that moves (normal or Op-move) cannot spot during the same turn. * Once the Germans have conquered Poland give Axis player a choice to cede some territory in the Eastern half to the Soviets. If the German player does this, lower Russian war readiness by a bit. This allows the game to get to an historical border, but also allows the Axis player to choose to keep all of Poland. * Operational movement that is stymied by the change in rail gauges between Russia and the rest of Europe (so you would have to Op-move twice to get from Kiev to Paris). But allow the rail gauge to change at a rate of 1 hex per turn (or maybe every other turn) as territory is taken. * Click on an HQ unit and it not only shows you which units it currently controls, but also which open hexes would be under its control if you moved a unit there. * A cumulative loss of readiness for units. Units lose readiness as they move and, especially, fight. If a unit fights continuously, it's readiness can drop to near zero over time. It can recover readiness by resting. And having an HQ nearby allows faster recovery. For movement, readiness points are lost corresponding to double the movement cost of the ground you move over. So if you move onto a mountain hex, you lose 4 readiness percentage points. Move over 2 open hexes, lose 4 points. Attack a hex and lose 6x movement cost of that hex. Units naturally recover 4 points per turn. If a unit does nothing but rest in a turn, its readiness increases by -say- 16 points (4 times normal recovery rate). All this can help simulate troop exhaustion and wear and tear on equipment. Note that the math in this example may or may not work, depending on the hex size for the game, but I think it will add an interesting wrinkle to impede the almost continuous attacking and movement in the game. Units will still have a maximum readiness rating (determined by their distance from friendly supply), but don't get an automatic maxing of their readiness value simply because an HQ moves nearby. * Defenders engaged in combat lose readiness at twice the movement cost of the ground they sit on (half that of attackers). * In addition, reinforcements bring readiness levels back up by the same percentage as strength. So reinforcing a strength 5 unit up to its max of 10 also reduces readiness gap by 50% (e.g. A unit with current readiness of 37% and max readiness of 81% (difference of 44) would result in a readiness of 59% (37+22) when reinforced. Reinforcing from strength 9 up to 11 would increase readiness by 18% (2/11) to 45% (37+8)). * If a unit's supply drops below its readiness value, have readiness drop by half the difference between supply and readiness each turn. So if readiness is at 80% one turn, but the unit is nearly cut-off and its supply drops to 20%, readiness will drop to 50% (80-((80-20)/2)) the next turn, and then to 35%, etc. Until the unit's supply is equal to or greater than readiness. * Embarking on a train (op-move) reduces readiness by 25%. * A unit sitting on a severe winter or rainy (SE Asia monsoon) hex loses 10% of its readiness per turn. * A unit sitting on a severe winter hex with supply level less than -say- 3 loses 1 strength point each turn. * Any land unit that cannot trace a line of hexes back to a friendly HQ or home city may not reinforce, regardless of its supply level. The idea is to prevent units isolated on islands from reinforcing when they would not be able to, but not necessarily destroy its supply. * Transfer of Siberian Army should fall under FOW. * Tech upgrades that are not automatic. Right-click to upgrade a unit. * Lend-lease for Russia and England begins only after war with Axis starts (naturally) and it builds up over time. * Show lend-lease MPPs separate from MPP income so you can see how much you're getting and how much is lost each turn. * MPPs levels and spending during turn should not be shown to opponent; have it covered by FOW. * In conjunction with the variable city/port size (not everything is a '10') and separate population and resource ratings for cities, a limit on the number of units that can be built can be derived from the inherent city size (which is some multiple of MPP production). If German MPPs add up to -say- 120 and inherent population is considered -say- 2 times that, that would give you a total limit of 240 points which gives a maximum of 24 units at size 10 that can be built (HQs and partisans would not count against the force pool). As minor countries join the Axis, their pops can add -say- 25% of their max city/port population to the available force pool and -say- 10% for conquered countries. I don't know if this would add too much of a complicating factor or have other unintended effects, but it could temper excessively large builds and add some historically appropriate manpower limits to the game along with an added strategic consideration. BTW, industrial production of resources and cities should fall under FOW but city population should not. * In addition to that: Have 2 sets of MPPs. One is based on population which gives overall limit to number of units (infantry, armor, air, and naval). And one based on industrial production in cities and resources. The Industrial Production Points would be less than the population-driven MPPs and would limit the number of tank/mechanized, air, rocket, and naval units (basically anything that uses oil or requires industrial capacity to construct) that can be created. * Tie scientific research to industrial capacity (I don't have any specific suggestions here, just a general idea to limit tech research). Germany and the US would likely have the most IPPs available, and would naturally lead the tech research game. Followed by Russia and then Great Britain, Japan, France, and Italy. Just an idea to try to limit tech research to the places it most naturally occured. Large, highly industrialized nations generally produce the most and best scientists. Just because a nation does well at collecting MPPs does not necessarily mean it would be a scientific research hub. * Bombers sitting alone (not stacked with another unit) should take a lot of damage when attacked by enemy air units. But if an infantry corps or Air Fleet is sitting on the same hex it will provide protection for the bombers. * Bombers should take damage from defending planes (those that rise to meet it); currently it seems as if friendly escorts take all the punishment from defenders and bombers are unhurt except for damage done by the city itself (though I may be wrong about that). * Allow a bomber and fighter stacked on the same hex to do a coordinated attack against the target. The fighter serves as escorts. Otherwise, don't have fighter escorts at all. * Mechanized units that can move like tank units. * Armored infantry corps units (to represent the integrated (and dispersed) tanks in the early French and Soviet armies). These units can no longer be built after a certain date. * Allow mechanized, armored, and air units to only be created near large cities (of size 'x' that have a minimum IPP level of 'y'). Simulates producing tanks in the factories in industrialized cities who then have to then be distributed to the areas for fighting. * More unit variability when a minor country enters the war. So a minor might have a chance to get an extra corps or even a tank corps, further messing with the "perfect strategy" syndrome. * Ability to specify varied starting locations for units within a neutral country (not yet at war). In the editor you would place a unit in its default hex, but can then click on the unit and choose to specify a number of alternate locations where the unit might be positioned when it enters the war. Would add some nice variation and spoil the 'perfect attack sequence' that is so often used when first assaulting a minor country. * Never show size of a sub pack to the enemy. Player should not necessarily know the exact size of a sub he's dealing with. The info on subs is usually not perfectly known. * When a surface ship attacks a sub unit, have it attack and then always move into the sub's hex, regardless of the damage done. This shows the sub trying to dive/evade the ship(s). The attacking vessel may or may not really know how much damage was done to the sub group. If the sub escapes, the enemy ship wouldn't necessarily know it and likewise if it were destroyed he wouldn't necessarily know that either. More FOW is always welcome. * Shallow water hexes near ports and inlets allow subs and ships in them to be more easily spotted. * Changing my mind about a previous suggestion again. Instead of having automatic air fleets and coastal defenses imparting a small damage hit on enemy units that stray into their territorial waters, have them hit the readiness factor of all units involved instead. This will allow the air fleet to be placed by the player to 'guard' certain areas but also risk some 'damage' in the form of loss of readiness when you use them this way (previously I suggested they so a small amount of damage for free). Likewise, ships moving near unfriendly territory (or along enemy shorelines in the case of coastal defense) will take a readiness hit if they're spotted and "attacked". * In Russo-Finnish winter war allow Finland to cede territory in exchange for a cessation of hostilities. This "choice" happens automatically within the engine, it isn't something the player has any control over (either offering or accepting the peace deal). * Likewise, allow Japanese and Russian sides to sign a non-aggression pact (so long as Germany is still a threat). Once Germany is defeated, Russia becomes more likely to declare war against Japan. * Allow chance for US to sue for peace with Japan if its fleet is annihilated and its trade routes are being savaged. But if physically invaded, the US fights vigorously, including partisans. And can move capitals like the USSR/England. * If US sues for peace, have a liklihood Australia will follow (lack of protective US fleet). * Something completely off the wall: A Risk-like mode where all the inherent relationships between countries are turned off and the object of the game for every major nation is expand, expand, expand. Everyone is on his/her own and is trying to dominate the world. There is no 'Axis' or 'Allies'. You play only one country and can declare war on anyone (US declares on Canada, for example) and then fight until one or the other is conquered. Once conquered, the cities and resources commit their max MPP and IPP to the victor. Rinse, recycle, repeat until there is only one left standing. No Vichy France, no Finnish sueing for peace, no countdown for when the US enters the war. Just raw, unadulterated expansionism. * Majors always join the war at the beginning of a turn to allow for immediate offensive/defensive operations (not sure if this doesn't happen already). * Ability to resupply cut-off HQ units by "attacking" them with friendly air units. This "attack" would raise the HQ's supply level, but would hurt the air unit's readiness value as if it were attacking an enemy unit. And if enemy air units are in range to defend, the supplying air unit could take damage, but not inflict damage on the enemy air unit. How much supply is delivered depends on the size of the air unit. This can only be used for HQs who cannot trace a land hex back to the capital cities and is at supply level 5 or lower. HQs sitting on a severe winter hex cannot be re-supplied. And the more units attached to that HQ, the smaller the supply increase. * AA tech that applies not only to cities, but also to all units (except subs). * Large weather patterns that appear over defined regions. Fog that can ground aircraft (and limit bombing targets if the fog covers enemy units/cities) and makes naval units near impossible to spot. Rain that reduces movement for ground units and eliminates air movement. Snow that acts like rain but also reduces supply levels. And heavy snow/rain in certain regions only that prevents almost any movement, severely hurts supply (to the point where units trapped in the weather lose not just supply and readiness, but strength), and also traps naval units (e.g. an ice floe or monsoon that keeps ships in/near port). * A minor nation who loses a unit in combat will reduce its total MPP and IPP contribution levels according to the size of that unit. And if the combined sizes of all the minor's units falls to 50% or below, each city and resource of that minor reduces its output by 1 MPP and/or IPP. For 40% or below, lose 2 MPPs/IPPs per resource. For 30% lose 3, etc. Minor nations generally aren't too keen on sacrificing their soldiers for "someone else's war". And this would hopefully discourage them from being used as pure cannon fodder by the major nation. * FOW WRT newly encountered enemy units. Don't reveal the strength of an enemy unit until the next turn or until the enemy unit is attacked. You shouldn't automatically know his strength simply by moving next to him. * Major nations that have unusually strong relationships with a minor nation should react strongly to an ally who invades the minor country (e.g. England would cut off lend-lease and/or trade with Russia if USSR attacks India, Persia, or Iraq). Outright war between historical allies over disputed territory outside the normal Axis-Allied fight might be fun, but may also be very difficult to program. * Air units that sit alone can easily be overrun, but if another land unit (even an HQ, but not another air unit) shares the hex the air unit is allowed to flee during the attack. Thanks to Hubert for a truly superb game and support for SC. While I've been preoccupied with CMBB of late, SC just has a magical way of drawing me back in. - Chris

Now that 1.06 is out, I thought I'd post some more ideas on what I'd like to see in SC2. While most of these suggestions are aimed at a more complicated game (smaller hex size, involving the entire world), many of them would likely fit fine in SC as it stands now. These ideas follow-up (and in some cases amend) my previous requests in the Advanced Strategic Command thread. Hope Hubert finds them useful. A few humble suggestions for a great game. * Weaker HQs and air units. They seem a bit too rugged when attacked to me. Maybe double the damage done from a ground attack? * If the entire world is represented, allow some countries to be made non-combatants and may not be attacked at all. But this should be changeable in the Editor. And the US's MPPs would likely need to be able to be halved (or so) in some unique way if it's a Europe-only campaign and SE Asia (essentially Japan) is not part of the war. And vice-versa. Maybe allow individual cities/resources to be considered 'non-combatants' (as if there were no resource there) to allow campaign authors to customize a campaign. * Unit graphics to show all levels of tech upgrades for infantry, rockets, and naval units. * Toggleable labels for HQ units. Like city labels, they identify the HQ units by name. City names could be displayed at the bottom of the hex; HQ names at the top. * Ability to set different unit cost levels to "encourage" the purchasing of certain units. So in the editor I could create a campaign where strategic bombers cost -say- 10% less for the USA to try to push the US player to buy bombers. Or have ocean-going troop transports be 20% more expensive for Germany, etc. * When trying to get a transport ashore, if there is an enemy unit on the hex, allow the attacking unit to try to push the enemy unit out, representing an attempt at a landing. * Landing on unoccupied fortifications can cause more casualties than a normal landing. So a minor fortification that isn't occupied can still cause some damage, representing a small contingent of enemy troops stationed there. This would encourage the building of the Atlantic wall by the German player. * Some hex types that can't be landed on from the sea. * Change the embark-then-move in the same turn for transports to Embark on one turn, then move and disembark on the next. I've never really cared for that sequence in the game. It will also encourage a defender to build minor fortifications and keep some defending units around rather than waiting to spot landing craft off the shore then Op-move units back to defend. Besides, nearby air units (and the automatic coastal defenses) will impart a small readiness hit on all landing craft that it spots. * Also, remove the landing supply bonus. A unit with supply level 5 that lands on shore should not automatically be puffed up to supply level 10 simply because he landed. * Partisan units should be capped at size 5 or so (so you can't reinforce them any higher). And I'd prefer they get an entrenchment bonus, not an experience bonus. They also shouldn't be able to leave the hex boundaries of their home country. * Any troops raised in conquered territory would have a max size of -say- '8' and would be a slightly different color. No more mustering fully capable German armies in Russia. Unlike existing minor units, however, they can come under command of HQs. And only infantry units can be created in captured cities; no armored, mechanized, air, or naval units should be able to be raised there. And any tech upgrades would not be available to these less well-armed troops. * Separate sea trade routes from lend-lease routes. Subs that patrol trade routes would impart an MPP hit like now on every turn, but those that patrol lend-lease routes can get a big hit on MPPs, but it wouldn't necessarily happen every single turn. * Show lend-lease/trade routes on the map with different color hexes. * Ability to surrender or ask for a ceasefire. Some games it becomes a forgone conclusion and you'd just like to see the final score. * Remove FOW on enemy tech development after the games ends so you can see what they aimed for and how far they got. * When you click on a unit it would be nice to see which HQ (if any) it is attached to. Highlighting them the way units are highlighted when an HQ is selected would be helpful. * Maybe, maybe not: Engine recalculates supply levels of unmoved units every time you click on them. If supply level is higher than when the unit started the turn (e.g. an HQ moved closer to it), allow the unit to have this higher supply level before it moves/attacks/reinforces. This would represent delivering needed supplies within the turn and in some cases can help you save a cut-off unit. So if you have an army trapped behind enemy lines and a friendly unit manages to reach it, the trapped unit could be resupplied within that turn so it could actually move or reinforce in that turn rather than sitting there with supply 0 unable to do anything at all. * Don't reveal the launch position of rockets/airplanes when attacking if these units are out of enemy LOS. An enemy wouldn't necessarily know where the attackers are based. * Rename Rocket to Rocket Artillery so it seems to include rail guns and such. * Rockets only act as strategic terror weapons; reducing city/port/resource population and/or industrial capacity. Attacks on units should not be allowed. * Change rocket graphic and sound to reflect multiple rocket attacks over the turn. Add a little variety. * Ability to transport rockets overseas. * FOW for enemy unit landing casualties. Currently, even with FOW on, I know when enemy units landing on the beaches suffer casualties. If I can't see the LZ, I shouldn't have this info. * A more refined idea for subs: Surface ships begin with a 25% chance of detecting a sub at default values. As sub tech advances, this drops enemy spotting liklihood by 5% for each tech upgrade. This can be counter-acted by sonar research which increases sub detection by 5%. Air units can spot subs 50% of the time, but this will also drop 5% per sub tech increase, but increase for each level of Long Range Aircraft achieved. * Remove 'sonar research' and replace it with ASW tech. ASW would apply not just to surface vessel's defense against subs, but also increases spotting for both surface ships and air units. * Remove surprise attacks for subs. Subs can attack when directed, but not automatically due to chance encounters. * Naval units who lose half or more of their size will not engage in combat, preferring to flee (they need to be refit before they will engage in combat again). While they cannot be ordered to attack, still have chance they can be engaged and destroyed by enemy units. * Other annexation fights: USSR annexes Moldova. * For annexation fights, only the two parties involved may fight and third-party units may not trespass on the territory being fought over (so the German player can't send troops to Finland or the Balkans to "assist". The German player can only provide MPPs/IPPs to reinforce existing minor units.). And third party naval units cannot trespass on any water hex next to the territory in question (e.g. US ships can't 'block' Japan from reinforcing Sakhalin by placing their ships next to the Island until the US and Japan are both involved in the wider war). * I'm changing my mind. 2-week turn length as standard, but drops down to 1-week for summer months. That way you get a more even production throughout the year but don't have to have 52 turns per year, which I think could get cumbersome. Winter months would be shown by changing weather in individual hexes, which would affect movement (and supply) and would be more apparent to the player than month-long turns. Onset/break of summer/winter would be variable so you won't exactly know when to start/end offensives. And each side gets to move during the same week instead of alternating as they do now. That would provide from 29 to 35 turns per year for each side. [23 2-week turns and 6 1-week if Summer is very short (mid-July to late August)] or [17 2-week and 18 1-week if summer is very long (early June to late September)]. And anywhere in-between, depending on if summer starts or ends early/late. * Announce any early or late arrival of the seasons (e.g. "The long, hot summer begins early this year."). * Land units that stack up to 2 per hex. So you can have an Infantry and Tank corps in one hex doing a coordinated attack. The coordinated attack would have extra benefits over just attacking with each unit. You could also have a Corps and HQ unit with the Corps doing most of the defending, protecting the HQ. Same for Air fleets. Much higher stacking (4 or more units per land hex) may make defending a front almost impossible, IMO. But allow HQs to stack on any land hex even if there are already 2 units there (IOW HQs don't count against the stacking limit). * When attacking with stacked units, default (left-click) is to attack with all units in that hex against the enemy hex as a coordinated attack. If you only want to attack with one unit, right click and select attack with only this unit. * But I'd rather not have coordinated attacks from multiple hexes simultaneously. It's realistic, but adds a bit too much complication in picking which hexes join the attack and which don't. As well as which units attack hardest and which only probe. A unit that attacks vigorously would also naturally use up more supply, complicating that aspect of the game. This would go a bit too far down the road of excessive detail, IMHO. * Another possible 'spy' report: "Radio intercepts have pin-pointed enemy submarines in hex 55N by 22W." You can then click on that particular text line and it will center the screen on that hex. * Smaller interface buttons. They really don't need to be that big, do they? * Ability to answer Yes/No questions by using keyboard. Alt-S for save, Alt-Q for quit campaign, and Alt-X for quick exit. * The possibility of a country-wide revolt for certain nations. If you've conquered a particularly pesky country (e.g. Axis takes Yugoslavia) but have only garrisoned a unit or so in the capital, allow the possibility of a full-scale revolt where partisan units appear at every possible location (including all the cities) all at once. Wheee! Fun! Would be useful for France to help keep more German units in garrison, especially if both France and Vichy France were to revolt simultaneously. If Vichy France joins the revolt (from neutral status) and is crushed, the Axis player gets no conquering booty from Vichy (to discourage the Axis player from not garrisoning France in hopes of causing a revolt so he can then conquer both France and Vichy without incurring a DoW penalty). * Diminishing returns for Industrial Tech. First level reduces costs by 10%, but goes down by 2% each successive level (i.e. Cost reduction levels 1-5: 10%, 18%, 24%, 28%, 30%). * Neutral nations that contribute MPPs to active nations (e.g. Vichy France and Sweden to Axis, Switzerland to both sides). This would discourage invasion as you would lose the 'free' MPPs. * If England is conquered, Canada (and other allied minors like Australia, India, etc.) will give it MPPs to the US (if active) or USSR or France, in that order. If China is only other active ally at the time, Canadian MPPs are lost until UK/US/USSR/France enters (re-enters) the war. If England surrenders, a good amount of its navy can continue to fight (it ostensibly transfers to Canada). Partisans in England would be nice, too. * Game can begin as early as spring 1937 (before Japanese invasion of China in July). The Japanese annexation of Manchuria (1931) would probably make for too long a game and warfare would likely start much too early in the game. * Certain terrain types always provide a partial defensive bonus (mountains, fortifications, cities, and capitals). So you automatically start out with a defensive bonus of -say- 2 for mountain hexes even if you just moved onto it. And enemy forces can't take your entrenchment value down below the minimum. * Maybe allow HQ units to project its max supply bonus ~1 to 2 hexes into the sea. This would allow for resupply of naval vessels, hopefully encouraging island hopping in the Pacific. * Change shore bombardment so it only reduces entrenchment value; no attacking land units from sea. Units landing ashore would do the real fighting. Or maybe if a naval unit is within 'X' hexes of a landing unit it can automatically provide support for that unit, similar to air fleets (see below). * And tone down damage done to land units from carrier attacks (except for attacks against air units or rockets). * Allow units to transport if a troop carrier is nearby even if there is no port (so units can get off islands without ports; particularly in the Pacific). This form of transport could cost more to discourage using it elsewhere. Or maybe it can only be used on land areas that have no ports. * A unit that sits on a hex for a period of time beyond what it takes to get max entrenchment will permanently get that entrenchment value up to half the max hex entrenchment. So if a unit sits on a city for 6 (or more) turns, it gets the max 4 entrenchment bonuses, but if attacked repeatedly it will always retain atleast level 2 entrenchment. Once it moves, of course, it loses the entrenchment and has to start all over. If it sits on the city hex for 5 consecutive turns instead, it will retain 1 permanent entrenchment level until destroyed (or it moves). This can help prevent naval units from being used solely to take the entrenchment value down to 0 before ground units attack the defender directly. The defender gets a bonus for essentially "permanently" entrenching. - Chris

Redwolf, they're in my gun charts. Chris' CM Database And thanks for the link to the Mac Excel viewers; I've been looking for those for ages. - Chris

Update for Dec 13, 2002: Fixed avalability dates of APBC for Russian 76/L17 gun and tungsten for German 75/L48 in the Guns chart. Fixed the number of MGs on the StuG IIIG early-mid, mid, late-mid, and late as well as Stug IV late in the Tanks chart. - Chris

25090-25091 - background left and right side 25092-25094 - green 25095-25097 - red - Chris [ December 04, 2002, 11:20 AM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

:cool: Thanks. Looks great! But I think the most important question is ... do you like it better? It's your mod, after all. Oh, ok. Thought the buttons each had their own text, but I guess not. I do like the greater contrast in the brighter buttons. Nice work! - Chris

---> I didn't think they were too bright, maybe it's just your screen settings . OK. Just joking. I'll take a look at it.</font>

Actually I don't think the in-game one is avalable yet. Hopefully soon; it's a great mod! But just to hijack the thread (I didn't see one announcing pak's mod): I think the headers on the AAR screen (11102) are a bit bright and very hard to read. Any chance of muteing down the After Action Report, Outcome, Statistics, Points, and Final Score text? On the scenarios screen the red Delete button text and blue Operations button text are also a bit hard to read, IMO. Love the arrow buttons, though. Really well done. In the editor the 'Height is On' text is rather bright. And just to show how truly anal I really am the text on the Fortifications button in the unit editor screen could be shifted a pixel or two to the right; the 'F' blends in a bit much with the button's background. A great mod overall. Can't wait to get the in-game part. From the screenshot it looks like it blows my Dark Green Interface away. But I'll reserve judgement until I can see it for myself and then pick apart all of it's flaws so I can feel better about my own pathetic attempt. - Chris

Thanks, guys! Glad you like 'em. They were a lot of hard work, but well worth it! Unfortunately I don't. My ISP doesn't keep track of free homepage DL's anymore and I never bothered with one of those download counters. Would be interesting, but I just don't know. - Chris [ November 28, 2002, 02:36 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

The better anti-aliasing can help smooth edges, nearly eliminating edge crawling as you move through the scene. And the super sampling method (OGSS) can also significantly reduce the amount of texture shimmer in the partially transparent trees in CM. - Chris

Not sure if you Geforce owners are still having probs with 40.xx drivers, but this might tempt you to try them again with CM: Beyond 3D Thread Mode 7 is 2xRGMS combined with 2x2OGSS?!? Sounds sweet! - Chris

Mini-update. Corrected faust and grenade bundle availability for Finnish squads and fixed date of last availability for Finnish Sissi squads and Finnish Infantry Sissi Battalion '42B to May43. - Chris

Mini-update. Corrected faust and grenade bundle availability for Finnish squads and fixed date of last availability for Finnish Sissi squads and Finnish Infantry Sissi Battalion '42B to May43. - Chris

Ja. Same with the Radeon 8500 on Win98/US version. Definitely not an nVidia-only issue. BTW, I d/led the patch from the ftp2 server, if that helps. - Chris [ November 21, 2002, 07:52 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Not a problem. This is exciting news. Before today, I was inclined to believe the opposite. Live and learn... Michael</font>

Now updated for CMBB 1.01!!! This is the finished version (hopefully; until the next patch comes out ) that now includes infantry firepower charts for all 10,000 different units (or thereabouts). Also includes TO&E for every battalion/company/platoon in the game. It weighs in at a svelte 88 printed pages. Changes in Tanks and Penetration charts: * Finnish PzIVH is now available Aug44. * Finnish StuG now early-mid (was mid) and is available Jun44. * Finnish PaK40 AT gun now available in Jul43. * Added 76mm, 81mm, 105mm, 120mm, 122mm, 152mm Finnish radio FOs. * Added BT-5A and BT-7A Soviet tanks. * Corrected BT-5 M1934 listing (was listed as 1944). * Changed Valentine IX gun to 75e/L50. * Changed penetration numbers for Axis 37t/L40, 37/L45, 37/L57, and 37t/L48 guns. And changed AP shot to AP (lg) on the L/45 and L/57. * Changed APC penetration on Axis 50/L42 and 50/L60 guns. * Updated hollow charge Dec42 availability for Axis 75/L10, 75/L11, 75/L24, 75/L26, 75f/L36, 105/L18, and 105/L28. * Changed APC penetration numbers for Soviet 50g/L60. * Changed APCBC penetration numbers for Soviet 57e/L50 gun (formerly 57e/L43). * Changed HE penetration numbers for Soviet 122/L48 gun. Enjoy! - Chris

Now updated for CMBB 1.01!!! This is the finished version (hopefully; until the next patch comes out ) that now includes infantry firepower charts for all 10,000 different units (or thereabouts). Also includes TO&E for every battalion/company/platoon in the game. It weighs in at a svelte 88 printed pages. Changes in Tanks and Penetration charts: * Finnish PzIVH is now available Aug44. * Finnish StuG now early-mid (was mid) and is available Jun44. * Finnish PaK40 AT gun now available in Jul43. * Added 76mm, 81mm, 105mm, 120mm, 122mm, 152mm Finnish radio FOs. * Added BT-5A and BT-7A Soviet tanks. * Corrected BT-5 M1934 listing (was listed as 1944). * Changed Valentine IX gun to 75e/L50. * Changed penetration numbers for Axis 37t/L40, 37/L45, 37/L57, and 37t/L48 guns. And changed AP shot to AP (lg) on the L/45 and L/57. * Changed APC penetration on Axis 50/L42 and 50/L60 guns. * Updated hollow charge Dec42 availability for Axis 75/L10, 75/L11, 75/L24, 75/L26, 75f/L36, 105/L18, and 105/L28. * Changed APC penetration numbers for Soviet 50g/L60. * Changed APCBC penetration numbers for Soviet 57e/L50 gun (formerly 57e/L43). * Changed HE penetration numbers for Soviet 122/L48 gun. - Chris [ November 21, 2002, 07:34 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Hi, Steve. I understand that, but even when they get close enough to spot enemy units, the MGs still won't voluntarily fire. Here's one where 3 enemy units have been spotted enough to be fired on. The first showed up in the building on turn 4 at 0:12 (but has since disappeared), the second in the middle of the tree copse at 0:13 (still visible) and the third in the front part of the trees at 0:14 (still visible). My attacking squads which are in bad shape will fire on them, but the MGs won't. CMBB Attack 2 I *love* the new covered arc commands and use them a lot, but I really don't understand why units sometimes won't fire without it when they're not supressed, have decent LOS, plenty of ammo, and aren't jammed. CMBB's code certainly has many subtleties I'm not aware of, but I don't see how this situation is particularly subtle. - Chris

Just to highlight Tarqulene's observations, you can try these two scenarios for yourself. I plotted an advance movement across open ground for 3 platoons with a number of supporting Maxim MMGs. Unless given a specific order or a covered arc, the MGs refuse to fire. CMBB Attack.zip [8KB] "1 attack" is in snow (for reduced LOS). "3 attack" is in clear weather. "1 attack 01" is a saved game. Weather doesn't seem to make a difference. The Maxim's won't join the fight automatically. BTW, you may have to run it a couple of times from the Allied side to actually get close enough to spot the German units. Once spotted the attacking units will open up (if they're not already supressed/routed), but the MGs won't. - Chris [ November 21, 2002, 02:41 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Yeah, it's what I'm working on now. It won't be out before the 1.01 patch or ~the middle of the month whichever comes later. Zarquon wrote: Actually I tried setting both the font type and setting the font color to black but nothing seems to help. When it gets converted, it just seems to lose the color info unfortunately. - Chris [ November 05, 2002, 10:27 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Hi, Robert. Yep. They're available at my site. See sig below. - Chris

The thing about pushing non-moving (and even hiding) units out of "their" foxholes has been around since CMBO. Unfortunately I don't know that it will be fixed before the engine rewrite. Maybe if routed/panicked units do this, they can be allowed to occupy the same space (just like units that have been given move orders but haven't begun moving can) but the non-moving unit will lose FP and/or ROF to account for a panicking unit occupying the same space. Maybe it could even cause them to be spotted more easily (drawing attention). But I really hate seeing them flee back towards my lines and push hiding units out. Almost makes me wish NKVD units were in the game to take care of them before they cause trouble. I have also seen units with perfectly good LOS, no supression, and no Jammed gun refuse to fire for most of the turn. It's very intermittent, and unfortunately I don't have a saved game. - Chris [ November 04, 2002, 05:24 PM: Message edited by: Wolfe ]

Yep. It's changed. Noticed this in Yelnia Stare. Smoke now degrades, but doesn't completely block LOS. - Chris