Lt Bull

Exactly what womble said. Arbitrary? How can the distance between a unit and it's floating icon be considered arbitrary? The higher it goes the more it loses it's ability to be a functional marker for the player to readily determine exactly where on the battlefield (and in what terrain) the unit is in at a glance. If I try to have another go at trying to answer the question I originally posted (no one has offered ANY type of reasoning yet), it's probably best to refer how other games with 3D battlefields have (much better) treated the same issue of proving "abstract" ID visual clues to the player that assist in keeping track of what units are where on the battlefield. Lets look at the Total War series apprach and comapre it to CMBN. They use a similar idea in principle, "float" a marker over the unit, but with some major key points of difference which makes their approach much more straightforward, sensible, logical and much betetr for the player to interpret seamlessly. 1. The marker is actually fashioned to represent an "oversized" unit flag or banner. As such it does not freely "float" unattached/disconnected to the unit (like in CMBN) at some height above the unit, but has a "flag pole" that physically (visually) connects the flag to the unit base. It is easy to physically see what flag belongs to what unit just just by seeing the flag linked to the unit by the flag pole. NOTE: I do understand that in these games the marker/banner is actually meant to be part of the unit being represented (ie. the battleflags of that era) so i makes sense just to see them represented, unlike in CMBN where the icons are just there purely as abstract markers for teh players sake. However it iteresting to ask, how would BFC have treated the icons IF CM actually was representing feudal era combat with TW style units etc.!!!! Would they have STILL adopted the bizazre approach to icons used in CMBN?? 2. The height at which a marker appears over a unit is fixed relative to the scale of the battlefield. In other words, the "flag pole" doesn't magically shrink or extend (in battlefield scale) as a result of the player moving/changing the camera perspective, unlike CMBN. It consequentially naturally scales on the screen (with the unit) depending on how far away it is from the camera. Actually if you actually observe what happens to the height of the marker above a unit when you zoom in and out from a unit in CMBN, it is most puzzling (a probably contributes to you subconsciously picking up that something just isn't quite right). You will find that if you zoom right up to a unit, the marker floats some height (x pixels) above the unit. If you now zoom out, this height (in pixels) decreases at a rate disproportionate to the distance zoomed out, resulting in a perceptional confusion as your brain tries to reconcile the visual arbitrary disconenct between the scale of the units/zoom setting and the visual height of the marker above the unit. 3. The size of the marker/flag relative to the screen naturally changes according to the standard natural rules of depth of field, unlike CMBN. So even if you saw a group of markers, you would be able to at least tell which markers belong to units closest to you (the larger ones) and which are further away (the smaller ones). CMBN instead just uses just 3 discrete sizes of icons (the medium and larger one being approximately 33% and 66% bigger than the size of the smallest icon respectively) based on some arbitrary scale of how far the camera is from the unit to give some visual cue as to the distance it is from camera. This visual cue it gives is so innefective in practice, you probably wouldn't notice it if the icons remained just the one size regardles of distance from the camera. Here is a compilation of screenshots taken when you progressively zoom out from a unit. Note that I have aligend each screenshot with the next so that the bases of all the tank tracks line up horizontally. Only the third screenshot from the left has the medium sized icon. 4. The TW banners allow for overlap with other banners (and, just as importantly, terrain), as you would naturally expect. The CMBN icons however by defalt do not. They exhibit an strange "auto anti-overlap" behaviour that ultimately makes the markers literally suddenly jump around and rearange themselves (in both the horizontal and vertivcal directions) in space if the camera is posiioned so that it would cause icons to overlap. It further adds to the confusion!. Best understood if you watch this sample video of it occuring in action. 5. The TW banners always face the player, essentially just like the icons do in CMBN. When you consider all the odd/unnatural things listed above that are going on with the CMBN icons as the camera zooms in out/rotates/pans etc, thier potential to give the player any high quality information on the units POSITION on the battlefield is totally wasted. It's not like the TW apprach to battlefield icons/banners is anything borne of rocket science or amazing innovation. It's just simple common sense. I mean you just need to look at this video of even the first game of the Total War series (Shogun Total War) that came out in 1999 to see just how effective their banners/icons are at identifying units and where they are relative to others on the 3D battlefield. Worth noting that this first TW game did not even feature 3D units, they are just 2D sprites, same as the banners/icons. I do agree that the CMx1 style bases are much more effective at giving a player SA of where units are on the battlefield. Making the unit bases the main way of identifying where units are is most effective. FWIW, my ideas for a better solution revolve around making the icons behave more like TW icons/banners. eg. - having virtual "flagpoles" of some kind to link the unit on the ground to the icon in the air might help. - reduce the height at which they float - make them scale naturally (though I understand there are issues here)

Because the further away the icon is from where the actual unit is on the ground, the more it gives the player a much better idea where the unit actually is? No. Definitely no. Because if makes the icon much easier to select and see? No. Because it makes the unit much easier to select and see? No. Because someone thought really high floating icons would be kind of cool in a stupid and annoying sort of way? Probably. I am serious. We need the floating icons high up in the air removed from where the actual unit is on the ground as they are in this game because why? To me they are just counter-productive to what a player actually wants to know and do when playing the game. Yes they tell the player the unit type and if its selected and what its parent HQ and units are etc which is all OK but WHY THE **** make them float at a ridiculous height above the units? As a result they provide a practically worthless indication on exactly WHERE the unit is positioned on the actual battlefield. The more horizontal you have your camera, the more useless they become. It actually just confusing things more for the player. The ONLY exception to this is when you point the camera straight down and view from birdseye, or from an angle slightly off vertical which is hardly ever. Can this ridiculous floating icon height be reduced? Can it be at least reduced by some mod? I would say reducing the height by even 80% might not be enough. I know that the "?" icons behave exactly how I would want the regular icons to behave: they sit at the actual ground level of the unidentified unit. I would definitely settle for having the regular unit icons at ground level than the way they are now.

Hey CPT T, Ah SMG MP with 56k modems....those were the days...but it would have been more like 150 years ago! Yes I have very fond memories of those early formative MP gaming days. SMG was such a good MP game. In fact that game still has some simple but innovative wargame features in it that I am STILL waiting to see implemented in the games of today. Requesting optional reinforcements or requesting scheduled reinforcements to arrive earlier at the cost of Victory Points is one of them. Can't say I can name another wargame that has this very simple dynamic option. I have suggested it before for CM. Now I am sure you must've gone by another name because I don't recognise CPT T but I do remember the brothers thing, I think I remember getting you guys confused.. Though I do remember Mick. You should be able to PM me now as I have cleared out the clutter.

When you get down to the nitty gritty of modelling tank gun elevation limits in a game like CMBN, it becomes apparent how "tricky" coding the TacAI could become, though not impossible. It would mean the TacAI tankers would be faced with "trying to best solve" situations where they have LOS to a target but no LOF to the target. They would solve this by some combination of moving a) moving forward/backwards rotating the chassis c) rotating the turret until a LOF solution is found. In reality it can actually be a "trial and error" process because it is hard to predict exactly HOW a patch of terrain will orientate the tanks chassis if a tank decides to move and/or rotate, especially if it is rocky type terrain. You just need to play any first person tank sim (like Red Orchestra or even World of Tanks that do have elevation limits) to get first hand experience at just how "touchy"it can be to ensure your tank chassis is orientated such that it can train it's gun on a target. This becomes more of a problem when traversing or coming to rest on rough or undulating terrain. Without it modelled in the game, tanks can find "hull down" firing positions that both give them LOS to the target and LOF to the target where in reality they would only have LOS to the target (assuming the commander has full vision horizontally and vertically). The game already apparently seems to track the orientation of the tank chassis however (it is taken in to consideration when determining angle of incidence of incoming AP rounds I believe) so this could be leveraged. Essentially the game would need to track three variables: eg. 1. chassis heading 2. chassis pitch 3. chassis roll and then code a way that the TacAI could intelligently a) move forward/backwards rotate the chassis c) rotate the turret until a solution combination of 1,2 and 3 allow it to get LOF on a target such that it's tactical position is not severely compromised. In most cases this would mean a solution that involves the LEAST amount of physical movement form its present spot.

I have since created, run and observed quite a number of different variant tests on my firing range all related to understanding "moving tank gun firing accuracy". Again I have just focused on the US Sherman tank moving fire (haven't done any comparative tests using other tanks). I have modified my standard "FLAT" elevation firing lane to create variants on the "0deg target bearing" series of moving fire tests: - "constant slope" firing range (testing accuracy of moving fire when tanks move DOWNHILL firing at stationary target down hill, and move UPHILL firing at stationary targets UPHILL. This is to understand if there is any influence on moving fire accuracy when target is uphill/downhill or level with firing tank. Not that each of these situations (apart from the need to adjust aim to account for gravity, less when firing down hill), each one of these examples present would present the same kind of "aiming" challenge to the gunner. Essentially just adjusting the elevation of the gun (to account for range variation) as you got closer. NOTE: the maps don't really have a totally "smooth" incline. They have slight bumps, so if anything you might expect the tanks having a harder time hitting targets downrange (compared to the flat level earlier tests). SLOPE UPHILL SLOPE DOWNHILL - a flat firing range with the target elevated on a ledge at the end. This in theory should present itself as a greater challenge for the gunner to hit the target from a tank moving closer towards it. The need for greater gun elevation adjustment (not just for range adjustment) is needed the closer the tank approaches the target. (note: it was this example where I noticed that tanks have no gun elevation/depression limits). They can fire their main gun at targets sitting above their turrets if needed. LEDGE NOTE: Finding a firing solution when travelling DIRECTLY TOWARDS (or away from) a stationary target (ie. target bearing 0deg, or 180deg) (like the tests I have conducted so far) is the least challenging scenario for a gunner in a moving tank. Trying to aim and hit a target that is not in the direction of the tanks motion (a target bearing of 90deg being the most challenging) is much more challenging, as both the vertical and horizontal (this one not being so much a factor when moving directly towards/away from the target) gun adjustments to hit the target are constantly changing. I plan to test moving tank gun accuracy in these more challenging situations later (they just take a bit more work to set up). Based on observation alone in these "0deg target bearing" moving fire tests which anyone can duplicate by downloading and running the "ready to go from start" saved file games of each test (no need for any numbers dedicated statistical study at this early stage), the moving fire accuracy of the Sherman tank (I have only tested this tank) at ranges even BEYOND 1000m seems to be HIGHER that what I expected. "0deg target bearing" moving fire accuracy around ~1000m could even be 50%. Feel free to delve in to a more detailed statistical analysis using the "ready to go" save files available in this thread. Will try to now do some "90 deg target bearing" moving fire tests.

Fair enough no biggie, just an observation, but... My experience just from playing tank simulators that model these limitations makes me think otherwise, especially when it comes to trying to find suitable hull down positions, or when trying to target anything while moving (or coming to stop) over undulating/rough terrain. Awareness of your tanks orientation plane relative to the terrain around you and the limitations it places on being able to train your gun on any potential targets around you is critical.

LOL...tripper! Ah forgot to mention (may not be obvious)...the Shermans have covered arcs that prevent them from engaging the PzIVs. If you remove the Sherman covered arcs you will see that they can also hit the PzIVs. It's just not as obvious they too are going well beyond their theoretical gun elevation limit.

For some reason I thought they were in this game engine (I know modelling this in CM had been discussed at some point) They definitely are not as I have discovered.

I would think that perhaps for LOS purposes and small arms direct fire purposes this statement is correct, but even then it must be abstracted as you physically cant see these ruts and irregularities. But as far as affecting the "to hit" chances of tanks firing while moving over it, the mechanical effects of any of these "abstracted" dips/ruts/irregularities seem to be generically abstracted separately in the "to hit" calculation somehow. Further, I would go on to say that this "abstracted to hit while moving fudge factor" DOES NOT change based on what terrain title the tank is moving on, as my tests seem to indicate. ie. any abstracted effects on targeting while moving over "grass" terrain (with it's abstracted dips and irregularities) seems identical (or not significantly differnt to) what it is for moving over what is meant to be "rough" terrain (that really would/should affect the "to hit" calculation more significantly). Keep in mind that if CMBN actually DID take in to consideration the abstracted surface a tank is moving over while calculating it's probability to hit a target, then it would be one of the first games to my knowledge, PC or boardgame, (not even ASL considers the surface type a tank is moving on when determining its "to hit modifiers" for moving fire) that does so. I would consider the implementation of model such a feature in any game as just another small step towards a more realistic battlefield simulation (basically more goodness under the bonnet). Basically ALL games seem to disregard the surface a vehicle is moving on when determining "to hit" penalty modifiers. All movement, across ANY abstracted terrain type, is just counted as "Moving fire" with possibly a generic modifier maybe simply related to "speed". Would factoring in the current terrain type be that difficult? I don't see a reason why it would be.

Based on what have have learnt from the "moving over craters" firing test, I would expect that it just might even be possible to place (or HALT a moving tank) in a crater field on an otherwise "flat" tile (like ion my tests) in such a way that the orientation of the chassis actually PREVENTS the main gun from elevating/depressing far enough tor it to get a firing solution on the target. I might try this with the deeper/steeper craters.

Seems this topic of tannk main gun accuracy has kind of been split between two recent threads. I have already added comments to the other thread (Tank Accuracy....) but now realise that my comments were probably better suited to this thread based on the thread title alone. For the sake of being concise, I will repeat my comments here then report on some findings of tests I have since carried out: Now I have since carried out a few "tests" using the scenario editor (as you do) to determine if the TYPE OF SURFACE a tank is moving over affects it's ability to hit targets while on the move. As far as I am concerned, this factor alone in reality (as explained above) would be a MAJOR factor in determining how readily/accurately tank gunners could aim and hit targets while on the move. The results so far are quite compelling. I intend to do more variant tests but there is enough here to discuss for the meantime. First of all, l will discuss the "tests" I set up: I created a plain FLAT "firing range" approximately 1790m in length. I divided the firing range in to separate "firing lanes" by running a line of high hedgerows the length of the map. LOS is therefore just restricted to the confines of each firing lane. The map I created has 7 lanes, could add more later if needed. Next I placed a US tank (M4A3, all normal/regular crew stats) up one end of each of the firing lanes and a German tank (PzIVH) up the other (spaced ~1780m apart). I chose the Sherman tank as the "subject" and the PzIVH as the "target". To make the PzIVH "passive targets" I immobilized them, made their crew motivation "fanatical" (to minimise baailing out), faced them AWAY from the Shermans and gave them short covered arcs again in the opposite direction of the Shermans. (NOTE: Was happy for the sake of this test that at no time in any of my tests did any of the PzIVH crew break from their covered arc order, rotate their turret and engage the Shermans. In an actual game, such TacAI behaviour might be questionable.) I now assign all the Shermans short covered arcs and process a few turns until ALL the Shermans eventually spot the PziVH target at the end of their firing lane. I now delete the covered arc commands from the Shermans and give each Sherman a "Move" command directly towards the PzIVH target at the other end of the firing lane and observe what happens. I have run this test a few times and observed how changing the map SURFACE over which the Shermans are moving on affects their ability to hit the PzIVH targets as they move towards them. I did not give the Shermans specific "Target" orders but let them engage at will. TYPE OF SURFACE: Grass All Shermans begin stationary about 1780m away from their target. The gunner in each tank seems to start aiming after about 8 seconds in to the turn, having travelled about 25m (range to target ~1755m). Approx 10 sec later they all start firing their first shots (range now ~1715m). From this point onwards they fire off a volley once ~14-15 sec reducing their range to target by ~67m (travelling @ a constant 4.5m/sec). That's 4 rounds fired every 60sec turn, travelling a total of ~270m. For the moment I will not discuss the details of these results, and just tell you what I conclude when I compare this test to other surfaces. TYPE OF SURFACE: Rocky Red The Sherman speed when given the Move order over this terrain is slightly slower than when on default grass. Realistically the rough surface it is supposed to represent could possibly make aiming at targets at range potentially impossible, at least HARDER than if travelling on grass. The texture even tries to give the impression that it is "rough terrain" by having sharp rocky projections coming from it. Is it really rough? However, based on early observations, there is no OBVIOUS difference (not of the kind I would realistically expect) between the to hit accuracy while moving of the tanks moving over the GRASS and those moving over the ROCKY RED. So really the "rough" terrain this tile is meant to represent may as well just be considered "flat" for this discussion. But there is ANOTHER test that paints a completely different (and as far as I am concerned) a much more realistic picture of how the surface being travelled on SHOULD affect the aim/to hit ability of a moving tank. TYPE OF SURFACE: Grass + "15L" craters This cratered terrain, (unlike other surface types like "Rocky Red") PHYSICALLY alters the surface over which the craters are placed. You can watch the tanks (and their barrels) undulate and roll etc as they move across this landscape. Understanding that CMx2 models every shot etc, I really thought it would be strange if this DIDN'T drastically affect things. It was certainly reassuring then to find that the Shermans moving over this terrain, firing at the same rate as before, actually seem to have ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE of hitting the target downrange when moving. I have yet to detect even ONE hit! (I haven't tested closer than say 500m however). This is the kind of DRASTIC (impossible chance) difference I expected to see in the "to hit" accuracy of tank firing while moving over rough terrain. So I conclude this so far: There is nothing really "rough" about CMBN "rough" terrain tiles when it comes to affecting the firing platform mechanics of tanks moving across them. They may as well be moving along grass tiles. CMBN does not seem to "abstract" the effect of moving over "rough" terrain tiles when it comes to gun accuracy. Only the "physical" undulations you see on the map which in turn actually affect the the physical orientation of the tank as it moves across, and not any abstracted terrain surface type tile, affects the tanks ability to target while moving in the way you would expect it to in RL. It would be interesting to see how CMBN played out IF the terrain tiles that imply they have a certain surface "texture"/"roughness" (like "rocky red', "rough", "cobblestones" etc) actually modified the terrain surface in the same way craters do, in turn affecting the motion of the vehicles moving over it and consequently the accuracy of firing while on the move, in the same drastic way moving over cratered terrain currently does. Would "firing while on the move" calcs be "automatically" accounted/look after themselves? I got a bunch of other "firing while moving" tests I have i mind. - same as above tests but driving down a constant incline -firing while moving laterally (not directly at target). -compare the gyro-stabliser equiped Sherman "fire while moving" results with those of German tanks. Will let you know as I do them. For what it's worth, I am making available to you the "scenario templates" and the "start of test" saved files of the tests I have done so you can go off and readily repeat and observe the tests, or use the tests as templates to alter however you like. "At start of test" saves ready to run: Grass surface Rocky Red surfaxce Cratered surface The scenario file templates to edit: Grass surface Rocky Red surface Cratered surface

I know this topic has been discussed quite a bit (here, in the past and elsewhere) . I want to add my own take as I can't recall it ever being really mentioned. First a few basics we all agree with (or should): with all other things being equal... -ANY WW2 tank firing while stationary will always be more accurate than one that is moving. -It is easier to target/hit a moving tank from a stationary tank than target/hit a stationary tank from a moving tank. Now something which really is "naturally" modelled in tank sim games (Red Orchestra/Darkest Hour is an adequate example) and NOT specifically modelled in any other games like CMBN AFAIK is.... -when attempting to fire from a moving tank, the following two factors ALL contribute to the increased difficulty of aiming at and hitting a target at any range: a) the speed of the moving tank and (this is a big one) the terrain on which the tank is currently moving over Most games/simulations like CM seem to just consider a) and completely disregard . It may be possible that trying to aim and hit a target from a tank moving at 30km/h on a smooth flat road is easier than trying to hit the same target from the same tank moving at 2km/h on a very rough/rocky/undulating surface. As far as I know CM (or any other game) has never considered the terrain a tank is currently moving on when determining it's ability to aim and hit targets. However I do wonder HOW the game deals with targetting while moving over shellholes for example....I might do a test. The result will be most telling. It seems quite evident and obvious when you think about it, even more apparent when you put yourself in the virtual gunners seat in games/tank sims (like Red Orchestra/Darkest Hour) and try to aim/hit at targets through the main gun optics while the tank is even slowly moving over rough terrain (as opposed to smoother terrain). Based on this experience alone, I would say that the ability to aim and hit targets from a moving tank could quite possibly be virtually impossible given the terrain tank is on, no matter how fast/slow the tank is moving. The amount of shudder (especially when viewing through high mag optics) could make things next to impossible. Between different tanks, the chances to aim/hit targets while moving would depend on : a) the FOV, magnification/accuracy/quality of the sights the gun targeting traverse/elevation control system of the tank (speed, responsiveness, resolution etc) c) any aids like gyro stabilzers d) the weight of the tank (relates to how e) affects things). Generally heavier tanks would have a "smoother" ride as their sheer weight and momentum would prevent surface undulations from being as significant and issue when compared to lighter tanks. e) the type of suspension gear on the tank (essentially affecting the relationship between how the optics shake/shudder/move in relation to the terrain being traversed). Good suspension can "dampen" out lots of macro and micro oscillations that are picked up by what the tracks come in contact with and make targeting while moving easier. Crappy suspension may make the BEST optical/targeting mechanism next to useless when even moving at snails pace..

Interesting discussion. However I would think that in RL, if ANY of the crew was killed/incapacitated, physically removing their (bloody) body from their station within the cramped confines of a tank interior so that another crew member could take their position might be a logistical problem that needs more thought. - the body would be lifeless/slumped and weigh up to 80kg, let alone potentially a bloody mess - people can struggle to move a lifless/slumped body if it's just lying in the open, imagine doing so inside a confined space with little room to move/low leverage etc. - I can almost think it IMPOSSIBLE in most situations to be able to remove say a driver from his position, put him somewhere else inside the tank so that his position can now be taken by another crew member I don't know of any games that actually model/specifically consider/address this very obvious but seemingly very real and logistical problem. CMBN apparently does/has but to what extent?

**********SPOILERS BELOW********** First off I must say that I hardly ever play(ed) any CM single player. But I am learning that these single player campaigns ARE a challenge! In particular, THIS campaign, "Courage and Fortutude", I would classify as EXTREMELY challenging. I commend the campaign designer for creating such a great, challenging campaign with great maps. I really like the "branches" in the campaign and the choices the player has. Hope we see more of it. Highly recommend this campaign and any others like it. To this particular battle: Yes I have played it, turn based. Unfortunately it was punctuated (and in some ways "ruined" because of all the reloading) by the "out of memory" crash that can happen during turn-base CMBN play. Until this gets fixed (if it ever will) I highly recommend that players consult the Task Manager while playing and keep an eye on the memory usage of the "CM Normandy.exe" process. Save the game before the memory grows to over 1.4GBs, shut CMBN down, restart CMBN and resume your game to avoid the "out of memory" crash. Anyways, I was able to get a win out of this particular battle (eventually) however, I can probably be certain that had I NOT had to reload the game due to all the "out of memory" crashes (maybe 12-15 reloads), I am quite sure I would have suffered a bad defeat playing it through the first time blindly. I did however stick to my original plan. Locating and killing AT guns was of course a priority. I assigned 2 rifle platoons to advance towards and across the river to seek and expose enemy positions, exploring the possibility of outflanking the enemy positions up the right flank. I scattered my MG and FO teams across the map to provide suppression fire against any enemy units that opened up on the rifle platoons I sent forward to draw fire. I didn't actually send the forward infantry units across the bridge but rather had them wade through the swamp that is under the bridge. Once these infantry units got to the other side of the river, they turned right and made them move across the map along the river bank (partially shielded from the small arms fore that was targeting them). Moving through this swamp terrain is both slow and tiring. When the remnants of this platoon made it to the far right of the map (approximately 60min of game time had elapsed by then), they turned left and headed up the right flank of the map across the open ground to the woods in front of them. From there, under the cover of smoke, I had these units advance further up the right flank reaching a line of hedgerows that shielded them from enemy fore from the left. These units actually made it all the way to the far rear left of the enemy positions and were poised to outflank the enemy positions on the rear hill. By this time all enemy AT guns had been neutralised (either by my flanking infantry units or by arty fire). With this small group of infantry in place, I now used my 105mm guns to lay down a smoke barrage and rushed groups of rifle platoon infantry and tanks across the bridge and to the right (engineers had marked the mines earlier on). I was able to get lost of suppressive firepower against the enemy positions on and around the hill. I even managed to get a tank up the far right flank to support the infantry there. The enemy surrendered a few turns before the official end, major victory. If you think THIS battle was tough, depending on the choices you make after this battle, there is ANOTHER battle in this campaign that is equally as challenging. I would really like to hear an honest story of ANYONE who is able to blindly play the "US attack across a ridge" battle (on Iron difficulty) and win. :eek:

I just read the Readme where it indicates that its your voice in the mod. Great work. What equipment did you use to record your voice? I can imagine you would have to "get in the right zone" to be able to pull off those situational voices, like watch a few episodes of BoB lol. You say that it would be better if there was a few other voice actors to mix it up and that would be cool. I can imagine it wouldn't be easy finding volunteers with voice acting skills like your own.

Mord! I just downloaded and previewed a few of the WAVs. I am stunned at the quality of voice acting. Very convincing and believable. Thanks for making it available. I highly recommend this mod to anyone (especially the vets of the CM series) looking to escape the rehashed CM US voices in CMBN. What made me laugh was this line in the readme: "no more "Did you see that?"!!!!!"..... LOL ahmen to that! Muchas gracias!

When assessing the 3D graphics in a game, it's helps to talk about the different aspects of 3D graphics individually: # 3D model detail-how detailed are the 3D models? # 3D model content-how many objects are actually represented? # Texturing-the colours that "paint" the 3D model surfaces. Can make up for lack of detail in the 3D models (see CMx1 modded) # Lighting- critical and underrated in determining how good (or bad) the 3D models and textures actually look rendered in the game. Affects shadows/shading etc. This is more responsible for how "real" the graphic look than anything else. You can then consider the "non-static" stuff like: #Animations and effects-how well/realistically is the motion of the 3D content captured, the variety of animations and it's appropriateness, effects such as explosions/smoke. Obviously having good 3D models helps in creating the associated animations. Some might want to also include the GUI in the game as a part of the graphical assessment, after al, it does add to the "look" of the game. #GUI/menus-not just how they look aesthetically, but also includes how well they function in their role Having considered all the above, you can now make a more general evaluation of the graphical content based on how well all those elements work together in the package that is delivered to you buy the game. #Overall graphical package-generalised assessment on how well they all work together I assess CMBN as follows (0-10 best) on current industry standards: # 3D model detail-9 for vehicles, 9 for infantry, 7 for foliage, 4 for buildings (essentially just plain roofed rectangles). # 3D model content-8 # Texturing-8 # Lighting- 3 (amateur by today's standards, could it have been any simpler?Tell me if you know of a comparable game of today with worse lighting than CMBN, reduces the impact of the 3D models and textures significantly) #Animations and effects-8 vehicles, 7 infantry, smoke 9, explosions 7 #GUI/menus-3 (amateur by today's standards, unconventional low efficiency at transmitting key information to the player detracts from playing enjoyment) #Overall graphical package-5 The most annoying thing about this assessment is the total IMBALANCE between the high quality of some of the 3D modelling (especially of the vehicles) and the ridiculously unflattering basic lighting used in the game. I wonder if BFC lost sight of the forest for the trees. High detailed 3D models does NOT equate to good 3D graphics if the lighting is crap. I essentially see most of the good work that has gone in to both the 3D model and textures being lost and wasted because of the basic lighting effects (essentially one big harsh spotlight). Would be great to see this game rendered with anything but the lighting used in the game.

Hmm..nice pics. But hard to tell if any of the pics are actually foxholes (more like trenches), the second one if any. Hard to tell where the natural ground level is in the 1st and 3rd pic. More pics would be good preferably taken from a distance. LOL yes, I think you took it the wrong way. I was just really addressing how people (not necessarily you) might EXPECT to be able to just place entrenchments behind bocage and have LOS through it because of the evidence that's been suggested and now shown in the pics posted...its possible but invariably NOT without modifying the bocage itself, by digging/cutting slots through the bocage. Maybe having a special dedicated composite bocage tile (with the vision slot and trench integrated) which actually IS this kind of "fortified bocage might be the answer.

Well I am sure many people have it in their heads that "foxholes along bocage" is something perhaps expected because of what they saw in Close Combat, which had exactly that. But as you say there are (by all accounts?) accounts of this actually happening in Normandy. Are we really sure they were used as we are supposing? Are we making assumptions that Germans could make these foxholes AND have LOS through that thick bocage WITHOUT having to at least dig vision slots at ground level through the bocage itself? I see basic problems anyway: Given that bocage is thickest and made up of rocks/dirt/roots at the the base (several feet thick), and that the level of the ground on BOTH sides of the bocage was roughly equal in height then: a) it wouldn't be anything but a huge undertaking to actually dig/cut ANY slot through the bocage probably requiring special tools anything but a HUGE vision slit would be able to give them a suitable LOS arc through the bocage..then again: - would this vision slot collapse under the weight of the bocage above it? - wouldn't the height of the grass/weeds/shrubbery on the other side of the bocage also play a significant role in blocking the LOS through any vision slot cut at essentially ground level through the bocage? Are there ANY accounts of Germans having to dig any vision slots through bocage so they could see through the bocage while sitting in foxholes? Considering this (for the first time really), I think the notion of placing foxholes close to one side of a hedgerow and expecting to have a decent/effective defensive LOS through it seems a bit suspect.

The thing is that a standard <+180 deg Covered Arc and a 360deg Covered Arc shroud really be treated as separate things. One is direction/facing orientated, the other is really a way of restricting the range at which a unit can engage ANY unit from any direction (well that's how I was thinking about it). I thought it was obvious that when using a 360 deg Covered Arc, all you really are setting is the "engagement range" of a unit, without affecting the unit facing or it's spotting capabilities. I expected the unit to spot like a normal unit would with the default standard field of vision it has when there is not been assigned any Covered Arc command. I never really considered in the first instance that a 360deg Covered Arc would make a units spotting ability in every direction equal (by way of having all eyes within the unit scan all 360deg equally as opposed to just the current unit facing). I just saw it as a way to limit the unit engagement range. But now I realise that you guys also were also considering the spotting aspect. I would be happier if any facing restrictions could be divorced from the 360deg Covered Arc so it could at least be used as a rough and ready engagement range controller.

I see now. Covered Arc seems to "replace"/disable the Facing command when it is used. The Facing command is NOT available to units using the Covered Arc command. Units will automatically face the direction midway between the Covered Arc created, if it is NOT a 360 deg Covered Arc. However you are kinda screwed when using the 360deg Covered Arc. You are stuck with the unit facing the direction it just happened to be facing at the time you give it the 360deg Covered Arc. Units that move with the 360deg Covered Arc will end up facing the direction they last moved in. A player can not control it any other way. Exactly and that is why it makes no sense to DISABLE the Facing command when the 360deg Covered Arc is used. Why must a unit now relinquish it's Facing control? So again, you can not, in the same turn, get a unit to: a) face a particular direction (using the Facing command to rotate in place) and issue a 360 deg Covered Arc command This seems like a very unnecessary limitation. And the only way to try and get around this is to also issue a Move command to the unit using two waypoints. The first in the opposite direction you want the unit to face and the second in the direction you want it to face. Do we really want to be issuing Move commands just to get a unit to face the direction you want? Would be good if this limitation was fixed.

!!!?? That really sux! Many times I have had units that have covered arcs "retreat" via TacAI as a result of heavy enemy fire. When they recover, they are more than likely facing AWAY from the enemy . I now want to: a) make them face the right way, maintain the covered arc/give them a new covered arc. I guess there are also case were you have a unit facing a direction with a covered arc and now you want to change both. So I can't do this in one turn (playing WEGO)? Do I have to first: 1) delete any Covered Arc command and give them a Facing order to face the enemy and run the risk during the next minute of battle replay of them engage whatever enemy they happen to see 2) apply any covered arc command to them (if they survived the previous minute of action) the next command phase?

Is that the reason why you can also turn off floating icons? Any reason why a show commend line toggle could't be created? Nah, just two colours, black for "out of command" and another for (in command". If you wanted to get fancier have different line thicknesses for the different levels. Can't see the issue here but Unlike CMx1, they will either be in/out of command of their parent, and can't resort to being in command of a nearby higher echelon HQ. The use of the Floating Icons is poorly exploited in this game. They could cleverly transmit more information than what they already do. In this case, the Floating Icon itself could potentially have a graphic indicating the "command" status of each of the subordinates.

Related to the cover arc command....I have found what might be some bug/feature (can never be sure) whereby there seems to be some conflict between the Covered Arc and Facing commands. I can't seem to use the Facing command if the uni has a Covered Arc command already. If I give a Covered Arc command to a unit that already has a Facing command the Facing command is deleted. Whaddup?