weta_nz

On a related note - I think one of the best improvements for quick battles AI design is if you could  designate an AI group as Tank only, Infantry only or AT/HMG. 

@BFCElvis I still don't hear South African voices - (PC version)

But to the other things as well. Played my self made urban test mission and saw quite a big difference. There´s no bocage terrain in it but previously suffered from various the known evade issues, retreating from buildings unnecessarily and related foolish stuff. These things seem history now. 😎 Even green troops in really bad morale states (shaken, panicked) keep sticking to their (modular) building positions in full suppression. Same for infantry in foxholes. Not sure on all the influencing factors but all viable (to rout/evade) units still had any type of C2 to a superior HQ (Plt or Coy). So really looks like the TacAI now minds on good cover positions and decent alternatives. Using instant evade is a good indicator and most the time the evade command yields.... nothing (no quick & face waypoint set). In another case clicking instant evade on a unit in foxholes yielded a modular building just two action spots away (toward friendly map edge). In given circumstances the results seem quite realistic to me. Off course this now puts more responsibility on the player, but I´d still prefer getting my units shot to pieces in a building than having them mowed down in open streets like too oftenly before.
Other noticed effects:
Units in good cover position don´t abandon their wounded that quickly anymore. If the remnants of a beaten up unit can be kept alive long enough, at least part of the WIA or some weapons can be saved (after beaten off enemy attack or friendly units providing effective cover fires etc) .
Surrendering of units in close combat situations might occur more often now. In my test mission I´d never had any units surrendering and I played this one dozens of times. But again I prefer seeing units go into POW camps than having them slaughtered from foolish evade moves.
Attacking/Advancing AI infantry seems affected as well. When caught in the open, It takes more punishment before retreating across no cover terrain. The difference is the AI is given a couple more opportunities to shoot back before evading to better cover. AI infantry is regulars/veteran in my test mission.
So this is just some impressions on a well known mission I played countless times. Mentioned observations are the main differences to my previous play experiences. Overally I´d say MOUT battles should play very different now. How´s your experiences with V4.03?

Thanks for the maps @Freyberg I've only played 1 map so far but it looked great and was a fun battle

Its been almost five years since I started this thread and would have thought that the issue(s) originally highlighted would have been fixed long ago via a patch/update etc.  This sadly is not the case.  The issue described is not a "cosmetic" issue with no effect on gameplay. Contrary, it has the potential to turn what players would think is a relatively safe move order for infantry in to a order that may result in the entire enemy unit being decimated, as I had experienced when I first noticed the issue all those years ago.
I am revisiting this thread and the issue that was discussed because I was just curious to see what, if anything, was achieved in first highlighting the issue almost five years ago. I also like to think even trying to address such issues on these forums is not just a complete waste of time and effort. If anyone can point to a thread where Battlefront had at least previously acknowledged this issue, that will be good.
 (I should also add that I did actually stop playing CM around that time out of a frustration that gameplay issues like this weren't being addressed, let alone acknowldged by those in a position to do something about it. After coming back to CM after a many year hiatus, I really was surprised that this issue was never fixed. I have stopped playing CMBN because of a new odd suicidal TacAI behaviour issue (apparently introduced after a recent update/patch) that can result in infantry defending and under fire behind a line of hedgerows deciding to break cover and run laterally along the hedgerow until they reach the infantry-sized gap in the hedgerow and start running through the gap towards the enemy/incoming fire, invariably to their death (read all about it and see for yourself here))
Perhaps this post (unlike Battlefront), will warn both players and probably more importantly/practically, scenario/map designers, that certain buildings from the Scenario Editor if used in scenarios in certain orientations will definitely result in the kind of unexpected infantry building entry/exit behaviour discussed above (and more comprehensively below for your convenience) that really can turn players off.
I cannot confirm (have mnot searched) if there are equivalent issues with certain other buildings or in  other CM titles, but I will qualify that they definitely do exist in the building types I discuss below in CMBN.
I have just reviewed and tested ALL seven types of "Independent>Other" buildings available in the CMBN Scenario Editor.  I have created a scenario file and two game save files to download to see for yourself that features all seven buildings in all four possible facing orientations (north, south, east, west) with all the infantry already setup and given move orders to enter the building from one end and exit it on the opposite side.  The buildings are laid out as follows in the scenario/save file(s):

Typically all of these buildings are assigned a "direction" by the Scenario Editor, and visually/cosmetically all appear to have two doors: one on the "front" and one on the "rear" assigned faces of the building (through which it is expected infantry can/should and be only able to enter/exit from).  The side walls of all seven buildings clearly have fully bricked side walls devoid of visible.
eg. rear view of Independedent>Other building "C".  Note location of door on right of rear face, alongside the left edge of the building.

It is expected that if an infantry unit is located just outside the front or the rear face of the building and given a move order waypoint located inside the building, then the infantry unit will take the shortest route to the waypoint and move towards and through what is nearest respective door, located on that front or rear building face. Similarly, if a unit is already within the building and given a waypoint directly out the front or rear of the building, the infantry unit will exit the building using the respective doors in that direction.
If you run the save game files provided, they are already setup with movement waypoint orders assigned to infantry squads located at the front and rear of the buildings: the first waypoint is in the building, the second is on the opposite side of the building. File 001 has units positioned north and west of the buildings.  File 002 has units positioned south and east of the buildings. Links to test files and the scenario test file itself:
Scenario file: CMBN Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test.btt
Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 001.bts
Save file: Indpt Bldg Inf Enter-Exit test 002.bts
A few key points:
All the buildings tested definitely have one or two entry/exit points, though not necessarily where they are otherwise graphically indicated on the front and rear of the building.  It depends on the building and it's facing. When some buildings are placed on the map in certain orinetations/facings (at the map designing phase stage via the Scenario Editor) it will determine if one or both of the graphically represented doors on the front and/or rear of the building will cease to operate as entry/exit points during the game.  In these instances, an apparent "invisible" side door (or entry/exit point) instead will apparently appear to function along one of the non-front/rear faces of the building, located close to one edge/corner of the building face.  The location and existence of these "invisible" side doors is predetermined by the building orientation/facing. The test files feature 10 man squads.  Using smaller squads may show more consistency in whether ALL pixeltruppen enter/exit a building via one entry/exit point, or whether the pixeltruppen will enter/exit the building using both entry/exit points during the same move order. Random localised positioning of each pixeltruppen seems to be a factor in some cases determining whether all, most or some of the pixeltruppen belonging to a squad entering/exiting a building during a move will use one or two of the existing building entry/exit points. Unless a player uses the Scenario Editor (or the save files provided in this thread) to learn to recognise/identify the 7 types of Independent>Other discussed in this post, they will invariably be unable to recognise them in any CMBN scenario they choose to play that features them. The comprehensive table of results of testing is available as a PDF and Excel file at links below: Excel: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.xlsx
PDF: Bull's CMBN Independent Houses.pdf
Preview of table:

The table text and cells are colour coded for each situation to aid in interpretation as follows:
RED text indicates (and warns players) that it has been demonstrated that it is possible (though not  guaranteed) that at least some pixeltruppen MAY avoid the nearest door and instead, if entering a buildings, route around the sides of the building to instead enter the building via the indicated door on the OPPOSITE side of the building from where the unit started it's movement from, or i exiting a building, use the door on the opposite side of the building to where the waypoint was placed.  Planning/expecting to enter/exit a building via a door on the near side but finding pixeltruppen entering via a door on the direct opposite side of the building is probably more likely to be of a tactical concern/disaster than say if it entered/exited the building via one of the "invisible" side doors, that's why I have highlighted the text in red alerting players to that possibility for that situation.
Backgrounds of shades of GREEN indicate that all the doors indicated on the front and rear of the building do actually work as advertised and no "invisible" doors exist.  It is a darker GREEN if in the limited trials conducted, no instances of the "wrong" door being used by any pixeltruppen in that situation was observed.  This would be updated  if more testing at least reveals one case of a "wrong" door being used. Note that for larger sized infantry squads, it is no guarantee that all pixeltruppen will use the right (nearest) door for each situation listed (see notes on RED text).  Note that this possibility is probably reduced (possibly to zero), the less pixeltruppen in the infantry team. My guess is when six or less pixeltruppen exist in a team.  Further testing can confirm..
Although some cases of entering/exiting the buildings are listed with darker GREEN backgrounds and as "All enter OK" or "All exit OK" (meaning it was observed in the limited trials that all pixeltruppen enter or exit through the nearest graphically represented door as expected, the ideal case), as alluded to above, it has been noted that repeated testing can turn up cases where at least some of the pixeltruppen involved in the move order will use the second entry/exit point of the building, be it the one on the opposite side of the building, or one of the apparently "invisible" side doors that apparently exist for some buildings when facing a certain way.
Backgrounds of shades of ORANGE indicate the existence of at least one "invisible" side door through which infantry can/and will apparently use to enter the building depending on the circumstances.  The darker ORANGE background indicates that either NONE of the graphically indicated doors on the building are functional in that situation, and instead the building features one or two "invisible" side doors, one on each flank (or side) of the building, or only one "invisible" serves as the only entry/exit point to the building.
In summary, a review of test results:
Regardless of which of the seven types of Independent>Other building feature in a sceanrio (regardless of their orientation), players can expect to be "surprised" by the path and subsequent entry/exit point chosen by each pixeltruppen to enter/exit the building during a single move order if the infantry team has greater than typically six pixeltruppen, if they expect a) infantry to ALWAYS use the nearest entry/exit point and b) expect the only functional and possible entry/exit points of buildings to be where they are graphically indicated.
The only  Independent>Other building that feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised regardless of orientation is building "G". Of the remaining six buildings, all will feature front/rear doors/entry/exit points functioning as advertised if in the following orientations/facings:

 
I can only suggest regular players of CMBN scenarios to be at least aware of these buggy Independent>Other buildings, especially on maps that are likely to involved and rely on very precise "house-to house" fighting and manoeuvring.  They can really unexpectedly wreck you plans especially if they are embedded somewhere near critical terrain/victory locations.
To the scenario designers/map makers, I would hope they see the sense in completely avoiding the use of all building type/orientation combos that are not listed in the green column of the table above. Note that even using those buildings/orientations featured in the green column, it has been shown that at least some pixeltruppen will nevertheless choose to enter/exit from the opposite side door from which one might otherwise expect them to use when the unit size is greater than 6.  Perhaps some scenario/map designers might even feel inspired to revisit previously released sceanrios/maps that feature the problem buildings and modify the maps accordingly.  Of course vigilant capable players could do this themsleves.  A scenario comes to mind already...the one that I was playing when I first encountered this issue almost 5 years ago...Lonsdales Block. I clearly remember where that damn building was that led to the decimation of a complete para squad trying to enter it.
 

Think what you want, there have been no strikes yet. Just cover from a GOP that has sold it's soul.  However this isn't about how much of a corrupt pathetic idiot the man you support as Potus is.  He himself apparently thinks it is too early to reopen as well.  Seems my "Marxist media driven narrative" is more in line with Trump right now than yours.  (Granted the idiot can't stick with any plan more than 5 minutes, maybe less if he's about to watch Fox - what a great leader).  But hey he's getting great ratings during the briefings right?
https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-says-he-disagrees-strongly-with-georgia-governors-decision-to-reopen-state-000105433.html
And to suggest I want tens of thousands to die just for the doofus to leave office?  That is truly pathetic and beneath you.  How do you go from wanting a discussion and critical thinking to a statement like that?  All that does is confirm I was correct in not expecting any real discussion from you.  Go tune in to Alex jones or Limbaugh or whoever it is that you get your oddly colored view of reality from.
 
 

Here we go
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9garry91kpdf5ql/Frey_CMFI_Maps_BETA_01.zip?dl=1
These are some of the slices, as well as the master maps.
The master maps have no AI or setup zones. The slices have defender AI only for attack maps, and AI plans each way (usually only one at the moment) for the ME maps.
When making the maps, I tried to think only of what looked like realistic rural terrain, with no thought to how they might play. Then I tried to pick interesting slices for the QB maps.
It's still a work in progress - and now that I am becoming more confident with the AI, there will be many more to follow - but have fun and let me know if you enjoy them.
[oops - download link fixed I hope]
 
 

Does anyone have working South African voices (*.wav files) for R2V module? I  exploded the .brz file and found many of the *.wav files  for the South African voices were misspelled and/or were stereo files (only mono files seem to work) and the *.wav files that were o.k. were very quiet and needed to be amplified. The artillery confirmation voices were missing entirely.  Pretty weird since one of the R2V campaigns includes the South African army. I raised a ticket on the help desk about it over a month ago and was corresponding with @BFCElvisbut the ticket has been closed now without any confirmation the issue is fixed. Is there a patch or somefink?

(I'm starting this as a new topic since the links to even the old pdf files will be changing.)
I just finished the pdf which shows all QB maps for CMBN. It is a huge file -- nearly 400 pages and 330MB -- and is HERE. (A smaller, lower quality version for CMBN is HERE.) Since Assault, Attack and Probe versions of the various QB maps usually vary only slightly, I only included Assault in these pdfs. Those and (I believe) all Meeting Engagement maps. 
Also, the old dropbox links for the other 3 titles will be expiring, so I'm moving everything to this newer account. Here are the new links for pdf's for the other 3 WW2 titles:
CMFB is here.
Here is Red Thunder.
And here is Fortress Italy.
 
 
 

The SA voices are in the game files. I've listened to some and I can say that the English-speaking ones are not immersive at all ("They'll kill us all. Run." spoken in a completely nonchalant tone. All of them are.), and are too quiet. Which is probably the problem, another thing I can think of is them not being named right, as I saw some of them with misspelled names.
The Afrikaans ones are okay, but like the English ones some of them are misspelled as well.

Always learning new things. Keep up the good work Bud

Nice cliffhanger

My focus would be on increasing fidelity and realism within the current map sizes. Also I'd look at adding an operational layer for the bigger picture and make it possible for players to do multiplayer campaigns.
Meanwhile, I would try to put in some quality of life improvements, such as a road movement system or solution of some kind.
Some of this stuff would be pretty easy to implement. Such as TRPs automatically showing a circle to mark their area of effect. Making the fire support interface less cumbersome. Adding scroll bars and increasing font size in unit purchase screens. Etc.
 

I would just try and activate it if you haven't already. Or just contact the help desk and they can help 're-activate' you if you can't activate CMBN.
https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

I would just try and activate it if you haven't already. Or just contact the help desk and they can help 're-activate' you if you can't activate CMBN.
https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

He said 'very'!!

Great job making this tiny scenario for the Russians. For me it highlights what Combat Mission is so good at. Which is giving your orders and then that suspense of watching the minute play out.   The twilight setting adds to that theme. Also with such a small amount of men to control it also makes it much more engrossing somehow for me.   Keep them coming

Thanks for a great AAR! 

Are you sure the game is using the GT1080 card and not the I5 inbuilt graphics?
You can check it is using the GTX1080 by using the nvidia control panel 'Manage 3D Settings' CUDA - GPUS
 

I think I was ~ 25 (too old to remember exactly) when I found  the Combat mission website. I am turning 45 next month. Have I grown up much in the last ~ 20 yrs? Hell no!!  

That was a fun read!  Thanks for taking the time to do produce it