WineCape

No. As stated, it's an abstraction. A complete one at that, up until you see the simulated close air support (CAS) results are mostly ... too close and non-supportive.

I'll add my congrats to this very good idea.

If you're on a PC, best/easiest is via www.FRAPS.com for ingame screenshots. Give a description of issue encountered - the more specific the better - plus screenshot(s), and if possible, a save game file and send it to me. Details in profile. Regards.

Time to plead with a good modder.

My guess is, if BFC is going to add Hunt and Armored Arc's to the CMx2 engine, it would be contemplated for the next family release, Battle of the Bulge. In all likelihood, it will not be contemplated until then, at the earliest.

Showing the damaged part visually for textures is a lot of extra graphic work that was better spend on other areas of the game. I'm sure BFC will look at this issue for the near future and come up with a diabolical plan to implement some degree of visual deforming damage on vehicles without killing resident Wallaby artist Dan with work overload.

Graphics in certain wargames are not the Alpha/Omega. CM franchise can get away with it, to some large extend. For the FPS crowd, this fidelity is what they see and usually compare all wargames with :

PaK 38 + SG42 in Normandy Sergei, in NORMANDY. Wasn't that your question, way back ...

I thought that was quite clear in all my readings here on various features/shortcomings of the game? As to your first part in the quote, an assumption about Beta Testers and BFC. A wrong one at that, simply because: There is not enough programmers to look at all/some/most features concurrently that are complained about, mentioned about, to be tested, improved and/or new ideas to be implemented given possible issues spotted and brand new features and their mechanics in such a complex simulation/abstraction. This is not Eve Online that has batches of programmers in different cities of the world, each tasked with a section of their programming code. Your issue will be ranked higher - if you made your own issue list - what bothers you more then others, compared to mine as Beta tester, compared to BFC. Since BFC's is the one making a living off the game, I defer to their prioritizing issues and their "To be changed ASAP!" list. All Beta Testers work from this understanding. There is a finite amount of programming time. Programming time, the shortage thereof which is more acute compared to any other big developer you care to name, due to 1 - and of late 2 - programmers working on CMBN. There are 2 programmers. Two. Nik. Dois. Twee. Zwei. You would do well to remember this every time a legitimate game issue pops up that annoys the hell out of you. We as Beta testers certainly do, as well as many other forumites here. Note your issue, as you did here. Leave the assumptions that your specific issue is more game breaking, more important, or should be higher ranked on your ToDo list then any of the other hundreds BFC has to deal with from themselves, from the beta testers and from forum members here. BFC does listen, and they do note complaints posted, whether perceived or real, even if only a small group of their total base of players report them here. Regards.

They do take note of ALL complaints. There is always room for improvement; some proposed feature(s) will only make it into a patch, or new game release, depending on its status/rank on the BFC ToDo list, as well as other technical feats (programming/time etc..) to make it possible without spending too much time thereon, at the expense of features ranked above it. Steve has mentioned their ToDo list can, at times, be more numerous then a telephone directory listing. I think it will bode well if Steve, as a sticky in future given his time, explain the schedule Charles specifically has in the process of implementing, programming, changing and trying to implement features, given his time limit. I can tell you, there are not enough days in the year, given that they are only 2 programmers.

Apologies GAJ, maybe I should have been clearer and explain thus with camera/mouse movement. Imagine you watching through a gun scope, with the middle of your computer screen = the centre of the scope. Point your mouse pointer roughly to the centre of computer screen. Click + hold your LMB. Now move/point the mouse pointer a few cm's to the left/right (roughly 3-5cm) while still holding down the LMB. You will now scroll laterally at a reduced speed. Move the mouse/pointer further from the middle of the screen closer to your screen edge, while still holding LMB, and the lateral scrolling speed will increase. LMB + pointer at top/bottom screen move= same principle, now with forward/backward camera movements. RMB + left/right pointing = swivel on own axis, RMB + up/down pointing - inclination view. Coupled with the mentioned TAB Camera Lock View, you will find easier to navigate. Let me know if you do not get this mouse behaviour speed movement. I use an ATI card and have the "ATI Left-click compatibility" option selected (ON) in the OPTIONS menu.

Indeed Gents, thats how it's usually done if you want you troops to go through (auto). WRT Engineers auto-movement through the blasted hole, due to the blast command being also a 'movement' command at same time during this specific exercise: If you want NO movement through the hedge automatically, do this: and the result is if you want no auto-movement .. The BLAST order on your own side of the hedge => abstracted, in that your troops will seek cover and so forth, so fear no friendly casualties due to this. I tested it with many hedges and roads between 2 bocages as per your issue and used several engineer squads in various places along the various hedges to blast holes and it seems to work as intended, every time.So far unable to replicate this reported via a test scenario. That is what you do if you want to blast 2 holes for AFV's -- on the same spot/gap - as the 2nd blast command on the same spot or existing hole will now be big enough for a AFV to drive through; a single gap = too small for a tank. Hope this helps. Regards.

Left click drag, right click drag. Yeah, it WAS a drag, in all honesty. For me it became 2nd nature after a week or so of intensive play/testing. I found the camera initially awkward as I skipped CMSF, but it's more about wiring your synapses to fire and to remember .... left click drag = lateral movement (slow = in middle screen view, fast = edges) and right click drag (left/right = swivel on axis, up/down = change height angle). Now it becomes second nature. Plus using TAB + 1/2/3/4 to position view behind unit + camera height view. I have also used the alternative keys shortcut file in the CMBN main directory, as it's closer to shortcut keys of CMx1. But TAB Unit Lock as mentioned above, is my oft most used method to centre camera immediately where I want it, right behind a unit, especially on a 'busy' map.

R-T, Welcome. Many thanks for your effort. Yes, we agree that C2 and its combinations and how it impact on the game could always be further clarified. Your post hopefully will kick-start the "C2pedia"

ooooohhh, gotta have this for a friend that wants to play Beach scenarios and was disappointed CMBN did not simulate beaches directly. He calmed down after telling him all the French maidens, cheese and Calvados to be had were inshore. The power of designers!

Aha! Thanks for the reminder Mikey.

Battlefront is having a re-look at this issue (mixed/random force selections) as it's mentioned and documented on the beta forums.

Battlefront is aware of this possible memory leak.

OK, its time to approach those Scenario designers that showed their willingness to sign up and be immortalized/despised via their creations, being evil incarnate = prerequisite. We have already 2 designers signed up. Recent Beta tester Jaws, and jwxspoon, a beta tester and designer par excellence of CMAK battles earlier in the franchise. Anyone else that's interested and have a good track record of CM scenario creations, please let me know here again. I will forward the BSR doc (Battle Scenario Requirements) for those interested designers. At moment, we have 4 of the required 7 scenarios slotted for design, and are in need specifically of Axis attack/Assault and Allied Assault type scenarios. We might have more scenarios then needed, but internally we will select those fulfilling our needs. Benefits for Creators: What do you, scenario creator, get out of this? It safe to predict your scenario will probably be burned into combatants minds for a long time, judging by some scenarios we had for this tourney in the past and comments here and elsewhere. You will find that, as designer of a scenario(s), you'll have 72 players available to write up and test your creation(s). AAR's, or more specifically, filling in at least the "COMMENT TO DESIGNER" will be a mandatory requirement. So we are ‘forcing’ players to write up and comment on your scenario(s) before they can even progress to their next PBEM battle. Failing that, players will get booted out of the tourney and will be replaced by an official Waiting List of players. Harsh, but I'm sure the Official Waiting List players wont mind to step in, as per previous ROW tourneys. ;-) AART OF REPORTING, aka “After Action Report Template” AART Document => "AAR Section" + "Comment to Designer Section" = Bonus Points: The AART document will be provided to do a write-up on your AAR plus a specific comment to the scenario designer. Bonus points will be added to your final Tourney Score upon submitting AART’s. AART’s will receive either full credit or half credit. Each full credit AAR will be worth 4% of the highest player's tourney score (before adding his AARs). If you write 7 full-credit AARTs you will receive additional tourney points equal to 28% of the highest player's tourney score. AART’s are mandatory, as in everybody writes one for each battle. A minimum of 5,000 words and 30 screenshots will be required. OK, we’re kidding about that last sentence, but not about the mandatory requirement. Look at it this way: you get to play in a very challenging and entertaining tournament. You get to play scenarios designed just for you. What do we ask in return? Feedback. AART's are mandatory before your next battle. Why? 1. You will be replaced by the Tourney Director if you don’t adhere to the AART’s minimum requirement; 2. Not filling in a complete AART/AAR will make you lose Tourney Points. This could put you ahead or behind if you're in a tight race in your section; 3. Your memory is still fresh. This will make it easier for you to comment on the scenario parameters, the map design, force composition, fun factor etc. We suggest you keep all your PBEM files to help you in this endeavour; 4. AARs provide the scenario designers with constructive feedback. Your review will allow the designer to tweak the scenario before releasing it to the community. If you've ever designed a scenario for the community, you know how rare it is to get any feedback. Writing a review is one way to express your thanks to the designers. Even negative feedback is welcome as long as it's constructive and not mean spirited; 5. AARs also help people to learn and improve their Combat Mission tactics. Every scenario is played 36 times in a tourney such as this. There are 36 other combatants who had to deal with the same tactical situations you did. It can be very instructive to learn how others handled the battle, especially if you did worse than most. It's safe to say that very few, if any, scenarios get that degree of testing before they are put out to the public. 6. All RoW AAR’s will eventually be published for the greater CM community enjoyment; 7. NOTE: The Battle report (for full credit) within the AART Document can be done later, upon request, due to time constraints and/or if you want to spruce that part up for public viewing. The Tourney Director will provide the deadline for the Battle report to be finished; 8. Lastly, and importantly: Do the decent thing; write your AART. This is one of THE factors we cherish. It will guarantee you as “in good standing ROW vet.” Failing to do so, apart from being replaced, you will never be invited again for future ROW’s. Period.

Boots & Track still alive? The last address I had showed nada. Care to enlighten me if they still exist at another address? I remembered some very good designers designing for previous Rumblings of War tourneys, by names of Richie Scott B WWB.

Here's the Dropbox Folder Sync program: http://wiki.dropbox.com/DropboxAddons/DropboxFolderSync (for PC's). Lets you sync any folder outside Dropbox with just a Right-click and Selecting "Sync With Dropbox" from the context menu. "So simple."

Tips for DropBox sharing/syncing folders, even folders outside of the dropbox directory on your HDD: http://wiki.dropbox.com/TipsAndTricks/SyncOtherFolders. I use the small program Dropbox Folder Sync (v2.5) which makes it even lazier for me. Linking/syncing the CMBN ingame folder "Outgoing Email" via Dropbox Folder Sync (a mere right click on the actual folder to do so after installing the program) and then inviting a friend to SHARE CMBN's Outgoing Email folder on the Dropbox online website, allows me to not even have to move PBEM files manually to my dropbox folder on my HDD to sync them online for my opponent to use.

Dolt has changed into a zap sign.

And not a moment too soon!

We have our hands full wrt test scenarios, designed, and in the process being designed, to investigate possible issues spotted/reported on the forums. Since your issue(s) might impact on various other factors/parameters in the game, it is not always easy to narrow down and identify the issue just on your reported observation. If you can devise a test scenario (not a save movie file) showcasing your encountered issue(s), then your possible issue will carry more weight and will make our workload easier to prioritize it as a bug or a statistical outlier. Once you are satisfied that the issue reared its head as you've witnessed, please forward your scenario test file to me and I will have a look at it personally (PM in profile). This will also allow me to scrutinize the parameters you have set for your test scenario before I report it and will make it that easier for Charles to decide if it is hairy bug or not. In the absence of such a test scenario, you either have to wait until we look at it -- if at all if only a very small minority reports this same issue as it might be an outlier result, given other priorities on my/BFC's ToDo list. Regards.