Scipio

It's just to bad that the French are not in the NATO module. They have some nice stuff, too. Seems to me more (or at least not less) realistic then Netherlands or Danish troops. But I suspect it would take BFC another year of development to create the models and TO&E for them, since the French share only few equipment with the other CMSF armies, AFAIC.

Wow, first screenshots after less than one year of development *thumbs up*. I won't be overoptimistic, but from my experience I guess we can expect the release allready in 6 - 12 month from now :cool:!

The terrible ugly houses I've seen in the screenshots can't be anything else as placeholders. So I think we should be a bit more patient.

You can find the map as public domain in Wikipedia under this link: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Syria_2004_CIA_map.jpg It just doesn't contain the attack vectors that someone at BFC painted on the map. The attack vectors, if of any importance, can be seen here: http://www.battlefront.com/products/cmsf/images/syrian%20map_big.jpg

Mh, this release was already expected for Q3 or Q4 2009, IIRC. I remember how BFC anounced a major release and 3 - 4 modules per year with the new CMx2 engine that make everything easier to develop. No major release since 2007 and only two modules. Some things never change. BFC stands for stabilty in this world

Well, I know my question is completly of topic now and rather unimportant, but I just wonder each time why you (who ever is responsible) have turned of FSAA when you make screenshots...:confused:

I agree that unlimited pick-up leads to strange results. But it sounds to me like an enhanced craftsmen/weapon training system & carry limit is rather more needed than a pick-up restriction that feels to me somewhat artificial. As always, it's surely easier to demand as to realize.

'Pick up' and 'use perfectly' are different pairs of shoes. I don't know how difficult it is to handle a Javelin, but I suspect that you need at least some basic training. This is generally true for most weapons that are more complicated to use than a club. I guess there's a reason for the 'craftsmen'. From this point it surely makes sense to limit the pick-up feature. But I think an 'exchange-of-stuff' between two units is more needed than ever. I very common problem: you order a unit to get something from a vehicel, notice that you have made an error, but don't have a chance to undo.

From the 1.21 readme.txt This means that not every friendly soldier who comes along can pick up weapons from any wounded/dead friendly soldier? Why that?? I thought it was a feature, not a bug. Indeed I wonder why it impossible to exchange weapons & ammo between friendly units if they are close together.

No it's not around a bank , but indeed I had this issue there, too. Yes, both times were original scenarios from the Brits module. I'm playing the Syrians, so FOW can't be the point. The unit is not a HQ unit, even if the control panel shows a HQ icon. That's another error; I haven't noticed this before, but checked again after it has been mentioned. But the unit nearby (the three suldiers are not marked) is a HQ. This unit has a HQ marker on the main screen, but not on the control panel!

I've noticed this for a second time. On the main screen are six soldiers marked, but the control panel lists only three. Is this a (known) bug? I use Windows XP with CMSF+Marines+Brits, v1.2

The tanks has been heavily damaged and was imobile, and indeed the crew abandoned the tank several turns ago. I'm not sure if they were killed, routed or both.

Ah, that's what killed my tank! :mad::mad::mad:

Mh, I think NATO module will be release as v1.3

Ain't there a small contradiction ? The CMSF conflict is fully fictional. If you would have decided to give the invaded country a fantasy name instead of Syria, you would have been able to circumvent such 'creative bottle necks' without remorse!

I'm a little bit confused. I know that the Russian CM:A is released from a Russian publisher, but the English version will be published by BFC, AFAIK. But there are no official news or annoucements on the BFC site about it so far, not even as 'in development'!?

You ask for an IDF module? Find an Israeli game developer who want to work on this, just like it happend for the Russian-Afganistan game...

Posts like this make me very creative in finding words for which I would be immidiatly banned from this forum if I would write them down here... With kind regards from Germany .

A fourth module? First time I hear about it! Which nations will be covered by this? I suspect ANZACs & Canada, but how about exotics like India or South Africa? BTW, which nations are covered by the NATO module? There are several overlaps between NATO and Commonwealth

Have I understood this right: you don't find the file on your saved games, but if you do a search with the windows explorer, the file does show up? I had this problem a while ago, too. I save the PBEM file into the right folder*, but when I tried to find it in my saved game, nothing was there. Solution was simple that my opponent (he is a beta tester) used v1.2, while I still had version 1.11 (or so). *About the right folder, I assume you've used the right 'incoming folder'? Please note that you have to use a language specific folder if you have set a different language in your preferences!

As far as I can say, all text is saved in a plain text file. I don't think that the translation needs to much time. Even a russian-english speaking modder could do this.

Sounds a bit different from what has been announced before (or as I understood it). I thought you would concentrate more on specific battles/operations than on whole timeframes that finally covers the whole eastern theatre. Do I missunderstand that? I suspect that if BFC releases families for specific operations, that leaves still some possiblilities for third party releases as CM:Afghanistan, for example!?

I hope this ain't off topic, but if we have different types (sizes) of bridges, does this mean we have different types of rivers, too? Everything else seems to be unlogic for a temperate environment

Sorry, my post was misleading in this point. The alternativ calculator makes indeed a difference between different qualities of equpiment, even if it's not obvious and abstracted to some degree. The crux is within the selction of forces/army branch and quality. There is a big difference between army stuff and guards, for example. The calculator takes this into account, as some simple testing shows.

What indeed doesn't seriously makes much sense. Tank vs Infantry is always the same story as well as US/UK tanks vs Russian tanks, no matter if it's a T-55 or a T-72. US tanks can destroy them all with one hit.