Scipio

ROFL!!!!!!

How about building damage? I don't ask for a high end damage model with every single hit modeled seperatly (obvious this have to wait for the third major release ), but a bit more realistic as now would be very welcome. Oh, and will houses burn in CM:N? BTW, can a damage wall be modded? I can't find seperate textures for them.

knarg, you may suffer from a temporary conection problem. You should enter the command 'ipconfig /flushdns' in a DOS-Window and try the URL again!

*sight* *paw the ground*

Well well, enough of whining and bashing and grumbling. What the hell are you waiting for? Release this god damn module NOW!?

As I said, not most important to me. Still would like to see better fortifications.

I wonder if beach landing is in. Not most important for me, I guess, but anyway. Rather more important for me : will bunkers and pillboxes be more realistic in regard of 3d model, armament, fire arcs etc. How about trenches (I don't mean the CMSF ditches )? Sandbag positions? There's a nice page about pillboxes : http://www.fortiff.be/ Unfortunatly is in french...

I would also like to see a WWII Pacific War game! The extended victory conditions are surely great, but a sad fact is that we now often go into the battle with only a vague idea about the goal - what is 100% a scenario design problem; but also with only a vague guess about the reasons for the end result. The result screen is in my opion much to simple to analyse the reasons for the result, or what could have done better, what is only partialy a scenario design problem. As an example are casualty thresholds. Okay, the result screen tells me if I have reach it or not - but this information is floating into vacuum. What is the preset treshold? What does it mean when I compare it with the casualty numbers in men and material? I second that! Some more varity would be very welcome. It surely makes a difference if a shell explodes in the air or on the ground, or if it's a vehicel that explodes.

Yes, that's what I meant. I understand your argument about the documentation, even if it's maybe not even necessary in detail. In the pre-CM times I managed to transfer Campaign Series maps between the different CS games, but those used a rather simple text format and encryption (and were of course much less complex compared to a CM map). There were no documentation or help from the developer available or necessary, just some trial and error. Not sure if this qualifies me as a hacker... I also understand your worries about hacking, even if I don't share them. Maybe I underestimate the criminal energy of the typical wargamer in regard of cheating by altering a map . Indeed I can't remember a single case from 10 years of CM, of which I spend some as ladder admin. But well, if you say: no way *shrug*. That leaves us (or at least me ) with a 'Pity about the maps'. I guess I just have to accept, but not like it.

What was not what I asked for! My thought was just that a third party could maybe create an import/export tool for pure maps if BFC ain't up for it. Depends of course on the organisation of the map data within the scenario file. I assume that the data look some kind of 'square x1-y1 = open' or 'object x at location xyz', or any other logical system that can be 'translated' to be used by another CMx2 game. But since there's no way to get a look on this root data, there no way to figure something out. I just though that it's really pitty that all the fine maps will get lost or must me build new from scratch for each single CMx2 title. If they could be imported we would have a continuously growing pool. But well... just an idea.

Does this mean that we still won't see vehicel damged in CM:Normandy 1? Uggh! Now that's really a low blow!!!

Dust clouds disappear (or move). Wouldn't this work for '?'-dust, too?

I really would like to see an import function for maps in the editor. I know that Steve already said that this is not possible, not even between CM:SF and CM:A with very similiar terrain, but I don't really understand the reasons. 'Open' is 'Open', a road is a road, a bush is a bush etc, even if the textures and 3d-models are different. Normandy terrain may be very different from desert, but I still believe that many parts of a map could be 'translated' into it's equivalent. Flavor objects are a different story, but why not simply delete all objects that doesn't have an equivalent in a specific theatre? Mh, I would even try to program something on my own, but unfortunatly, the scenarios/map data are encripted and/or packed, so I have no chance to take a look on them to even proof what could be possible. Is there a chance to get an 'unpack' and 'repack' tool for map data, similiar to the mod tools? If not, why not? :confused:

By the way, there are no changes on the QB part mentioned, indeed I can't remember if there was something planned for this patch. May I ask if there are any plans to let the QB auto purchase work a bit better in future patches? And no, I'm defenetly NOT asking for cherry picking in CMSF .

I see. (meaning *grumble grumble*, we'll have to talk about it again in 5 years or so )

There are Taliban in Syria?

I guess I understand what you mean. Regarding the visible muzzle flashes, I agree that it's not wrong that they are removed from the players eye if the firing unit ain't visible to the player, but my critic was about Steve's statement 'No, there was never a spotting bonus assigned to the special effects.', what implies that muzzle fire doesn't rises the chance for a unit to be spotted, no matter if the effect is displayed or not. But this might be a missunderstanding from me. Anyway, I still think that dust of unspotted units should be visible independly from the unit itself, what would mean that unit and dust have each their own 'spotting value'. Yes, dust can be switched of (I think), but unit icons can be switched off, too. But if this is done, the player looses nearly all overview about the units on the battlefield, friendly or not, spotted or not. What's the sense of it, except a for taking a nice screenshot?

Is it just your opinion, or do you know this? I'm not sure if I understand this sentence. You may not be able to spott a vehicel driving behind a wall, for example, but the dust cloud may visible anyway, when it rises above the wall.

Unit data is hardcoded within in the executable file(s), not in an external database or DLL or something like this, AFAIK. That's at least one of the reasons why the executable are not exchangable between the different games. Your basic idea is good, I think, since we would always have the newest gameengine even for the oldest games, but I assume BFC has their reasons for not doing this. Unit data format may change, for example, so if the latest engine has a another data format, ALL unit data files would need to be changed for ALL already released games.

Good point, sfhand! I had the 'muzzle flash' issue in a recent battle. I saw the muzzle flash, but non of my units was able to locate the vehicel, even if some had LOS to the area. Not very logic, since muzzle flashes are especially at night like jumping up and down and screaming 'I'm hear, shoot at me', what's likely one of the reasons why somebody developed the flash suppressor. Regarding the dust: similiar thing. Spotting dust was invented as new feature in CMAK, IIRC. It is a good feature, the only unlogic point is that we are able to see dust when we have no LOS to the area. If we see the dust, but not the vehicel, the dust shouldn't be turned off, but the suspected vehicel position should be marked with a '?'-icon, and dust should only be invisible if we have no LOS to the position of the dust cloud, for example when it's behind a hill.

I assume they are not all listed in the manual, especially a greater number of small improvements. At least I hope so. Doesn't makes to much sense for a version jump from 1.11 to 1.20 otherwise, does it?

Okay. *Watching my clock* Still waiting for the release.... *watching again* *sight* Ain't yet released? Ii's been minutes since I've asked...

I've noticed that the CMSF British modul and base game manuals for v1.2 has been released as online publication. Seems we are getting closer to the release Can we have the manuals as PDF for download ? Watching them online is a bit cumbersome!

C'mon men, the idea ain't that bad, or is it?

Put me on your list!