SlowMotion

If 1.01 patch is already, maybe this will make it to 1.02? Normally during a battle, when planning movements you can select units by selecting map area with mouse. Units inside the selected rectangle should become selected. If you hide vehicles with SHIFT-V and try to select vehicle passengers this way, it only seems to work if those passenger units have movement orders. If a unit is just sitting in a halftrack for example, the area selection does not select this unit. You have to click the unit. This is a bug?

It would be very useful to have a copy/paste in map part of the scenario editor. Then moving large parts of the map to South for example, would be so easy.

I also played a night fight and adjusting gamma with ALT-G gave me playable visibility. During the game I noticed something I was wondering if it's a bug: Let's say I set gamma to Medium. Then during a battle I switch to Windows desktop using CTRL-ESC, do something and then switch back to CMBB. Now gamma has been set to the Lowest setting, can see very little. However, if I start adjusting gamma again, ALT-G turns the setting High (next value from Medium). So it seems that the game remembers my gamma setting value, but doesn't use it when switching from Windows desktop to CMBB. I'm using Radeon8500. Win2000.

Boy, that is a good idea, and simple!!! Hope it will be considered!!!!</font>

Can this also happen to AT-guns? I had a conscript 88mm gun crew that just wouldn't use arc

>No 'rocky' around - just suddenly bogged & then immobilized in the steppe. I'll double-check the environmentals tonight. Are you sure? If terrain elements are switched off, rocky looks like normal ground.

Try Netscape7. Many sites that used to be accessible from IE only, now work with 7.0.

Same thing happening here... Tried to download that new explosion mod, but ended up reading that CMBB has arrived to Minnesota.

I wonder if this can also happen when you're using a covered arc? I think something like that happened to my german MG. There were enemies inside the arc area yet no shots were fired for 2-3 turns. I can't remember what I did which caused the MG start firing again.

Can you make the Go! -button as wide as it was in CMBO? There seems to be unused space on its left side so why not make it bigger? It's the most important button in the whole game - pleeease....

I'm not volunteering - just finished it against the AI - but I just want to say that if someone manages to win this as Germans against a human opponent: you're really good! That was one mean defense fight!

Here's my very first impression from the tutorial: after scrolling around the battlefield I noticed something: "Am I too tired or did that tree just move? It is waving - so is there somebody hiding in that bush!? Oh, it's the new wind effect!" Cool!

What about PBEM Quick Battles? Can't wait!

Exactly It *could be* that they just flew away or something's happening nearby that changed their singing. Okay, maybe there are more important sound issues, but I think it would be cool if the background sounds could give you more hints about enemy you can't see yet. Especially during the first few turns when not much seems to be happening, by listening carefully you might catch a warning signal just a little bit earlier. I suppose much of this is modeled with sound contacts, but things like dog barking changing might tell that there's something there, but not whether there's a light tank or some soldiers.

What about these currently ambient bird (or why not dog) sounds giving clues about what is happening in some part of battle field? A squad is advancing in forest. Sun is shining and birds singing nearby. Suddenly all bird sounds end. Now what could that mean? Or another squad is moving on town streets. Some occasional dog barks now and then. After a while somewhere on the right, not too far away, a dog starts barking ferociously. Hmmm?

Olle Petterson: >I don't agree with this. >It would be way too scenario specific what camo is better. It would even differ in different locations on each map. Sure the camo effect is different in different parts of the map. But when there is snow, the white uniform did help. Sometimes a lot. Why would they still be used today if it didn't make real difference?

If winter uniforms are modeled something like the way YankeeDog suggested (soldier fighting ability decreases during the battle because of cold), shouldn't the colour of winter uniforms also matter? If one side has white uniforms, they make those troops more difficult to spot, especially when not moving.

I haven't seen any of those previews, but sounds like a good idea to me...

according to this link, arty is also restricted: http://www.rugged-defense.nl/cm/Fionn3.htm

I like the first two, especially the End Zone. The really good thing about this is that the zones could be anywhere on the map, not just near the edge of the map. For example one bank of a river in a scenario where you're supposed to cross the river. Or you could make one side start in the middle of the map and make the End Zone cover all edges of the map in a scenario where you should break out of siege.

Hi! This may have been suggested before, but to get some current feedback from other people I'll type this again: After playing PBEM quick battles for some time, I've noticed that in many games same favourite units are used time and time again. Many other units are hardly ever used. After a while this becomes boring, so how could we get more variety to quick battles? Now we have many voluntary force selection rules like Panther-76, but they can't be enforced and may be difficult to remember. In CMBO Quick Battle generator screen it is possible to pick a different date and use force types like Armor, Mechanized and so on. More detailed control over unit availability could create many very interesting new battle types (like no arty what so ever), so here is an idea: One way could be that before starting a PBEM, a player could select which units are available and which are not for players AND the computer to choose. This 'restriction list' could be edited, saved to a file and then used as a game parameter, like maps will be in CMBB, I think. In a WW2 flight sim called IL2 it is possible to make multiplayer dog fight missions. There you can pick the map and select which planes are available. This plane restriction works very well and I'm sure it would work just as well in CM games. What do you think?

What about first PBEM? For me it was Elsdorf. After dozens of scenarios against the AI I finally got to try the game against a human opponent and AI gaming pretty much stopped there. I had learned the way the AI moves its troops quite well and when I first saw German infantry doing something totally different it was as incredible as the first few games of Valley of Trouble and Chance Encounter.

Yes, it was Jackson - but if you click the picture to see the full size version, what does it say?

one more: And several alternative places for reinforcements as well.

This idea that scenario designers could place markers/flags to help the AI play more intelligently has been discussed many times in those CMxx Wish List threads. I think the AI could be made a better opponent in battles where it plays ok at the moment. It could also be possible to define some tasks where the AI is doing very badly in CMBO, like one group trying to protect another retreating group. I'm too lazy to do a search right now to check what has been written before, but here are three things that could be useful: 1. It would be cool if the scenario designer could define groups of units (like group1 = 2 tanks, group2 = some infantry), so that you could specify that some marker is valid only for some group(s). 2. The markers should have many kinds of meanings, like 'Keep the enemy away from this area', 'move own troops here' or 'hold this area'. 3. Many kinds of conditions like 'enemy troops near markerX' or 'own troops near markerY' that would cause a marker to be considered the selected way. To make the retreating scenario work, the designer could place Marker1 that is valid for group2 to define a place where the infantry should retreat. Then place marker2 that is only valid for group1 (the tanks). The meaning would be 'keep enemy away from the area' and condition 'if not own troops at marker1'. Then place marker3 to some place where tanks should retreat in the end, valid for group1, meaning 'move own troops here', condition 'if own troops at marker1'. During the battle the infantry would try to reach Marker1 while the tanks would protect them. Once the infantry reaches Marker1, the tanks could stop firing the enemy near Marker2 and retreat to Marker3. So I see two big benefits here: the AI could behave more like human players and things would be much more difficult for the human player because he wouldn't know how many markers there are, where they are and how the AI views them during the battle. Now he can immediately see the target flags on the map and predict that the AI will try to get those flags.