Pete Wenman

4th Platoon P

I submitted Borderland_vp to the repository earlier this evening. It's the same mission as came with MG except that the PzIII's have been replaced with the Char B-2(f) to be historically accurate. P

Well I can see it exactly where AKD says it is ! P

Scipio I don't think you are using the feature correctly A picture paints and all that P

Ithikial thanks for this it, is a lot more elegant than pen and paper. How do you add additional lines - I'm thinking terrain objectives specifically now we can have up to 15. I inserted the rows required but then picked up the selection tabs for unit objectives when I wanted those for terrain. thanks P

Erm - No ! That's how it was in CM1, but that's not how it works at all in CM2. P

I can tell you that Beta testing the c3k patch is bad enough, but the Emrys patch is just one big BUG. P

If you log in to your BF store account the key details should be there. P

I'm really not sure I want to see any photos http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Commando P

Just point out that MG does have AA assets and so these will now fire at aircraft when upgraded to 3.00. This does of course mean you need to get MG, but on today of all days, I can't think of a better time to do so. P

The Radzymin master map was used for the first five of the German campaign missions (Blunting the Spear). I did the first two missions, while others including JonS did missions 3-5, and ChrisND did both the map and scenario for mission 6. A bit of a team effort, as are the Black Sea campaigns. P

Thanks Odin - It's great to see this map getting more fully used. And yes it took a long time to make. It's worth noting there are few if any flavour objects on the main map, as there was no way I could amend there position given I could not open this map, and the same goes for buildings façades and doors. No tweaking on the main map of any sort. The campaign maps taken from the master did have these elements added however. I'll follow this with interest and that looks to be some artillery barrage going on at the moment. P edit to add 76mm Has an editor image of the full map in his new map database and so you might want to tweak the map image you are using to update it so that the South West corner reflects the completed map. (My editor image - the one you show above, was stitched together before I finished the map and so is empty of terrain elements in the SW corner.)

The clue is in the name here. As someone that dug their share of shells scrapes (but never in combat) I would argue they are next to useless in terms of providing cover. Concealment yes some, but not much more cover than just lying on the ground would otherwise provide. P

Well - No body expects the Spanish Inquisition ! P

Well as far as I'm concerned that quote supports my position far better than yours. I don't think anyone here will disagree that the SMG was on occasion the right weapon for the job, but that alone does not mean a rifleman would drop his weapon on the battlefield in order to swap it for a SMG, which is the point you raised. As for borrowing Thompsons from the mortar crew - I have no problem with that having happened, but the whole point is that it would have been a deliberate switch organised long before combat was encountered in a safe area. You also have to wonder why mortar crews would have been given this "superior" weapon which they would not expect to have to use, when the men at the direct tip of the spear only got rifles ? P

I have no idea if the reason you purport is why the games is the way it is. I would argue however that it is due to rifles and SMG's being personal weapons, while LMG's or larger are generally considered support weapons that are far more important to the squad as a whole than a single SMG. As for your point with regard to soldiers on the eastern front taking SMGs I would be interested to know how many troops actually swapped their issued weapon for a SMG in the heat of battle, particularly if you are referring to German use of Red Army SMG's. I would suspect very few were snatched up mid battle. Bottom line I'm winning this argument because Battlefront happen to agree with me (or vice versa if you prefer). P

There is a fundamental here that those that feel soldiers should be able to pick up the personal weapon of another are missing. A soldier is issued a personal weapon to suit his expected role. He will receive training on this weapon and in a perfect world may even get to zero his weapon. More importantly he will be issued webbing gear in line with his weapon. His magazine pouches will be designed for the weapon he is issued. How many MP-40 magazines will fit into a Kar98 pouch (answer none ! ) He will be issued loose or boxed rounds and a cleaning kit for his issued weapon that he will be carrying in his webbing. So it's not just a matter of picking up a dropped weapon of a differing type, and carrying on. Does he switch his webbing with that of his fallen comrade - if he does so he will then need to swap the contents of his gear or lose his personal equipment and items, all this while under fire of course. And this is before we even consider whether the weapon to be picked up is damaged, covered in blood, or whether you might actually be more worried about trying to save your buddies life. The battlefield is not a spreadsheet ! P

Not much to see P

You're into the territory of making your own rules here. What ever you think is best. Some suggest that three trees per tile is too many and can cause lag on some systems, but it's not really an issue I've seen. I tend to use type D is threes, A and C in two's or one per tile, and only place one tree per tile when adjoining a road or track regardless of type. I only use one bush per tile when representing a crop as mentioned by Jon above, otherwise pretty much use 2 or 3 when used as woodland. These are my "rules" and I break them when I feel like, but otherwise it gives some guidance to how I make a map, and process which allows me to make them more quickly than if I have to make a decision for every tile. But at the end of the day anything goes, provided you like the end result. I sent this to a guy yesterday by email when we were discussing this subject P

Actually it's not as unrealistic as you might think. If you are bombing up from a vehicle then you ought to be out of LOS/LOF from any combat. As such other units will not be looking to pass their ammo to you, rather that you do indeed collect from the resupply point. As for breaking down ammo, it is a matter of each man either being passed or collecting rounds, so waiting in line is how it looks. Rounds are likely to be boxed/clipped rather than preloaded into magazines, so each man will likely then fill any empty magazines as soon as he has fresh rounds. The rest will be packed away. This is not a 30 second job, and does generally require a unit to queue in some way for each member to collect their issue of fresh ammo. If the distribution is being done in LOS/LOF of enemy units then it's gone so badly wrong that the distribution of ammo is the least of your problems. Is the current system perfect - No, but I don't think it's nearly as broken as you suggest. Bombing up is a critical task that takes organisation and time to achieve in both real life and the game. P

Plenty of good comment above. The only other point I would mention, particularity when making a historic map and using a map or GE editor overlay, is to select an area to be mapped that makes tactical sense and fits with the battle you have in mind, ( but also has areas that can be used as set up zones.) What's the story the map is going to tell. A small open farmland map may not provide for a good armoured battle, but will make for an interesting and challenging infantry night time reconnaissance mission. P

I'm not sure I'm exactly understanding your problem. Can you confirm that either 1, You are deploying the units in the editor in their desired position, but when starting the game they have moved to the map edge. or 2. You are unable to deploy the units at game start, and cannot move them within the set up zone ? Just to make sure - You are aware that the default position for all units is the map edge when first placed on map, and you must either move them manually in the editor. (or this can be done at game start, provided the set up zone covers both a units default position and desired location. Units for the AI player can also be moved at game start via AI orders, but this needs to game button to be pushed in order to be seen. Hope this is of some help P

^^^ Good post, and right on the money Carl ! P

And you don't think the two are directly linked ?? P

Those pesky designers eh ! That's much better. Keep in mind a few phrases that "sometimes" appear on these forums. This scenario is too hard, my men won't move under fire, my men ignore my commands, my men all blindly run to their death I can't win as blue side I can't win (the same scenario as above) as red side I can't win (the same scenario as above) as either side It's too easy to win as .... It's like herding cats. It wouldn't be like that in real life. The scenario does not provide enough time to ... It's not balanced The map's too big The map's too small There are too many units in play There are not enough units in play My uber (choose force of own choosing) aren't veteran and they should be. My opponents force are veteran and they shouldn't be. etc etc etc So when it comes to scenario design there are other factors at play. Some enjoy playing with low quality troops, others hate it with a passion. So what is a scenario designer to do ? P