c3k

Karac, This has been brought up before and BF.C has addressed it. Without rehashing, it will not be put in. The threads discussing it are rife with information and viewpoints. The gist is that the game modeling of armor and penetration is far more complex and detailed than any table could convey. Having said that, I'm pretty sure that the old tables have been posted around here somewhere. You could find that and print it out as a reference while you're getting a feel for what weapons will do what. Meanwhile, play and enjoy! Ken

Also, the radio is mounted in between the driver and the...radio operator. The bow machinegunner is the radio man. Remember, this is back when tuning a radio took a specially trained person. As well, the radios were large and filled with glass tubes. They had actual crystals for the frequencies, as well. A large impact, say an energetic chunk of metal, could - and would - damage that large radio. Throwing off its calibration, burning out a tube or two, etc. Optics? Similar. They were held in place with set screws. Okay, more than that, but that's the gist. A wallop to the vehicle could - and would - misalign the gunsights. Does the game have it exactly right? Probably not. However, it is modelled. This is why you don't want to sit there and just take hits that don't penetrate. Your vehicle will get degraded. Just like they really did. Ken

Try a FACE command. It is one of the Target set; it _should_ override the Target Smoke command. Let me know.

As stated above, the "K" being used for bail and hunt has caused issues. Loading the alternate hotkey file over the hotkey file changes bail to having no hotkey access. (It also changes a bunch of other hotkeys.) The other solution, used by many, is to modify your hotkey file and create your own special Bail Out hotkey. (If you don't know how to modify the hotkey file, just ask.) Ken

Funny, there's a thread that explains all this....in the CMSF forum.

Canuck, I assume (yeah, yeah) that you have not been playing CMSF or CMA. If this is your first time with the camera control scheme, have you tried the mouse camera control or are you only using the keyboard? I ask because I find the mouse to be far, far better for camera control work. That leaves the keyboard for orders and zooming in. Ken

The contours in the linked Google image on page 2 definitely seem to be mislocated. If they are correct, the river flows up over a 1m bulge. It seems to me that the contours would be more appropriately located a bit to the right, and up. Look at bulges in the river course. Look at the bulges in the contours. They should match up. The house on the far right, near the fork in the road? It is probably on the crown of that 21m elevation, not on the backside. There are some more clues in the photo that show the contours are not geo-located correctly with the image. Something to think about before you invest too much time in the map. Best of luck with the battle! Ken

I was expecting a mod for the Syrian spy....

No references, but the US halftrack was called a "purple heart box", after the medal given to wounded soldiers. The gist of that nickname was that the soldiers did not have a lot of faith in the ability of the halftrack armor to stop rounds. In fact, they'd say that it had enough protection to let a bullet in and then keep it there as it ricocheted around. I _think_ the German halftrack was considered less vulnerable. Having said that, BF.C models armor thickness, metal quality, hardness, angled plate, impact angle, etc., etc. So, I'm willing to bet that at some angles and ranges the halftrack (of whatever variety) would protect the passengers, while at other ranges and angles it would not. It's a somewhat complex situation. Regardless, neither side would purposely use a halftrack as an assault vehicle. For good reason. Hence the Ram/Kangaroo. (And later vehicles such as the wonderful CMSF BMP-3, Bradley, Marder, etc.) Ken

I just got a tear in my eye. A flare tear, baby!j Thanks, LLF. Ken

Kilroy was John Galt's father...

Noon: +/-12 hours

Marco, Excellent, beautiful, useful, thankful. Ken

This is great. Thanks to LemoN for starting this thread. I will now sit back and monitor this thread and see if its level of enthusiasm can be maintained until CM:Ostfront is released.... whenever that will be. Ken

Yes, there is a learning curve. Accept it, take the week or so to get up to speed, then feel the magic.

The Quick Battle map system is very different from CMBO et al. and the current iteration of CMSF et al. Generation 1 (CMBO) had a QB map generator. You'd select a few parameters and the game would create a map on the fly, just for you. Generation 2 has a QB selector. All the QB maps are pre-existing. They are saved in a file labeled "QB Maps". When you fire up a QB, the parameters you select determine which map from the QB Maps file gets selected. If you only have 2 maps in your QB Maps file, well, the game will only have a choice of 2 maps whenever you select a QB. If, however, you have 4,500 maps in your QB Maps file, you will not likely see the same map twice. (Depending on your level of addiction.) I do not know how many will ship with the game, but I would anticipate many dozens, possibly in the hundreds. (No guarantees.) Anyone in the community, including yourself, can create as many QB maps as you'd like. Each QB map gets labeled (by its creator). That label helps the QB map selector determine which type of map it is. E.g., "Small Village" lets it know the map should be considered whenever the QB selection is set for small or village or small village. Each QB map SHOULD get created by its author with an AI plan for both forces. That allows that map to be played solo vs. the AI, with the player being either side. The requirement for an AI plan is one of the reasons why the QB maps cannot be generated by the game. It takes a cunning human touch to add that realism to the enemy force's actions. A minimal install of CMSF on this machine shows 226 QB maps. (My other machines have far, far more. I just haven't loaded them here.) The number of maps possible is unlimited. The community is a huge source of more maps. The above discussion is not exhaustive. Nor have I tried to compare and contrast the strengths or weaknesses of either approach. There are many threads extant with that sort of debate. Some folks get quite heated about it. Do a forum search. Regards, Ken

It's not whether I'm "Done with CMSF", it's whether CMSF is done with me. I fear not.

Exactly that. The larger profiles of the terrain determine everything. Play with the editor. The elevation controls are important. Don't forget "shift E" (I think) allows you to see the elevation when you're not in the elevation editor THAT really helps. Think about how and where things grow. Look at the spread of buildings and what determines good paths and building sites. Play with the editor. Recognize that your first attempts will not match what some of the long-timers have done. (The one exception to the terrain first is the case of a relatively flat area which is overwhelmingly covered by man-made structures. Airports, cities, villages, all come to mind. Create them, then adjust the terrain to fit.) Finally, regarding your statement that the terrain you're looking at has is flat but has a gradual rise. It seems that you're saying it's like a canted plane. Does it matter that one end is higher than the other? A subtle rise in terrain would have no tactical significance. Why not approach it as if it were level? Ken

4km x 4km are possible. Making one of that size which includes all tactical possibilities AND looks good, would be a lot of work. For comparison, look at some of the maps released by BF.C with CMSF. Then look at LongLeftFlank's map, here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=92372 His map is 1.5km by .5km, and it's a work of art. Similarly, any size map can be made and put into the QB folder, but the details are what bring it to life. Those details are what take so much effort. As well, in WWII, what were the normal battalion frontages in the bocage? If you want a hypothetical romp through Normandy (which is plenty cool), the game can support that. The editor allows you to create any map you'd like. Other games have only a few maps available and every player learns the chokepoints and sniper perches in just a few iterations of play. BF.C ships the games with a good assortment of maps, but does not limit you. 4km x 4km of heavily overgrown terrain (bocage, fields, villages, gullies, etc.) would look beautiful. Moving a scout platoon across that map would take hours. That's not too much fun, to me. However, the game lets you do that if you'd like. I wouldn't read too much into the size of the maps seen thus far. Ken

Don't buy it. If you do, you will lose interest in the other things in life which added a bit of zest to your otherwise boring existance. You'll pine for the fresh details of a PzIV rather than your wife. Your children will seem inconsequential compared to the needs of your troops. Wherever you live will look dull and boring when compared to the maps available in the game. You will find hours have gone by while you sit at your keyboard. Your hands will be shaking from lack of food. Your eyesight will be blurred due to staring at the screen. You'll forego showering for "just one more turn". Your life as you know it will be forevermore ended. No, do not buy this game.

Tulips, always it comes back to the Dutch and their damn tulips...

I'm a 16 year old...trapped in an old man's body. Help!

Very nice. Thanks for doing and for sharing.

Marco has created a work of art...

D = Deutschland "Yes, that sounds good. Produce it." A = Adolf "Oh, that's better. It will ignite the morale of the soldaten. Produce it." I'll come up with something for "G" when that question comes up. Ken (No, that was not a serious answer.)