c3k

birdstrike, Well done! Thanks for taking the time, not only to test it, but to post screenshots. Confirmation is nice. Also note that noone can fill in the missing crewmember seat. Regards, Ken

How about tying it in to incoming fire? As long as you're feeling safe and confident, textbook bursts are easy. Once you're taking incoming rounds, a bit of adrenalyn keeps that trigger back a bit more. If it's tied into Experience and Morale, perhaps strengthening the Morale input would help. (If morale goes down (due to incoming fire) fire discipline, e.g. 1-3 round bursts, goes out the window.) Does target type matter? If my MGer is Area Targeting, would a few more rounds help? Ken

Agreed: it HAS worked, but I can't remember exactly how or when, or exactly which vehicle displayed this behavior. Hence, my specification of the TUM WMIK .50 and TUM WMIK GMG. Thanks for checking.... Ken

flamingknives; No, to both possibilities. Gun (.50 or 40mm both in green) okay; the position is left unmanned, regardless of how many other crew or passengers get loaded. In fact, you CANNOT load another passenger to man the main weapon. 3 crew positions, 2 passenger positions; remove the gunner due to enemy fire and have no passengers on board. That leaves 3 open seats; 2 passengers and 1 gunner. You cannot load more than two passengers. Neither one will man the gun. The other crew member will not man the gun. Ken

Thanks for the confirmation! BF.C; any chance of tweaking this? Thanks, Ken

Gents, Playing more with the Brits, I've forgotten the name of the dune-buggy thing (okay, it's the TUM WMIK), but they don't behave as I'd expect. First, take one of them with it's 3 man crew where you have a driver, commander (manning the 7.62mm up front, then the gunner up on the main weapon, either a .50 or a 40mm grenade launcher. Next, put it too close to the enemy such that the gunner gets taken out. (I do that a lot ). They will NOT man the main weapon. The 7.62mm has priority. Okay, they can hold 2 passengers. I've got some guys running around, survivors, riff-raff, the odd crew; I'll use them to man the gun. So, load a couple of passengers. Nope, they don't to man the main weapon either. Okay, the TUM WMIK shows 2 of 3 crew, 2 of 2 passengers. Maybe I need to load a single extra guy to get him to man the weapon. Nope, cannot load another soldier. Sure, there's blood all over the thing, but I'd think I could SOMEHOW convince someone to get up on the weapon. (Repeated item, not just a "one-off".) Any thoughts? Thanks, Ken

Chainsaw, thanks! Embarrassingly enough, I'm sure I read that when it was posted. Oops. Regards, Ken

Hmmm, it's nice to know there's a way to breach a wall or building and NOT have to enter. I guess I need to practice that a bit to see how it works. I've always thought the BREACH movement had to go through the obstacle. Thanks. As to the circumstances, there've been several (probably half a dozen or more). A single burst from a defending Syrian cuts down ALL the pioneers in range. The ranges have been from point blank, in which case many casualties are expected, to a range of approximately 100 meters. One burst from the far end of a football field resulting in 4 red/brown could just be an outlier, but in conjunction with all the other circumstances I noted, just adds to the weight of my "feel" that pioneers may be too vulnerable. Time to create a few tests to breach things. And then I may need to use the just-volunteered pioneers to brave a bit of incoming fire. Thanks, Ken

Gents, A quick question due to some observations gained whilst playing CMBF. My pioneers seem to die. Okay, a LOT of my men die. But, the pioneers seem to die VERY easily. I do not use them as storm troops, but rather to breach obstacles. That does put them at the front of the assault on occasion. A BREACH through a wall puts them on the enemy side of the wall. (Please, please, change the BREACH command so my men don't have to run through the hole.) Anyway, the pioneers SEEM to take more casualties then normal infantry would. It almost seems as if they are not wearing any kind of body armor. One AK-74 burst results in all pioneers red or brown. This has happened repeatedly. This is a purely non-scientific, non-tested, anecdotal, "feeling", about the vulnerability of pioneers. Has anyone else noted something like this? Thanks, Ken

16 modules? Oh, you money-grabbing developers! I can't believe it! I refuse to be party to the gross commercialization of the wargaming hobby. This cannot stand. (Um, are you guys accepting pre-orders yet?) Ken

What JonS said. Heck, I'd be happy with a method to capture end-game screenshots and have them posted on the quick description of the battle; that way, when I select a battle I can see at a glance that I've played it, how many times, and how I've done. A higher layer of play is something a LOT of players would like... Thanks, Ken

Thomm, I assume by that list that you keep track of all your scenarios. Is that true? If so, how do you do so? (I'm hoping you will reveal some easily downloadable, user-friendly, little program which does it automatically. ) Thanks, Ken

Select the waypoint from which you wish to place smoke (it could also be the present vehicle location if there is no desire to move the vehicle). Create a FACE command in the direction desired Select the SMOKE command; the SMOKE target line will appear to show you what it will do (if the vehicle will move, the SMOKE target line shows the direction relative to the waypoint). Err, at least that's what I use. My apologies if that doesn't work! Regards, Ken

Restoring this to the active threads now that we have a bit of news about CM:Normandy. For those who've skipped from the first, to this last post, my original post was meant to make a serious point with a bit of humor. I would like to see the scenario interface upgraded. I think it needs improvement. The single most useful addition would be a way to mark the battles you've already played. Enough on that... Steve; you mentioned upstream (post #15) that improving the scenario UI was on the list to be looked at. Has it progressed beyond being on a list? Any bones you could share? Thanks, Ken

I have just one word to say about the need to destroy bridges: "The Bridge Over the River Kwai". It all sounds good... Ken Edited to add: I am not in the "destructible (is that a word?) bridges or the game is broken" party. Quite the contrary; it would be a nice addition, but is certainly not a requirement for a great game.

Thanks! Take your time, I need to practice with the modern Brits. Ken

Hey, only because good news creates a desire for MORE good news, does the rooftop correction ALSO include a correction for firing through too many walls and floors? Thanks, Ken

Edit: I crossposted with Sergei and DaveDash. Sergei, where is the intent to correct this behavior stated by BF.C/a rep? My original is below: As you've stated, I did start a thread with a similar theme. My "issue" (my quotes!) was and is that the fire can be traced THROUGH multiple levels of a building, as well as THROUGH multiple external walls. I like that the interior of buildings is modelled in an implicit manner. This is NOT a gripe about not spotting the guy in the corner of the floor of the building I just entered. I imagine that I just cannot see the furniture and the separate rooms. Rather, this seems to allow bullets to be TARGETED ACCURATELY through walls - not windows or doors - and not just one wall, but several. As well, ACCURATE fire to a floor directly above or below your floor can be imagined to take place up or down a stair well. Not so for firing THROUGH MULTIPLE levels. A tweak would be nice. Thanks, Ken

Bumpitized.

Thanks! Ken

Gents, Does anyone know who created the battle "UK Britain's Joy" which is included with the CMBF disk? Thanks, Ken

My suggestion (since I, too, think HUNT could be better). HUNT right now is a style of movement. Supposedly it increases situational awareness and maximizes the use of cover and concealment, all at a cost in speed. The problem occurs when a unit using HUNT actually spots an enemy. It's the unit's REACTION to the enemy, not its movement technique that should be adjusted. If we leave HUNT without a modifier, the unit will perform a CMx1 style "move to contact". That's fine in certain situations. I do think simple ACTIONS should be linked to HUNT. I foresee 5 types of action after enemy contact; freeze, engage, retreat, advance, continue hunt. FREEZE; the current HUNT action. When an enemy is spotted, the unit stops. It may engage if it "feels" threatened, otherwise it maintains its position. (Move to contact then stop.) ENGAGE; stay put and fire on the enemy as if you hadn't been moving. This would be a MUCH more aggressive reaction than the current reaction. (Move to contact and TARGET.) RETREAT; basically let the TacAI have the men run away to some nearby cover. (Move to contact and find cover in a direction AWAY from the enemy. Do NOT maintain LOS to enemy; specifically, find a location out of LOS.) (I airily wave my hand about and expect BF.C to make this happen in a good manner.) (A possible action would be REVERSE for vehicles, or QUICK for infantry, for a specified distance - say 40 meters - in the opposite direction from which it was moving. Not the best, perhaps, but simpler than trying to determine cover or break LOS.) ADVANCE; drop the HUNT order and transition to a movement order to get to the next WAYPOINT. (QUICK, ASSAULT, MOVE, SLOW takes over for the rest of that movement path segment.) (TacAI issue of which type of order would be best in the circumstance.) CONTINUE HUNT; don't freeze! Keep moving, using cover and concealment. Engage the enemy lightly if needed. (This is very much in the spirit of the old HUNT command.) For all of these, COVERED ARC would be possible. HUNT would continue as the movement order if an enemy OUTSIDE the covered arc is spotted. I.e., enemy outside the arc would be ignored for the purposes of changing HUNT to one of the ACTIONS. If an enemy is spotted inside the arc, then the conditional action would trigger normally. (No covered arc means ANY spotted enemy triggers the action behavior.) Placing a conditional GO TO waypoint does not seem like it's a good idea to me. You'd have to link many conditional waypoints to each movement segment with a HUNT order. GO BACK means move (QUICK?) to the previous waypoint. (That would entail programming a "memory" of where the unit came from.) My preference, stated above, would not need any additional waypoint plotting or any waypoint memory by the TacAI or the player. A quick UI suggestion would be to have the HUNT button, when clicked, open up the conditional ACTIONs next to it so the player could scroll his mouse pointer directly onto the ACTION desired. One click, done. Otherwise, the conditional ACTIONs would remain unseen. If the current HUNT is desired, you just don't scroll the mouse. Thanks, Ken

...is due to the tremendous amount of time I am spending PLAYING v1.20. This game is really shining right now. I'm seeing a lot of TacAI decision-making which is spot on. From manuevering under fire, to gaining cover, to triage behavior when dealing with multiple casualties, it has all come together very nicely. Thanks, Ken

Sure, if you KNOW where the point target is. In my case, I was using Apache's; night time, so their IIR was finding enemy infantry which my ground forces couldn't see (Image intensifiers aren't able to pick out the heat signatures.) Additionally, the ONLY vehicles in the area of operations were friendly vehicles. A hair more communications would clear that up. Ground guy: Cover us over by that "T" intersection. I don't know if any enemy are there. Air guy: Hey, I see a bunch of guys with weapons 50 meters north of the "T" intersection. Ground guy: Those guys 50 meters north of the "T" are NOT friendlies! Nail 'em. Air guy: Roger...(whoosh, BOOM, whoosh, BOOM) Ground guy: Thanks... Air guy: HEY! I see 3 wheeled vehicles about 300 meters SOUTH of the "T". Ground guy: THAT'S US! THAT'S US! Air guy: Roger, engaging target.... Ground guy: NO! CEASE FIRE! STOP! WAIT! Air guy: (whoosh, BOOM, whoosh, BOOM) Ordnance expended. RTB. Don't thank me; it's my job. Ground guy: (nothing but silence) Grrr... The specifics may be off, but that's the gist of target coordination between air and ground. Ken

Um, Snow Bunny, that was me; at the time I was telling you what I thought about the CMBB v1.02 patch. Sorry 'bout the spit. Ken