Mad Mike

Just trying to add some clarity:
The Core unit file for sure must be saved within the .cam file.
The problem I had when writing ScAnCaDe was that I could not really identify where the information is saved, at least not realiably.
Therefore the core unit file is not provided by ScAnCaDe, only the individual scenario files.
If someody would like to re-pack the campaign from the extracted scenarios, he/she would have to create their own core unit file.

Just trying to add some clarity:
The Core unit file for sure must be saved within the .cam file.
The problem I had when writing ScAnCaDe was that I could not really identify where the information is saved, at least not realiably.
Therefore the core unit file is not provided by ScAnCaDe, only the individual scenario files.
If someody would like to re-pack the campaign from the extracted scenarios, he/she would have to create their own core unit file.

Good and long (!) article in German about the situation of mobiks during their 'training' in Russia. I expected something like this, but to read in detail why these guys are so ****ed up in every possible meaning of the word removes any doubt.
https://www.dekoder.org/de/article/ukraine-krieg-mobilisierung-alkoholismus

Yeah, so that you have plenty of room for manoeuvering your troops.. 😁
Seriously though, I never attempted to create the battle for this, as it would be quite a significant task and this would have been my first try. Way too complicated for that, so the hope was somebody else from the team could complete it - which obviously never happened.

Howitzers are not tanks. Also, they are defensive. Don’t you know that? Sheeesh…
He is NOT working against his electorate or party. That is what most posting here do not understand. Germany is at best split 50/50 on the decision to send tanks.
The last sentence is wrong. Polls have a lot to do with it.
 
I really hate having to defend Scholz here and I won’t. But you are interpreting too much into this. The mood in Germany is different from this forum and likely different from the country you live in.
Also, I can’t leave Butschi stand alone here

First off thanks to all those who have supported the Battlepack by purchasing it, and a shout out to those who have provided their support in the creation of this project – and a huge shout out to those who have freely given their feedback and additional support publicly via various means – online streaming vids, DARs, AARs and various forum posts etc, Its truly heartening to read and see these. 

It’s just as well, being Scottish, that we are renowned for being slow to anger and not prone to unprovoked outbursts. On a personal note a mahhoosive amount of work went into the battle pack, at my end. Work of which I am truly proud off. The lion’s share of research, mapmaking and AI plan stuff was devoted to the two campaigns and the Rakow and the Dying Sun scenario. These all involved painstakingly creating huge new maps from primary sources. Research turned up several ‘loose’ ends regarding accepted historical narrative and I’m as chuffed with these as the scenarios!

I digress… In short this sucked up a huge amount of time and I was also involved in several other projects (which I was keen to be involved in including CMFR and CMCW). Creating new content, AI plans etc for the Battlepack was a significant endeavour. So yup I used bits of various previous maps (which were my own creations and made available publicly) which I then significantly tweaked – mainly because I could not positively ID RL locations, or the fact is I thought the map – like Der Ring (which by the way took nearly a year to produce) to have a new life after some major tweaking. I’ve done this on previous game families with other maps. A few astute observers might have spotted them. 

But, and I should stress this, in the case of Der Ring it was heavily reworked and I created brand new AI plans (I had to as I’d chopped and reused bits) etc. So yes whilst some stuff is based on sections of der Ring they are more the offspring – rather than the map wearing a false wig and a pair of dodgy specs…

Re the rather offensive swipes about scamming, well,  re the master maps it’s pretty clear that as stated on the BFC website that they are “New maps based on maps from the Battle Pack missions”. 

Years back I used to be with a punk band – another life another story…. One of the bands (way more successful than we were) we did some gigs with, had their singer on one of their records state this quote, it was along the lines of – “Whatever you do they’ll slate you off and criticise you to the ground…” It’s stood me in good stead through life.
So aye happy to take the constructive knocks, but I’m less inclined to give credence tae whingers.
 

Because different countries have different contexts.
Do PzH2000 suck? What about those Gepards - are they worthless? Or the other 12B euros that Germany has provided? None of it is good enough until you get the specific toy you have a temporary hardon for?
Why arent you moaning that the US hasn't given you a Nimitz, or a satellite, or a wing of B-52s?

Hello,
I've updated the "strings.txt" for Vins Animated Text Mod, the Light version - see attached zip file.
Just copy the new "strings.txt" over the old file in your Animated Text Mod folder and it should be compatible with CMRT v2.10.
Just tought I would post the file here since previously some people were always requesting this.
Cheers,
Mike
Vin animated text light CMRT v2.10.zip

Because NATO does not, and has not ever, amassed an invasion-postured force on Russia’s border.  The standard that neighbors must be incapable of self-defense for Russia to feel secure is absurd.

Known bug. It affects all M2 .50 caliber machine guns in Red Thunder. It's supposed to be fixed in the next patch.

OK, save available here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/4dxw2cpb3pv4b8l/CMFR To Berlin 045.bts?dl=0
Let me know if this link doesn't work.

I noticed the same issue with M5 halftracks in the Soviet "To Berlin" campaign, of course there in the players favour, see attached pcitures from the 4th battle of the campaign.
First, an M4A2 spotting, maximum range in the early dark of January 1945 is about 320 meters:

Second, an M5 spotting out to close of 1 km, only constrained in this instance by terrain:

I can provide the save game for this situation via dropbox link, if required.
But I think proobably it can also be reproduced with a simple test scenario.
Looks like the M3s / M5s have aquired advanced IR optics, somehow.

Well, as the author of ScAnCaDe, I can at least answer the question from my perspective.
Of course when I started analysing the files, being able to read out everything was the ultimate objective.
But I realised quite soon that for me, doing the basic headers / building blocks will have to be enough.
As can be imagined, I tried with the most simple map to get any idea, but already encountered problems there when trying to understand the file.
First problem is for example:
1. Open the editor, you will have a basic, open, 320x320 meters map, without any units, plans etc.
2. Save the file, two times, three times, whatever, without changing anything.
3. The files should have exactly the same contents, but they all will have different sizes, so there is sometimes more or less raw data being written to a file, for exactly the same thing. The headers will be the same, for sure, but the map and unit data "payload" somehow varies in size. I'm not sure why that is, but I assume there is some kind of packing / encryption algorithm involved here.
Basically, for this reason, I gave up trying pretty quickly.
Anyway, if somebody wants to try further, the basics are already available with ScAnCaDe and I've always included the source code, which isn't really that difficult to understand. Most of the work was working out the file layouts and the changes introduced with new modules / games.

Well, as the author of ScAnCaDe, I can at least answer the question from my perspective.
Of course when I started analysing the files, being able to read out everything was the ultimate objective.
But I realised quite soon that for me, doing the basic headers / building blocks will have to be enough.
As can be imagined, I tried with the most simple map to get any idea, but already encountered problems there when trying to understand the file.
First problem is for example:
1. Open the editor, you will have a basic, open, 320x320 meters map, without any units, plans etc.
2. Save the file, two times, three times, whatever, without changing anything.
3. The files should have exactly the same contents, but they all will have different sizes, so there is sometimes more or less raw data being written to a file, for exactly the same thing. The headers will be the same, for sure, but the map and unit data "payload" somehow varies in size. I'm not sure why that is, but I assume there is some kind of packing / encryption algorithm involved here.
Basically, for this reason, I gave up trying pretty quickly.
Anyway, if somebody wants to try further, the basics are already available with ScAnCaDe and I've always included the source code, which isn't really that difficult to understand. Most of the work was working out the file layouts and the changes introduced with new modules / games.

Hello,
I've updated the "strings.txt" for Vins Animated Text Mod, the Light version - see attached zip file.
Just copy the new "strings.txt" over the old file in your Animated Text Mod folder and it should be compatible with CMRT v2.10.
Just tought I would post the file here since previously some people were always requesting this.
Cheers,
Mike
Vin animated text light CMRT v2.10.zip

Hello,
I've updated the "strings.txt" for Vins Animated Text Mod, the Light version - see attached zip file.
Just copy the new "strings.txt" over the old file in your Animated Text Mod folder and it should be compatible with CMRT v2.10.
Just tought I would post the file here since previously some people were always requesting this.
Cheers,
Mike
Vin animated text light CMRT v2.10.zip

Yes and no...according to MikeyD, BF apparently also incurs a lot of brain damage determining OOBs and TO&Es for formations that I doubt anyone ever uses.  I was simply suggesting that they could lighten their load by focusing on the OOBs and TO&Es for the basic building blocks (platoons and companies) rather than a lot of larger formations of limited utility to anyone.  
Not sure with what my front preferences have to do with not liking it when games cover very narrow time frames and only a handful of units?  I'd feel the same way if I preferred Normandy, Battle of the Bulge, or Italy.  Three separate games covering the Western Front:  CMFB, CMFI, CMFB, and in theory, four separate games for the Eastern Front--bleh.  I have no problem with paying for additional content but want it to work together in one big sand box rather than several stand-alone silos.  For me, having an editor is not every useful if there is little to edit.  
You leave a question yourself:  why do you care that I post my opinion of the games here?  I've been playing these games and on this forum for many years, so feel free to express my opinions, and am not very concerned if they don't coincide with yours (the self-appointed "defender of the faith", I see).  Last time I checked, the purpose of discussion forums is to, well, discuss?
Finally, in my view given all of the necessary abstractions/assumptions in these (or any similar) games for vastly more important topics such as LOS, sighting, troop reactions, terrain, C&C, morale, etc etc to claim that failing to use historically accurate officers' sidearms would reduce "fidelity" or "accuracy" in any meaningful way is pedantic in the extreme , unless your aim is to create a firing range simulator.

Another view is to flip this around and ask why wouldn't they have been working on the patch this whole time?
It's been 2 years and 3 months now since they broke some pretty fundamental parts of their own game -- broken to the point that many people can barely enjoy the typical stock scenario. And not just one title broken, but all of them.
When the issues with v4 were first brought to light, I would have never believed that it'd still be almost literally years before we saw them fixed.
Perhaps Battlefront needs to start actually paying more testers and content creators, in order to get things moving along, instead of relying on the generosity of so many volunteers?
I've defended Battlefront and heaped praise on the game many times over the past 4 to 5 years, but at some point a customer's patience and good will just gets used up.
"Niche market" is no excuse for a fix to the underlying game engine to have taken this long.

I am re-announcing the complete list of Combat Mission Scenarios web site here since the original announcement was made before the General Forum existed.
Check it out here: http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/index.html
What this site is
It is supposed to be a search-able sort-able list of all scenarios for CombatMission games. It combines a list of all stock scenarios and all downloadable scenarios from the old repository, the new scenario depot with information from play result information from theBlitz.
What this site is not
It is not a source for uploading or downloading scenarios.  This site does not host anything it only provides links to where the files are hosted.
I have updated all the games and added Shock Force.
The Shock Force edition is not complete yet. As the original announcement states the site is created using @Mad Mike's awesome ScAnCaDe Tool. Since that tool only works with Shock Force version 2 only the stock games are listed on the site right now. Along with a few new ones from the Scenario Depot. My plan is to include the older scenarios as well but to so that I need to convert them to v2 scenarios so the tool can then process them. I have been working on that but have lots left to do. In addition there are still a few items that are listed as only available on the old repository - I still own @Bootie a list of files that are missing on the Scenario Depot.
Read the original announcement here:

 

I've just released version 2.1 of CMx2 ScAnCaDe at CMMODS:
http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=7766
In version 2.1, support of CMSF2 has been added.
NOTE: Only scenarios, QBs and campaigns created with CMSF2 are supported by ScAnCaDe. For unpacking of the older CMSF campaigns, I recommend to use another tool, see here: 
 

How detailed do you need that tutorial to be?
Basically it's quite easy:
RezExplode the newest brz archive containing the new strings.txt (e.g. final blitzkrieg v200.brz).
Note: Mac users are already sh*t out of luck at this point, since there still is no RezExplode utility available on Mac, as far as I know.
But you can try to ask a friendly Windows user to provide the file for you, they are platform independent .
  Locate the Animated Text Mod folder, rename the strings.txt in this folder to something like strings_old.txt.
  Copy the exploded strings.txt from step 1 into the Animated Text Mod folder.
  Open both files (strings.txt , strings_old.txt) in Notepad++. Use the Notepadd++ plugin "Compare" to easily compare both files.
  Locate the "Soldier State Display" section, it should also show the most differences in the "Compare Nav Bar" (currently around line ~5200).
  Copy the animated text blocks one to one from the strings_old.txt into strings.txt.
  Save strings.txt, delete strings_old.txt. Voila, you're finished. Takes about 5 minutes, I'm doing this regularly now for all updates. Just don't want to go through the extra effort of packaging, uploading etc., which in any case takes longer than doing the adjustments. Anyway, it's not my mod ..

I've just released version 2.1 of CMx2 ScAnCaDe at CMMODS:
http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=7766
In version 2.1, support of CMSF2 has been added.
NOTE: Only scenarios, QBs and campaigns created with CMSF2 are supported by ScAnCaDe. For unpacking of the older CMSF campaigns, I recommend to use another tool, see here: 
 

Just have to mention that ScAnCaDe v2.0 will only work with the new CMSF2 campaigns, so the US Army, US Marine Corps and Training campaigns.
It will not work with the still old CMSF1 campaigns, which are the British and all of the NATO campaigns.
This is due to the slighlty different layout of the campaign files.

I don't mind that things are delayed, I mind that the customer base is often left in the dark, often for months on end.
This has admittedly gotten much better in the last few weeks, but it has been months of waiting for the 4.0 patch.
 
I can't say for sure how this is effecting the player base but look at how posting has died off for CMFI and CMRT -  titles I personally really enjoy. There are threads detailing bugs and TOE/OOB errors and omissions from 2014 that have still not been commented on. Are they being fixed in the next patch? Who knows?
If BF is aware that for example FJ gun transports in CMFI carry 50mm ammo regardless of the gun in the platoon, and it's being fixed in the next patch, then that's something I don't have to worry about, if they let the customers know and then I don't have to resurrect dead threads from 2014 in the hopes that it will be noticed, only for there to be no response because nobody is posting in the CMRT forum, lest of all devs.
 
In my opinion, it's not the big things like delays with the website or CMSF2 being a little later than expected, and certainly not major additions like France and Italy being added to CMSF2 at launch, it's the lack of patches and dev blogs on the existing titles. Little things like the graphics issues with the BMP-2M in CMBS, generated many, many community posts and were met with silence. Would it be so much to say "We're aware of that, we're fixing it, it will be in the upcoming patch for the 4.0 engine".
The responses to the question about CMBS bugs persisting into CMSF2 and asking if they will be addressed in a patch for CMBS is a ray of hope, I can only hope that there is a more organized way of doing that going forward.
Maybe have pinned threads in each of the titles' boards and one day a week (if possible) have someone a dev or beta tester come in and give a little update on what's being done on the title, what the known issues are, maybe even solicit help from the community if there is uncertainty about a TOE or OOB. So on Tuesday say, go into the Development Thread in CMFI and say "You know, we looked at that Italian infantry handbook you guys posted back in 2013 (and was reposted in 2018!) that mentions the squad breaking down into 3 man teams, but we think that was just for running in bounds and the Italian rifle squad was fundamentally a LMG section and a rifle section and couldn't maneuver as smaller elements than that." and then on Friday post on the CMFB board and say "Yeah, we're aware that the availability dates for HVAP for the 76mm gun might be off, we'll address that" (No more specifics needed, 10 seconds to post!). The following Tuesday, if there's less going on in the development of CMFI maybe just check in and say "We didn't really take the time to go back to look at the Italians after the engine updates, since they were in the initial release of CMFI and we couldn't just port over assets from other titles when we added AAA. We'd like to add stationary Breda 20mm guns to give Italians the ability to have AA units, and luckily we already have this modeled in game on the AS. 42. We'll hopefully have time to add this as a small patch to CMFI between CMSF2 shipping and Rome to Victory"
I know people like to say customers ask for too much. I disagree. We're not asking for detailed weekly dev diaries, just some indication of what is being done.
I know people say that posting on the forum takes away from development time. I disagree. Just say something like: "Not only will Module 1 for CMRT bring the timeline to the end of the war and add German formations and equipment, but the Soviets got a second looks too. So now Cavalry Uniforms are a selection as appearance in the unit purchase screen instead of a mod tag. Oh and since we already had Polish voice files from other titles, we're adding the First Polish Army to the Russian side". That took about 30 seconds and covered questions raised in dozens of threads and hundreds of posts dating from 2014.
 
 

@Kuderian @slysniper
 
If you watch this video and still think there is absolutely no problem, you're either high, delusional, or both. 
The fact is, there IS an issue, and Steve has already acknowledged it and said there will be a patch that addresses it. Again to reiterate what I've already said, I would like it if the patch was out sooner rather than later, but I'm not all butthurt that it hasn't been released yet.