James Crowley

Given the exponential improvement of the AI in the excellent RT maps, that is the sort of project that I would happily pay to have done, via a pack or additional patch, or whatever. Who did the CMFI QB's by the way?

This cropped up in beta testing and, from memory, was explained by the firer not being able to get LoS from an awkward position, such as in a trench, where firing prone would look too odd.

My understanding is that flamethrowers, when used against bunkers, caused casualties as much by suffocation as actual burn damage. Tanks are not hugely different to bunkers, except, being made almost entirely of metal, they would perhaps conduct heat more readily. Lack of oxygen should have a detrimental effect against both crew and engine, even if the actual flames don't, although it is hard to imagine that a combination of massive heat and burning oil wouldn't have the potential to do some damage. In a recent QB my OT-34 flamed a Panther at very close range (20m) - no obvious effect. Although at the end I had a look and the crew were broken; whether by that or by some non-penetrating AT hits, I don't know.

Thanks Mark I did that but ended up with a ver. 1.10, which looked wrong. I uninstalled and did FI, then GL then the patch last and it was fine, showing as ver. 1.12. More than can be said for CMBN/CW/MG which is giving me no end of grief - have posted on the BN tech forum and posted a ticket.

Ah! That's where I saw it. Thanks Mark. Is the CMFI/GL installation the same, as I believe the process is different to CMBN? By the by, very impressed with your RT QB maps so far. I've only played a few but the whole experience is a whole lot better than with previous iterations. Everything seems to work really well to produce a really enjoyable game. At the risk of a metaphorical smack in the mouth, are you at all likely to upgrade the CMBN/CMFI QB maps? Or is that a bridge too far......

Could some kind person please point me in the direction of the thread that explains the optimum procedure for reinstalling CMFI/GL on a new PC. Can't seem to find it through search, although I thought it was a sticky.

Could some kind person please point me in the direction of the thread that explains the optimum procedure for reinstalling CMBN/CW/MG on a new PC. Can't seem to find it through search, although I thought it was a sticky.

I would have to agree with that; you won't learn anything of tactics or anything related to CMRT generally. A well written social history, though.

Cheers Womble. I had completely forgotten that the driver can acquire as well, thus showing what is up for grabs. Ye gods, don't get old; the old grey matter turns to mush!

I can't remember if all ammo, that is available for acquiring, shows up in the inventory for trucks. Or does the truck inventory only show the ammo for the crew? I have a feeling that it is the latter.

Just wondering if we will see a return of daisy-chain mines, as we had back in CMBB. Given the nature of Bagration, one would have thought that the use of fixed, hidden minefields would be severely limited but that hasty defence/ambush type mines, surface laid, would be more prevalent. Other than getting the odd thing blown up by mines, I've not had any experience of clearing them or does 'Mark Mines' even do that? In CMBB engineers had to have demo charges to clear mine fields but that does not seem to be a requirement in CMx2.

That book is a great read - if you want a good nights' sleep. One, zero,one, one, zero, one zero, zero....ZZZZZZZZ

The notion of 'siege' and 'fun' in the same sentence is an amusing one

I'm not suggesting a QB generator but some variation in force mix for scenarios. So the scenario designer picks the forces for both sides - the optimal, historical or default forces for that particular scenario - but then goes on to create a number of additional force mixes with some small differences (or maybe even large ones if the scenario can handle it) from which one is randomly selected; so that the player is never entirely sure if he is facing the exact same force as in a previous playing of that scenario.

Reading the thread about the new triggers and the one about lack of feed- back on scenarios, got me thinking about the nature of scenarios, especially playing against the AI. In many respects they are a 'one-shot' deal. Once played you know the composition of both forces and, unless there are multiple battle plans for the AI, or you are playing H2H, the setup as well. Of course, potentially different setups can lead to differing outcomes but if side A has two tanks and you have just KO'ed the second one, you always know that side A has no tanks left. And so on. In addition to multiple AI plans and triggers could it be a good idea to also have multiple potential force selections available as well? Most scenarios are built around very specific goals, so I am not suggesting alternatives that are too divergent from the 'default' force; no all-tanks instead of all infantry. Perhaps a mix that contains three tanks instead of two, with slightly less infantry; or another AT gun or HMG team etc. etc. Four AI plans together with four variations of the force mix could potentially yield 16 different scenarios. In that way scenarios would have a much higher replay value; a greater 'shelf life', if you like. Given the time, effort and expertise that it takes to produce a decent scenario in CMX2 (which is why, I suppose, we have far fewer than in CMX1) it would seem to make sense to try and squeeze a bit more life from them. Also (and I tremble as I type this!) it doesn't seem as if it would be too difficult to implement (starts to build sandbag wall in anticipation of incoming.....).

Ahh...the still, small voice of caution Attack is the best form of defence, don't you know. Look at how much success it has brought me........oh, wait a minute, might need to re-evaluate that Well, as a tactic, it has got to succeed sometime.

Thanks for the 'referral' but it is you who has taken the sensible course of action; researched and illustrated it and put it in it's own thread, thereby getting it noticed by the 'management'. This has really bugged me for a long time and I think I brought it up on another thread ages ago but it got 'lost'. So my thanks to you for, it would seem, finally laying this ghost to rest.

Absolutely... Chain of command is, and should be, key ( as an aside; loss of morale being the only penalty at present. IMO should have more stringent consequences like very limited orders menu, at the least). So understanding it is important. Currently the manual seems to be at odds with what is actually happening and it confuses me no end. Perhaps the new manual will correct or explain the situation more clearly.

A question about chain of command that has always bugged me in CMx2 and continues to do so in the above example. According to the Manual - page 29, sections 7 and 9 - squads 2 and 3 are shown as being in command, to platoon HQ/squad1, by both sound and vision. Fine. The green icon in both squad 2 and 3 is supposed to indicate that platoon HQ is in contact with 5 Company and the red icons that 5 Company is not in contact with battalion or battalion with the next level of command. Fine. However, if you look at Platoon HQ, it does not show any means of contact with 5 Company - no radio, sight or sound. So it is not in contact. Or is it? Assuming the red lines indicate contact, then there is another red line radiating out from Platoon HQ that goes some where other than squads 2 and 3. Can that be to 5 Company or is it to another attached sub unit? I have always felt that the info in the manual is incorrect and that the Chain of Command box does indeed indicate whether or not that unit is connected to its next highest HQ. If that were the case then the above display would make sense, with both squads in contact with platoon but platoon not in contact with company :confused:

Difficult to imagine what else it could be....it certainly looks like a bayonet. A spot of cold steel?

Given the number of high quality QB maps provided in BN and FI, I don't miss the 'random' generator, particularly as it was fairly hit and miss; for every good map it produced it churned out three or more dummies. What I do miss is the 'combined arms' mix which worked far better with the smaller sized battles than the current CMX2 alternatives do. To the point that I have all but given up using the generator as I tend to prefer smaller battles.

Oh yes! Just counting down the eight weeks until it sees the light of day.

No mention yet of number and type of campaigns or number of stand-alone scenarios?

To say that I was surprised by the feature list in CMRT would be an understatement. Wow I was half expecting something to do with flames/fire and we already knew about tank-riders and AA. But hit decals and AI triggers; really wasn't expecting them. Bloody good job, BFC. Did notice that there weren't any M44s or Valentines included and I believe the Soviets used a lot of the former (over 4,000) and almost as many of the latter. Perhaps an opportunity for inclusion in a 'pack'?

Bone, Bone? I thought by now we were going to get a skeleton, entire