Erwin

Yes, great work! Thanks...

+1 I would happily pay for more "xnt" content with security key.

Thanks. Works in CMFI??

A bit confused by the above. Does randomization work in SF or not? Thanks guys...

CM1 definitely had all-SMG German squads, possibly even SMG platoons. (Have no idea if that was realistic, but they were fun so long as the ammo lasted - about two turns at max rate firing IIRC. The trick was to split em into two teams and use one for actual shooting and keep the other back for "ammo resupply" when the teams were recombined.)

As a corollary to the above, I found that 105mm+ is surprisingly good at destroying AFV's. In the Nijmegen campaign, I find that I learned to use Brit arty to kill the majority of enemy tanks quite easily. They usually die within the first 30 secs and certainly in one WEGO turn of firing - (generally 4 tubes at max rate but short time). So, while it seems that HE is surprisingly ineffective vs anything in a foxhole, HE "feels" too effective vs armor. If HE was this effective in RL, that would be the weapon of choice vs armor.

"the present method is counterintuitive and awkward." +1 It's surprising that this hasn't been an issue much before. I guess we got used to it.

Is there any way to test the effectiveness of CM2 arty vs RL arty? Have had a feeling for a while that HE doesn't seem as effective as it should be. But, no way of proving or checking.

Steve has said in future versions we should have triggers which will make scenario design easier (hopefully) and more realistic/challenging for players vs the AI.

I still don't have a smart phone. My wife is a pretty senior executive, and she can barely use parts of her smartphone. 20 years ago I was in high tech and at the cutting edge of computers etc. So, don't think this can't happen to you.

She thinks Wittman was rather handsome as well. So, she "understands..."

v4 looks great, guys. Thanks for all the work!

The time issue is more critical in campaigns when one has to practice economy of ammo and preservation of forces. I can understand both POV's here. What puzzles me is why not make the friendly casualties cost more to discourage the unrealistic use of troops as cannon fodder. That would "encourage" more realistically cautious play, and in turn allow for more time being required and allowed for. Obviously there are scenarios based on RL situations where a "mad dash" is required. However, those were and should be very much the minority of scenarios.

This discussion is very interesting as I have also pondered long over how best to scout. I found that the two man scout team is good in that it is smaller and less likely to get noticed. But one has to be rather cautious with them as in RL - imagining it was me out there with only one buddy. I get the impression that 4-man scouts can be spotted by the enemy more easily. However, I found that if I had the rest of the squad close enuff to give support, they could easily get ambushed/pinned/suppressed by the same ambush that the 2-man scout triggers. So, am experimenting with two 2-man scout teams, so they can at least keep an eye on each other, without getting too many guys pinned or shot. I also send them out way beyond any HQ LOC. I don't see how one can keep scouts in command without endangering the HQ and anyone else around him. This other question re the HQ also poses a dilemma. The HQ command effects are much more subtle than in CM1, and like most players I can't tell the difference between being in or out of command. I know that tests have been done lining up two squads and having them shoot at each other like this was a pre 19th century Napoleonic/ACW game. But, in a real game, who would do that? Maneuvering and "ganging up" on an enemy unit is what one should be doing. And in those instances whether or not the troops are in command or not seems unimportant. (That is a shame.) As usual, the CM manual is of no help with either issue.

I like to make any game look as good as possible. But, for a developer there is a financial trade off between great graphics and things like great AI, and depth of gameplay. All I was trying to say is that CM fans have their priority to be great gameplay and AI... And BF is just about the ONLY company that has not gone out of business providing great immersive gameplay and AI. So, I try and not bitch about graphics. I don't even care about the shell hole decals that some are excited about.

I have been playing CM and other games incessantly for years now, and my wife still refuses to divorce me. What am I doing wrong?

Well, CM isn't competing with ARMA. I played ARMA and as a run of the mill First Person Shooter, it's has pretty poor depth/realism compared with the gameplay depth of CM. Great graphics and poor gameplay depth are common. The content of CM is unique, and that's what makes it a better game.

Great. Thanks...

That's interesting info. Thanks...

Thanks. D/lding now...

I really like the look of v3 without the dots or arrows, but I found myself initially confused by Voice and Visual Close in v3 without the aid of the dots and arrow of v2. I had to read the text underneath. Maybe get closer to the guy's mouth rather than showing his whole head for Voice?

"Give a player unlimited time and even the worst player can beat the AI." Not sure that is a bad thing. It depends by what you mean by "beat the AI". If you mean doing it with minimal casualties, that is usually tough. Many of us don't enjoy games where one "wins" after having one's forces decimated. That's why I prefer campaigns where one has to practice economy of ammo and force preservation.

I think others have noticed that HE is less effective than one would expect vs guns etc. The targets should at least be suppressed enuff that you can move forwards. But, if you're playing WEGO the guns often can recover within a few seconds and start firing at you accurately. I forget what I did to win this mission. Smoke?

Interesting idea. I used to love the solitaire AMBUSH series. It was the best thing until computers took over.

Thanks for all your work. just curious... why did you eliminate the branches of the original?