Erwin

As Baneman said, it's USUALLY (90+%) that you want to shoot at what the 3rd ammo bearer can see, but the MG gunner can't. It's horribly frustrating that the MG can't be automatically moved a few inches so that the gun can also "see" and more importantly shoot at the desired target. Calls for a "fudge" imo. I appreciate that the height issues with AFV's etc makes their LOS/LOF problems a bit trickier.

Las Vegas (at least) has gun stores that stock a lot of automatic weapons that you can fire in their store ranges, including MP40's.

I am rooting for you guys... (While you're at it, perhaps you could enable MG's at least to automatically move so that the MG gunner can see and shoot rather than just the 3rd ammo bearer? Puhleeze...)

Since my primary degree and research is psychology and I was ico paying people obscene amounts of govt money to attempt to create a "realistic" AI, you have my sympathies, Phil. Our conclusions were that one can fudge and fake this stuff to appear to be realistic altho' it was not based on much. "Game AI" may often consist of a half-dozen rules of thumb, or heuristics, that are just enough to give a good gameplay experience." I hope you are you certain that you are not over-complicating things leading to even more problems than the ones you are attempting to solve?

I only had a problem with the "distinct" file. the other two were fine. But, thank you for redoing all 3.

check CM1 data windows.

Given this is a computer program and there are numbers programmed in for everything, should there not be a relatively simple calculation regarding firepower at x range, taking into account y cover and z target type, and calculate whether it's worth firing.

Now I get "file not found".

"What might be cool is, rather than the more-gamyg LOS overlay or even line, is an "adopt POV" mode. Here's what the gunner sees.... Here's what the commander sees... Here's what the third assistant ammo bearer sees... " But this is rather silly if the player cannot DO anything about getting the MG or gun or whatever to move so that it can shoot at what the "third assistant ammo bearer sees". Since the object of placing a crew weapon in any location is to shoot at a target or an area, ideally the AI should move the weapon so that it/the gunner CAN see and shoot at that area or target. Too many times we struggle to get a weapon system to a location from which it should have good LOS and LOF, only to find that only the third assistant can see. Who cares what the third assistant ammo bearer sees or can shoot at, if the main weapon is useless? I can understand it being hard for a tank or heavy gun. But, surely a MG can easily be moved a couple inches so that it can see and fire.

duplicted post

Before I delete the older d/lds, just to confirm these replace the Khaki and Olive Green mods posted a couple days ago, yes?

This should be xnt.

I get "fatal error" when attempting d/l.

This should clarify the issue:

If you are referring to when Toxiczen did his tests on the bridges, it was this week.

Am pretty sure that in CM1, inf units only fired when the fire would be effective. Effective took into account (appropriate) range as well as the "exposure" of the inf targets. So, this should not be an issue one would hope.

"Reputed to be able to knock out a T-34 at a range of over 3 miles with its 88mm Pak43/2 L/71..." Can't wait for the upcoming 3+ mile long maps.

Most discussion on these forums seem to be based on misunderstandings based on semantics or other trivia. I am merely attempting to (hopefully) clarify/confirm what I thought you were saying. (And of course I accept the possibility that I too may have misinterpreted.)

"the German Army (and Air Force) of 1940 was unquestionably a more capable tool than it's 1944 sibling." Sounds correct so long as you add: "...more capable tool compared to Allied forces of the 1940's"..." and "...than it's 1944 sibling was compared to Allied forces of 1944."

Only slightly OT but it seems useful info. Toxiczen at BoB did tests on bridge demolition: "Out of curiosity I ran a test to time bridge destruction. I used 2 81mm mortars for the first tests. I used 2 M4A3 shermans with 75mm guns for the second round. and finally I used some called in battleship fire in a linear pattern for the final test. I also tried using engineers but when I targeted the bridges they ignored the command... SO! I used 7 length 16 bridges in all as follows: (1) wood foot bridge (2) steel rail bridge (3) stone foot bridge (4) stone bridge (5) stone rail bridge (6) stone wide bridge (7) urban wide bridge The two mortar teams destroyed the wood foot bridge in a minutes time. They destroyed all the other bridges in 2 minutes time, with the exception of the wide stone bridge which took 3 minutes. The 2 tanks destroyed the wood bridge instantly. They destroyed all the other bridges in one minutes time. And finally the spotter called in the strike which lasted a couple minutes after it began, resulting in all but two bridges being obliterated. (they were missed)"

Hope so. I really like your/DOD sounds. Hope they work in CMFI as well(?). (I noticed "The Germans are moving up heavy equipment" a few times. Presumably it's on a loop?)

There are other DE weapons than lasers of course.

I think you have interpreted it correctly. So, the prediction is that both Russia and the West will "allow" the fighting to continue so as to decimate the Al Q supporters. Now it will be interesting to see how accurate is that prediction...

I am trying it. problem is recognizing it.

Color borders on the icons for a squad, and the icon color for the platoon (for example).