Erwin

+1 to Felix's points. The foums here don't allow editing after an hour or so. I'll try and start a thread on this at BoB forums so we can have a comprehensive wish list. http://webandofbrothers.yuku.com/

The CM AI does not always tell the units to avoid the marked minefield - they can be ordered across it. And instead of the safe routes thru the minefield you would think the engineers would have provided, your units can still be blown up. It's an irritation of the CMBN system.

As someone pointed out, use the guys with binocs primarily. Leave the vehicles behind. USe the crews on foot. I found it pretty easy to spot foxholes, to a biut more patience to spot unit, but I did it. Not sure why it's causing problems. Use initiative and go around the flanks to find possible safe route where there are no enemy units. You'll need that when your attack in the next mission.

We have such wonderful battle-worn and dirtied vehicles, we need a master graphics artist to do the same to the CMBN uniforms which currently all look a bit too clean and PR photo-like. Looking at RL pics from the era, the uniforms are a baggy mess. Pants/trousers shoold be very worn - esp on knees and seats. Elbows, shoulders from straps rubbing, darker re sweaty armpits etc etc. Like model makers when they paint, need to use darker color strips along where the fabric would crease to enhance the illusion. Is torn possible? Sleeves rolled up? Bandage on the occasional arm... (I know... it's not easy!)

How big are the scenarios? vs AI?

My only comment I sent to JuJu was that the bridges (esp the wood one) look brand new. Am looking at an old wood fence around my house and it's bent, aged, broken in places, bent thru age, bits missing, green with moss etc...

Which is what it's all designed to do... Who do you think runs the country (US) and gets us into these wars? (And I speak as one who has had the "good fortune" to be a beneficiary.)

This scenario looks better and better. There are so many cookie-counter scenarios out there that I have a hard time telling apart so one designed with intelligence is very much appreciated.

http://www.jacquielawson.com/viewcard.asp?code=3268204831510&source=jl999

Several times I have found that just cos a minefield is marked does not seem to stop people getting blowed up by it - esp if they run. I also ran a jeep thru marked AP minefields and it got hit a few times and immobilized.

Lovely looking... like clean models at the spring Paris fashion show... and that's the only issue. Can they be dirtied and worn out/torn/faded -especially where they would be in RL so they look like they've been in combat for a few weeks?

"No, I give it up," Alice replied. "What's the answer?" "I haven't the slightest idea," said the Hatter. "Nor I," said the March Hare. Alice sighed wearily. "I think you might do something better with the time," she said, "than wasting it in asking riddles that have no answers." Because Poe wrote on both. (Is this the best you can do to confound us, sir?)

Let's make it easy: There are three “flavors” of minefields in the game: anti-personnel, anti-tank, and mixed (meaning: a mix of both anti-personnel and anti-tank mines in the same field). Obviously, anti-personnel mines are meant to harm infantry primarily, while anti-tank mines are usually bigger and pack more punch, and are intended to disable or at least immobilize vehicles and tanks. Note: Anti-tank mines cannot be set off by infantry on foot, but anti-personnel mines can be set off by vehicles. Troops moving through minefields have some ability to notice the mines without exploding them. This is much more likely when: .......................................... - The soldiers are crawling or walking (and to a lesser extent, “hunting”) .......................................... - The soldiers are engineers .......................................... - The soldiers are experienced .......................................... - The minefield has already been discovered (e.g. by setting off a mine) Engineers have the ability to mark known minefields. After a minefield is marked by an engineer unit, othr units may safely (but slowly) move through it without running the risk of setting off additional mines. See the Mark Mines command in the Command chapter for more details.

"wouldn't they have a better idea than us, the gamers, as they are in the real 3D environment?" Am with Gerry on this. The 2D screen sim world gives us both god-like info on the situation, but also makes it v hard to determine things that the soldier on the ground would deem obvious. Hence the need for abstractions to level the playing field to make the GAME playable. And that's why this is an entertainment game and not a DoD simulation.

I played this scenario as well and it's a good trainer for recon. What I learned: 1) Keep all recon on v small >10m arcs so they don't fire if they see anything. 2) Recon units need to be as small as possible, in this scenario I think they are all 2-4 men each so that's ok. 3) When you reach a good observation point tucked into the bocage so you can see thru, leave them there not hiding for 2-4 minutes. (You should get to see enemy contacts/evidence of some kind. Not sure why you are having problems.) Then HUNT or SLOW move em to close by points and repeat. 4) In this scenario you also have the option of a deeper recon on the flanks (esp the Right) so you try and get to see what you can from a flank.

I hope you didn't think I was criticising your new work LLF, as I am a big fan and look forward to testing it out. I simply believe that there are SO many abstractions and unrealistic features in this wonderful entertainment GAME that alleviate so much of the RL experience that I don't understand why there is a love for some other features that increase frustration/workload at the expense of playability in the name of enhanced "realism".

super. will use often... (The double facepalm and the mod.) I esp like your signature style of making the details stand out, by what appears to be use of shadows and well-applied dirt.

In terms of what could happen in the future, the markets control everything, and the markets are affected by perception and rumor (even facts occasionally). It matters less what anyone says than what people with a stake in the issue think/fear they may do.

Yes, it is completely pointless to have a LOS tool that gives the view of (say) the third loader but not the gunner - since the latter is all we really care about.

I DO spend most of my time at Level 1 or 2 as I love playback and seeing the cute graphics. It was easy in CM1 to see what "concealment" one's troops were in thanks to the terrain bases. And what's with the icons hovering over all units and contacts? Unless you play with those turns off there is no "concealment." You are correct that it all depends on the experience that one wants. So, I do NOT want to play CM: TOPIARY MAZE in which a primary object and much game time is wasted examining every hedge to find the gaps - and also experiencing the fun of discovering that the small gaps one often sees are not actually gaps but graphical anomalies. I also did not buy CM: SEARCH AND RESCUE where the object is to spend even more time locating WIA/MIA who are hidden by aforsaid dense foliage that cannot be turned off. All of the above make a CMBN turn more arduous and time-consuming than the CM1 system, with little/no added pleasurable gameplay value. Just because CMBN depicts something "that was really there" doesn't it more realistic, or better, just more hard work with no addded gameplay value. Just like a fantastically detailed model that looks great, but can't do anything is less fun to me than a less detailed model that moves and plays better and gives a better sense of verisimilude. I prefer spending my leisure time enjoying the TACTICAL military challenges of the CM scale of combat rather than spending my time in a forest that while it LOOKS great gives a misleading sense of what can or cannot be seen (unless one uses the LOS tool). Recently I discovered that I can teleport men throu bocage etc by simply backing up the truck to the bocage and have them dismount on the far side of the obstruction. And that is only one of the many, many weirdnesses and abstractions that the CM2 system is full of and will probably never get fixed as BF rushes towards CM3. CMBN is an entertainment product that is fundementally not realistic, but justifying making it a chore in the pursuit of realism is merely a rationalization. Added detail and complexity does NOT automatically = enhanced realism. Versimilitude, or creating the ILLUSION of reality should be the goal so that customers have fun and do NOT have to go thru the hell of real warfare.

Ok sorry. I didn't read your description re "footbridge" properly. So I can keep my existing 2 "vehicular/rail bridge" mods of yours and simply add this third footbridge one, right?

Note that current maps are rarely large enough to benefit from this fire, and we'll have to wait for East Front etc to really give a chance for ANY longer ranged weapons systems to shine. Even CM1 with it's huge maps made Nashorn SPAT's deathtraps as one rarely had the long LOS/ranges to use em effectively. As someone said, it probably would be used so little, that it's hardly worth the programming effort.

Yes, admirable though the current experiment in depicting C2 has been, it often doesn't work as advertised, and it's hard for almost everyone to understand and simply makes gaemplay harder without contributing gameplay entertainment value. The current C2 system has not been worth the programming resources when there are other more glaring issues that may even have been a step backwards from the CM1 system.

Thanks. Are there instructions on how to blend with your existing railway/steel mod and the stone bridge mod? (I vaguely recall that they had to be used together in some circumstances.) Or, does this completely replace just the stone bridge mod? (And leave the steel one as is?)

A big concern I have about the density of undergrowth you are trying to achieve is that BFC's effort was intended probably to make the game playable - since you have to see where you are going. The still pictures look great and are wonderful - if you're making a movie, or pretty pictures But, even with BFC's version that has less undergrowth to restrict LOS, it is STILL too dense to play the game with trees set "ON". I spend 90%+ of my time with only the "Tree Trucks" setting on, as otherwise I can't see my own men, or what is going on, let alone any enemy. And if I could turn some of the undergrowth off I would as well, as I often cannot locate WIA/KIA men to go issue buddy aid to them. And it's a chore to locate gaps in bocage, which I often miss. Some bocage/hedges have small gaps in them that turn out to be impassible. Other passable gaps have to be found by going in Level 1 and laterally traversing the entire length of the bocage until one sees some sort of light thru to the other side. The game indicates Fords better, why not Bocage gaps?