Tarkus

Let me support that wholeheartedly. In CMBB back in the days my regular CM opponent and me had a system in place using the troops/map import feature, and seriously, this turned awesome CM battles into truly epic campaigns. We're currently playing a CMBN meeting engagement QB and it would be just awesome to be able to followup on this. In this case for instance, we where fighting for a village. My opponent will clearly leave the game in full possession of the village and I would love to be able to counter-attack and try to re-capture the village, but only if the troops from the previous battle are in place.

Awesome! I missed this in the manual but it is indeed explained as you mention. Thanks! JV

Thanks Bulletpoint. In regard to simultaneous fire, I assume I need *three* different spotters to direct the fire of those three mortars? I think I'll rather bring them up for direct fire. I am looking at my 3.01 manual right now and haven't located the multi-battery barrage you mention (unless you refer to setup phase fire missions planning). I only see this one note that states that a spotter can only direct one support request/mission at a time. Can someone possibly elaborate on this? Thanks again

Hello gentlemen, Currently playing CMBN and I have a question about using on-map mortars, just to make sure I am not trying to do something that just isn't feasible in the game. I'd be glad if anyone of you could let me know if I'm missing something here or incorrectly interpret what can or can't be done. So I have this mortar section deployed behind a tall bocage. The HQ is up forward, looking at an open field up ahead, while its three 60mm mortar teams are slightly behind, deployed, ready to fire, and in full contact with the HQ, but WITHOUT LOS on the field. I want to deliver mortar fire at the other end of the field. I was assuming all along that I would be able to deliver fire from my three mortars using the HQ as a direct spotter, as if the LOS of that HQ would extend to its mortars. I seem to recall this being feasible in CMx1. Right now, my reading of the situation is that I cannot do that, and that I have two ways of using mortars: Direct fire with the mortar having a clear LOS on its target.Indirect fire being spotted and called through the arty interface.There are a number of issues with the second options: Unless I'm missing something, HQ can only spot for ONE of its THREE organic on-map mortar (I think I could get the three gun as a battery were they off-map) as each gun is treated individually in the arty interface. To my surprise, going this way resulted in a 5 minutes delivery time, which seems exceedingly long considering the HQ is actually about 20 meters away directing the fire of its own gun. I'm just through reading Eugene Sledge memoirs where there are plenty of occurences of the mortar section leader directing fire of its mortars teams, acting as a direct spotter, and doing it pretty quickly as well. So my question is whether I am doing this wrong somehow or if directing mortar fire from in-contact HQ à la CMx1 just can't be done. TIA

Many, many, many, many, many times. </font>

Latest I tried is 163.69 and I get 4 fps. I just realized I'm on DirectX 10 though. IIRC, this version is rather unhealthy for older games. But I also seem to recall rolling back to an earlier version isn't exactly simple.

I confirm, this fix do work, but the framerate remains rather low, almost unplayable. Time is now to find the proper settings to enhance performance. I admitt my lack of knowledge for most settings within the Nvidia control pannel though. Running on Vista (32b) AMD duo core 4000+ 2GB ram Nvidia 8600GT (Forceware 163.44 drivers) JV

Eventually, most of this stuff will be moddable to booth JV

Hey, I remember toiling on quite a few of your offerings ! (We Fight and Die Here, 29th Let's Go, etc. mmm, not sure I have those titles right) Welcome back, and I hope you feel inspired by the editor ! Let us know what you come up with ! JV

Meddle here.

If I may somewhat chime in as a guy from the outer ring of this extraordinary crew, I'd say none are afraid of constructive comments, no matter how hard it might be to take sometimes. Some calls are legit, some are due to the fact that CM2 is NOT CMx1, some because differents gamers have different experiences, likings, etc. All this is perfectly fine. I commend your taking the time to put these comments "in perspective", and I'm tempted to do the same from the other side of the fence: release is release, the game everybody were waiting for for a long time is finally here, it's pretty enjoyable at that, and there's more: BFC is committed to making it better and better in the coming years. To me, this is a win-win situation.

Uedel, I feel someone from the crew will smile reading this part of your comment. Yup, something tells me that member #42 will smile indeed Cheers JV

I'm not sure exactly what the demo has under the belt in terms of AI plan, but what we might have here is the occurence of two different plans used by the computer player. One super feature of CMSF is that the computer player can have different plans, thus the games Severin and SmithyG played may have been two completely different affairs.

Check the hotkey window. There's a key doing just that, albeit I can't remember which one from the top of my head.

I don't remember precisely from the top of my head, but use a combination of shift+click, ctrl+click, alt+click, shift+ctrl+clickm etc. while clicking on the buildings you wish to edit on the 3D map. EDIT: seems you found the answer (See below.)

I suppose it's now my turn to say something. I'll whine some because French Canadians are definitely under represented on these boards. God save Unibroue.

Very true. That's what I'll be doing too.

Yeah, I remember Philippe explaining at lenght why this was the obvious choice. Then Dorosh would hop in and vainly try to convince us that early war Polish campaing was the real deal. Roight. I guess we can start discussing what the third title will be though.

I'm here since just after CMBO initial release, and I've played those games a lot. I'd say about everyday from 2001 to 2006. I've been lurking these forums for the same period, so although I certainly no luminary, I know who the "luminaries" are, hehe. All this to say: the one thing I'm most thrilled about is the kind of stuff the community will come up with using the new editor. The scenario editor is very, very powerful. As I have enjoyed many excellent battles from many scenario designers with CMx1, I can't wait for these people get a good hold of the new editor and create great battles. With this new tool, scenario designers have the ability not only to create great maps, boil interesting OBs and setups. They can now play with the very core of the game, they can create and fine tune plans for the computer player to a point no one ever dreamed of in the past. Thing is, as it was stated elsewhere, and it's worth saying yet again: mastering the editor will take a bit more time and will require a whole new testing ethic... an untested battle won't just play poorly... it might not work at all. JV

I think it's worthy to insist on this comment from Michael: The editor is very powerful, but just like any such complex tool, it will take some time and dedication to get it to it's full potential. In a sense, it's like a clarinet. Anybody can blow some quack, but a concerto is something else. The good thing is, those who persevere will have the ability to produce truly great battles. Of that, I'm sure.

I think it'll feel more like getting there for the first time actually. Just wait until you see the editor, AI programming tool, quality of the 3D models and all. I'm pretty sure you'll take that one back JV

A good counter-battery target. </font>

Incidentally, I think that's another reason why I like XXe century stuff better. Probably because of the technology involved. Most previous periods has something of a rigidity that I found unappealing. no doubt mainly due to limited technologies. Of course, that's an impression many out there don't share for a number of very valid reasons, but it's like comparing a naval warfare simulation of ancient greeks and the Pacific theater. I think I prefer the later because of the pace. [ May 02, 2007, 09:52 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]

I think Dschugaschwili hits right on as far as I'm concerned. The whole WWII tactical picture is just plain interesting, and the sheer magnitude of the conflict seems to allow for endless combinations of small unit actions. Mind you, I certainly don't want to downplay any other settings, and I'll gladly give a try to anything BFC come up with, but WWII still have my vote for all those reasons Dschugaschwili lists, plus, as a professional historian, a certain amount of admiration for this particular era. As a side note, I've said it earlier, I'll say it again, but Falklands gets my vote, too. [ May 03, 2007, 04:49 AM: Message edited by: Tarkus ]