Cameroon

Heheh If the crew bailed immediately then the thing would say Abandoned or Knocked Out. If they were all Knocked Out, then I would feel it was a more suspect occassion since it would seem most unlikely that they would all actually have suffered vehicular damage to that extent. After all, I had a large bomb and 2 aircraft-rocket barrages fired at two Tigers sitting on a hill in a QB. All 3 were direct impacts and the worst that was suffered was that the one Tiger had the TC killed (silly man, didn't button up!). [Edit] And what Foxbat said. [ October 13, 2002, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

There were quite a number of areas where CMBO artillery was pretty wrong. Out of LOS fire, for instance, should come down in the same pattern just not where you want it to. Now it does As for CMBO vs CMBB, to start with the level that the spotter is at (i.e. Battalion, Division, etc) is now modeled. When the FO is using higher-level resources, his priority to actually _getting_ those resources is lower, so longer delay times. And, of course, the biggest difference is in going from Allied artillery in CMBO to Allied artillery in CMBB. Soviet artillery was not very flexible Part of the problem that has come up is that the attacker cannot buy TRPs when, really, they should be able to. I'd buy a heavy, Army level FO if I could purchase 3-5 TRPs. Then you'd actually have those priority targets for quick, on-call fire as the attacker. It has been suggested that if you set a QB to unrestricted force-type, that you can buy TRPs as the attacker. I've not tried this, so I don't know. But its really not a very good solution.

Regarding the plane incident, we'd need the save game After all, with vehicle morale now, it is entirely possible to force a crew to abandon without causing any casualities or vehicle damage. Doing so is not fast or easy, but a large bomb blast might do it much more quickly. I guess part of the question might be answered if we knew whether the vehicles were Abandoned or Knocked Out. You could always try to re-create the moment

Prime, the best way for you to verify that the delay times are right is to check out the historical sources. I personally have not, but I trust that BFC _has_ because that is their job and they do it for all the other aspects of the game. In fact, that's one of the reasons that arty and its use is a more refined skill than it was in CMBO, more research on the matter. What you're seeing is how the FOs in the Red Army during WWII worked. More or less The fact of the matter is, if you're trying to use Soviet artillery and you're buying at higher than the Battalion level, you are going to have massive delay times. In "reality" WWII FOs wouldn't even be doing what they do in CMBO/CMBB. There have been a number of threads on that aspect. You've mentioned that the FO's job is as a FO, and it is, that's the only reason they can call artillery at all. And _despite_ that, they have really long delay times. Especially for higher organization guns and for the Soviets. The Soviet method of artillery at that time was not organized to provide quick, on-call fire.

The manual is then a little misleading there, HQs do not affect other HQs. So your platoon HQ is going to have to rally itself. Maybe with the engine rewrite in a couple years

I know the tiles in CM:BO are what, 128x128 and the ones in CM:BB are 256x256. Does one need to resize tiles appropriately for the specific game or will it just compensate for the difference?</font>

I think you got that backwards, didn't you? :confused: Michael</font>

If there are infantry supporting the T-34 (even if they didn't get the kill or even fire), it will be MUCH harder to do a close assault. This is because, while tanks have blind spots (manual gives some description of this), "borg" spotting gives the vehicle a better chance to notice the incoming infantry than it "should" have. I've successfully close-assaulted a small number of AFVs, but never when there was infantry around (unless the AFV drives right next to the close assaulting unit on its own). [Edit] Regarding distance, well when I close assault with infantry, other than German tank hunters, I try to get as close as possible. The "follow" command is pretty handy here (see page 77 of the manual). [ October 12, 2002, 12:43 PM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

The manual (page 182-183) explains about importing maps. The Western portion of the map is always the Axis and the Eastern portion the Allies. Moreover, units will START facing the opposite direction from the side that is friendly to them. In other words, Allies will always face west at the beginning and axis east. The setup zones can be wherever you want (which I did, it was kind of fun to start encircled by the AI), but the "friendly to" sides and initial unit facing will always be as above. [Edited to fix the facing directions at start] [ October 13, 2002, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Cameroon ]

Yes, there's a delay when you plot more waypoints, the concept being that the orders are more complex. It is a compromise in order to help simulate early-war Soviets. There's a thread on this here: More waypoints = more delay. Realistic? What's happening on Sodball's end happens here too. I don't do a lot of deleting of waypoints in the middle (possibly because of this) anyway, so it really hasn't been an issue for me. I guess you could use it to add smaller amounts of delay and still end up with the shortest number of waypoints

I've tried this several times, and I'm able to import the map, but no option to import the troops is given. I thought it was a slip of the tongue when Madmatt said you could import trooops, but there it is in the manual, and evidently it's an option, but I can't get it to work. What am I doing wrong?</font>

Good lord would I love something like this. I'm by no means a "newbie", but I would love a more organized approach to my game plans. I'm too haphazard and disorganized, which makes my attacks vs. the AI go well enough but aren't so good against people.

I've had the exact opposite experience. Playing a scenario last night, my MGs would quickly drop their area target when units moved near their target. My only thought that might explain the behavior is poor visibility. As in, perhaps the MG(s) couldn't see the unit rushing towards their area target.

Use a cover arc man That's one of the reasons they are there, after all.

Sometimes I have this problem as well. Basically, there will be a foxhole graphic beneat the unit that is "digging in". If there's no foxhole, they aren't digging in. I'd be in favor of a graphical representation in the set-up menu (like Dig-in changes Dug-in when troops are dug in).

What I really get annoyed with is when the AI replots, but the replotted waypoints are BELOW ground level. Which means I've either got to let the AI alone (GAH, another WHOLE TURN while it figures it out) or delete the whole thing and replot myself (sigh, delays). I don't recall this happening in CMBO. Though if it did, I was still able to select and move the waypoints because I never ran into this problem. If a save-game showing this is necessary, I'm sure I can manage it Oh, yes, the other thing that is annoying is when the AI replots around a vehicle after hitting it. And hits it again. Now, far be it from me to request Blue Angels perfection , but if it's going to replot it'd sure be nice if it got it right the first time

You can do this on a Mac, which has a mute button on the keyboard as well as volume controls. I use it frequently in this context, not because I have observed any difference in plotting time with the sound off (though I will look for that now that you have mentioned it), but because I always play with music on my radio and I like to be able to hear it when the movie is not playing. Michael</font>

Heh, I had the same thoughts about the "index" but since it was at the back and all...

See Page 145 and don't forget the Index at the back of the manual The fitness level determines the relative physical fitness of the unit in question. The more unfit a unit (Fit -> Weakened -> Unfit), the less physically capable the unit is. Meaning they tire faster, recover more slowly and impacts how quickly units panic etc. Anyway, check page 145. I think that should answer your questions.

Yeah, but trees aren't play aids I'll tell you, it's cool to use Shift-Q to turn off the play aids but it really feels disconcerting. What I would absolutely LOVE is to have two states, Movie State and Plotting State. Its great to have as much on as possible (trees, doodads, sounds, etc) during the movie, but can make plotting a turn impractical. If my settings during plotting were saved for plotting and my settings during movie playback were saved for movie playback, well I'd be thrilled And even if the above isn't going to happen (but I think it would be spectacular), it would be nice for the sound to be turned off during turn calculation/AI plotting and then reset for the movie. Except in cases of very few units or no units in LOS, turning off the sound has a noticeable impact upon the speed of calculation. I've mentioned this a couple of times, but I figured I'd throw it out there again. It gets important for those of us with slower computers And if nothing else, it means on those long turn calcs with lots of armor I wouldn't be driven mad by the rumbling of dozens of idling engines.

In short, sort of. The best you can do is to start a QB and import the map & units from the initial fight. The "trick" is that, if you want the "same" fight, you'll need to set the Quickbattle parameters to match. If you're playing the AI and do not want any more forces, just make sure to have both forces picked by a you and choose nothing. You could also edit the original scenario to have a longer turn limit, but that's not what you're asking about. In general, though, I think you'll find that extending the battle past the turn limit will be less than optimal. Your troops are likely very low on ammo, meaning you'll get to stare at the enemy across the way I think I've covered the options, if someone else has any suggestions I'd like to hear them. As a minor thread hijack, I'd love to be able to import the map & units into the scenario editor. One can always hope.

Funny, I has having very similar thoughts. It has a very evil look to it.

Only in winter Winter textures have an "offset", in CMBO it was placing a 1 in front of the texture name/number (e.g. 300 -> 1300). As for the poly count, it actually does push quite a bit. I won't claim that it pushes more than UT2003 or that the engine isn't showing its age, but it definitely spits out a lot of polygons. I wish I could remember the thread and give you a link, but CMBO (not BB) pushes more polys than Quake2. CMBB, with essentially the same engine, has more than CMBO to render (poly counts on the models were increased).

I haven't seen this mentioned in any other thread, so I figure it's worth one final bump

There's a big ol' thread on this particular scenario in the Scenario forum It would seem that not many people have managed it on the first or second (or third or forth ). But it is possible. I didn't think so at first, but I did do it (using default forces). I encourage you to check out the thread though.