RockinHarry

Yup, that´s the basic idea. A confirmation from the BFC staff would be required to have a proof of anything reported to this date. Leaving any matters of taste aside (cower, stance changes during certain actions yes or no), an additional issue with regard to possible cheating and exploit opportunities by changing animations is valid as well. I already expressed my initial intentions for the changes repeately, so I leave it at that. Poesel made some good suggestion to test a possible exploit, by changing running animations to crawl/prone. This gave some surprising results indeed. Contrary to my (and likely anybody else) expectations, the soldiers did not "crawl" at running speed across the map like snakes. It rather suggests, that the animation files 1., are not just containers that contain soldier skeleton movement data and 2., that the game is way more complex and sophisticated, as one might suspect. A soldiers stance directly affects his targetable footprint, as well as his spotting abilities. It appears that these 2 features can´t be disconnected, by changing an animation file. Same goes for movement modes, as most likely there´s data in the animation files (or elsewhere), that ties movement to a particular animation and not the associated order. At least that counts for quick and fast movement animations changed to crawl (or stationary). It needs more tests to evaluate all possible movement/stance changes, if that applies globally. As said, any changes to an animation goes both ways, with regard to benfit and penalties. A lower stance makes a soldier less spottable/hittable, but the same time his spotting and (return) shooting abilities are decreased. I have a number of test games going, that go farther with animation changes, than I have reported to this date. The overall observable effect is that carnage amongst infantry units is somewhat reduced. I see less soldiers die in situations where previously unnecessary exposure during combat, lead to largely increased kill rates. Buddy Aid and full mag/clip reloading in stand/kneel stance are the most prominent ones IMO. Cower animation change is more a cosmetic change as said. Whether normal cower and prone cower animation change has truely a noticeable effect due to somewhat different targetable footprints, is negligible I think. What also is unaffected by all this, is suppressive effects. There also appears little effect with regard to HE. A near miss can hurt/kill a soldier by blast effects and splinters and most the time it doesn´t really matter, whether a soldier is prone or standing upright. Differences could only be evaluated by intensive testing with various HE, different (cover) terrain and soldier stances. From my observations, soldiers die as often with changed animations as without, when targeted with any HE. I solely play vs. the AIP and I tend to believe, that the AIP benfits more than a human player, as the AIP tactical finesse is somewhat limited. It shows generally more targets (won´t hide purposely) and uses almost exclusively quick movement modes (or crawl when max assaulting or tired). I have some games/missions, that I created some elaborated AI plans for and could make some direct A-B compare (with and w/o animation changes). Although the AIP doesn´t act "smarter", it takes noticably less losses with my elaborate animation tweaks and thus stays longer in the game unbroken, as well as has more chances to whack the human opponent. The human player has to deal with the changes as well. More prone and kneeling soldiers mean less spotting and shooting opportunities for his own soldiers and more emphasis is now on the guys with binocs for battlefield observation. Soldiers I got into better cover stance successfully: Medics (reduced target size) Reloading mags & clips (reduced target size) Assistant loader for certain lMG and HMG, always prone. (reduced target size, probably spotting ability) No more idle stand animations. (reduced target size & spotting ability) Currently tested: HMG gunners always prone (see pics further up in this thread). Soldiers only shooting from kneel and prone stance. (cuts certain shooting opportunities and reduces target size) Whether some the mutiply used animations look or act bad in other than the intended situations. There´s a couple of them already. Some transitory animations are affected as well and that puts some definite limits, where certain animations can be enforced and where better not. There´s some animations that are also dependent upon a soldiers main rifle weapon. I.e if the assistant lMG/HMG gunner/loader has also a scoped sniper rifle, then the substitute idle prone animation does not quite work and a standing stance, scratch head animation pops up instead.

Yup, under best circumstances this works as you say. If the whole unit with the medic stays low (prone) as well, the medics chances to complete with BA unharmed are very good. Low walls still are not quite sufficient if watched at from higher elevations not far away (2nd story of a building ect.). That counts for all soldiers behind a low wall, not just the medic. From my experiences with the "tweak", FH and trenches raise a medics chances equally well, if not other soldiers from the same unit show as target. If it keeps on "hide", the medic won´t be seen nor targeted, as when on hide as well. Under generally favourable circumstances, as said.

Interesting suggestion and I could implement that into a quick test by renaming 2 standard crawl animations (from the k98 folder) to 2 standard "run" animations from the same folder. Did an alternative test by renaming 2 idle prone animations for the same purpose. Result: Idle prone animated soldiers did not get off the spot at all. Simply keep lying prone with orders set to Quick or Fast! Crawl animated soldiers start to crawl at normal crawl speed while beeing set to Quick or Fast move and after very short time changed to "tiring" or "tired" status! A german lMG team which has just the mentioned K98k rifle guy animation changed, resulted in the lMG gunner run normally (quick or fast) and have the assistant with the rifle crawl. End result is the lMG gunner quickly reached the objective first (just 2 AS away), while the K98 guy attempts to follow in crawl mode, which at last gots the whole team tiring or tired. Did a bit of shooting practice vs. the running AIP soldiers in "crawl animation mode". Result: Targetable footprint is obviously the same as when crawling right from the start. Also contact markers reflect the AIP´s actual units stance (low). I paused the test game, quit, removed the 2 mod files and restarted. Previously crawling soldiers now back with running animations. Contact markers changed within 2-3 seconds to fully spotted (if not already fully spotted previously) and targetable footprint changed back to standing/running (for movement animations). All other unchanged actions run as usual (shooting/observing/cowering ect.) Interesting.... Files changed for the tests: "kar98k-crawl-long.ani" -> "kar98k-run-level-long.ani" "kar98k-crawl-short.ani" -> "kar98k-run-level-short.ani" (changes the majority of soldiers with just a rifle as main weapon, US, GE, CW)

Possible issues, if not a bug: The TacAI can´t plot a viable path to the (single) waypoint. The order execution is "paused" (P, or this ominous button) Or maybe of the latest 3.10 features: - Very heavily-laden soldiers cannot use Fast or sometimes even Quick moves. Had this happen once or twice, after I relieved a pillbox´s storage from too much ammo for too small a team. ^^ In that case, I couldn´t move the team away from the PB at all (after dismount), not just quick or fast.

One of the latest game additions I really like, is the addition of ammo crates, not just from the new supply trucks, but any vehicle that you start onmap in dismounted status. Mostly a scenario maker thing and useless for QB (I guess). Need a battle situation simulated that has onmap mortars, that are not to move, but have way above average ammo at hand, choose one the organic heavy weapons/mortar coy from certain mot. formations and place the trucks (or whatever) in dismounted status nearby. The real good thing with these, is that they do apply for automated ammo sharing. In the screenshot, there´s other single mortars outside the screen, as well as their ammo crates. Thus the odd HE figure (due to ammo sharing). The particular crate unit has normally additional 66 HE and a couple more WP, for each single mortar (in CMBN).

Yup, need better and more varied roofs for the modular buildings. Hard to find a roof that fits well with the facades, particularly the walled part of the roof. The MG module yet gives the best options overall and I now use it exclusively for map building. Industrial areas, or building hangars is also hard to pull off and one can only approximate, without modding.

Question to the pros. Beside PS CS, is there any other GFX prog that can properly read and write that version 4/5 BMP files? So far I just edited completely translucent (terrain) textures with an older Paintshop Pro version and v2.8.1 GIMP. They work ok in the game, but I also need something that enables me to work with alpha layers too!

Although that nicely setup key holed positions for certain units does not always work, cause individual soldiers will not always be at the same spot, as when initially set by face command. Large HMG teams are affected most. Thus I prefer the smaller ones, or cut crew by 50%. Me too supports the idea for friendly map edge settings having an influence on unit setup facings. ...erm ...as well as for units that retreat/rout.

Well described and yes to all basically! I find it still difficult to find the perfect test environment (map & forces) to evaluate what I observe. Currently I´m testing in Hot Seat mode, so I can truely compare what each side can see and what it is doing. I basically leave all units alone and in Iron difficulty mode, to achieve most meaningful results. It also makes a big difference for visibility of any infantry unit, in what sort of terrain spotters and to be sighted units are in (generally known), elevation levels (gk), having binoculars or not (gk), soft/suppression factors (gk) and distances between all units involved (gk). An important distance water mark lies at the 300m range (rifle range), from my observations. From 300m and up, spotting chances are greatly reduced (without binocs) and most (Tac AI) soldiers with rifles won´t engage at this range by themselves (and beeing more easily spotted). Soldiers with scoped rifles, some automatic rifles and lMG will do if a good target presents itself. With that many variables in effect it´s as said, hard to validate any the edited stance changes. I figured that medics in (original) kneel position are way harder to be spotted in trenches, foxholes and other good cover terrain, IF range to next hostile observer/shooter is beyond the 300m water mark. Some tactical measure for a human player to tend casualties halfway safely, would be for the tending unit to go on hide with very short 360° CA, distract any visible enemy unit that could interfere with buddy aiding, with a different friendly unit by either showing as target, and/or engaging with direct or area suppressive fire. Tending unit morale level is also of importance. A unit in nervous or cautious state will take some time, before one the soldiers attempts BA. Some units like small heavy weapons teams will never BA. In example a small HMG team (crew of 3-4, no ammo bearers) takes precedence in keeping the heavy weapon operational, as long as it´s in deployed mode. Even if a buddy aiding unit is in a "safe" environment, it can happen that BA is aborted by a stray bullet, ricochetting from a wall 100m away and finally falling into the near vicinity of the medic. Happens more oftenly if the medics unit is in not so good morale state. The examples given is for units that both contain the medic AND WIA/KIA, but also applies to BA generally (BA and WIA/KIA in different units). With all that variables given, it oftenly makes no big difference if a medic is kneeling or prone, but unless the BFC staff gives some details about that, I keep my main assumption that there is a disconnect between what the TacAI sees and what it actually can hit, due to (faked) stance change. I´m still in the middle of some extensive testing with different situations, so I can probably tell more at a later time. Note: I´m testing LOS and direct small arms fire vs. medics and any faked stance changes only. Indirect fire (HE) is yet an untested matter. Some non directly related findings during my test runs: Sniper teams (veteran+) work best at ranges between 300-400m (vs. infantry). They have good chances to hit (between 1-3 shots) at a static target, while not beeing spotted too easily in return. Don´t bother the targeted infantry unit with other friendly units by shooting at them, so the target units soldiers keep their heads up and do not cower. (More of an exploit vs. the AIP) With sniper team vs. spotted and stationary enemy infantry, you can deliberately pick off a particular enemy soldier by setting up a very narrow CA just on that particular soldier. Get rid of a nasty lMG gunner rather quickly or relieve the enemy of his squad/team leader by targeting the guy with the binocs (if he has any). Yet there´s no warranty that the sniper´s not picking an opportunity target, slightly outside the set CA. Works best around the mentioned 300m water mark, as otherwise it´s difficult to spot the squad leader at all, as he usually won´t reveal his position by shooting his SMG (<= 200m). If not already visible and spotted, get the enemy unit "activated" and showing itself by providing another friendly unit as target, far away (at least 2-3 action spots)from the snipers position, in order to not get affected from possible enemy return fire. The best sniper is at 300m +, not spotted in good concealment terrain and somewhat isolated from other friendlies.

Would be nice sometimes eyeballing the ground from individual soldiers viewpoint indeed. I guess with the current camera and optics setup in the game engine, putting the camera further down would lead to serious clipping geometry issues, as sometimes can be experienced when moving the cam close to objects. I help myself by (s key) moving the cam backwards from a certain viewpoint and then use the zoom key (x) to visually get back to that position again for getting halfway to eyeball level. Works best, when the terrain to the rear is sloping down or the unit is in the upper story of a building.

Blood and gore in games is somewhat problematic in different parts of the world, germany in particular. If you´re not a big selling company, it could hurt sales noticably I guess, if the audience is restricted by PEGI and such. I´d rather like BFC spend efforts on other parts of the game instead. Beside that, there could be room for some modding maybe, although personally my imagination is sufficient when it comes to watching the ptroopers fall and suffer.

With regard to standard cower animation, it apparently is one size fits all purpose, that doesn´t intersect with surrounding terrain like foxholes ect. too much. Possible hitboxes or silhouettes, can be roughly compared in the following screenshot (standard cower - edited cower), for which personally I would prefer the edited one, as it possibly gives a slightly better chance not to be hit where it hurts. I could imagine a more "realistic" cower to be one of the dead animations like this: This pic is from the german Reibert, showing a soldier taking full cover (Volle Deckung). "The soldier takes full cover, if he neither wants to shoot, nor needs to observe." Maybe not quite the same as beeing suppressed, or "cowering", but gives the idea about making itself a small target, as was taught to the greenest of soldier:

Thanks Mark! Every helping hand for getting these animation files more thoroughly tested, would be appreciated!

Thanks for additional links and interesting info from board members. Though it doesn´t clear up, whether hitboxes are used, or plain soldier geometry. I still believe, it´s the former. For definition of a "Hitbox" (From Valve Developer Community) https://developer.valvesoftware.com/wiki/Hitbox "A hitbox is an invisible box (or more often a series of boxes) which define the rough shape of a model for purposes of damage-based collision detection. A typical model within a game is much too high-poly to perform real-time hit calculations on, so hitboxes are used instead. A hitbox is different from a bounding box in that it is more complex and closer to the model's visible shape. The bounding box is used for movement-based collision detection, and is usually literally a single box." I just can encourage players to test both these animations vs. the AIP or H2H, as otherwise this remains a not so fruitful theorethical discussion only. I keep the reloading stance "mod" in the bag, as well as other candidates for increased self preservation, as it requires some more intensive testing. Just naming lMG/HMG assistants (loaders) as example, or whole HMG crews. The following pic gives the idea. (now diving into my foxhole.... )

Answered this in detail over here http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120405-question-about-infantry-animation-files/?p=1625543 I encourage testing and playing with this! It doesn´t break anything and when in doubt or don´t like it, simply delete the ani file (unarmed-tend to casualty.ani) from the data/z folder again. Same goes for the changed cower animation file (kar98k-cower.ani). Note: The cower filename is somewhat misleading, but actually this is the games generic file for ALL ingame cower animations, applied to germans and allies alike. Would like to get some more feedback about this, particularly whether the files also work in CMFI and CMRT (games I don´t have yet).

Yep, it looks regular, as it´s the animation taken from regular behavior, a soldier with actual weapon in hand simply lying prone (kar98k-idle-prone.ani), used for all nationalities soldiers. I would´ve prefered a soldier with just this animation, but also with head simply pressed to the ground (not looking forward as in this chosen animation), but it´s not available unfortunately. Personally I (always) found the standard cower animation looking overly dramatic, particularly with swinging back rifle 180° to the rear. Looks particularly bad (to me) with lMG and such. Whether this (original) is a realistic looking animation is not quite of concern, as BFC intention with this most likely was to give the player a quick assessment of a soldiers status (suppressed). Personally I´m totally fine with just having a look at the units suppression meter, as well as at individulal soldiers status (cowering) for my own troops to get a quick assessment. With regard to enemy units, I even consider this as increased realism, as you can´t see at a glance by taking notice of the standard cower animation, if the enemy (or parts of it) is heavily suppressed or not. Different sort of FOW so to say. At last it´s a matter of taste to use this or that animation style and I´m fairly sure that it hasn´t any other ingame effects, as there´s no actual stance change involved (prone = prone). Also doesn´t hurt transition animations (from any stance to cower and back). Only question to me remains, if size of hitbox around every individual soldier is either equal, or different (with lying prone as example). If it´s different and hitbox roughly coincides with an individual soldier outer geometry, then I´d dare to suspect, that the standard cower animation offers more of a targetable silhouette, than the chosen substitute animation. So if putting quick status assesment intent of an animation put aside, then I´d find it more realistic, if a cowering soldier would itself make an as small a target, as possible. These are questions only BFC authorities could answer. With regard to my medic animation substitute, my current "belief" is that the game keeps the actual spotting info from actual visible geometry of a soldier separated. In other words, although the medic is lying prone, the game assesses the medic still as in original kneeling stance (and tracks it as a shootable target). That´s hard to test, particularly in Iron mode, where I make almost all my testing. It´s still very much dependant where and in what hostile environment, a medic makes his buddy aid attempts. If it´s in a trench and the whole unit, where both the medic and WIA is part of is on "hide", chances are greatly decreased that the whole unit will attract incoming fire and the medic has greater chances, to actually complete and not break with his buddy aiding attempts (and start anew if situation permits). Currently, if a unit is on hide and not greatly suppressed by taking a loss previously, the medic will attempt buddy aid in kneel position and thus breaks the whole units hide attempt for quite a long duration. Getting back to your intial question, ...while the medic still might show his own (and his units presence) by the games internally recorded kneel stance, the actual medics prone stance geometry noticably decreases the enemies hit chances vs the medic. General survivability of a medic is noticeably increased, if remaining factors are favourable as well. A medic tending a WIA in coverless terrain, in full view of the enemy, won´t survive long, no matter if he´s in kneeling or lying stance. Whatever the reason was for BFC to apply a medic soldier the kneeling stance generally, I´d wish for future game revisions some more distinct medic animations/stances that better coincide with a units tactical circumstances. In example, a unit on hide should have the medic put to prone. Can´t tell if there´s ingame abstractions that already reflect certain circumstances invisibly, but from my observations and associated conclusions there´s quite a number, where this is not the case obviously. Not all is WYSIWYG, just like in the case of buildings, where windows and doors obviously are way larger than visible geometry would indicate. Or damaged buildings that offer far less protection for soldiers, although actual building geometry doesn´t quite support the impression. Maybe medics already receive some sort of abstracted protection/LOS modifier, but I just can´t observe it in my games. Generally, my "mod" is not a quite a mod. Rather a foundation for testing features that might become interesting for later game revisions. Or just trying different GFX for matters of taste, like it´s for other sorts of mods too. For animations that do not change stances or corrupt associated transition animations, personally I see no potential problems with it. Thanks for your feedback, Erwin! PS: *ani files go to data/z folder as any other modded game content. That info is part of the mod description at GAJ´s.

Cower and Medic animation replacements is now up at GAJ´s Mod Warehouse: http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods?game_type=5&show_all=true

Interesting find from the US FM 21-11, Basic Field Manual, First Aid for Soldiers, April 7, 1943 · 5. FIRST AID IN Combat - Successful accomplishment of the assigned mission is the aim of battle. The combat soldier will administer first aid only when he can do so without interfering with his combat duties. When administration of first aid in actual combat is possible, usually only those measures will be taken which are immediately necessary to save life. The wounded person should be placed where he is protected from enemy fire and the elements, marking the spot where he lies so that he can be easily found by Medical Department personnel. Think it´s exactly the guidelines that CM buddy aid is based on, thus it´s good and realistic. Edit: Another interesting read is FM 7-30, SUPPLY AND EVACUATION, THE INFANTRY REGIMENT; SERVICE COMPANY AND MEDICAL DETACHMENT Both FM´s can be found at: http://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/search/searchterm/First%20Aid%20for%20Soldiers/mode/all/order/nosort/page/2

Not aware of any leg length issues either, but surely would add some immersion if different soldier variations would make it into the game, with regard to soldier sizes and silhouttes. Like that fatty german soldier, drafted from rear area supply troops, skinny Hitlerjugend and stomach battalion heroes and such.

One thing terribly bothering me with tank crews and TC, is when in a tank with smoke mortar capabilities, like Shermans in CMBN and the TC got hit by small arms fire, then first reaction is to back up and pester the environment with heavy loads of smoke. I could understand it in the case of effective enemy AT fire, but small arms? The final effect is that for a couple of turns, nobody in the surrounding area of that tank will have LOS/LOF toward the source of small arms fire, particularly if it´s a previously spotted HMG or sniper, which otherwise could have been effectively dealt with either by the same tank, or nearby friendlies. I also noticed that smoke mortars and backing up will be used, if the TC is just beeing forced to button up, but not hit. Can´t tell if that´s anyhow tied to morale or experience levels, but I can´t imagine that it´s sort of SOP in WW2 under these circumstances.

As first step in assault games, I usually take long time to determine good spots for heavy weapons and FOs, that enable not just general overwatching, but also screening flanks beside the point of main effort, from further back. That´s an ongoing process during each step of an assault and before actual movement toward intermediate objectives. I like to use the HMG section HQs and any spared HQs with 1-2 binocs to recon the possibly good observation/overwatch points in no mans land and keep them nearby the assaulting troops. Reserve HMG, mortars and FOs follow in good cover and move "silently" into combat positions, once I ascertained with the HQ recon troops, that these new positions have useful LOS/LOF. If TRPs are available in the game, I also spare the majority of them for screening flanks beside the PME. It takes lots of patience to find and get support weapons to best positions, before moving assault troops any further. All that if terrain and available cover allows any such screening and overwatch methods. In dense terrain there´s not much choice, beside moving all support weapons with the assault troops. Quick reaction possibility then is more important, than careful reconnaissance, the more if the attacker is hurried due to short mission length times. More time then also needs to be spent beforehand to find the best spots for TRP beside the main attack route. Another point in CM battles is that these are isolated battles, that are taken out of a bigger frame. Usually there could be supporting attacks in the area just outside the map area (the flanks), or pinning forces. These could be just those troops that neutralize those enemy that is badly flanking the attackers movements and such. So a mission designer needs taking that invisible outside area into consideration as well, when setting up defending forces, as well as map and force sizes. Not much of concern for QB or freeform H2H engagements, but when playing a halfway historical pre set mission, I´d like things like that reflected both in mission briefing, as well as map size and force setup, so I don´t get the feel, my troops are the only ones battling along a ten miles frontline. Something is always going on at the (outside map area) flanks and has some effect on the actual battle.

Check track status! Obviously track got damaged while moving through low wall. That´s from first looks. Edit: If it´s not that (although damage status for tracks shows a dark dot), TC got casualty previously and tank crew is now on "nervous". Then it would be a morale issue.

Not necessarily to support my own views, or considering the game engine concept, yet an interesting excerpt from the book: Infantry Combat Medics in Europe, 1944–45 (Tracy Shilcutt) Chapter 3, Combat Reality page 50 Doc, as his unit called him, pressed into the earth as he crawled toward a wounded rifleman. German bullets slashed overhead in the darkening battleground and when he finally reached his buddy he knew he would have to work blindly as snipers fired at any light. His initial assessment indicated that he was dealing with a chest wound. So without benefit of sight, Private T. William Bossidy thrust grimy hands inside his comrade’s shirt, following the sticky trail of welling blood to the torn cavity. He could do no more than sprinkle sulfa powder in the wound and staunch the flow of blood before moving on to help other casualties. Doc Bossidy had in fact no education in the medical arts; his journey to the front as a replacement aid man for the 2d Division reflects the often disjointed yet pragmatic ways in which the Army cared for its combat wounded. His schooling in the mysteries of Spam and eggs at Camp Pickett provided absurd preparation for the lifesaving duties facing him as a company aid man. As the struggle for Europe intensified, the flood of casualties demanded additional front line medical personnel. In response, the Army pulled Bossidy and others like him from kitchens and typewriters, tasking them first with litter bearer’s work. But as the American forces pushed toward the Siegfried Line attrition among company aid men forced the erstwhile cooks and clerks to move beyond transporting the wounded to treating their injured and dying comrades. Following cursory field explanations of bandaging and morphine injections, Bossidy donned the brassards of a front line company aid man. As an initial caregiver, his new duties seemed deceptively simplistic: control bleeding, minimize shock, manage pain. But as he tended to his fellow soldiers he realized how external forces profoundly complicated his seemingly straightforward job. Bossidy’s story, while distinctive in its details, reflects in its whole the chaotic world of each company aid man as he confronted his own unique circumstances. As the first medical contact for the wounded, aid men worked independently of the BAS medical soldiers, traveling with and living among the infantry platoons. Whether trained in the United States or, as in Bossidy’s case, simply initiated on the field, company aid men in European campaigns learned that Army doctrine and training scarcely prepared them for the horrific realities of war. Successful medics rapidly adapted to combat conditions, insuring their own survival as well as that of their comrades. Learning on the go and under fire, they abandoned or radically modified prescribed medical techniques, discovered ways to utilize the changing terrains for their own protection and for the safety of the wounded, and coped with unanticipated long-term problems. Endowed with a spirit of pragmatism, Doc Bossidy, and the thousands of “Docs” like him, performed their crucial role in the crusade to liberate Europe despite the inadequate, or even absent, training.

Tell the medic guy in the pic! http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120321-buddy-aid-way-too-easy/?p=1622245 No seriously. What about a compromise? Let the wannabe medic go down in high threat situations and keep it the way it is in less hot areas. Oddly enough, the kneeling medics keep patching up wounded under direct fire, while oftentimes a ricochetted bullet from afar landing in their vicinity, makes them go down (and break off buddy aiding). Maybe tied to whole unit morale level (cautious, rattled...), I don´t know. Beside that, ...I have my medic now who shows a bit more self preservance, without BFC required to change anything. Relax!

So here´s the procedures for everybody to try yourself: Buddy Aid: Rezexplode the "Normandy v100A.brz" file from Data folder, look in animations/unarmed, rename the "unarmed-idle-prone.ani" file to "unarmed-tend to casualty.ani" and drop that into data/z folder = prone lying medic. He won´t that die that often anymore. Cower: Same as above, but rename "kar98k-idle-prone.ani" to "kar98k-cower.ani" (both in k98k folder) and drop into data/z. Reloading, one stance lower: Folders (in animation): bar, bazooka, kar98k, m240, mg42, mp40, mp44, panzerschreck, piat, pistol, sten and thompson. Ani files are distributed amongst "Normandy v110.brz" (base), "Normandy v111.brz", "Normandy v200.brz" (contains major animation file update), "normandy v210.brz" and "Normandy v211.brz". Rezexplode them all subsequentially (assuming you have ALL game updates, as well as CW and MG modules installed) and copy the animations folder to a seperate place. Copy any animation file updates (from BRZ file list above) over older animation folder, until you have just the latest files available and ready for the renaming procedure. Now go to the individual weapons animation folders (list above) and look for the files with "reload" in file name. I.E there´s 9 times a "reload" file in k98k folder (reload prone, reload kneel, reload stand, a-b-c). Copy the reload prone files to a seperate folder. Rename the prone files to corresponding kneel file names (i.e "kar98k-reload-a-prone.ani" to "kar98k-reload-a-kneel.ani"). Now put the original kneel files into a temp folder and rename them to corresponding stand files (i.e "kar98k-reload-a-kneel.ani" to "kar98k-reload-a-stand.ani"). This leaves up to 6 renamed files from every suitable weapons animations folder (rifles, lMG, SMG and zooks), to be copied or rezpacked into the data/z folder. If all done right, reloading soldiers in stand stance, will play the reloading in kneel stance animation, reloading in kneel stance will use reloading in prone stance animation. Reloading prone is unchanged and unaffected. I did not tinker with any of the HMG (heavy) animation, nor other files, not related to reload. The reload animation files contain the full clip/magazine reload actions, not to be confused with single round reload (bolt action). Reloading rifle grenades is affected as well, as is Zooks/Schrecks, when files are renamed from the appropiate folders. I haven´t had any game crashes or "broken" animation sequences, although some transitions could be a bit "dirty". Do at your own risk. Hope the instructions are clear enough for everyone to experiment with and have fun with results.