RockinHarry

Leave as is, but make the suicidal helper go down while patching up some. Yeah...me again.

1 : 1 battlefield portrayal.... yet there are already a number of abstractions in the game (windows and doors in buildings, are not quite 1:1, as well as is interiors..) and there´s room for some more IMO. Going underground in 1 :1 surely is a tricky affair and with regard to cellars I could envision a variation of CMX1 "sewer movement", where units are abstractly cached to somewhere outside the exterior 3D game world. An assortment of buildings could receive an "enter basement" option, where units could be cached away in order to receive (limited) protection and maybe morale benefits from any uncomfortable actions (HE chucking) above. A heavy direct hit by high angle HE fire might KIA or MIA the cached unit by dice roll, as would collapsing the whole building above. Possible direct combat with enemy units above would be the more tricky part IMO. If the small battle is an isolated one with just the cached unit in the cellar and an enemy unit in 1st floor, then combat resolve can be abstracted as well, with very high chance of quick surrender of the unit in the basement. But raises a number of questions: Can the cached unit hide and by chance avoid direct combat? Can it move out, while yet beeing undetected? Can an enemy unit enter the basement same time, not aware of an opposing unit down there? What happens in multiple engagements with units within and outside the building? ... Requires a set of restrictive rules (while cutting some realism) to get some these situations resolved in satisfactory manner. At last it will all fail if 1 :1 battlefield portrayal will be kept the way it is. Another method to preserve 1 :1 portrayel could be to add a small game within the game (like interior and exterior cells in games like Fallout, Skyrim and the like), that temporarily leaves the normal game to resolve a combat situation that can´t be otherwise portrayed within the normal 3D environment. Candidates for this could be combat in any interiors, close combat (hand to hand combat), close assaults on tanks and the like. The player could be informed live about any such "special events" about to happen and given the choice to temporarily switch to this isolated 3D module (while freezing or extrapolating the outside 3D world), OR keeping the abstractions for these events (if implemented), while continuing the game normally. I see this all is stuff for game engine 10.0, while thinking about it more, but it´s fun.

I have no doubt, that it´s a translation error: 8. ... the half (for firing!) and all out forward. This is the basic principal of tank combat! ... the halt ( german original most likely was "Schiesshalt" = stop to fire ) and full speed forward. and to clear up 14. "When your attack must pass potential enemy tank positions, for instance a woodline, you should either pass by them so closely that you are inside their minimum range, or remain so far away that you are outside their maximum effective range." Minimum range = most likely the range that a potential enemy (tank) gunner needs to effectively aim at a passing by vehicle at great speed. Would be interesting to test "minimum range" for the various weapon systems in the game...

Unfortunately only paying members at that german site (military relic hunters and collectors) can see full size images, but from the given assortment of thumbs it´s just a handful of selected pages that do not help much anyway.

Whoever translated from german original first, took a bit of freedom, while also doing some translational errors. The retranslated version to german on the 501 Tiger page, also got some the same errors obviously, although I just could judge from a single "original" page containing paragraph 15, to be found here: http://www.hermann-historica.de/auktion/hhm67.pl?f=NR_LOT&c=6031&t=temartic_R_GB&db=kat67_r.txt 15. "Angreifende Feind-Panzer darfst du nie angreifen, da sie dich dann vorzeitig sehen und deine Stärke erkennen, ehe du ihnen Schaden zufügen kannst; vielmehr mußt du geschickt ausweichen, um sie in einer günstigen Feuerstellung auflaufen zu lassen und sie dann überraschend in der Flanke oder Rücken anzugreifen und zu vernichten. Geschlagenen Panzerfeind mußt du aus eigenem Entschluß rücksichtslos verfolgen!" It can be assumed, that many translational errors made it into the remaining text as well. I have an original german tank training manual, as well as other sources that state, that offensive tank combat movements are either from full stop (for firing) or full speed to reach the next combat position.

Think it´s also similar to "normal" vehicles, that there´s a difference with "crew" and "riders". I think the first unit to occupy a pillbox is the actual "crew" and any unit entering, taking remaining seats (9 max), is treated somewhat differently. I seem to remember that at one time, at least the "riders" can be ordered to hide, although this was never presented visually? Personally I don´t like the way pillboxes are modelled in the game and just a limited amount of historical engagements involving fortifications, can be recreated halfway realistic. I keep voting for a "neutral" structure, like a hardenend building instead, usable by both opponents if occupied. Doesn´t need to replace the current vehicle pillboxes entirely, but could make at least a scenario maker object to toy with and see if it could work in general.

Did check moon phases for 1944 some time ago and found them to be correct in the game according to this table (in german). In example at D-Day there was full moon, at June 20th new moon and so on. Lighting conditions change accordingly, although it´s not visually apparent in the game. http://www.wissen-info.de/kalender/mondphasen/1944.php

Enhanced pathing for individual units in groups between zones, is my current No #1 wish. This currently is the main hindrance for me to get something usable out of the AI editor capabilities, when it comes to setting up a non static AI opponent in my scenarios under development. Here´s a sketch showing the problematic and obviously plain random based AI movement schemes: ( yellow = Zones for group movement orders, A-B-C = infantry squads of a platoon in example group, Arrows = Movement paths from setup zone to movement zone/order #1 and #2 for squads A-B-C ) I´ll elaborate some more if the issue catches some interest, or the (bad) consequences of the movement schemes aren´t clear enough.

Current dynamic change of ground condition attributes works quite ok IMO. What lacks as said is dynamic visual changes, or at least another preset that supports different looks in rainy/wet weather. What already works in the game, is change of shader settings during game play (Movie lighting Alt-M and Artificially bright night Alt - B ). Maybe the use of additional shaders and switches does the purpose better than (pre-) loading hundred MB´s of altered terrain and object texture sets?

As related feature I could imagine changing appearance of object and terrain textures in wet weather conditions. Soaked uniforms, earth and brickworks appear of darker color. Some smooth surfaces become shiny. Some water puddles here and there support the impression. An alternate texure set would do generally (or mod tagging as workaround), but maybe a different shader setting would do even better? Is the *.frag and *.vert files moddable btw?

With bits of patience, "free move" (ALT + Click) and nudging 1m increments (SHIFT + Click) does it halfways well. "Free move" holds and releases the pivotal point of posters (and other doodads), so an offset needs to be taken into account, when clicking the map. Best to first position the doodad (poster) with ALT-Click looking parallel to a wall, looking on the "thin" side of the poster, until it alomost matches and then SHIFT-Click it in 1m increments "along" the wall, til it also matches frontally.

Not bad...not bad! If working on the SdKfz 251 hulls textures some, it could resemble real life pontoons even more!

Rather the contrary (a big, easy to spot and to hit target). A game design decision, that might help the AIP somewhat with the HMG42 team, but for human players it´s rather an annoyance. Interestingly there´s a HMG42 in the Fallschirmjagers OOB, that has it´s gunner and ammo bearer teams seperated! ^^

I oftentimes have some the pixeltroopers not going directly into the foxholes, when there´s other protective terrain (elements) in the same action spot. That´s oftenly small craters (from mortars i.e) or slopes (if the AS with the FH is in a depression, or adjacent to an embankment), as well as road ditches. The tac AI considers these oftentimes as being more protective than a FH, dependent upon particular situation, which can be a spotted enemy, but also a previously used face command.

If at all, it was rather an operational walkover, but on CM tactical scale, I could imagine many interesting engagements between 2 worthy opponents, that I wouldn´t suppose one sided. Not to forget dutch, belgian and BEF forces!

Great work JuJu! +1

Dragon teeth would be nice to have, but BFC likely would make them non destructible by means of blasting during usual game time frames of 1-2 hours. From my readings it first required a secured part of area with DT, for engineers and bulldozers to start creating a single lane path for vehicle traversing. That´s at least a multi hour/half day affair with no german interference. On the opposite, the steel gates/barriers, closing gaps in the DT line (along roads) were blasted rather quickly with TNT, so this should be an option to be included in the game as well. Into the same category fall the various, more or less elaborately constructed tank obstacles (AT ditches excl.) the germans placed at town entries, along forest roads and such. Would like to see these included in Bulge too, beside the more generic hedgehog obstacles. With regard to pillboxes and future, I could imagine pillboxes to be a new sort of hardened, modular buildings, with configurable apertures and doors, so that anything from single 8x8m to multi tile structures can be created. Off course there would be the issue with FOW, but unless something is more elaborately worked out for a V4.0 game engine, personally I would be satisfied with a pillbox type building, that works like the modular buildings in V3.0 and is visible to both game opponents, incl the AI. Opinions?

Hope that also some badly needed attention is given to develop new pillboxes and overhead covered foxholes/trenches, to make combat for fortified positions, particularly the Siegfried line, a more realistic experience, than it is now with V3.0 CMBN! Honestly, ...the current pillboxes and shelter thingies, simply don´t work. We need neutral objects, that can be entered and used by all parties, until they´re blown up by lots of TNT. During the siegfried line campaign, countless hardened structures were engaged, captured, lost, recaptured and used, by both the western allies and germans. Can´t imagine to recreate any such battles and situations with the current immobile vehicle type oddities. There´s no realistic Ardennes, or Hurtgen forest combat with entrenchements, that are death traps to tree and air bursts, as they are now. There was some good suggestion in the forum to vary entrenchement types by applying an "experience" soft factor to them. So a "veteran" foxhole type might have added some log and earth cover, to provide overhead protection against shrapnel and medium mortar direct hits, while "regular" and below means, it does have not. Another overhaul for a new game family deserves heavy buildings to be treated as more massive and having basements, or half basements, to offer better protection vs artillery and bombs, as well as providing well covered fire positions (from half basements). I´d also wish for more and larger types of trees, incl. fir trees that extend branches to close to above the ground. With the current assortment of trees (in CMBN V3.x), forestst are still too open and lack a realistically varied look. These would be some new features that would make me interested to invest in the Bulge family. New vehicles and OOB´s of the period and autumn/winter textures ain´t enough for me.

Think one could hide a platoon of tanks and a company of infantry in there.

Did some more tests with the P47D dropping the 1000lb AN-M44 bombs. On my urban map, the craters are around 28m (92 feet) in diameter and 4-5m (~15 feet). Measured with the targeting tool, while having an infantry unit moved into the crater. Also the blast effect isn´t quite to what I would expect by size of explosion and crater size. My urban test map was started in mid 2011 and worked over since repeatedly. Maybe some the V3.11 game routines dealing with large explosives and terrain aren´t quite compatible with older maps, started pre V2.x On a new plain V3.11 test map, the AN-M44 craters are still oversized ( ~20m x 4m ), though not quite as much as on the urban map. Here some data from Terminal Ballistic Data Vol.1 to compare:

XXL size crater, or what!? ...after a P-47D dropping a single ANM-44 439kg piece.

If it´s just for movement purposes and with no early attempt to settle down within any action spot, just make sure the ptroopers do Not reach their destination AS And deploy! That means, before reaching the destination AS, either pause or cancel any movement orders midway, or alternatively shift the last waypoint further along the intended movement axis and again, make sure the destination AS won´t be reached during the current action phase.

However, ditches in CMX2, although deforming the terrain the same as in CMSF, the path finding and "cover" routines are Not taken over into the WW2 series, which is a pity. Thus, ditches are very much unusable and the Ptroopers simply don´t know, how to use them in any meaningful way.

With some very tricky horizon map modding. :eek: Who knows...

Do you get mud working for sloped and piled rubble tiles, particularly when using ditch lock in the range +1 to +2m, or more?