RockinHarry

From watching import video he says Wiltz map (960x960m) takes about 1-2 hours to import. Exporting process seems to be much faster. Interesting tool for sure. :cool:

How long did you wait after the 39% mark? I too thought I couldn´t load initially, but could progress after some time (5-10minutes AFAIK). Or did you receive an OOM?

+1 With regard to 2., I´d also wish for a heightmap/terrain map import solution that numerous other games use for 3D landscape creation. These to be imported maps could be prepared (for import) in external applications, of which most are freely available in the net (Gimp, L3DT to name a few). Currently the map editor is highly unsuited for recreation of historical landscapes, particularly the larger ones. I do neither have a printer or dual monitor setup and very limited time to work on historical landscape stuff with the current map editor layout, thus sticking to experimental and fantasy maps for the time beeing. What about a switchable 1km grid and 100m sub grid overlay visible in each 2D zoom level? I currently use an expedient made of differently painted gound tiles for a prototype map. The gray lines is the 1km grid. Roman I-I indicates the x1000 - y1000m position: Note: I´ll use this pure sand map for creation of contours first. It´s faster to work with, particularly on larger maps, when there´s no foliage and grass yet, which can be added, once the contours are done. While we´re at it: What about a delete whole map function with a particular terrain type? "New" creates a 320x320m default map with a number of grass types. I´d like to change the "default" to any size map / terrain type with a single click, when so desired. In example "new map" of 2048x2048m size, plain grass1 (or any other). I´d also like to have an option to place damaged trees. Could be "easily" implemented by use of the crater tiles worked on the terrain in question. I´d imagine this to be a mode selector, where placing craters works either without damaging objects, or with each subsequnt click does more damage. In the trees example: 1 click = few branches removed, 2nd click more branches removed, 3rd click = just the stump(s) remain. The routines are basically in the game yet, as shelling forrested areas proof. Thinking about this more, a simple DAMAGE (objects) routine should even work better, so you can place craters independently from damaged objects in the same AS. This enables using craters as expedient foxholes in an otherwise undamaged forest. so far....

That´s how it actually worked RL, by german WW2 squad level doctrine. It was either the SL or a dedicated squad member who was given task observing (with binocs given to him), while the remaning squad stayed in cover and concealment.

Strange....german Paras still aren´t included. At given time frame (june - august 44), germans had how many Para Divisions or parts of involved in normandy? 2-3? Allies didn´t have more (82th, 101st and Brits 6th) at that time, but they´re in. :confused: Guess we´ll see them in MG module then.

Might be true at instances for building/rubble parts that have walls & boundaries intersecting the center of an action spot. That´s for buildings/rubble that in map editor are placed "off center", partly covering just halfs or quarters of neighboring action spots. Also counts for some of the diagonal type structures. Otherwise I did not experience difficulties with infantry moving into rubble so far.

With regard to 5e (mortar vs. bunker) this needs to be elaborated. Generally the structure itself is almost mortar proof. See this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pOxaxviGEI The weak points basically is apertures which offer a large entry for splinters from any sort of HE near misses and occasional direct hits. There´s also rare instances that shells appear to find entry through actual gaps in the 3D geometry of the wooden shelter type.

You can at least expand the voices list the game draws from, by renaming files and add to those you like. Most categories have around 10 or more and by using subsequent numbers you can have as many as you like.:cool:

Don´t make too many outside CM plans for 2012!

That indicates that most were held back, since these can´t be used effectively in normandy hedgerow combat. Panzer Lehr already lost many of the APCs on the march to the frontlines due to heavy air attacks.

Highest available number of around 10.000 surprisingly was in september 1944, but the same source said only 20% of needed were in the frontline units. Sure, losses were always high and there were possibly 30-40% in maintanance and depots, as was with other german armor usually.

Placeholder sorts of...or training dress? Germans had something like that too...

Nice....but where´s the list of game engine fixes and improvements in there? Rather waiting for patch anouncements in the meantime.

Thanks again for making our toys more lifelike! :cool:

I´d say unboarding procedure mostly was dictated by tactical situation. If speed and exploitation of a fortunate tactical situation was essential (the YT training video shows such) then unboarding over side walls would have had benefits. Guess that happened more oftenly in the 1941-43 period, when germans had yet opportunities to attack with halfway sufficiently equipped and experienced Panzergrenadier units. This would be mostly short range objectives, seizure of lightly to non defended key terrain, like bridges, heights and such. Or as demonstrated in the YT training video, the break in to an enemy position where defenders are already heavily supressed and lack means of effective AT weapons. In 1944-45 there were surely less opportunities for germans to apply aggressive Panzergrenadier tactics in the face of well equipped allied troops. Also with germans having lost most to all of their experienced Panzergrenadier infantry in the preceding war years, lack of Schutzenpanzers, fuel ect. it´s more likely that germans used their remaining assets more carefully generally. Also depended upon individual leader aggressiveness and tactical skill. So I´d say unboarding via rear door was the more common procedure under 1944-45 battle conditions for germans, unless experienced, aggressive leaders and troops were involved and short range battle situations demand speed and quick exploitation.

I´d conclude that single Panzerfaust teams (1-2 men) s/b allowed to shoot from buildings, but not larger teams or whole squads. Could possibly be combined with a slight suppression and yellow injured state chance. I´ve yet to find evidences of common usage of Schrecks/Zooks to be fired from within buildings though.

German defensive fire plans were worked out on all levels, incl. squad positions and single heavy weapons. It wouldn´t be unusual to have dozens of TRPs for an elaborate defense, although CMBN (and CMX1) just has a generic type, which can be used for all weapons and units....as long as they don´t move since initial deployment I think.

Nogo http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1320203&postcount=85

Normally one sees something like that if placed outside setup zones.

I checked situation in editor again and figured the craters (3 L) weren´t in the foxhole AS, but next to it. So obviously one tiny crater spilled over into the foxhole AS and made it a preference cover for any infantry attempting to move into the foxhole. Same happens with M type craters. They´re also much prefered before foxholes. Note: Tested with craters placed in editor only, but likely happens with craters created during live play too. Can any body confirm?

Sometimes, when reacting to enemies or when attempting buddy aid, they appear to sort themselves within the action spot (temporarily neglecting cover), in order to prepare moving into final individual positions. Likely a micro path finding or collision avoiding issue.

And yet another example on same foxhole. A reduced squad of six moved in. Squad leader (1) and second (2) occupy the tiny foxhole, 3 is also hesitant, while 4-5-6 stay in the next action spot. If moving the same squad into a nearby foxhole without crater, they have no problem positioning. Edit: I erred here. While plotting the move of the 6 men squad into the foxhole, I didn´t notice that 2 action spots (one for 1-2-3 and one for 4-5-6) were highligthed. If splitting the squad into two 3 men teams, they´d move all into the AS with the foxhole, but still with 1-2-3 having a preference for the tiny foxhole. Somehow the game still treats reduced strength squads to occupy more than the necessary single action spot. Think that has been reported before.

Just made another small observation. I tested some with moving teams to foxholes and wondered that teams moving into a particular foxhole position, always decided to stay outside. Repeated that a number of times until I noticed there was a tiny crater just beside one foxhole, which single soldiers always prefered to move to, insted of into the foxhole. Might be a bug...:confused:

"Face" is a bit tricky. It´s not simply about all guys looking north, south and such, but relates absolutely on the action spot you clicked after "Face". Makes a big difference whether you click the next action spot 8m away, or another one 800m away. It´s more of a "seek cover" vs. FACE clicked action spot and also works on enemy unit icons when clicked.

Interestingly, I could load the map in 3D! surprise...surprise :eek: For likely october-november battles you can delete crop fields with more plowed ones and dirt, as well as mix light forest with dirt at a 1:1 rate. Correct tree type for most of the forests would be Tree_E. Otherwise nice effort! :cool: What reference maps did you use?