Ant

stikkypixie Your e-mail link says you've hidden your e-mail address. You can e-mail me at: ant_martin@btopenworld.com and I'll attach the file on a reply.

I won't. I'll drop him a copy too

I don't have a link as I'm afraid I can't remember where I got it in the first place. I'll send it to you when I get home from work.

If you have difficulties finding it let me know and I can e-mail you a copy if you want.

Sorry Michael but I don't understand your post. After CMAK comes out the existing CM engine is effectively dead and BFC are then going to work on CMX2, which will be a completely new engine and therefore theoretically capable of doing anything they want it to. I'm not saying it shouldn't be WW2 but if they decide to make it post WW2 there's nothing stopping them.

I tend to vary my PC gaming between wargames and lots of other genres so I never really get burned out but I definitely see what you're saying. WW2 seems to get way more than its fair share of coverage for wargames, or at least the better/more popular wargames and I'd like to see something different occasionally. Having said that if it's a good game the setting shouldn't make much of a difference. Look at STW. I mean who the heck knew or even cared about shogun wars in ancient Japan but the game was a hit anyway because it was basically a good game. I'd certainly like to see CMX2 have the ability to model more modern conflicts but given the quality of the CM games I'm willing to bet that I'll enjoy CMX2 just as much even if they do stick to WW2

You can have proper SS in CDV versions, too. There exists a patch. </font>

:confused: 'Prisoners, ex-prisoners, forward controllers, and unarmed vehicles exert no control over flags. Crews do but you need several to reach the threashold' :confused: Well, that's what it says in the European CDV manual anyway Are you referring to the shift-V command which turns vehicles off?

OK. Thanks

Mr.Picklehaube would like to point out that the abbey itself was never fought over. </font>

What the heck are waffen SS anyway?..........oh, you mean waffengrenadiers Having bought both CMBO and CMBB through CDV I'm looking forward to havin proper SS in CMAK

But those all looked suspiciously like M3s [/QB]</font>

Pah, rubbish! I've seen all those North Africa war films.....there were halftracks everywhere. Every German soldier had his own Seriously though those are interesting figures. I wonder if CMAK will refect those with rarity values? [ October 15, 2003, 05:27 AM: Message edited by: Ant ]

The more common unofficial name for the F-16 in the USAF is the 'viper'

Interesting page on Afrika corps uniforms. http://www.diggerhistory.info/pages-uniforms/afrika_korps.htm

I'm not sure what he's actually saying either :confused: My HQ units can call on mortar fire support just fine without firing their own weapons. As long as the HQ has LOS to the taget of course, and as long as the mortar is in command range.

LOL. We're downloading the mods before the game even comes out

I'd like the option of being able to see the aircraft too. I've seen lots of WW2 footage of German soldiers watching their own stukas at work and it'd be fun to see that in a CM game as well........until your stukas come down and start bombing your own positions :mad: Oh, and can we tweak friendly fire a bit please

In CMBO the AFVs that the British and Americans both used often had common textures. With the result that, for example, if I used a texture set for a British armoured brigade Sherman, then that Sherman would also show up sporting British markings when I was playing a scenario as US forces. And vice versa. Will all British and US vehicles in CMAK have their own separate textures even if they are identical vehicle types?

Did anybody play the 'Hot war' mod for Talonsoft's Western front? That was an excellent unofficial add-on to play those hypothetical battles between the USSR and the western allies.

Unfortunately, I did not find any example to back up your definition (coaxial cables, coaxial cylinders, etc. all have the same axis) However, I found the following: adj: having a common axis [syn: coaxal] And from The Collins English Dictionary 1) having or mounted on a common axis 2) (Geometry) (of a set of circles) having the same radical axis 3) (Electronics) formed from, using, or connected to a coaxial cable Regards, Thomm </font>

Well I'm sure, and co-axial is perfectly valid.

I very much doubt that we'll have those helmet feathers. The trouble is that unless we have a 3d model for the feathers they'll just look totally stupid stuck on the side of the helmet as a texture, and I can't see BFC doing 3D helmet feathers.

I very much doubt that we'll have those helmet feathers. The trouble is that unless we have a 3d model for the feathers they'll just look totally stupid stuck on the side of the helmet as a texture, and I can't see BFC doing 3D helmet feathers.

Sorry to be picky but I disagree with your mathmatical principles there. You're probably thinking of an 'axis of rotation' which is not what's meant here. If you imagine a tank with the turret in the forward position, then we can call the 'front to back' direction the X axis. The side to side direction the Y axis and the top to bottom direction the Z axis. Just because the MG has a different position on the Y axis to the main gun doesn't mean it's not coaxial in relation to the X axis. Using the same principle of axes to the turret only it is quite correct to call the MG coaxial because it fires along the same axis as the main gun. Just because it has a different position in relation to a different spatial axis doesn't invalidate the term in this instance. Sorry but somebody else got picky with the grammar so I thought I'd have a go at the maths