General Jack Ripper

Well, that's a picture to haunt my nightmares. Anyway, check this out, this MRE is almost as old as I am.

I think this documentary is the best one Ken Burns has made. I was reduced to tears on many occasions.

If all the threads that should be stickied were stickied, then you'd have to go to page 50 to read anything new.

Same with North Korea. Funny, that.

I'm putting a brief explanation of linear danger area into the next video, but you can also see a bit from my TTP videos. I recorded an hour of gameplay on Monday, but I need to edit video parts out of it, so I'll have some Cold Waters videos going up for the next few weeks. If you hold your demo charges until you "absolutely" need them, then you'll never use them. Remember, any enemy troops inside the building will be immediately suppressed by the blast, even guys on upper floors will get a piece of it. Blasting down the wall is the absolute safest way to enter an occupied building, bar none. Of course, sometimes I just like to blow things up, too. Never count that bit out. When hunting up a multi-story building, I want them to get to the top, and not stop unless they come under fire. Observation is secondary to reaching their destination safely. For example, the large tower at the mosque really only has good windows at the top, so there's no need to use any other floor as an O.P. ...and thanks. You've thanked me enough already. Now, allow me to thank you for a fiendishly nerve-wracking scenario. I too am looking forward to how my more "environmentally friendly" approach will work out. Drones used for delivery are pre-programmed with their flight path instructions, and are entirely automated. They require no remote control assistance.

Indeed. Life came at me quite quickly, and shows no sign of letting up, but now that I have a library of videos to keep my subscribers busy, I'll have some time to dedicate to the next part. Thanks for watching, and I'm glad you enjoyed things so far.

If you want some context:

Let me check my favorites list for something new... ... ah, here it is:

Part five will be published on Saturday.

I figure I'd share my videos of this here, since some of you old guys don't know how to work YouTube: There are five parts so far, all taken from a single two-hour game session then cut into smaller chunks. There shouldn't be any major spoilers, because the scenario is still near the beginning, but it should give you some idea as to the size and scale of the map, and the gear you have to work with.

Just FYI, I've submitted the CMFI.exe to Microsoft as a false flag. Hopefully, someone might do something about it.

This is all well and good, but you might want to re-check the typing on your thread tags.

I do think the equipment quality would be something that gets fixed up. The old system allowed separate settings while purchasing, and then modifying purchased units. For example, you set equipment quality to "Poor" when purchasing a formation, then set it to "Good" to reflect the fact they're equipped with old weapons, but are keeping them in good shape. Thankfully, that system was excised when CMBN came around.

I was shooting for more "current issues that can be fixed" rather than "features we would like to see implemented at a future date". That being said, I completely agree with everything on your list, aside from #1. Not because ACQUIRE doesn't need work, but because the issue you have raised isn't important. The two turns it requires to split a squad, acquire ammo, then merge a squad IS the time penalty you suffer for having dudes break open ammo cartons, and pass it out to their buddies. There is no need to model it any other way, IMO.

Just place your combat mission installation folders under the list of exceptions. Settings> Exclusions> Exclude a Folder> Specify CM installation folder, in my case (D:\Battlefront Games) which houses all my Combat Mission games.

Instead of having a wish list of features we all know won't be put into the game , instead I thought it might be more productive if we could assemble a list of issues that are in need of fixing, with the hopes that some bug squashing, or missing features might instead be fixed or added into CMSF2. To begin, one of the oldest missing features in all of CMx2, the Recon Variant of the Humvee, with it's large mounted optical device, does not function. At all. I'd like to see this thing actually working in CMSF2. Also, I've noticed that the mast-mounted primary gunner sight on the Marder 1A3 does not function either. Placing the vehicle, buttoned up, hull down to an enemy vehicle no more than 100 meters away on an open, flat surface, leads to no positive contact at all, despite the large optic looking directly at the enemy. Anyway, I was wondering if anyone else had noticed issues like these, or had some old bugs they would like to see squashed.

I'm always in favor of more expansive resupply options, of any type.

I haven't thrown in the towel, I've merely hung it up to dry.

1. You are basing this assessment on what, exactly? I am not arguing MAXIMUM RANGE, I am arguing BATTLE SIGHT range. The TAC Ai in the game does not care one bit about maximum range. The Game Manual lists the effective range of the M1 Garand at 440 yards (402 meters) and it lists the effective range of the Carcano M1891/41 at 600 meters. 600 meters, is LONGER than 402 meters. So... WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT HERE? 2. You, yourself have no hard data, but your "gut feeling" seems to do just fine for you? 3. Shooting matches are not Combat Mission. 4. The words "battlesight zero" did not once leave my fingertips, until right now. Once again, you are confusing Battle Sight Range, with Adjust Sight Range. 5. Once again, your "gut feeling" seems to count for an awful lot here. 6. The bullet design itself is superior to the 6.5mm. That is readily apparent by simply looking at it, the replacement of the older "Alaska" bullet with a new "Spitzer" bullet is a no-brainer. The first thing you need to know is, your firsthand experience shooting a rifle doesn't count for two bags of snot when playing a game. Italian riflemen DO open fire at longer ranges than their opponents. This firsthand observation of in-game behavior is not changed one bit by anything you have said here. Now the fault is mine for trying to drag real world opinions into this discussion, and for that, I apologize. This should have been kept to a discussion about IN GAME observations only. I do have a tendency to get sidetracked easily, which is why I avoid discussions such as these as much as possible. My simple attempt to add a small piece of useful knowledge to a thread went out of control very quickly, didn't it? The second thing you need to know is, internet isn't real. If you get angry because of a discussion on an internet forum, you ought to re-examine your life.

Well if you can find ballistics charts, by all means post them. They don't seem to exist in any place I can find. Most of my google searches turn up nothing more than the Wikipedia entry, aside from a book I'm not going to buy. http://www.schifferbooks.com/the-model-1891-carcano-rifle-a-detailed-developmental-and-production-history-5898.html C&Rsenal shoot every weapon they test on their own range, using period ammunition. All opinions expressed about weapons are from their own experiences, shooting and comparing hundreds of weapons. However, I do trust their opinion, and their work.

http://candrsenal.com/rifle-italian-carcano-m1891/ "While it is true these low caliber rounds lacked “knock down power” they traded it for the advantages of requiring less production material, being easier to pack and carry, maintaining a flatter trajectory over distance, having superior penetration at range, lower recoil easing follow up shots, and less muzzle flash to give away the shooter." My point is, such things are noticeable in CMFI, and there is a clear difference in performance between the M1903's .30-06 and Carcano's 6.5mm. The M1 Garand is an obvious overmatch, given it's greater volume of fire, but I have noticed Italian riflemen tend to open fire at slightly longer ranges than those of other countries. The battlesight range I was referring to is the range at which one can aim at the breastbone of the enemy, and without using the adjustable sights, strike him between the top of his head, and belt buckle. With it's flatter trajectory at normal engagement ranges, the Carcano has a longer battlesight range. I'm not talking about maximum range, I'm talking about the useful firefight range. Yes, the 7.35x51mm would have been an excellent round, if Italian industry could have produced it in sufficient numbers. The reason the Italians switched from the M38 Carbine back to the M98 long rifle, was precisely because of the loss of accuracy at the long ranges fighting occurred in Africa.

I'm not talking about the M38. The rifle in CM:FI is the M98/41.

If I could add one small thing, be mindful of the difference in small arms. 6.5mm is small bore, but very high velocity. These rifles the Italians use were intended for use in mountain terrain, where very long line of sight is common, I.E. from one side of a valley to another. They have a longer battlesight range, and can lay down effective fire at slightly longer ranges than equivalent rifles, like the 7.62mm. I'm only talking about maybe an extra 100 meters, but if the TAC AI is capable of recognizing it, you can expect to send and receive rifle fire at ranges you would not be used to fighting against the Germans. I have not thoroughly tested the Carcano against the Springfield yet, but I have already noticed a difference in ballistic performance from the few battles I've fought against the Italians.

Welcome to the forums, and no, write as much as you want.