GreenAsJade

I can imagine that this issue is dealt with in the "official patch thread". Sorry I haven't searched through there - we seem to need a "Reader's Digest Official Patch Thread"! Anyhow, how many enemy AC's can you see in this picture: Now try this: This edit is to emphasis that the two pictures are taken of the same game at the same time. Apart from a slight (accidental) move of the screen and deselecting the visible AC, the only real difference is that in the second picture I turned on "fast and compatible dust/smoke" mode. In playing this scenario, it's the first time I've switched on F&C smoke, and I have been astonished at what I've seen, like the above. The worst thing about the above is that the small puff of dust is being kicked up by a small AC doing a "move". I had come to accept that fast vehicles cast plumes of dust that can be seen from miles away. But this small puff of dust my own forces have no hope of seeing. It is far away _AND_ out of LOS, behind a largish hill. BFC have said that what matters for them most is realism. That being the case, I really hope that this dust problem disappears in the upcoming patch. I'd be happy to have no dust show up at all at EFOW. Or no dust thrown by "Move"ing vehicles. Or ideally, dust only visible if your forces can actually see it. At the moment, it feels so gamey to turn on F&C during each movie to make sure I'm not missing something (how can I not do that when my opponent surely is?!) GaJ. [ June 14, 2004, 02:13 AM: Message edited by: GreenAsJade ]

When I said "I support someone asking for surrender as a resolution" I was coming from the point of view that people shouldn't be punished for their opponent being too slow. I'd totally forgotten about the business about surrendering messing up scoring, and I agree this is not what we want. But how do the rules help us with slow opponenents? At what point is someone entitled to say "I want a replacement opponent, this guy is too slow?" (And how can we tell the difference between that and "I want a replacement opponent, this guy is too good"!?) I actually made such a request a couple of weeks ago, and it was not actioned. It all turned out OK: my opponent came good. But what if he hadn't? It would be nice if there was some guideline about what will happen to people waiting on opponents as the deadline approaches... (edit: if this is as simple as "we will help you out, don't worry - if you are available to finish your game, and communicating what's going on, you will get a finish somehow" then that would let everyone be at ease...) Ta, GaJ.

It's worth noting that one person, or a few, saying "CM is outdated, I don't play it anymore" is just one person, or a few. A vocal tiny minority. A few people who are tired of CM post here. The vast majority are too busy playing to rebut. If I wasn't waiting for turns, I would be too. So one or a few people complaining can make it sound like a problem when it's not. BFC do make a fine product, and support it well. I guess if they could afford to hire a PR person, they might come across better in this forum than is currently the case... but maybe we'd rather them spend their money on cranky, rude-but execllent- programmers & researchers than slivery tongued lying sales persons, eh? GaJ.

Tee hee hee. Keep'em coming!

FWIW, I'd totally support anyone asking for a ceasefire or failing that a surrender in order to get finishing credits. I'd been thinking of asking for the same thing myself when I wasn't confident of finishing in time. GaJ.

Tee hee

Oh - and to be perfectly clear: I have no problem with this: I asked, as was my duty to do, and they replied as was their right. End of story. No worries, mate. GaJ.

You can't convince them. When I politely enquired about the possibility of making McMMM shareware, I was left in no doubt (politely) that they would defend their rights. Their business model is not to have an after-market. GaJ.

Um, now we know where MikeyD copies his camou from....

Two pages of completely hypothetical discussion. It doesn't matter if you would pay for scenarios or not. You're not allowed to sell them! Nor Mods. Nor Mod-managers. So just enjoy making them, if that's what you enjoy, and/or using them if _thats_ what you enjoy. If you have a brilliant game idea, make it & sell it & make lots of money. But don't dream of doing it in the CM arena, 'cause you simply aren't allowed to. GaJ.

Actually this adds weight to the call to require people to log in to Scenario Depot to get scenarios. COG did it at CMMODS, and it doesn't seem to have made the world come to an end. If SD required log-in, then it could also control which scenarios you have access to based on what reviews you've written! Sounds draconian, but hey, if it works... GaJ

Maybe you guys out there with lots of unreviewed scenarios should start pulling off-line heaps of them. Take away the ones with good reviews (leave the review there) and take away lots of unreviewed ones. If people want a) access to one with a good review, more scenarios to play they have to play & review an unreviewed one. I think a big part of the "problem" is that the proportion of people who will review is pretty low AND the number of scenarios is very high. This gives a low-looking review density. Compared to , say, when the demo came out and there were what looked like heaps of reviews... I doubt if the review rate dropped, its just there's heaps more scenarios to review now. I review every scenario I play... but often its already-reviewed-ones, because natrually if they have a high rating, they are the most attractive! GaJ.

Man, I remember that colour name from a _long_ time ago when I used to paint models!

"OD"?

I have no clue what the answer is. I like the dark green - it looks good. It just strikes me as odd to paint vehicles grass colour in the desert

A question: were the HT's in use really painted with such a dark green instead of the default sand colour?

These are great - it's a while since I've wanted CMAK mods... you just got me downloading again!

If the friendly instructions in McMMM.htm aren't helpful (you did read the instructions, right?) I'd be quite happy to help you out myself. Just send me an email telling me what the problem is... I usually reply pretty quickly... Hah - here's a fun challenge. A free copy of McMMM for the winner with the correct reply.... There have been 1700+ downloads of McMMM. How many postcards do y'all think I have received? (Thanks so much to those postcard & email senders - it's really a kick to get them.) Cheers, GaJ.

PS: Unlike in Russia, in Afrika they didn't have to worry about carting their toilets around. It was warm enough that they just went and squatter behind a dune and covered it up with sand. Hence there is no sewer movement in CMAK.

It's a polite term for what happens when you go to the toilet. GaJ.

Actually, with McMMM you can look at the BMPs that are going to be installed, so you don't have to know the BMP numbers. Double-click on the Mod and do "Examine Contents". You can see what the difference between each BMP in the Mod and the currently installed one is... Cheers, GaJ.

Glad it works for you! Thanks for the feedback - it's what us freeware programmers live for! GaJ.

(Sorry about the capitals - it seems to be the "thing to do" for Mod-related releases!) McMMM 3.0 is available at CMMODS. What is McMMM? It is "Martin's Combat Mission Mod Manager": the no-frills easy-to-use Mod Manager for Windows that can handle any type of mod. It basically takes the hassle out of using mods. Updates from V2.4: - New "Load Mod" dialog with new mods separated out - Windows remember their size and shape - Add and delete Combat Mission installations - "Select All" button visible at >96 DPI A couple of hundred people downloaded the beta, and there have been no complaints, so I think this is pretty stable. Should you upgrade: yes, I think you should. V3.0 is the version I will be supporting, and it has enough improvements from 2.4 (and earlier) to make it worthwhile. Do you need 3.0 if you have 2.8 beta: no, they are basically the same (3.0 has updated documentation). Enjoy. GaJ.

(Sorry about the capitals - it seems to be the "thing to do" for Mod-related releases!) McMMM 3.0 is available at CMMODS. What is McMMM? It is "Martin's Combat Mission Mod Manager": the no-frills easy-to-use Mod Manager for Windows that can handle any type of mod. It basically takes the hassle out of using mods. Updates from V2.4: - New "Load Mod" dialog with new mods separated out - Windows remember their size and shape - Add and delete Combat Mission installations - "Select All" button visible at >96 DPI A couple of hundred people downloaded the beta, and there have been no complaints, so I think this is pretty stable. Should you upgrade: yes, I think you should. V3.0 is the version I will be supporting, and it has enough improvements from 2.4 (and earlier) to make it worthwhile. Do you need 3.0 if you have 2.8 beta: no, they are basically the same (3.0 has updated documentation). Enjoy. GaJ.