GreenAsJade

Hah! I was trying to think of a magnification joke, you beat me to it, nice one

Heh, that had to come from a canuk

This view made me laugh, so I'm sharing it...

Thanks for this excellent experimentation and analysis: these are exactly the problems I've been contending with. GaJ

I've had this in Carbide Carbide: I suddenly discovered that one of my squads had ONE guy right _on the other side of the map_. He was slowly making his way back to the original squad. I think he's made it now... not sure if I have a save file for this, maybe. GaJ

LOL indeed. I'm happy to take suggestions about any of my creations. CMMODS: post suggestions/requests here H2H Helper: post suggestions/requests here Those who've done so will vouch that action follows quickly, if at all possible. By the same token, I think there's no reason why I shouldn't post suggestions to the guys who choose to devote their time to scenario design, while I devote my time support apps... I know that Sgt Schulz is listening, and I totally appreciate his work and the way he cares about the things that I, one of his users, care about. Yay Schulzy and youse other scenario designers out there! Thanks for caring... Oh - you can also critique my scenario design too, if you like. I don't have any CMBN scenarios yet - I feel like I need to learn to play it before doing scenarios - but I have a couple of CMBB scenarios at The Scenario Depot... GaJ

You would like to see me to do that eh? Would that be before, after, or at the same time as the work I'm doing on H2H Helper, The Combat Mission Mods Warehouse and The Band Of Brothers Statistics Database ? GaJ

Sounds GREAT! Looking forwards to it!

The bigger problem, as discussed in a thread near here, is that since AT weapons can't be fired from inside houses, and typical CMBN town maps don't provide any other sort of concealment, then towns simply don't "play right". They look like towns, with buildings all around and roads, but they provide no useable concealment for AT squads. An AT squad has to stand out in the open, in plain view of a tank, before it can operate its weapon. It can't even "peek around a corner"... it's either "behind the building" (no LOS/LOF) or "in the street"... and dead. GaJ

You're absolutely right. This was a QB map of a town. The problem is that the map has zero cover for infantry, and (most importantly) zero operable concealment for AT infantry. Buildings: not cover, as we know. The odd tree: hardly. So an attempt to play "inf vs tanks in town" on a map like this is futile: it's like running the guys around in plain open... In some ways, I think this is what the CMx1 "heavy buildings" abstracted. Although if you look at them as "models of buildings" they provide grossly too much cover, in fact I think that the overall result of them is to provide the right mix of cover and concealment on average, in something like a town map. This means that in CMx1 the designer can plonk down buildings in a way that looks like a town and it will behave like a town. In CMBN this is not the case. The map that I am using looks a lot like a town, but it doesn't play like one. In order for it to play like one the designer would have had to scatter walls and areas of bushes or ... something... to enable troops to sneak around, poke their heads around corners etc. GaJ

Well, I had a miserable time in town just now. I thought I'd cleverly bring AT equipped troops to a town engagement where my oppo was likely to bring tanks. Sure enough, he brought only tanks, but they have had a lovely time cleaning up my inf all around town. You can't shoot AT weapons from in buildings, and as soon as you step out of a building.... boom, you're dead! I don't have a good clue how to do this right... GaJ

Ah well, good to know: I have been spectacularly unsuccessful, but if it can be done then I just need more practice

I've read in a few places, and just recently experienced myself, tanks spotting inf with incredible ease. I know that anything is possible, and all that... my experience was probably explainable etc etc. Does anyone have any data? GaJ

Nah, the zombies of the previously killed comrades rise up and and he covers them as they lurch forwards... GaJ

1) yes 2) yes GaJ

It's a real real shame that box.net doesn't have desktop sync as part of its free offering. If it did, it would make it a no-brainer to swap from Dropbox. Especially because box.net has decent file permissions. But who is going to pay $15/month to be able to sync to the desktop when you can do it for free with Dropbox? Maybe we should figure out how to make H2HH send game files to box.net online, without local file sync.... food for thought... (and yet more work :S ) GaJ

Thus far, I've considered "freakish" accidents to be a lowish concern, since you can always get the file back from the recycle bin. GaJ freakish: I mean, you can't have regular accidents, but if once in a blue moon a file gets deleted due to some freak name collision, it's not a calamity.

Yeah eh!!

I didn't read the rest of the thread past this, because this nails it. I was astonished to see the "counter arguments", but maybe we're all just bored and looking for something to argue about. When you are clicking the red button, you're not looking at the top of the screen. That is the gameplay area. The text in there is rightly inconspicuous. In contrast, the mode of the control panel ought to be absolutely clear. Call me stoopid, I don't care: from time to time I inadvertently hit the red button twice, because I got no visual feedback that I hit it successfully the first time. This is so trivial to fix, it hardly bears discussion. GaJ

I agree with this thinking. I do have a hunch that with H2HH managing the files and their names, this risk might go away: H2HH makes it it's business to make sure you only have one file, the one you're supposed to play, showing in the Saved Games menu. If it gets that right, you should not have to care. This will be something for 2.x anyhow. Hopefully 1.4.0 will emerge on the weekend then I can get to thinking about this GaJ

It would be wonderful if the state of the UI was clearer in two cases: 1) Am I in playback or orders? 2) Have I clicked "OK" on the save game dialog or not? It is very very irritating to find that you click the red "done" button again after clicking it at the end of the reply, due to the lack of visible feedback that it was clicked the first time. To a lesser extent, but the same with the save email dialog. GaJ

Yes, in CMBN, it is. It's suprising there hasn't been more complaining about this actually! I think it's probably because CMBN is so low on cover already that we don't need another hole punched in one of the few things we can hide behind GaJ

What you say is true. This is interesting, actually. I guess it means that from H2HH perspective, you don't have to use the _save_ extension! It implies we could just save it with the incremented file number that CMBN gives it, and it will go into the "Saved" folder. Next time you load it and it will increment again: that shouldn't be a problem, and when you generate the outgoing, it will end up in the right place and be processed! Nice point... I'll try that out as soon as I have a chance. If this is the case, then H2HH could actually clean up the Saved Games folder as well: as soon as it sees a higher numbered outgoing, it could clean up the old saves. _That_ would be nice! Stay tuned... GaJ

What I do is when I'm saving an incomplete turn I put _save on the end of the name that CMBN prompts me. IIRC, suppose I load up GajVBadj 010.ema Then it prompts me for GajVBadj 011 as the save name. I type _save on the end: GajVBadj 011_save Then this appears in the "saved games" list next time. Then you get prompted, when you finish the turn to save this as GajVBadj 011_save_001 (IE CMBN just dumbly adds a number on the end) so you delete the _save_001 and it is correctly saved as GajVBadj 011 GaJ

Anyone got any good piccies? Edit: of course, google has. Google also has this: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/accp/en0065/le3.htm GaJ