JoMac

Ok, So its indeed working on all my WWII titles (and sure when FI gets re-released)...What thru me off when firing-up a Scenario was the initial word 'Spotting' for my troops...Then, I remember you saying, it's the 'Light Version' (Spotting word retained instead of Eyeball Symbol). I also didn't pay attention to rest of the different 'Text' Symbols (replacing words) when troops were moving, etc. All is good, and thanks again Vinnart & Astro :-)

Ok, and thanks, mjkerner, as that explains it then :-)

Ok, Vein, I downloaded your 'Special Effects Mod' in my CMBN Z Folder, and everything seems to working Great...except, when I dropped in two colors (Red & Green) in the Tracer Folder (took out the rest) the Germs seem to be still yellow\white but with a long narrow tracer, and U.S. shows in Red with short thick Tracer (this goes for both Gun & Small Arms). It seems that the German color is having an issue (It's not green, and maybe too long, thou thickness looks good).

Ok, I downloaded AstroCat's Vin's Annimated Text, and extracted with 7Zip to my Z Folder, but it doesn't appear in CMBN :-( Joe

Well, there are other issues that needs sorted out...You will notice them in due time.

Yes, if Arty is being dropped on your Troops in open, then taken cover is a Good Idea...However, if in one turn the Arty Barrage lands on top of your troops in Town or Foxhole/Trenches, then leaving to find other cover is not a Good Idea.

Nah, for game engine purposes you simply make it a 2 man Special Teams (LMG, Sniper, etc), or a any type of Fire Team (anything bigger would be to much). Oh No...Small Arms fighting from building corners was very common (I venture to say, the most common form of Urban Combat), especially for Attackers or Meeting Engagements or even a Defender having it's reserves Counter-Attacking into a Village/Town. Thou, I think BF's intention for 'Peeking' is more in a form of getting info, and not for full Small Arms Combat. What I really like to see is Building Corners/Walls giving something like a half Action Spot so troops (2-man Special Teams or full size Fire Team) would bunch up at corners to engage in proper Small Arms Combat.

So, are you saying you can only have a 2 man (Sniper, LMG Team) engaging in combat around a corner, but not a Fire Team...Makes more sense to have option for having a 2 man Special Team or a whole Fire Team..."Come On', BF, and make that change.

Ok, at least we are both in agreement in that this New AI Tactical behavior is going in the right direction (spacing, taken cover faster, etc), but need the Defender to have a little more staying power. It's interesting thou, you would think the Attacker would have a Higher Motivation vs Normal to Low for Defender...Yes, you may have to do the opposite now in your next play test as a work around to get desired results. You might also want to include a Russian Arty Battery as I'm curious to see what it does if it hits concentrated troops. Anyways, you could do the following Attack/Defend Play Tests to give you the overall big picture. - First Play test...Inf vs Inf, - Second Play Test...Inf vs Inf & Arty, - Third Play test...Inf vs Inf & Armor. *Side Note*...Ok, I know the New tactical AI behavior (spacing, taken quicker cover under fire, etc) is good for keeping tactical casualties down to more realistic levels. However, does the New Grand Tactical AI Stances that's present in Scenario designing (Evade, Fast, etc) also kick in for QB's somehow (or, is it just Scenario related) ?..I have a bad feeling that my QB Troops (that uses Maps from Scenario's) will end up crawling or somefink when an Arty Barrage lands a hundred yards from them (instead of obeying my Waypoints), or wlll my troops crawl or run out of their Foxholes in one turn if an Arty Barrage lands on them.

Also, Bodkin, mentioned using Arty in v4 against Troops in Foxholes and in Town only to have the Defender leave their protection and loosing more casualties, and real estate at same time. I also agree with akd, in that Arty should Suppress and not Kill. The above doesn't sound to promising...At least in v3 troops stood ground for most part (unless several turns of Arty Barrage) with minimal casualties.

Ok, The Attacker already has a good chance of winning in game with just 3 to 2 Odds (thou, it takes 2 to 1 odds in RL to accomplish same task)...Now, you mentioned that's it's getting even easier for the Defender to break and fall back which is leading to Scenarios ending quicker then they should. You also mentioned that the Attacking Troops are also taking cover a little quicker when advancing (falling back, attacking again...rinse repeat)..Now, do you still feel that you will need to Beef up for Defender to give it an equal chance against Attacker ? Well, At least the Inf Spacing, and willingness of Troops to Attack/Fall Back seems to help keep casualties down a little in v4 (good thing). However, if the end result is having the Attacker take an Objective to quickly, then I don't know...I rather see Firefights last longer (not quicker), especially in built-up areas where it took several hours (not minutes) to take an objective.

So, it's not a Fire Team that engages in small arms combat around a corner, but rather an individual with best equipment just peeking the corner for a quickie :-\ That's to bad, as I thought it would make more sense to have a whole Fire Team (or individual Sniper/LMG Team) move back-n-forth from Building Corner (depending on suppression) to engage in small arms (using the building wall corner for cover...like a stone/brick wall). This would give a more realistic feel as most urban combat takes place around corners of Buildings/Walls, Streets, etc), even thou you are partially in the open. Joe

Oh, and I know why you and many others feel frustrated with this (and how BF decided to handle it)...I was one of those who always said it seems a little to unrealistic to have HT Gunners/Tank Crew consistently get shot at (let alone get hit) from Small Arms in short time and at long range...Now, I didn't mind if said Gunners/Crew got shot and hit consistently from a ranging Sniper, Short Range or Close Assault. I also remember in one of those debates a person posting a picture at ground level showing the camera directly behind an Inf Squad Zooming at 2.5 times (to represent Binos...let alone naked eyes) at a Vehicle 400-500 hundred yards away...He said something like; "See, even I can barely see a Vehicle at that range, let along know if a person is even sticking his head up"...Now, on top of this, have you ever wondered why it takes several seconds or turns even to spot a Squad of Inf in the Open (fairly realistic), but can easily spot a head size target on a vehicle 500 yards away so as to get shot ?...That was also debated. It was an interesting debate with the end result, Steve, intervening and said he will look into maybe having H/T Gunners/Crew having a lower stance or ducking down quicker under Small Arms (the Stug MG debate also comes to mind)...However, he mentioned not changing the range or how quickly at which the above Gunners/Crew will get shot.

Interesting, and I wonder what would happen if you go into the Scenario editor and place a Minefield and place Inf in that Minefield (if that's even possible)...Start-Up the Scenario, and I wonder what the AI Pathing would be using one-waypoint or several. Hmm, also on a related side note (which might help the Inf Mine situation)...I wonder if laying an Arty Barrage in front of advancing Inf (AI needs to get to point A,, but Arty is now coming down between them and Point A) make them avoid entering the Barrage all together, or still enter it (continue with its orders)? Also, if Inf is already in a Barrage, do they continue through it (continue with it's orders), or attempt to skirt around it and forming back to continue it's order ? Hmm, does this mean that Inf will now avoid recent Arty Craters if stopped in AS that has them (wont crawl over to recent crater for cover, but only Scenario layed craters). All the above might help us understand the new AI behavior a little better in Minefields/Arty Barrages.

I wonder if it has something to do with the 'AI avoiding HE/Arty' introduced in v4 (coupled with new Inf Spacing, and new AI behavior) and the Minefield is acting like an HE/Arty Danger Zone in which Inf is trying to avoid. Joe

And, the above is only against the AI. Just think how quick and how it will play out against a competent Human Opponent...The Defender barely had a chance pre v4...and now :-/

Yeah, I also feel in CM the Attacker (with only a 3 to 2 Odds, let alone the more realistic 2 to 1 needed in RL) has an easier job against Defender compared to RL, and now seems it's going to get a little easier w/v4. If you think it's bad now, just wait until you play the game where the Attacker lays down a Barrage on your troops in Buildings/Foxholes/Works (doesn't matter) just to watch them skedaddle loosing Real Estate & more Casualties (instead of suppressing, and taking low casualties pre v4). Yeap, CM already plays out relatively quick, and v4 is going to make that a little quicker...I always envisioned that 1 minute in CM is equal to like 2.5 to 5 minutes in RL.

Just Wonderful !...This is something I'm not looking forward to, and for the most part agree with akd.

Ahh, you Area-Fired with your Photon Torpedo, and momentarily uncloaked the enemy ship giving it's position away :-)..Hmm, which Star-Trek movie did I see that from. Oh, and what IanL said... Joe

I think, Bulletpoint, is basically saying; If it's so dark out that if Units can't move without bumping into each other, then they have no business moving at all, let alone any form of combat...So, he (and some players) is frustrated as to why we are we able to play a Scenario at all under these conditions if it's going to give us these unrealistic results. Ofcourse, Steve is basically saying; Well, the Game has it's limitations (that are being improved over time), and if you couple that with problematic Night/Bad Weather Conditions in RL, then the Game will give you these interesting situations...Just Deal with it, and carry-on. Now, in RL a unit is situationally aware every second, and able to adjust accordingly with some confusion mixed in depending on Night/Weather, etc...The AI awareness is every few seconds (1-2 spotting cycles), and Units using Fast/Quick moves will inherently and unrealistically bump into each (instead of spotting/combat several meters away) more then we would like to see. I wonder if this would work better if units were given a slower movement order (move or Hunt) under Night/Bad Weather conditions so the AI has a better chance to react per spotting cycle and not bump/run into each other ? Now, I would like like to see friendly Units stop a certain distance away from enemy Units they haven't seen yet (Stop, what's that in front of us)...Basically, using the Friendly Vehicle spacing situation (friendly vehicles keep a certain spacing from each other before moving again) and applying it to the enemy as well...a patch for Friendly and Enemy minimum Spacing ? Joe

This is Good to hear...and I for one was hoping for something like this to happen in CM, and it appears 4.0 is a step in the right direction. Now, it seems at least Firefights, in your opinion, are a little more realistic with reduced casualties due to shorter Firefights, because TAC AI is making better use of cover and advance/retreat routes...I wonder thou, do you think the TAC AI will attempt to get to the closest cover, wither it forward or reverse..? ex, a Team is advancing towards a House 5 meters to the front of them, but started to receive Small Arms fire...Do you think that Team will continue to advance to that House (closest cover), or Fall back to a House in the rear that's 15 meters away (thou, I would imagine it depends on Moral, Motivation, Suppression, etc). This New TAC AI Logic may also make players re-think their Tactics some what when playing against other Human Opponents. Joe

How could you even manage to KO more then one Tank in a turn with a Schreck, and with only one member at that (must have been one of those Auto Schrecks :-(...Unfortunately, I see these types of behavior in CM all the time.

That's interesting, and will need to try this in my next Turn Based game...Thanks for the tip, User1K. Joe

You know, I could be 2nd guessing myself now...Thou, I think BF has mentioned in the past that both players have to be patched equally to continue or start New Scenario/QB ? Yeah, I do remember that issue we had at an earlier time (when we first played), so I don't know.