birdstrike

That guy probably can read out the manufacturer's imprint on that thing Great shots, btw.

While I agree that it is highly desirable to have LOS restrictions applied to terrain effects, too, it sure doesn't make the game "unplayable". If there are only few trenches and the attacker has enough artillery to cover them all - yes it makes things very easy for an attacker. But if artillery/air support is limited and there are alot of trenches and the attacker does not know which ones are manned and which ones are empty, he cannot simply waste his support on everything. To take it one step further, why not place some trenches and leave them empty just to distract the attacker? That said, I think an introduction of some sort of overhead cover against airbursts would be very welcome, indeed; and provide a short-term solution for the current shortcomings. And I wonder if it is possible to introduce some sort of "overlay" tile or flavor object to cover or conceal the trenches visually?

Thanks all. You're welcome

Wow, nice job

Casualties are just one way to create balance. Scenario designers have also have a great freedom to give Syrians an experience or equipment boost they wouldn't have in RL.

Would be a good solution, Flanker. Right now, I aim at the wall segment I want to destroy and ignore wherever the target line snaps to - works most of the time

Good luck and keep that spirit up. And keep us updated.

An update to a small mod: Instead of the generic green dots, the correct trees and brushes are displayed in the editor. Changes from v1.0: - more detailed trees and bushes taken directly from screenshots of the 3D view so they look like their counterparts ingame. - color system to diplay multiple trees in a single square available at CMMods.

De nada.

There is no problem in discussing, joeroma, in fact, I'm sure your intentions are quite appreciated by all of us. But it's not a question of whether people would like to see improved animations or not. Battlefront has stated repeatedly that they will not allow modding of any 3D models. Never. Ever. Same with unit stats. These things are hardcoded. That leaves textures the only thing which can be modded. So unless BF does a 180° turn or make new models themselves, there's nothing anyone could do about it - and that's the reason why a discussion about this specific issue seems pointless.

You need to create a folder called "Z" in your "CMSF\Data" folder yourself. Then drop any mod files in there.

Downloading now. Thanks a bunch

Concerning the climbing through windows issue, I put together a small cosmetical mod which might solve the WYSIWYG for as long as things remain as they are: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=84664

This one's one for the WYSIWYG crowd: If you wondered why your pixel troopers can't get in or out through the windows, here's your answer: barred windows on the first floors of all buildings. And yes, I use them myself, because I like the look of it. Window textures are renumbered stock CMSF textures, so I take no credit for these.

It may be the case that some of the older QB maps are still lacking decent AI plans. The problem would be to single them out to add working plans. :confused:

I think the point which Steve tried to make was that if a scenario designer intended a player to be able to pass through a wall, he would put a door in it. The whole point of discerning between doors and windows is to allow or restrict access - in contrast to CMx1 where access was possible from all sides with no chance to restrict it. But it sure would make things interesting if there was an additional wall option passable by certain troops only - more options more challenges.

The additional color in the pattern looks good

My pleasure Well, they're not as good as yours ND, but I'll just have to lower the bar somewhat, I guess

I think you really should skip that scenario and play another. But seriously, I'd say that's the limitations of having generic representations of objects. The good thing is that you can simulate tactical challenges in a great variety, but on the downside you sacrifice detail. Walls, buildings, &c in the game can be used to represent all sorts of walls, buildings &c in RL. They are not really meant to look pretty but to serve a tactical purpose - limit access or LOS, provide cover and such. And since they are not meant to represent a specific type of wall or building in RL, this makes up for a greater flexibility without making things too complicated. Right now, for example a scen designer who wants to recreate a massive concrete wall of 3.5m height and barb wire in RL would use a generic concrete wall of 2.5m and without the barb wire in the game. The wall in RL would seriously restrict movement in RL - and that's what the designer ultimately wants to project into the game. However since there are only 2 types of high walls in the game (with about the same characteristics) some level of abstraction is needed to enable him to recreate a similar tactical situation. If he wants a wall which can be crossed by infantry he would use a small wall for this. It just doesn't seem practical to include all kinds of walls or windows which one could encounter in RL, just to make a situation look closer to the real thing, when, in the end, the same effect can be achieved with a generic object. Also, on the downside, the more detailed the environment gets, the more complicated gets micromanaging. Players need to check out closely, whether a wall is of the climbable type or not (and whether a specific squad can climb the wall in question or not). Or if the windows in a building are perhaps too small to climb though by a specific unit, or if there are bars to prevent that. That's nice on a small scale, but imagine a larger engagement in RT where you have to babysit each squad, because of that. Personally, I would like to see a little more diversity in walls (climbable walls or walls which vehicles can break through) or buildings (the old "oil tank" and "minarett" issue ), but we'll have to see if any of this will be added to CMSF or to another CM game in the future.

That's what I'm waiting for. Hurry up!

I finally managed to put together a revised version of my Syrian Ragtag texture Mod. The mod includes uniforms for regular and reserve infantry in 5 different camo patterns. Each camo pattern is used for 3 uniforms, two with and one without the shoulder straps and the waist belt. Helmets and pouches are applied randomly to these uniforms, but without mixing camo patterns and without assigning belly pouches to units without the waist belt. The mod is setup to use up to 2 different camo patterns for both regular and reserve troops without editing the filenames. The mod can be found at CMMods. And since the filesize is quite large, I also uploaded it to mediafire: Part 1: http://www.mediafire.com/?ojmyc00x7rn Part 2: http://www.mediafire.com/?4d2mqkdnmym

I see. Nice.

Stellar comments, gentlemen.

Is that a winter camo?

I guess it makes a huge difference whether the target is prone or standing and what terrain it's in. I get my guys picked off quite often by UNCONs with SVDs while they are on the move in urban areas, so I doubt any increase in sniper accuracy would do me any good.