Sequoia

Okay, I figured it out and it’s working fine now. Embarrassingly simple. The bmps were zipped inside a folder so when I unzipped the download it was putting them into a folder inside the bmp folder. Guess I should have looked there first. . Anyway thanks for your help and sorry to put you through all this work for something so simple.

Nope,no other problems (except, as I mentioned the SS dotted Panzer cap). I use CMMOS to swap Mods for uniforms and almost all the other German vehicles succesfully. I have a suspicion. Let me check it out and I'll get back to you with more detail if it doesn't work. I'm begining to catch on how CMMOS operates. Thanks,

Hi Philippe, I'm back. I'm really perplexed as to why it's not working. From your description it certainly seems like it should. I do have the button For John Tuckers Stug under the German vehicles and guns Mod option selector. It has options for track, body type and mg. I found the rules under program_files/GEM/cmbo/ruleset04 and it matches what you posted here. I am able to use Gordon's and Fernando's CMMOS Stug mods and switch them back and forth. However when I click on John's Stug options, nothing ever changes. I'm quite sure I have the Mod bmps in the cmbo/bmp folder. Do you think I should reinstall the German vehicle ruleset? Thanks for your help and patience.

Hi Philippe, Thanks for your help and sorry about the confusion. I thought the way to install a CMMOS mod, even with CMBO, was to click on Configure, then click on ADD. Is that incorrect?. It seemed to have worked on all the other CMBO CMMOS mods I installed. I am getting the message in the log file listed in my first post when I click on "Add". Under Configuration I see two tabs on top. One tab says MODS and the other Tab says Rulesets. Under the MODS tab I see all the Mods I've been able to apply so far. Under the RULESETS Tab I see all the Rulesets I have applied, one of which is German Vehicles and Guns. I can view the details of the Ruleset and it includes John's Mods. Thanks again.

Yes, sorry, we're talking about the CMBO CMMOS. I can look at the contents of the German vehicle Rule Set under Configure and it includes John's StuG and Jdpz IV mods.

Quote re. modules. "We are going to use Voodoo to figure it out since there is no scientific way to go about it. I think the Modules will be pretty obvious, so we're not worrying about that. Steve " Unquote That said, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks the Indian Wars would be cool. [ September 16, 2005, 09:27 PM: Message edited by: Sequoia ]

I am using the version that came with the CMBB special edition which I am almost certain is 4.03. I haven't had problems with any cmmos mods from CMHQ previously (except that darn spotted SS Panzer cap of Andrew's, couldn't get that to work). Thanks for your reply.

I recently downloaded John Tucker's CMMOS StuG Mod from Combat Mission HQ (I'm still using CMMOS 4.03 so it should be compatible) but I can't install it into CMMOS. The Log file reads as follows: ERROR: "D:\Program Files\GEM\CMBO\Mods\John_Tucker_StuG.zip" is not properly formatted for installation by CMMOS ERROR: ? is not a CMMOS mod. Any one have a suggestion on what the problem is? Thanks

Yeah, our Drill Sergeants told us that too, but don't believe them. They're always trying to scare trainees. There are safer and more accurate (able to test for low level exposure) ways to test for chemical weapons than using a man as a canary.

I'm bumping this thread not to restart the debate on the relative merits of modern tanks but in hopes of enlisting discussion of YankeeDogs comments posted here.

I've been thinking about this some more and came to realise a battlefield full of Red Cross markers might be ugly to some, but I thought of a compromise that my please all involved: 1, Make the Red Cross marker for WIA optional like labels are now. 2, Make the Red Cross marker modable like the hidden unit markers are now so modders can change it into little wounded guys for those who want to see it.

I don't know, everyone going to the site already knows all about Battlefront. Somebody like Matrix games seems like a more natural advertiser. (Sorry if this is a forbidden plug on this forum).

I have no problem with advertising, especially if they're not popups.

I understand Steve's position completly and accept it, but would still be disapointed with simply having casualties disappear. I would, however, be satisfied with a simple abstraction that didn't do anything, even if it's only a Red Cross marker.

GMT is the boardgame company that publishes Down in Flames. They put out potential titles but don't put them into production until c. 500 copies have been pre-ordered.

Just wondering if you might give us a hint as to how you'll determine what modules you'll be creating. Will you poll us out here in the peanut gallery? Also are you familiar with GMT games P500 system?

Found this to explain the why question: Quote "Campaigns were a relatively late addition to the game, and we wanted to find a way of including them without introducing a lot risk and instability into the game program. Having the web as the place to setup and manage the campaign, while playing out the missions in the game allowed us to add a very nice feature at relatively low risk. Essentially, the web becomes a "mission generator" for the game. As you have pointed out, the down-side to this decision is that the mechanics of going back and forth between the web and the game are a bit clunky. We knew this would be a problem for users, but we felt that it was just too cool of a feature to leave out, or to delay things for a more elegant solution. However, one very nice positive of the current web system is that we have a lot of freedom to create new campaigns, and add new features to campaigns that would difficult to do if the system were more tightly integrated. We can add new target types, maps, pilots, aircraft, etc., without you having to download a new version of the game. -------------------- Brian"

Am I correct in that you can only play Campaigns Online even against the AI? Will this be true of the full version? Thanks

Found this old thread. I am seeing this too in the beta demo. Is this fixed for gold?

I've never played the GMT card game Down in Flames but I have played Avalon Hill's Up Front. Would it be reaching too far to say that Down in Flames is like an air to air combat version of Up Front?

Okay, I've looked and can't find that there is an official anwser to the min. requirements question.

I'm the one who provides all the profanity when I play.

Here's an idea I had that I posted in an old thread that perhaps is worth repeating I've been kicking around the idea of allowing scenario designers to create AI files for single player games. At the minimum, these files would allow the scenario designer to plot movement etc for units begining with the first turn through whatever turn the ploted movement is completed. Better would be additional conditional movement orders (move until contact is a conditional movement order that already exists). Best would be allowing an aggressiveness setting and allowing the AI to follow a basic plan. Users would be allowed to submit new "plans" for a side which could be set to always follow Plan A or Plan B or to randomly select a plan if more than one exists for a given scenario.

Another trivial question. Can we get haystacks? What's a rural scene without haystacks. In a WWII game the Germans can hide in them like in the movie Anzio. Okay I'm just kidding about the last part. But these little touches add up to a more realistic whole.

I can see noncombatants (assuming Steve meant civilians) important in a Viet Nam game for example. You make contact with humans in the terrain up ahead but you don't know if they're hostile or not until you're close enough to ID them or they open fire. You would also lose points for infilicting civilain casualties.