scottie

As good a reason as any to have detailed hit text back in , so we can see the hard work you guys went to which would otherwise be hidden away.

i remember having to make sure abandoned vehicles were knocked out during cmx1 operations so they could not be used in the next phase. I guess the same is true for a cmx2 battle being that a crew can re enter an abandoned vehicle. Whats the logic behind limiting only the crew that exits a vehicle to enter it again ? i.e why cant another trained crew from the same vehicle type enter ? (they dont have the ignition key ?)

Where are you chaps planning to upload your home-made scenarios ? Have never been able to download a file from the CMSF battlefront repository for some reason (yes i am logged in , have tried chrome & ie). http://www.the-proving-grounds.com was great host for cmx1 files (altough the ones i uploaded appear to have been deleted so i guess im not that great an editor )

didnt say "KNOCKED OUT" ? not sure what bit you are referring to sorry.

think that could be much more difficult because of the way terrain in cmx2 is build up with the tile, trees and flavoured objects occupying the same space. In cmx1 the tile could only be one element .... i maybe wrong though

As above, not a bug. Its not detailed enough on enemy units to know everything the opposition would know about their own unit. Its enough info to know where a round impacted , stuff you could see with a pair of binos and a fast eye. Its a great quick reference guide. May also say a tank is KNOCKED OUT mind you , not sure you can always know this from a commanders point of view.

, we have a programming department for such things although i maybe frowned upon for diverting resources

36 days ...

ah i see , thank you, understood.

i agree the text is fun , its just interesting to see the detail , to understand intricacies, Plus you can see it from a distance quickly without having to pause and go looking.

what do you mean by this ? curious

was confused reading this thread, intially thought it was a joke refering to the large font text by Bil, then everyone starting suggesting it was true , then the "rain on parade" post, then steve post confirmed it .... a quick view of the image again and spotted the tiny text at the rear of the M10. GREAT NEWS , thats a cracker to have back. Cheers.

i think you are right , the action spot v spotting v targeting concept is lost on me without a an explanation , example i think.

yet another essential tip then , get your armour + AT assets on high ground.

how may action spots per tile ? , how many does a vehicle fill ? ps thanks moon.

Agreed, this is one of the things i'm looking forward to the most. Modern warfare its so deadly IMO is less fun , just don't seem to have the same levels of control. CMBN is back to the old school of rules i.e dont go Tiger hunting with a Sherman etc ... the stuff i understand. Plus , less likely to see a unit at the far end of the map and get an instant kill. Smaller maps should be more interesting , more tactical, large map manoeuvres become interesting again.

its funny, i considered myself relatively well read in the field of WW2 before reading some of the posts in this forum , i guess in some cases its about specialised knowledge but it has to be said i have been impressed by the depth of understanding about many subjects ... this thread is probably not the best example (was quiet obvious really, just me being dumb missing it).

Would be interested to hear about this too. Would guess its something to do with the action zone/spot type method the software uses.

Ah i see thanks, just learnt something new Simple now you mention it, so its purely to stop magnetic mines sticking. Awesome thank you.

novice about to speak warning ... the "bumpy" texture of the armour plating in the first image on the front of the turret (as opposed to smooth plate finish) , what were the benefits ? was that by design ? i understand the concept of armour at an angle for deflection purposes, was the "bumpy" texture there for anything other than aesthetics ? /curious faction.

These AARs have almost become essential reading if you want to understand the environment and play the game well. Coming from CMx1 background i was impressed by two things playing CMSF (CMx2) last night: 1) platoon leader hiding behind a wall had to UN-HIDE to see enemy units (in CMx1 they would constantly hide and everything would be visible). This may sound obvious but the act of having to UN-HIDE a unit in order to spot was a new concept to me even after reading and understanding the relative spotting concept. 2) Walls in CMx2 can actually be used to provide cover , could actually run a squad along behind it and see incoming rounds ricochet off the wall. Crouch down , HIDE and my squad was out of harms way. Again sounds so obvious but in CMx1 i just didn't have this level on control , could not use a wall to sneak behind. CMx2 totally changes the way i interact with the environment. I'm sure there are 100s of these little things still to be discovered. Bil's post regarding hiding in trees is another example. Wouldn't have understood this without reading this AAR.

exactly

(As Michael says), indeed its all just guess work , part of the fun and the build up IMO , not to be taken seriously.

originally pencilled on the April 22nd but amended to 29th to be a tad more pessimistic. In the Uk these days coincide with around 4x bank holidays so assuming there are no major hickups that would be just peachy. 22nd was based on 6 weeks after pre-ordered appeared which BFC mentioned was an approx arrival date of a product after pre-orders were available.

39 days and counting ... (he guesses)