magomar

Thanks for the info

This is happening to me systematically. If a save a game during the setup, and load it later to resume the setup, once I finish the setup I get a CTD. I do not know if this is just my problem, or there are more people suffering it

I also miss the LOS tool when it comes to unarmed vehicles, especially recon humvees...

I don´t think that would occur. I the CMx1 series there were people developing great tools, like a converter between scenarios and operations, and between different games in the series, as well as a wonderful map editor that allowed you to import bmp files with heights coded in different levels of grey, or the possibility of having an overlay image to help you represent a map based on an ortophotography.... and, in order to communicate with the game, the only option for the programmers was.... to simulate a human user working with the editor by generating keyboard events. That was a great idea, but it had many issues. Since BFC seems to be against opening stuff, the community has been requesting more features and improvements in the editor, and I even remember some of the programmers of these wonderful tools offered himself to integrate their tool in a future release of the game, but that never happen. All in all, we should be keep asking BFC to include some nice features in the editor, that would be highly appreciate by scenario creator... [ February 08, 2008, 03:02 PM: Message edited by: magomar ]

Formations work fine in Theater of War, don't they? So why something similar wouldn't work in CMx2 ? Probably a smarter Tac-AI would do the trick for some situations and some basic formations (line, column), but a human user would probably use some other formations that shouldn't be decided by the Tac-AI, like "dispersed" or "tight" formations, vee or echelon formations. Anyway I do not think this is a priority, IMO there are other things that would have a much greater impact on the playability and enjoyment of this game.

I have just played it, and I have enjoyed it very much, the 1.05 patch seems to be a great improvement (what a pity the new bug with low walls). Very nice MOUT in this battle, the infantry using the assault order did great, at least in my case. Thanks for the scenario. Looking forward to see more of you ************* SPOILERS ************* I won a Major Victory in my first attempt with only 9 kills, and lost no vehicle. The enemy surrendered before even attempting to assault the factory (the ruins of it). Therefore, to make the game more challenging I would remove some arty and some the second tanks platoon. Consider adding more red forces too, at night the US is in great advantage, specially now that infantry reacts much butter.

MM (Mapping Mission) is a wonderful tool by L.Tankersley to edit maps and export them to CM It has features such as overlaying a bmp, or reading a bmp with a height or terrain color-code and other utilities to simplify the map creation process. The only pro is that since the scenario format of CM is a proprietary format, the communication between MM and CM is done in a very unreliable way: generating key events from MM while staying in the CM editor I think the last version of MM was the 1.12, that you can find here http://www.battlefront.com/cgi-bin/bbs/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=6;t=003400;p=1#000000 You can see some screenshots of MM here http://cmscw.50webs.com/tutorials/tm-4-edicion.htm Best regards

Interesting scenario... I only managed to obtain a draw playing red in my second attempt. However, it was very frustrating to see the BRDMs firing no missile at all, in two games ! what a waste !

Yeah ! That is a great idea ! It was implemented in the Mapping Mission tool for the CMx1 and it was really helpful !! Also great was the possibility of exporting a grey-colored bmp representing different heighs into a CM map, I would love any of those functionalities in a future CM game.

Hi I've been trying to flank the bunkers in the "Kurds attack" scenario, and to my surprise, it seems that the units inside a bunker can fire through the side walls ! Has anybody else noticed that? Could be this a bug? Or are bunkers supposed to be like that?

Nice scenario ! Thanks for the effort ! SPOILERS I really like the degrees of freedom this scenario brings to the player The hills located both sides of the road bring good observation & bases of fire. I placed there the Stryker, an MG team, and a team equipped with javelines, and they were well protected from enemy ATGMs and in excellent position to return fire.

Are you sure you know what we are talking about? It is perfectly clear that both points (to indicate center and radius respectively) require LOS, OK, we are not discussing that restriction here. What SloMo and myself are telling is that if one accidentally tries to select the radius by clicking to a point without LOS, then one gets a message saying "click again", but it doesn't work, there is no way to select a new point with LOS, and one has to cancel the order and start again from the beginning. So i still think this is a bug

I have noticed the same behavior in the same scenario (the farm, right?), I order some squads to follow the ditch in advance, and some of them to go straight through the field, and all of them refused that path and went trough the dammed ditch I don't think that is a proper behavior. If we had different pathfinding strategies (by time, distance, cover, and so on)then I can understand that a strategy base on cover or security would probably chose the ditch, but I do not thinkt that is the case. I thought the pathfinding algorithm here is supposed to search the quickest route, right? Then either there is another reason or there is something wrong...

Hi, I have the same problem, this is not something serious because one can cancel the command and start again from the very beginning, but this is still a bit annoying. To me this is a minor bug, because you have a screen telling you to click again to select a second point, and this is not working.

No Only minor improvements

I fully agree with this topic

I agree that the UI is clumsy The new command system implies too many clicks for doing simple things, and you have to look carefully at the control panels to know at which panel you are (I am surprised that the command buttons are large and color coded, which is good, while the panel buttons (M,C,S,A) are so small), or you will end up selecting the wrong command ! I also dislike that there is no way to go to a given control panel directly, instead you have to cycle through them. In summary, the command system doesn't help to playing RT.

Well, in reality you have a chain of command and many "commanders" receiving and giving orders simultaneously but at different echelons, while here you have a single player in charge of everyting. Having RT doesn't mean the game would be more reallistic. Perhaps RT is funny, perhaps many people end up preferring RT, but I think the argument of realism is not really against the WEGO approach.

Hi folks I strongly support a WEGO TCPIP mode I think most of us would like to have a WEGO TCPIP mode even if it means having no replay option, that's a secondary matter. Well, if adding a pause in RT mode would so easy, as Steve has suggested, then a WEGO TCPIP mode could be implemented just by keeping the game paused until both players hit the GO button, right? I think somebody else has pointed to the very same idea though using other words... [ July 28, 2007, 01:08 PM: Message edited by: magomar ]

Patboy, would you mind if I include images and links to your SCW mods in the CM:SCW Web? they would be a great complement !!

[ December 10, 2006, 06:06 AM: Message edited by: magomar ]

Hmmm, it seems pretty more appropriate that CMBB for simulating Spanish terrain, could you please give some detail on how to do that?

Some nationalist units Some republican More images and information can be found at http://cmscw.50webs.com/ Regards