Erik Springelkamp

Snake_eye, there is a work around for this problem: revert to 1.30 for the Germans. I am a programmer myself, and I know that a task switch from full concentration on CM:BN to a patch for CMSF takes more time than one would like. For the programmers this mostly means losing focus, for the testers this means switching to other test-scenarios, while they are in the middle of current ones. A change of even one line of code requires a costly procedure through the whole delivery process. This is often underestimated by outsiders.

From pure fantasy. I know there are only two programmers and I know the second one was only recently added

That is why I suggested it be assigned to the 5th programmer

Well, in a current PBEM I acquired a couple of javelins in a MOUT situation to level some buildings, but now I am too close and I have to assault carrying those things, which is clumsy. It is no big issue, just think that being able to put them back would be the ideal situation. A perfect job for Battlefront's 5th programmer.

If only you could put it back.

I just experienced that a video card applying anti alias makes the text vastly more readable.

Yes, I did that too, but it is those missing two I was specially interested in after Dinas.

Paper Tiger, In your signature I see this list of campaigns, but I have only found 'The Road to Dinas' in the repository, and I loved it because of the balanced forces. - Scenario In Harms Way - US v AI - Scenario USMC Second Storm - USMC v Syrian Airborne - Campaign Hasrabit (10 missions) - Red v Red - Campaign Perdition (3 missions) -Red v Red - Campaign The Road to Dinas (15missions) - Red v Red - Campaign Gung Ho! (6 missions) - USMC Are the others still available somewhere (or have they become unbalanced by various game patches).

During fighting I saw a section using a panzerfaust3 to fire into the next room. The manual says that a panzerfaust3 has a minimum range of 50 metres. So is this a realistic use of the weapon? I also noticed that two rockets were fired within a 60 second turn. I guess there is no way to reduce that expenditure without moving around with pauses?

Best thing would be to include it in the detailed victory conditions the scenario makers can define at the moment. In CMSF it is already possible to assign the severity of casualty numbers in the final victory conditions, as well as putting a weight on state of the force. But although it would not be rocket science, it would take time...

Yes, fairly simple feature. Would cost only a few days of designing, then coding, then a couple of bugfixes. Oh, and a new breaking safe-file format. Steve painted a rough design in a previous posting. It will be on a to do list, for a next family.

You can easily make a little scenario to test it out. Put a Gill team in a building, and put a Syrian tank at a mile distance. Then see what happens and report back.

No, alt-I cycles through: - All icons on - All icons off - Only question mark icons By the way, even with icons off, there are still the mini-icons (triangles) on the top bar. With very accurate aim you can even select passenger units by using them. Even when they are stacked, there is a difference whether you click left middle or right on the stack. But I didn't find it very practical to use them that way.

In CMSF, I can barely see the difference between the small squad automatic weapons and the ordinary rifles. (until they start using it). No big point, but it would add up to the arguments for displaying the casualties in the team section of the GUI in some way.

I guess you have to look at the 3D image to see what weapons there are with the dead and wounded? I am not that good in recognising all the different weapons, at least at the moment in CMSF.

CMSF has detailed damage reports on many parts, each varying from slight damage to completely destroyed. Optics deteriorating, tracks damaged but still able to move, radio, etc.

Copy and paste is the opposite of modular programming.

> Click on a Sherm That would select the unit. Now what?

Yesterday I saw a CV90 35 mm gun shoot at a BMP at long range for a while, but the kill confirmation only came when I saw some crew members leave the vehicle: that is, I saw evidence of the kill slightly earlier than it was displayed on the vehicle (green base turning red). Which was nice.

The Israelis never solved the problem in the last Lebanon War. I think this question is at the core of playing CMSF. And if there were an infallible solution, the game would no longer be interesting.

The license remains and can be separately removed after the game is uninstalled, as far as I know.

We need a community that provides you with a good enemy force. My idea is: You open up a Quick Battle map in the scenario editor and pick a force. Then you send the scenario to a community member and he gives you an interesting enemy force, maybe guided by your wishes. The map already has an AI plan, so this can be an easy task. But with a little surprise. Then he sends the scenario back and you can play.

A more generic description in the unit panel would be helpful, it could even be permanent, and more generic icons in the field. But even then, the real grogs would magnify the figure and see whether it is an officer, so when you can detect it anyway, you should make it easy for everybody. There is no real alternative for virtual rendering.

No, because you can only area fire on it while it has no shape.

But this is about the phase where you do see a figure or a vehicle, but don't see it clearly enough to identify it. That would require a virtual rendering depending on who sees it, so it is just as complicated as misidentification.