Sgt.Squarehead

Not just jungle: It's really nice to NOT be adding trees!

Open the editor (Horror! ). Look at the various AI plans, select the one you don't want (this gets easier with practice) and set it to 'Never Used'.....Simples (assuming you aren't scared of the editor).

Well that's obvious: Mac = Work of Satan! Steam = Work of Satan! QED

No worries.....Nice to meet new members who don't suffer from 'Editor Fear'. I highly recommend playing a QB or two on a STOCK map that you really like, then open (a copy) of that map in the editor and take a look at the AI scripting.....This will give you a huge insight into how the most experienced guys in the business go about writing AI scripts for QBs.

Welcome to the 'Game Within The Game'.....Once you've added those AI plans, you will have done all the hard parts of creating a full-blown scenario. PS - This ongoing thread might prove intereting:

That very suggestion is borderline blasphemy! National disgrace.....Those responsible should be dragged out of their beds and shot in the base of the skull.

All of the following are candidates for triggering the issue IMHO: Changing unit orders while traversing the bridge. Pausing or stopping the unit on the bridge itself. Placing movement waypoints on the bridge itself. & Here is an odd anecdote relating to the issue (sadly no supporting save).....While testing 'Coup'd'etat' for @MOS:96B2P, I gave one of my tanks orders to cross the bridge and watched the whole replay.....No issues. I then fully wound back the replay and watched some other nearby action. Some occurence or other made me feel the need to partially wind back the in-progress replay, the tank was about half-way accross the bridge at this point. This immediately triggered the bug in the replay, even though it wasn't there before!

Kind of looks like you already did.

You lost me at .mdr TBH.....But it all sounds most excellent!

I had a go at making that in CM:BO.....Many many moons ago.

It's a (reported) Bug.

Love your 'forest edge hedges' they really do blend in very well (my biggest objection to using hedges in this way was how painfully obvious they were).

Actually that was a VBIED.....They're just the job for softening up defensive positions, but not terribly relevant to CM:BO (hence my deleting it).

N/T

It's not even that.....In the 1944 campaign that this game depicts, the StuG III was by far the most common German AFV. Simples. IIRC Germany produced a grand total of about 4500 Panther Gs and roughly 400 Kingtigers.....I reckon we must have seen all of them at least twice in assorted AARs. PS - Don't even get me started on the Pz.II Ausf Ls!

Why would you care anyway? As you so often remind us.....You don't do scenario design.

Splendid!

Quoting from the Engine 4 manual: "Max Assault – the opposite of Dash, Max Assault tells the Group to stop and engage with maximum firepower whenever each unit sees an opportunity to do so. This is generally a poor choice for getting a Group to stay on the move if a lot of enemy is expected in the vicinity. It can also be a bad idea if the area being moved over is a poor place to stop for a firefight. The best use is for short moves where there is good cover and enemy activity is highly expected."

Panthers, Tigers & even a Kingtiger.....Again. By far the most common German AFV during Operation Bagration was the StuG III Ausf G.....But how often do we see those?

Sold! Awesome work dude.

WooYay! Cheers @BFCElvis (& other responsible parties).

Bloody Colonials!

Not entirely relevant, but at least as relevant as a lot of the other stuff in this thread: http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2020/09/blog-post_21.html This article really does underline the need for more T-72 variants (especially T-72Bs) in CM:BS.

It was bit of a monster.....128mm gun, allegedly it could take out a contemporary T-34 at over 4km! Lucky there were only two. Don't waste your time with the Wiki article, it's just plain wrong! PS - One of them (Emil, I believe) is still intact, at Kubinka:

Don't forget the mighty Sturer Emil: