Sgt.Squarehead

Thought something like that might be at the root of it TBH.....It makes sense given the bigger job Headcount has to do, you can't always guarantee the CO is a survivor, after all. PS - I think for the sake of my sanity, I may well revert to 100% and two man teams.....The 'Dirty (almost) Two-Dozen' it may have to be.

Javelins need 15 seconds or so to acquire their targets.....The Red player can work with this.

Maybe you could grab a chunk and fill it in, just like @Broadsword56 intended?

I'll send you a link to the Dirty Dozen core.....You'll note I've renamed Jean Rambeau (a 50% strength unit), please try to rename any of the others (British Sniper, German Sniper & Antitank, Dutch Recce, USMC Fire Control, US Forward Observer). I've managed to rename some of them, some of the time.

Sure fella, that's no issue for me anyway, we all have our preferences.....I'm more bothered by the unpredictability than I am by the rule, if you get what I mean. If I can't make something, I can't make it and that's that. In this instance I'm so bloody close, but I just can't guarantee that the player will start with what he's supposed to start with. I know most of the long term CMers would probably restart the scenario to get the right balance, but I'd like not to have to put them through the irritation (I'm also not sure how it would work in a mini-campaign format). While it would be disingenuous of me to say that my own ideas are not foremost in my mind, could we look at it from a slightly different perspective.....There is only so much randomness possible in a set of two. As it presently stands a designer can always select two men, he can always select a probability of one man with the possibility of two (presumably this possibility increases with the Headcount setting), however there is no way for a designer to choose a single man with absolute certainty. How does the game benefit from this situation? Surely having that extra option (at the expense of a tweak to just one setting and only for individual two man units) would be beneficial just for those instances where having a single man is necessary? Flexibility is everything IMHO. I really do appreciate you guys taking time to comment. PS - I've noticed in the course of these experiments that renaming doesn't always work properly on reduced units.....I've managed to rename some of them (different ones at different times), but some steadfastly refuse to have their names changed. Any ideas?

Either that or let the infidels come into your town and then do this:

Sadly he doesn't, always.....The chance of him developing a twin seems pretty tiny, wish I knew what it actually was, but I just couldn't face that sort of testing! The issue naturally becomes more noticeable in something like the 'Dirty Dozen' (Actually Whitewater Security, International Division, Executive Team #3.....Led by John's French Canadian cousin, Jean Rambeau), where there are several units reduced to 50% strength. I could just set them all to 100%.....Two man teams would make sense for the broad concept too, but it loses that personal touch where each pixeltrooper has a name and an identity. The whole point of this concept is not to get any of your tiny core group killed. PS - I'm slightly surprised at some of the reactions to this idea.....How often do we see big chunks of an AAR dedicated to the adventures of 'that lone pixeltrooper'. I'm just trying to make the 'lone pixeltrooper' fun a bit more widespread and to design some scenarios that cater to his needs a little more.

Frankly I only find encouragement in your persistent negativity, if something offends you, it is clearly a worthy pursuit in its own right.

Depends what kind and more importantly, what kind of Pz.III was it (and where was it hit)? Spaced armour can have effects much greater than its actual thickness would imply.

Hmmm.....That seems odd. Could the TURMS-T actually be 'placing its shots better', rather than using a different round? The only difference between a T-72AV and a T-72AV TURMS-T is the fire control system, they fight alongside each other in formations and presumably draw their ammo from a common stockpile?

Yes. Sounds like you did a bit better than me, your T-90 won the engagement!

Yeah, I could probably have placed that better.....Sorry guys.

Personally I've taken to using the permanent 'Pause' option.....It's not 100% reliable but it does mitigate the issue somewhat (it's probably good practice generally TBH, a bit like the platoon leader saying "Stay here, do not move.....No matter what happens."). Nor me, especially not in CM:SF2 and I spend a lot of time in CM:SF2, usually doing really horrible things to my pixeltruppen.....Like this: All things considered, they seem remarkably resilient to me.

And we highly recommend doing so.

Interesting discovery re: crew-swapping in other titles (so not ideally placed here TBH).....In CM:BS I manually dismounted a US Supply platoon in preview mode and found that at scenario start, they remained dismounted (The same goes for an Abrams tank FWIW). I then tried putting some Russians into their dismounted Humvees in the editor.....Upon starting the scenario the crew jumped back to their vehicles, over-writing a similar number of Russians! Very odd.

@IICptMillerII.....Thought this brief article about (& nice picture of) the T-72AV TURMS-T might be of interest: http://gurkhan.blogspot.com/2019/05/72-90.html It seems the TURMS-T should be superior to just about all the other Soviet/Russian tanks in the spotting department (except possibly CM:BS' not entirely real at present T-90AM)!

I was hoping the change could be made only to two man units TBH, given the rather limited number of permutations in a unit of that size that is set to anything other than a 100% headcount.

John Rambo does! Now there's a game that made absolutely no bloody sense whatsoever.....What is it with Far Cry plot lines? You can actually get into the temple-thingy where mad-bird lives from the water edge, by jump-climbing over the cliffs.....So you should be able to rescue your buddies and not have to kill mad-bird either. Did Far Cry's designers test their **** that far? Oh no! See it's not just CM I do this to.....You should see some of the map-hacks we found in Far Cry 3's co-op game!

When they are stationary they certainly seem to.....I had some horrible point blank encounters while testing Coup. What I'm not sure is whether (or how well) it works against other Uncons.....Testing my 'SRBM Attack' IED/VBIED concept I expected to have more failures to detonate if the population density was higher (some of the IED/VBIED targets are Uncons too), however that doesn't appear to be the case.

So is the (xRNG) modifier genuinely more valuable (when we are talking about two man units) than the ability to select a single man?

There are several, do you mean Einstein's definition? TBH he was a lot better at physics than psychology. What.....Who says the opposite? I don't understand your comment. It's only applied one way (for two man teams set to 50%) and that way results in random mystery twins that are just not explicable by conventional mathematics.

Imagine how much more carefully you would play if each 'team' was one man to start with! There are a few of us who trying to push CM to the limits, just to see what's possible and what might be playable and fun.....Everything from Police Departments, Taxi Companies (in a war zone), on to Street Gangs and right through to very, very small CIA interventions are on the table:

I've experimented with CM:FI too, for very similar reasons, but set on a very different continent.....I started building a monstrous master map, but it crashed terminally (so a new smaller version is in progress).

I'm trying to minimise that issue by building the maps with great care, no mono-blocs of jungle etc. plus lots of undulations in the terrain. In my 'Drug War' concept I'll be using Fighters (Maoist/Islamic Insurgents) & Combatants (Armed Tribesmen) as the real jungle-warfare specialists, giving them an advantage by using the 'Population Density' setting in a counter-intuitive (but perfectly effective way). They'll get exactly the same advantage in urban settings too, but for different reasons.....Basically I like using Uncons and the other side already has plenty of advantages all of its own, such as artillery and helicopter gunships, among other things.

Fair enough.....That's probably the best reason so far. It's really irritating though.....It took a while to find seven teams that can be reduced to a single man while retaining their primary role ie: the snipers keep their long rifles, the FO still has his laser designator, the JAC can still talk to the drone (& friendly air), the breach team can (usually) still blow stuff up etc. etc. Dude, if you told your maths teacher that 50% of two was two.....How would that make you look?