poesel

I am happy to see you found the same results with the information sharing.  Makes me feel more confident in my own findings. Speaking of radio C2, while moving on foot, I had the below screenshots from an older test. 
 
Units in Combat Mission's World War II titles drop out of radio C2 while moving on foot.  But not in vehicles as Kuderian pointed out.

 
 
Units in CMBS maintain radio C2 while moving.

An other suggestion might be that if we for example rightclick the name in the purchase screen...parts of the in-game UI will be shown below.
 
Something like this...
 

 
This will only be possible with individual units and not the formations though...
 
 

Some political information: the minister of defense is currently under pressure for 'inadvequate' weapon system in the Bundeswehr (as was the minister before her and the one before, too - that minister position is known here as 'ejection seat'). Currently its about the G36 and its problems (which the press got awfully wrong).
The article in 'Die Welt' is also quite uninformed and tries to hook in with the general bad press about the ministry. It is also a pitch by a former ministry member to get DU munitions for the Leopard (DU is non-PC here).
 
Bad article - ignore.

WEGO only player here: I don't think a lobby would help me much in finding opponents. Committing to a game that will last at least several weeks if not months needs some kind of trust. This I can find in one of several hobby clubs. Each club has its own appeal so I can choose the one I like best.
A BFC lobby would have all sorts of players and this would make finding a suitable opponent more difficult.
 
OTOH I would like CM to have more interfaces to control or be controlled from the outside. That would give players the freedom to add what they like.

Thanks for making the CAAR - really enjoyed it!

I, too, think that watching an AI vs AI fight wouldn't be that interesting. But what would be interesting (to me at least) is a WEGO extreme mode where you pitch your AI plans against each other.
 
Take a scenario, make an AI plan, send it to someone else, he adds the other side plan and then watch the show and see who wins. It's like WEGO but with only ONE order phase. I think that would be interesting for the programmer types around here.
Plus: whoever takes up that part of the hobby will be an AI wrestling god sooner or later and we all get some nasty scenarios from those.

Tinypic did cause me to have an epileptic response.
not fun

Here's my first attempt at a video AAR. The voice isn't fantastic (hopefully fixed for the future) and its a quick battle against the AI so this could seen as a training exercise in more than one sense. Here's all the action:
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7oRNHcjmIaA
 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cvYEWHQ0lEM

I don't think it deigns a new thread so soon after my last, so I'll place it here:
 

 
A very interesting mission made challenging by the terrain, rather than the staunchness of the defenders. Definitely felt like a fish out of water with so much open ground having come from the base game.
 
Of course, just like my Carbide-Carbide video, I've combined more cinematic edits with me droning on; the latter half of the video is nothing but (thankfully unnarrated!) infantry action. I can confirm as well that pixelation only occurs from camera movement; but as its only occurring during top-down segments, I don't think its much of an issue this time around.

1) choose the 'Your CM insallations' tab
2) Menu - Installs - Add Installs
3) point it to the App
4) finished
 
There - wasn't complicated
CMBS has no icon - everything else works.

Made this as a joke out of boredom.
 
 

 

BFC should really change to that scrum model... just for the fun of seeing the forum explode in vitriolic hate as every one explains why HIS feature is the most important and should be implemented next!

 
Customers don't know what they want (me included). Its BFCs job to find out what enough people want to pay for their time.
Supposedly it was Henry Ford who said: 'If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.'

BFC should really change to that scrum model... just for the fun of seeing the forum explode in vitriolic hate as every one explains why HIS feature is the most important and should be implemented next!

 
Customers don't know what they want (me included). Its BFCs job to find out what enough people want to pay for their time.
Supposedly it was Henry Ford who said: 'If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.'

BFC should really change to that scrum model... just for the fun of seeing the forum explode in vitriolic hate as every one explains why HIS feature is the most important and should be implemented next!

 
Customers don't know what they want (me included). Its BFCs job to find out what enough people want to pay for their time.
Supposedly it was Henry Ford who said: 'If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.'

BFC should really change to that scrum model... just for the fun of seeing the forum explode in vitriolic hate as every one explains why HIS feature is the most important and should be implemented next!

 
Customers don't know what they want (me included). Its BFCs job to find out what enough people want to pay for their time.
Supposedly it was Henry Ford who said: 'If I had asked my customers what they wanted they would have said a faster horse.'

In general, normally, in a typical software development process when you decide you are done (features are all in, all major show stopper bugs are fixed) you produce a final candidate or release candidate (mean the same thing) build.  From then on each build is considered a possible release build.  You never just release it, you always test it 1) to make sure the last fix you made did not accidentally break something else and 2) make sure the nasty show stopper bug you just fixed is really fixed 3) give testing a little longer to make sure no other nasty show stopper bugs are easily found.  The issue then becomes deciding what to do when you hit a bug because leaving it has obvious risks but fixing it does to.  The big boss has to make a call.  If the call is fix it, you make a fix and a new build and start the final test cycle again.  The absolutely right thing to do is not to have an actual hard release date which leaves you free to delay things for another build if you find something you think your customers are going to hit often.  I am speaking here in general terms.  I have worked at five major companies and multiple products and the end game is always just like I describe above with variation in the terms and variation in the care given and variation in results.  Having done software development for 20 years I have seen this process handled really well and really badly.
 
I don't speak for BFC but they are a software development company and the tend to do the right thing in terms of quality.  I suspect all of us will see that reflected in how the end game plays out.  Well actually you will not see it I guess - sorry - but the results will be good.  What you should know is that they have an excellent track record of doing the right thing - even if you don't get to see the inner workings.  Having played these games for several years now and now having helped out with testing I will say the BFC is on the best end of the scale at handling this end game of the release.
 
So, if there is a delay - don't think "damn that's bad, what is wrong with them" - instead think "whew good for them, they are making another fix that would have made me miserable if they just shipped it".

Conscript in the German army for one year in the early 90s. My 'oh crap' moment was during basic training when our Hauptmann came over and told us that there was a revolution in Russia (the one with Jeltsin). If that had escalated I would have been automatically enlisted for an indefinite time. Yeah, great - just when the cold war was supposedly over.
 
Served in the canteen for the rest of the time but did not peel the infamous 'Für Schweinemast und Bundeswehr' ('For hog feeding and Bundeswehr') potatoes.

Conscript in the German army for one year in the early 90s. My 'oh crap' moment was during basic training when our Hauptmann came over and told us that there was a revolution in Russia (the one with Jeltsin). If that had escalated I would have been automatically enlisted for an indefinite time. Yeah, great - just when the cold war was supposedly over.
 
Served in the canteen for the rest of the time but did not peel the infamous 'Für Schweinemast und Bundeswehr' ('For hog feeding and Bundeswehr') potatoes.

I had the same problem with my iMac. QT does not record the sound that is output to the speaker. It is recording from line in instead. Don't ask me why.
 
You have two options:
 
1) make a little loop connection from line out to line in (microphone). Downside is that you won't hear a sound while recording.
 
2) buy software that does this. There are several possibilities from free to paid. Unfortunately I forgot the names so you have to google that yourself.

'unable to depress its guns'!?! Narrative or really happened? Because gun depression limit is AFAIK on BFC's 'never' list.

'unable to depress its guns'!?! Narrative or really happened? Because gun depression limit is AFAIK on BFC's 'never' list.

I also don't have a clue about the innards of CM but I doubt that any of these things you mentioned are pre-calculated.
 
Spotting distance depends on who you are, stance and terrain - changes often.
Hit probability - we don't have that.
Ground conditions - change over time.
Light levels - also change. Set up a QB at dawn and wait a while to see the sun come up
Fatigue - depends on ground conditions -> see above.
 
Maps can be played with any kind of weather so nothing seems hard-coded. My guess is that it is technically feasible.

We already know anything about the map (with the exception of enemy units). We can fly where we want and take a look from any angle. So every information is already there for us as players to get. It is debatable how hard it should be to get that information.
 
Every now and then someone suggests that we get toggleable fields for LOS so you could see at a glance to which areas a unit has LOS and which not.. This has been rejected by BFC as making things too easy. I partly agree: for the higher difficulty levels it should stay as is but it would be a big help for beginners of this game.
 
Now contour lines are IMHO something different. First I would guess that commanders in WWII would have had such maps. Probably the first thing you do when you sketch out a plan: hills, valleys, rivers, settlements - the important stuff. All the nice details WE get like where bushes are or what kind of crop is growing on that specific field would be left out of such a map. A map with contour lines only is much easier to 'read' that the 3D representation we have.
 
This leads to the second point: what we see is a 2D representation of a 3D world. The real world observer would have a much better impression of distances and heights than what we can get from our 2D view. This is remedied somehow by our ability to fly around and look at things from several angles. Contour maps provide 3D information for a 2D map.
 
IMHO it wouldn't be necessary to get an overlay like in the example above. A simple 2D map would be more than enough.

Hey, all.

Turn up your speakers, go full screen, make sure you're on 1080p HD, and enjoy my new CMRT video:

http://youtu.be/QLuoK3melRo

Screenshot:


Thanks!

Macisle