Vinnart

And the worst operating system of all time.... Drum roll... Windows Millennium. It came with a PC got in 2000. Blue screens enough I actually smashed a keyboard. The thing is MS knew it was a lemon before they released. I know this because my cousin beta tested it, and the feedback back from the testers was it was crap! Once I changed to XP it was like night and day. For what it's worth my same cousin beta tested windows 10, and he thinks it is very good. It probably isn't a bad op system, but my attitude is if my windows 7 64bit is not broken, and i am satisfied why change at the moment? I'll get it in another 5-8 years when i need to upgrade my current pc, which is only a year old. Sooner or later we will all be 10 my cousin says as they are planning to keep it for some time.

I'm sticking with windows7. It works fine, and I don't like the smart phone look for PC in windows10. I think it another case of trying to fix something that is not broken. To date windows 7 is the best operating system i have used, but eventually we will all have to get windows10 since I believe it is to be their last op system for some time.

Some of the best pics I have ever seen of CMx2 NPye! Really awesome job! I think there are plenty of guys out there that are going to want these mods.

I think there was a mod for CMSF that was like this if I am not mistaken.

You could do boarding with vehicle paused since CMSF. I do it sometimes, but there is always the tricky timing. My thought is to always give a bit more boarding time than less. "Better to have and not need, than to need and not have". The worst is when you time it wrong and they driver takes off with the guys running after it . What can never be done is drop off a passenger while paused. I guess that would get a bit confussing for the AI to know where the intent is to drop off at. Some things like boarding and aqiuring do go more smoothly in real time play i can say.

Welcome to the forum and to CM Doc. It sounds like you are approaching the game with the right mindset in that there is a learning curve in CM probably more than many other games out there. Lots of good tips from the fellas, especially about reloading and trying things differently if it didn't go well the first time. I still do it sometimes if I have alternate plans i want to experiment with, or am learning a new unit, and I have been playing for years. I should add to your CM primer that you look up, and watch the CM series by Armchair General on youtube. Here is the first episode, but there are I believe 5 or 6 in the series. These are well done and explained by a former US Army Infantry Lt. Col. Here he is using CMBN, but many of the fundementals he discusses can be applied in genral to all CM games, however keep in mind each force and terrain is unique so tactics need to be adapted to fit.

+1

Absolutely great work on that movie Odin! You have a very good eye for camera shots, and editing. The subtitles added much in keeping the viewer more involved with following the narrative of the action. Thanks for contributing, awesome job! Glad BF got your IP thing squared away. This thread was created precisely for guys like you.

Range does not seem to have any effect on whether it works or not. I did this last night with a HMG team I did not want to open up with till the infantry got closer so I set an arc. There were some arty spotting rounds coming in so I put them on hide too. As soon as the HMG spotted the enemy with in the arc my MG opened up. The only restriction is terrain where they cannot see from prone such as not being able to look out a window when lying on the floor. What I notice with ambushes with target arc + hide in difference is in spotting time, and reaction time. With spotting while hiding only one, two, or NO guys are popping their head up to look around at any given moment. Sometimes the guy looking around happens to be looking in the right direction of the enemy that enters the arc and he will begin firing as quickly as if there was no HIDE order, and just the arc. The other difference is reaction time of the rest of the guys hiding vs not hiding. When hiding it takes the rest of the squad a moment to snap out of hiding, and start firing once the first guy already opened up. When they are not hiding all will spot and engage more quickly. So there really are two types of AMBUSHES you can do. Target arc alone. or + Hide. Each has their pros and cons. Choosing which one to do depends on circumstances, and terrain whether hide + arc will work well at all. It is another one of those nuances the game has with improvement of the AI sometime after 3.0. Having it work much more properly now gives more flexibility in being able to adapt to situations much better. At least now they will stop hiding to engage with in the arc where before they were too reluctant to. Sometimes I think arc alone is better, and sometimes I like it better with hide for better concealment and incoming artillery readiness. All depends on situation, and terrain. To be honest with it working much better now I do not see the need for a dedicated ambush command as any priority IMO.

This indeed works now as Sly already said. I noticed the improved behavior since 3.0 came out, and have used it to good effect since then. Before this units favored hiding over engaging in the arc. The key I think to using target arc on its own or + hide really depends on the circumstance, and most importantly the terrain. The main draw back as already said is that the hiding unit usually will not spot as quick since not as many guys are spotting, so hiding gives a spotting handicap, but gives a concealment bonus. I use all commands including hide, and combos depending on the situation. If done right it can make the difference. I do like how it works now in that is much improved over how cmx2 used the combo in the past. I do not recommend hide+target arc in buildings. The target arc alone works much better in the terrain.

Also, don't forget CMRT to make your dilema harder. Of all the ww2 games CMRT is the most polished IMO, and has the added feature of being able to load infantry on to tanks. If modern is your thing, then I would go with CMBS over CMSF since it has more features, and the Russians have a lot better toys than the Syrians.

That looks awesome juju!

Some good suggestions, but not all would be in my top 10. Anything that would improve the AI is always a step in the right direction so i am always for that. Most of what I think would be good to add to the game are all features from cmx1 that have proven to work that i hope return.: 1) +1 to the return of the ability to adjust points manually for QBs to desired setting, and to the return of a MIX variation that limits points for each branch to spend on. 2) The return of the ability to select a unit by clicking on its movement orders line. 3) And MOST of all to the return of passenger, open, or floor on status in the UI, and the return of some color coding for better ammo supply awareness. This last one should not be too much problem as the game already has code for swapping graphics, and color coding text upon condition. Shown under the portrait in this example would be text of either passenger, open, or floor # when the condition applies. In game it would overlay the text same way “bogged”, “immobilized”, “pinned” ect… do over the suppression meter when the condition applies. Contextually this text fits well with the portrait, and makes it more informative so one does not have to move the camera as much to determine those statuses like in cmx1. Currently if a troop is carrying a weapon, and it is out of ammo there is nothing that jumps out at the player to notice this. Instead of the ammo text disappearing as it does now it would improve awareness if it stayed, showed “0”, with the text changing to red similar to how it does when a vehicle part gets damaged.

They both are good games, but offer different play styles because of the terrain. Italy is more open with many more hills, which translates to using different tactics than in boccage country. Infantry tire more quickly in CMFI becuase of the terrain too. Becuase of all this both games have different "feels" despite using the same engine. Infact this is true of all the games. It is a tough call, and you really can't go wrong either way, BUT if i had to only choose one I would go with CMFI. #1 becuase I'm Italian , and #2 it runs smoother graphicly for me.

I am sure whatever kinks that the system would have (and there are always a few) that BF will iron out. The BF team has thought about the command, implementation, and troubleshooting potential issues for some time now so they have a plan. Sharing our visions and feedback on it is always good though since it is seen through fresh eyes and a different perspective. This goes for many creative ventures, including my own work if I am struggling to find a composition I like I will ask opnions and often find the best answer from another persons seeing it from another view point.

. All good questions in trying to troubleshoot potential issues Ian. Just like most things we may expect the order to not work as perfect for one reason or another in particular circumstances, but should work fine in most cases. Lets look at each potential issue one by one. I agree that 8M would be too close in the real world for a vehicle to follow another with out crashing, but for game purposes there shouldn’t be much problem. Remember game programming can control circumstances where as one can’t do that in reality, or at least not yet completely. They are coming out with cars that drive themselves with sensors that maintain distance from the car ahead. Just as it is now the rear unit may have an automatic pause delay when fist moving out if very close. To show you set up two vehicles in column 8m apart, selct both, and give fast order for both in a straight line. The following vehicle will auto pause letting the lead move out, then move out fast behind it when it can start movement, and stop 8m behind the lead vehicle at the end of the move. With FOLLOW, when the following unit does begin to move, it will follow the lead units path and will stop the interval distance from the lead unit when it stops movement. As far as speed problems the interval would have priority over speed adjusting automatically, or pausing to maintain the interval. In some cases the AI would have to override speed or perhaps cancel the follow order for condition much how it will change a MOVE command to QUICK on its own if warranted. Certainly all circumstances you # I can see for using the command along with these probably to name few: I want the ammo bearer to follow the gun. I want to put a scout out, and have the rest of the squad follow him, and the squad behind that to follow that squad, and the HQ to follow them ectt… till the scout makes contact. Instead of having to plot each unit one just needs to plot the scouts path. Look how many clicks and plotting are eliminated for moving from A to B! If the lead unit comes under attack and begins to REVERSE the FOLLOW command could automatically cancel, OR even better the following order begins to reverse too maintaining the interval. For infantry tank coordination the speed is dictated by keeping the interval. Interval always overrides speed in that it would a use something like “Move at Same Speed” command which I have seen in Sudden Strike games. InfantryFollowing Vehicle: If the infantry were following a vehicle one would not want to give the vehicle a fast move order as the infantry will have to run fast to maintain the interval, so slow or shorter hunt/move orders would be a better choice for orders for the vehicle in that case. If the vehicle comes under fire and starts to move faster on its own the infantry would move faster too to try to keep the interval. At that point one may want to cancel the FOLLOW order. Just as there is a time and place for other orders so it would be with FOLLOW. One can give or cancel the order any time, and can use it how and when they want. Vehicle following Infantry: Here the vehicle will be copying the move orders and path as the infantry just like any other scenario. In this case, just as vehicles must have automatic pauses if they get too close going along the same path, so it probably would be the same for a faster unit following a slower one in that it would pause when needed to keep the interval, OR there is some kind of AI “Move at Same Speed” implemented under the hood to adjust the vehicles speed automatically to keep interval minimizing jerky movements of pausing, moving, pausing ect..

Two new thoughts on this on possible ways of working beyond the most complex way that I described above: SIMPLEST The simplest way possibly for this to work could be a defauslt of one action square space which would be 8m instead of introducing increments. This should be enough distance if maintained to prevent convoys from jamming up, and would create one action squae space between infantry units. MEDIUM COMPLEXITY: This option uses increments, but the player has 3 choices: CLOSE: Infantry follow behind in adjacent action square, with no action spot space beween. Vehicles would have to have a default minimum of perhaps 8-10m. MEDIUM: One action square space beween infantry. Two action square space beween vehicles (16-20) FAR: Two action spot squares space beween infantry (16m), and three action square spaces beween vehicles (about 30m) I don't see the need, or desire to have spacing more than a few action squares for its use in I doubt anyone would need the ability to have spacing much further for purpose of the command to move columns easily.

I am sure BF has their own ideas how they would implement it, but here is a mock up with details and illustrations of a possible concept for it that I came up with. For all I know we both have similar conclusions. If anyone wants to discuss a Follow command specificly please take it up in this thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/111963-improving-logistics-%E2%80%93-follow-me/?hl=%2Bimproving+%2Blogistics In summery the following unit copies the lead units movement path, and movement order type. The distance is set incrementally by the player similar to how PAUSE command works. EDIT: I did ad two other possibilities to that thread that just came to me. One is the simplest of using one action square space beween units with no toggle of incements as a default setting. The other possibiltity is a toggle of three distance settings the player can choose; Close, medium, and far.

I think a FOLLOW command would certainly improve all existing games. Definitely on the top of my wish list. That, and cooperative multiplayer especially to improve the games real time genre popularity. The more I play real time the more I wish I was on a team helping to manage the force. Even the set up phase would go so much faster to get a real time game going. Such a feature would attract more the type of player into ARMA's team oriented attraction, and bring a new dimension of team work to all previous games. I would expect we will see Follow before that though.

Good show Doug! Thanks for the fun follow along.

Lol. Makes you wonder who thought of that one.

Nice AAR Bil, better luck next time. In all fairness though I think this a very tough map in shape for a US against big cats fight in that it is long and narrow. Not much room to maneuver to the flanks to get side shots. Even if you would have brought more M10's it would still be tough, and then your armor force would be more susceptible to artillery too. If Doug had bought anything besides big cats it would be different in the head on fight, which looks rather unavoidable on this map. I would have picked a force probably identical to Doug’s for this map if I could choose, but lately for QB fights I have been letting the computer select the forces automatically, and playing with whatever cards dealt. It can definitly add more challenge to have to work with what you get.

Deleted. Wrong thread.

Thanks for the update Steve. Especially nice to hear talk about 4.0 engine, and look forward to see what new features will be added.

Good to put this info in the different game forum to maximize exposure. I wish BF would showcase the link somewhere to advertise it for those trying to real time game match. They could certainly put a disclaimer that it is a 3rd party program they are not responsible for in being un-moderated. Guys will have to find this link to know there is a way out there to help get real time games when they want to play.