Kieme(ITA)

That footage is one of the most detailed one available of the entire second world war. My personal opinion is that the Panther was unable to move, because, even before being hit by the Pershing, there's something strange with the right track and how it is hanging on the sprocket wheel. Maybe this panther was placed there as a fixed anti-tank asset? Or maybe it suffered from some mechanical breakdown before this particular fight?

Again, map makers can give a hand. If the buildings indeed have a strong impact on the framerates, it wouldn't be a bad idea to make urban maps smaller than rural ones, if not just for that also because buildings increase the effective size of the map expanding it vertically.

I'll try to upload all my mods on cmmods III, had some troubles in the last months and couldn't do it.

It's Worth to note that BMP-1 textures were made for the game and casually left within the game files, but the vehicle was not included... a possible sign.

Maybe it's not true on 100% cases of personal weapons among soldiers, but you might force the distinction by using, let's say, a black-stock SVD for Russians and a wooden-stock SVD for Ukrainians, while the AKS/SU magazine black for Russians and orange-brown for Ukrainians might work. Anyway, I do feel your pain with the russian hardware, there are less high quality pictures to scavange (the US weapons have much more references) and adapt (their shapes don't help at all!).

I belive that scenario makers might (and should) help on this matter. As you all know there are three option of thickness when it comes to making a game square of trees... a single tree, a small Group or a large Group... I have seen some maps where a thick forest is made of a large number of squares entirely filled with the thickest possible option for tree brush. While I understand that in some cases a scenario maker would want a thick forest in a given place, at the same time I have recognized that the same effect can be achieved by deleting a few squares Worth of trees, reduce the thickness of some Others, and there you get a very similar thick forest but with half the number of effective trees you'd get with the simple use of a single maximum thickness brush. There are other "tricks" I have exprimented that could improve framerate when it comes down to scenario making, for example: -select only some building textures (don't use all 8 -or more- of them within the single map) -reduce the number of flavour objects (both in types and quantity, concentrate them where they will be most probably seen by players) -reduce the number of extreme slopes on the terrain

Another idea concerning BMPs, is to split all squads before embarking them, then mix match all the resulting A/B teams, so that they will keep split even when inside the vehicle. It's a bit of a chore but you can manage to fill a mechanized infantry platoon with one or two additional teams (sold separately).

Would it be possible to make the AK-74 more different than the 74M? If I am not mistaken the AK-74M is used in game by the russians, and it has a full black stock and magazine, while the UA units feature a brown color magazine, for example.

A few of the splits I have done in the past. Russian/ukraine mechanized infantry squads on BMPs: I often split a "recon team" and leave it on the BMP (2 or 3 is the same) so that the commander's position will be occupied thus enhancing the vehicle combat capabilities. US infantry squads: I often split an anti-tank team equipped with Javelin, to be able to better control the Javelin usage. Other than this: when I need to hold an objective area I usually split all my squads in order to reduce the probability of massive losses due to a single enemy heavy caliber or arty shot. Not to mention to cover more lines of fire and give the impression of a larger force. Many reasons.

I belive the entire system of force pick-up (for multuplayer) should be revised. It's not just a matter of assigning the correct value of points for each unit and formation (this comes natural as the game gets patched etc.), what I refer to would be to increase the number of available options when setting up a multiplayer game, especially when it comes down to force selection for both players. More options mean, for example, letting the game-creating player decide how many points to assign, and maybe, as you suggested, devide the points into specific cathegories (using the same we have now, infantry / armor / support etc.). Let's hope these improvements will hit toghether with the revised multiplayer this game should receive sooner or later (possibly in CM4x)

Actually, there isn't really anything. Some user managed to extract 3d models, but I'm not sure it worked the other way around. There sure is no way to change hard-coded unit characteristics. I forgot to mention that you can change also the sounds, not just the textures.

Was your order LIGHT type? If that's the case it is possible that the helo didn't see any viable targets and passed by. If you ordered a POINT TARGET mission (LIGHT) you can be assured a 30mm burst or a missile would have been dropped on one of the buildings, the one of your choice. If you want to cover a wider area you can use a HEAVY mission with POINT TARGET, also rockets will be used and they will cover a wider area, as well as missiles will do because there's chance they will land some meters from the objective. All in all the AREA TARGET mission gives more freedom to the support asset, letting him decide what target within such area to shoot at, this might be dependant on the chance that the asset himself is capable of making visual contact with the targets.

It is impossible to edit units that way. You can only change the textures that cover them, not their characteristics. However, morale and ammo for each unit (as well as fatigue, experience, status) can be changed in the editor, when you make a new scenario or modify an existing one.

The kind of firing mission might be decisive here, try using a point target order rather than an area fire. An example: I had a BMP-3 spotted, ordered the JTAC team to issue a POINT TARGET mission LIGHT type 100m in front of the BMP-3. When it arrived the Helo hit the precise spot with a missile, practically ignoring the BMP-3. In another occasion with the same parameters a 30mm burst was shot on the ground, the only problem might be concerning the direction the bursts will follow, there's no way to predict this. Tested a case where I ordered the JTAC team to issue a POINT TARGET mission LIGHT type 25 meters from its own position. The Helo attacked with a 30mm burst on the ground with a perfect precision. In a similar mission a missile was dropped, but some 20 meters from the ordered position. Seems to me you can't be extremely precise, but if you give your troops a safe area of at least 50m from the "target ground" order you issue (POINT TARGET) you should be fine. But if rockets are used then such safe area should extend as much as 200m Worth, because these weapons tend to cover a longer area. If you want a precision shot try to use this kind of mission. When it comes to weapons of choice, the AH-64D seems to hold the rockets for medium and heavy mission types, while missiles and 30mm gun are used during light mission types and all other mission types. Light mission type tends to bring the use of a single weapon for a single time (probably due to the time constraint, see above).

It's Worth some testing. Spotter: US JTAC team (regular, normal motivation) Targets: 3 BMP-3 and dismounted infantry (far from the vehicles) in the open Perfect weather conditions AH-64D (Attack Helos) Regular, normal motivation Looks like that the AH-64D (attack helo) doesn't indeed use any weapon when ordered an AREA TARGET mission of LIGHT type. It uses a 30mm gun when issued a POINT TARGET mission of LIGHT type. I stand correct. After some tests I have seen several results: an AREA TARGET mission of LIGHT type has the AH-64D attack with 30mm gun when infantry units are spotted. If a vehicle is spotted chances are it will be attacked either with 30mm gun and/or with missiles. In some cases infantry units are engaged by means of a missile and/or rockets. But I've seen some cases during which the Apache didn't engage anything at all, despite the JTAC team had at least 1 enemy vehicle spotted when calling the LIGHT mission of AREA TARGET. It is possible that the Helo didn't make visual contact with the enemy units within the area. It's Worth to note that the type of mission (HEAVY/LIGHT/MEDIUM) is an indication of the time lenght of the fire mission, therefore a HEAVY mission will most likely cause the Helo to use all its entire asset array during several turns, while a LIGHT mission will consist of a single turn where one or two types of weapons are used in a single occasion. Conclusion after few more tests (even with a crack AH-64D): The AREA TARGET mission of LIGHT type will have the Helo attack for no more than a single game turn. During such turn there is a chance that the Helo will not fire any weapon, possibly due to a failure in making direct contact with the enemy. During such turn it is possible that the Helo will attack one or two (max) enemy units, either infantry or vehicles, if present. The Attacks will consist most probably in the use of Missiles or 30mm gun both against vehicles and troops.

Bud, we all are.

Never heared of this thing either. But I don't understand, you say we should use this thing behind our monitors when playing?

I changed the resolution of almost all mini textures in order to reduce the blur line transition impact with my terrain mods. Yet the line is still there if I look carefully. Besides, some elements in game such as the roads and railroads use an authomatic scaling that is not moddable.

http://www.shutterstock.com/s/hospital+symbol/search.html

I agree that the red cross is quite an old style symbol. The size of in game UI doesn't allow space for much fantasy, but nevertheless there are quite a few variations on the theme, a bounch of insipirations: http://www.123rf.com/clipart-vector/wounded.html https://www.google.it/search?q=red+cross&biw=1920&bih=985&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjto5n88pzKAhVLiRoKHZdIBKQQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=blood+drop+symbol https://www.google.it/search?q=red+cross&biw=1920&bih=985&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjto5n88pzKAhVLiRoKHZdIBKQQ_AUIBigB#tbm=isch&q=red+cross+modern+symbol https://www.google.it/search?q=red+cross&biw=1920&bih=985&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjto5n88pzKAhVLiRoKHZdIBKQQ_AUIBigB

Thanks for sharing, the difference is evident. It's also know as the "blur line" for some people around,.

A quick suggestion as a (potential) improvement or change for the future: the "wounded" version of weapons silhouettes.. if you take a look at Juju's works he tried several variations with his mods about this matter.. I like your idea of a coloured bar because it's slick and fits the original UI, but it is possible that some people with colour-blind problems might have difficulties to distinguish them. You might try to make a classic red cross on White background as an option for a future 2.0 version of your mod.

And don't forget to take a look at one of my favourites, IanL's floating icons. http://www.lesliesoftware.com/mods/