stoex

Understood. On the other hand, CMSF Marines Module Manual (.pdf) is 28 pages, Brit Module Manual (.pdf) is 24 pages. Looks like you could save 75-87,5% on printing costs if you just skip the 70 to 170 white pages at the end . Sorry Moon, just pulling your leg a little 'cause I'm in a silly mood today. I get where you are coming from and I'm not trying to argue for printed manuals. Just being a little trite, is all .

I guess that's really what I'm trying to say anyway, I'm just not coming from the right direction and too focused on just one aspect...I do realize that you aren't just shooting out into the blue with a UGL and that you can adjust! It's just not as easy as with a GMG. Ryujin has wrapped it up in a nutshell as far as I'm concerned. Thank you And I think we all agree that there is an innate imprecision involved with hand-held weapons at great ranges compared to mounted weapons. The human body vs. steel...

Sure he would, but he can't walk the next round closer like a GMG gunner could. He has to lower the rifle to reload...and when he raises it again, who knows where exactly it's pointing .

Is it down to four already? Haven't been following the story that closely...Anyway, it's really only three then, since they need one for the kids to sit in at the "Leistungsschau"...where I expect they'll be making collections for spare change this year. Every little bit helps!

More and more precise tooltips. Particularly for CAS / Artillery / Mortars. Also a clearer unit inventory and the ability to remove gear from infantry (drop as well as return to vehicle / storage).

I always thought the fact that you need the base game to play a "module" (Moon's quotation marks, BTW) is the main reason why the "modules" can be sold cheaper than the base game . Seriously, printing manuals and buying CD cases in bulk are surely marginal budget busters, aren't they? A regular CD case, like the one most games come in these days, costs $ 1.25 at my local store, and my guess is they are cheaper if you buy 5,000 at once...

Walking rounds onto a target seems to be only applicable to GMG's like the H&K, though. OP was talking about single-round UGLs, which do have a pretty lowly accuracy in-game at ranges above 150meters or so. As it should be since every shot has to be set up individually.

Best thread ever . Shows clearly who would like to be in the Peng Challenge Thread but is too proud to actually post there ! Oh yeah, and since I live in the same city as Thomm - NO CARPET BOMBING PLEASE! Pitchforks are ok though...

Question, souldierz: Why is there no jet out of the back of the JAV hitting the tank? I never noticed that before in any other pic. Maybe just a graphics glitch from having caught the missile at the last possible moment before detonation (meaning the flame jet is removed before the missile)? Or does the rocket motor actually cease operating before the missile hits?

While this thread is up: I'd be interested in trying a PBEM once as well. Never actually done so before in any CM version. Tried MP in RT once and it was too stressful for me. Since I figure Taki is already swamped with offers, I'll post my own offer here. I'll take anyone up on Monday (no CM over the weekend, as I'm out of town) on these terms: CMSF no QB maps (there should be a briefing and some resemblance of force balance) any size map, any force, any module. no longer than 1 1/2 hour time limit oh yeah - and I'm probably not really good if you are a member of the CessPool, please disregard my offer:) Pls write me an email via my forum profile if you're interested, thanks! Cheers

Well both of those workarounds can really be classified as program interfaces of a sort...the first is an extremely quaint simulation of a user actually using the program, the second a bloody brutal hack, but nonetheless - both of them obviously interfaced with the scenario editor! I have a friend who once won second prize in a competition and a free shopping trip to a certain Swedish furniture store by writing a little program that would repeatedly open their web site, navigate to the competition page and vote for his own entry . He also simulated mouse clicks, and it was slow, but it was enough to make second place behind some guy who had obviously written a better cheat machine - they were both several 10,000 votes above the rest of the (um...honest) competition .

+1 from me as well... Elite Blue snipers often have serious trouble hitting kneeling enemy infantry in the open at 200 meters. Shouldn't be so... Also, when do we finally get more ammo for the snipers? That or the ability to restock from a vehicle? At least if the snipers come with their own rides, those rides should have the correct ammo on board.

Some quick info, paullootens: CM:SF NATO will feature Units from Germany, Canada and the Netherlands. Some pictures of vehicles in the module can be found here. Above and beyond that, a forum search with the keyword NATO should turn up most of what is known so far . Cheers, stoex

There you have it, in the words of our very own Steve: The French are 'out of place' in Normandy

Peerke actually beat the 'posts per day' algorithm with his amazing perseverance in lurking: Having been a forum member for 3774 days by my calculation, he can write another 36 or 37 posts (depending on rounding and how many days it takes him to do so) before he hits 0.01 posts per day. That's IF he ever posts again! Cheers, Peerke! Way to beat the system!

In the worst case (incompatibility of cyrillic fonts, for example) one might be able to open the scenario in the editor at least, and remove or replace the 'offending' texts? Then all that would be necessary would be some nice bilingual player taking the time to translate the briefings so you know what you have to do .

lomir, Sorry about misspelling your name there...I did actually wonder while typing it whether it was 'l' or 'I', but didn't think to check your profile, where your name appears in a different font, making it clear. Unfortunately, you can't change your login name yourself AFAIK. Maybe you can talk Steve or Moon into doing this for you, I seem to remember it being done before on occasion. Anyway, as you say, the plot thickens...I would be happy if you would send me your setup via email, as I will have time over the weekend to do some extensive testing on this issue, seeing as how it has become quite intriguing . I have my own test scenario of course, but since changing walls is a bit of a nuisance, I'll be glad to have a ready version of a different setup than my own to play with. Lots of combinations of walls are possible, however, so it's going to be a long haul to make a conclusive test... Finally, since we are talking about blasting etc...(and we have utterly hijacked this 'exhaustion' thread already ), I hope that in CM:N there will be a change in AI behaviour regarding empty bunkers and pillboxes. Meaning I wish infantry wouldn't waste their explosives and grenades on empty fortifications while walking by, except if told to do so. Important since we will be seeing far more such fortifications in CM:N than in CM:SF. I also hope Steve eventually reads this thread .

Thanks, TheVulture! Your post has given me an inspiration about my original problem. Well, at least a way to judge ahead of time which movement orders into buildings are likely (maybe certain) to result in the mentioned behaviour, and which aren't. It's all about the action spots, of course! Soldiers obviously have to 'tag' the action spot closest to the door before going in. When the door through which an infantry unit will enter a building is in a wall which stands on the edge of an action spot in the underlying grid, then the closest action spot is 'one action spot away from' the building. Therefore, the soldiers have to run out to the middle of that action spot, which is 4 meters away from the door. Single-file suicide mode... When the wall with the door stands in the middle of an action spot (crossing it horizontally or diagonally), the soldiers are able to use the half action spot visible outside the building as their final 'tag' spot before entering, thereby staying much closer to the building wall. Presto! At least now I know which doors are the 'bad' ones! Still can't always avoid them, but it's good to have 'situational awareness' regarding this, anyway...

It is most certainly dangerous for the firer (to a degree) to fire even small arms against solid walls from close range, due to the possibility of plaster or concrete shrapnel hitting him. Not something I would want to do, anyway! But also not what I'm stipulating for CMSF - I would like a command similar to 'target smoke' for Chally's. A special target order that causes units to only use their demo charges on the specified target (call it 'target blast'). Really what I would like is some fix that separates blasting from movement, thereby giving the player more flexibility when using demo charges in-game. I have also come up with the possibility of a possibility of a workaround for the 'no-LOS-problem' regarding solid walls...the game engine (since the brit module, anyway) supports firing certain weapons at places not in LOS (the brit HQ mortar). I don't know how those mechanics work under the hood, but maybe this could be made to work for demo charges in solid-walled building complexes in some way... Just a thought

Guess so, Lanzfeld...as you say it's not a gamebreaker, and in most cases it can be avoided by careful planning and tactics, but on the odd occasion where there is no other way to get into a building you need to get into, it turns into one of the rare save-before-and-maybe-reload-few-times moments for me. I do this when I have the feeling that limitations in the game engine cause an unrealistic disadvantage for me. And no, I don't reload when this happens to the AI. Tough buns to them!

Iomir, First of all let me say that your point is taken. That is, one of your points is taken . Pardon me for being a little trite, but the old adage only works in the positive sense....meaning that if something is in a picture, that proves it is possible, but conversely if something isn't in a picture, that doesn't prove it's impossible . Here's what I mean: As you can see from this picture, it is quite possible to area fire into adjacent buildings as long as the wall (actually each of the two walls between the interiors of the two buildings) is either nonexistent, destroyed (both not shown in the screenshot since they are both obvious...) or has some kind of aperture (door or window). This is regardless of whether the buildings overlap completely or in part, and also regardless of the exact location of the door or window(s). Note the target line on the first floor, which goes into the left hand rear building through the part of the wall away from the door to the right hand rear building, where there is no window. On the second floor, the target line appears to go through a solid wall into the right hand rear building - in fact there is a single window in that wall further right, obscured by the building on the front right. But that doesn't matter to the pixeltruppen... Admittedly it is very difficult to place these targets, particularly when the targeted buildings are see-through due to units inside them, but it is possible. On the third floor the single window in the middle of the wall is enough to be able to target either of the rear buildings' third floors (of course I can only show one in the screenshot, you'll just have to believe the other one works as well...) I think this may be the reason why you claim that only vertical area fire is possible in your illustration. To place target lines, particularly on higher floors or when the targeted building is transparent, the best way to do this is to position the camera inside the building you wish to target, on the correct floor, then place the target line on one of the exterior walls and click there. In summary: As long as two buildings are connected via some length of wall, and both aspects of that wall have at least one aperture, it is possible to area target from one building to the other. You are, however, absolutely correct that my idea for 'area fire blast' fails when it comes to solid walls due to lack of LOS . This is however the only problem I can see with it. It's a big enough problem that my idea is useless, though! (Unless BFC like it enough to create a workaround. Steve? ) Just thought I'd point out some facts about area fire within building complexes that you appear to have been unaware of. Regarding lack of LOS due to smoke/debris - well, c'est la guerre...I find it realistic that if there is too much smoke in a building to see the enemy and fire at him, then it probably isn't going to be really easy to place and detonate a demo charge, either. The pixelengineers will just have to wait a bit, then...

According to the info atop their posts, Thomm beat Ali-Baba by one minute, far as I can see...but wait! I almost forgot that I don't really care! Damn, I hate shooting myself in the foot... Anyway, great to see a forum on CM:A! Bring on the bones!!!!

Thanks for all the replies and the good discussion, people! More thoughts from me, and an illustration for Thomm: I generally don't let my men stop at an action spot adjacent to the building, as I find this creates all the more trouble, often causing them to take up positions even further from the entrance and therefore more exposed. Also, when infantry reach a waypoint and have a pause or no further movement orders following, they tend to 'mill about' a bit before settling down, which is definitely not something I want them to do in the given situation...I do of course area fire buildings before going in if I know or expect there to be enemies inside, preferably with something heavy. This is another reason why I send my men directly into the building, however, since timing is of the utmost importance so as to a) not expose my men to my own area fire, while getting them inside ASAP after the end of said area fire, while the enemies are still suppressed. Pausing them outside the building makes this difficult. Plus they don't use as many 'nades this way... Thomm - you asked, I answer here: I had particular trouble with this phenomenon recently in the first mission of the Red vs. Red "Road to Dinas" campaign (by Paper Tiger, I believe, great stuff and very challenging). The mission is called "Petani - Shock and Awe" and it features a small town with a long, straight, paved road running alongside it on the very edge of the map. This means I can't get good overwatch on the buildings along the road. Here is what happens: My HQ squad in their starting position on the road. I order them to 'quick' into the next building. Though I can't see them, from previous incoming fire I am quite certain there are enemies in the tall building on the right of the screen, as well as in buildings further to the right, overlooking the road. Still, it should be no problem (in real life) to get into the next building without being seen or at least without exposing oneself all too much, right? That's what hugging walls is for...weeeell... The squad heads out. As they approach the building, they veer off and start moving into the middle of the road. The closer they get to the door, the further away from it they move laterally. But they're still ok and haven't been seen...maybe... This is the squad in single-file suicide mode now...every single one of them steps beyond the middle line of the road in turn before jogging through the door. I can hear gunfire now, but can't see anything yet. They've almost made it, but the air is thick with bullets now. There appear to be enemy squads in both of the tall buildings on the right side of the screen judging by the bullet paths...another thing that doesn't help with all this is that since men in squads tend to move in the order they are listed in the GUI, the guy with the RPG is last in line and therefore most likely to bite the dust! Amazingly, in this test run, the entire squad makes it into the building without suffering casualties. This did NOT happen while I was actually playing the scenario. *sigh* This is my favorite shot, from a second test where I substituted the 'quick' order with a 'move' order. As soon as the bullets start flying, the squad automatically switches to 'quick', of course (and, unbelievably, they all make it unscathed AGAIN), but their pathing is identical to the first test. Check out the position of the last soldier...he's actually run a good 6 feet beyond the door of the building, just to give the enemies a better chance of hitting him! *BIG sigh* So there it is. I think it's a wee bit silly. BTW, in another test (without screenshots this time), I started the squad off from the recess between the two buildings (you can see it in the first two shots) just to see what would happen. The outcome was the same. Comments?

Hello folks! A few points on the blasting topic: YankeeDog said: Iomir said: The problem with this is that it means you have to have your team further away from the wall when they receive the blast order (far as I can tell), since they have to move somewhere after the demo charge sets off. This can sometimes be difficult or dangerous under certain circumstances. Otherwise, you are right, and I will try to use this workaround more often... Iomir also said: I don't agree with this. If 'blast' were an area fire-type command, and you wanted to blast through multiple walls in a compound, you could simply string the order sets together due to the way area fire already works in the game. Since you can set area fire from any waypoint to a target that is in LOS of that waypoint, you could simply tell your squad to: Move to first wall From that waypoint, area fire blast in the direction of the first wall (with 15 sec. pause) Area fire target will be automatically deleted after demolition complete Move through first wall to next wall From that waypoint, area fire blast in direction of second wall (with 15 sec. pause), works since second wall is in LOS of second waypoint etc. etc. Except for blast not being a target command, the game mechanics allow for this just fine - most of us assault multi-storey buildings that way, don't we? Correct me if I'm wrong, please!

Excellent idea, Thomm! Like taking out walls with tanks or TOWs, where the command is automatically cancelled after the wall is flattened. I like it Generally, if 'Blast' were not a movement command, but, say, a target command, this would give players every option of what they wanted their unit to do after breaching walls (i.e. go through to specified destination or stay put & wait for further orders) in WeGo as well as RT. Without babysitting . I'm thinking: move up to wall 'area fire blast' in the direction of the wall (with 15 second pause if movement desired afterward) move on to new destination either side of wall (or stop if no further movement order given) Steve, are you hearing this...?