Jonny(FGM)

Ah here it is http://battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=83992&page=2 If i remember correctly it doesn't work 100% of the time, and I havn't had chance to test it out in CMBN (but have in CMSF) but it should work. Personally I just usually tend to use blast on buildings in CMSF and in situations where i want to burst through the obstacle with men. Experience from the demo shows I may need to change however

Unfortunately in order to blast a hole through the bocage you have to send the breach team in through it, IE plot the waypoint of the blast command on the other side of the bocage, i'm sure somebody in CMSF found a way around this but its not foolproof, let me see if i can find it

yup, first file in a CMx2 PBEM game is simply entering the password bit pointless IMO but im sure there is some logic behind it somewhere

A quick test in CMSF shows that KO'd tanks block bullets very well, but do not block LOS I would imagine live tanks behave in the same way

I would geuss simply on the fact that CMSF only uses one CPU core that it will only use 1 GPU

No you'll still pay in dollars, when we buy from BF we do it in dollars and our credit card/banks convert it over for us (at a small profit)

Well seeing as a lot of the CMSF files seem to be CMx1 files I think it has a good chance

Except the big difference is move to contact had 0 effect on fatigue, in CMSF often you have big distances to cover where you may come under fire at any time. Also in WEGO it can become a real pain when for 5 minutes straight you issue hunt orders and you progress perhaps one or 2 action squares because your troops receive light fire as soon as they get up. I'd like them to be able to attempt keep moving forward after the fire has died down and it is safe to do so. I often find myself being left with no choice then to use quick but i often take casualties that way as they have poor awareness when running

Ok this is as good an opportunity as any to bring back my idea (that i may well have stolen off someone here ) of giving every move order a to contact option. So you could have the hunt order would become move until you find a target to shoot at it, shoot at it until you can no longer shoot at it then move on and look for more targets the rest of the orders would stay the same and the new set of orders would be Slow to contact - crawl until you get contact Move to contact - still have all the disadvantages of the move order, so lack of awareness etc but your guys hit the deck on contact instead of auto changing it to a fast move and tiring themselves out hunt to contact - this would essentially be the current hunt order quick to contact - jog until contact fast to contact - run until contact Before anyone mentions UI issues you could have a little box pop out of the move order button which you can click to make it to contact : ) I realise if this hasn't already been thought of it won't make it in, but worth future consideration? ; )

i may be wrong, but i believe its actually 60fps but you can get away with it at 30 if you interlace the image Mind you if CMSF ran at 30fps at all views i'd be happy, bring on my new computer lol

Keep in mind you'll need to make a note of the scenario peramaters in the editor and choose these for your QB

no you only affect (directly) one square at a time, however if you havn't directly set any other squares to be a different height all of the squares on the map will be set to that height as the editor interpolates the heights between them Its a bit hard to explain in text, but just use the direct tool Say this is a row of 8 squares, all set to the default height of 20, 20,20,20,20,20,20,20,20 Say you change the first one to 40, you'll get the result of 40,40,40,40,40,40,40,40 However if you then change the end one to 33 you'll get this result 40,39,38,37,36,35,34,33 I hope that makes sense to you, not sure it does to me lol

Yeah, afterall if your mission was to conduct a fighting withdrawal then you could "win" the scenario while still conceding the ground, this is the great thing about the assymetric winning conditions. I liked it in CMx1 you could dump units off the map, in my CMBN maps I may just put an exit zone all the way around each map, I hope others will do the same

ok thanks i'll keep that in mind. I'll add at least one other AI plan into the mix, there are only 3 groups of mobile forces in this scen though so not sure If i could add a third

So I've took the wire IEDs out, managed to get 3 of the triggermen to let loose but the last one is still refusing to detonate lol. To be continued lol

1536 x 3152, it's a bit of a beast lol : )

I usually save every turn when I play games for fun, however this scen takes about 2 minutes to save, and I stopped myself from saving to try and prevent myself from reloading to get more accurate results, big mistake lol. I'm off to go tweak the forces and hopefully give it one last playtest Edit: Further note regarding your concerns on the Co vs Batt thing, the brits do get 2 AHs and 4 fast jets for support, allong with CO mortars and a full AS90 Battery

I may have to scrap the wire IED teams, perhaps some RPG teams could make a decent replacement

well, a CO vs a Batt was the opening scen of TF Thunder remember? ; ) The brits greater experience and all that armour they have should balance out the raw numbers, although I may trim down the defenders slightly, the snipers were the thing causing me the biggest problem

The idea behind the scenario though is that you can neutralise the IED threat with sufficient infantry screening for wire IEDs and using the IED jammers on the bulldogs/warriros for the radio/cell IEDs

Simple? I suppose thats how you define simple, the elevation tool takes a little while to get used to but once you've cracked it its pretty easy. If you want to make a simple map it's pretty simple to use, If you want to make a complex map it gets quite complex. Yes you can play your own scenarios.

Ok, so while playtesting my scenario i'm finding the AI really doesn't handle IEDs well. I set all triggermen to elite and gave them hide orders in the AI plan to try and stop them firing off their AKs, however now I've noticed that they can't spot anything while hiding, i managed to drive AFVs over the IED points about 75m away from the triggermen without any danger, in fact I discovered one triggerman when I discovered that I had arked the bulldog on top of the triggerman! He of course cut the squad down and has caused the most amount of damage of any of the triggermen lol. I suppose i could give them ambush 75m orders, but then the wire IED triggermen are about that far from their IEDs. Am I stuck between a rock and a hard place here?

First off. Playtesting your own scenarios. So I've been playtesting this beast, http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=94898 . First up I almost cried last night, I lost an hours worth of playtesting due to an out of memory error :'(. My main question is though, I'm getting my ass handed to me in this, way behind schedule and I've already gone over my casualty target (5%). Now when you playtest your own scenarios and you are struggling does it usually mean the enemy needs toning down (not much room to add extra friendlies). I'm not the best player, usually when I play a scenario I have to save and reload quite a few times in order to meet casualty parameters. So I guess my main question on this is how do you know if the scenario is too tough or if your lack of success is just down to lack of skill? My other question is about multiple AI plans. This is a 3 hour scenario (I may even extend it to 4) so I guess not too many people will be playing this more than once, Is it really worth the effort in creating and testing extra AI plans on a scenario that is essentially a static defence on the AI side.

Especially when using red arty it can take several minutes just to get past the "receiving" stage of the fire mission, so it could well be even if that feature was enabled it could still take 5+ minutes for that "now!" command to reach the arty battery and as such will still be too late

Only in CMBO, i think they replaced that command with target arcs. What would be nice is to be able to "draw" your cover arcs, action square by action square