A Canadian Cat

That would be nice but can you imagine the confusion that would generate when people fail to read instructions (and the posts that would be made)?

I am unaware of any tester with stability problems. Who are the other people with problems? I have RTM and test versions of everything in two machines and no crashing at all. Sometimes testing leads to crashes it's true but those issues get fixed and eventually even the test builds are rock solid. It is much more likely that the change that is causing your instability is something else on your PC.

No those icons are not required to use mine. I now use my own icons exclusively

Thank you Ok I didn't take it that way but I'll retroactively consider it good natured ribbing. It's tricky to design a feature and get it to work well with everything else. That would be a way to solve it - have the TacAI do more and so it better and have us be more generic in out orders.

Or just in pinned

Also on Windows 10

Yes, this mechanism is the same for campaigns in all games in the series. If you want to simulate battles taking place right after each other then set it to a low chance of repair to simulate that only vehicles that were just stuck and needed minor assistance were able to make it to the next battle. Or it you want to simulate battles separated by days set it to a higher value to represent that there is plenty of for repair or replacement.

Oh I didn't interpret it that way but I see what you mean. If you just bought modules to add to your game listen to me. If you bought base games with a module at the same time then listen to @Mord

Nope I am not a mac user I play on a PC

No there will not be a download. Modules no longer have download able components. You already have the files you just need to activate what you purchased. Look for a short cut called active module or something like that. Start that and enter your new code. After that the module icon on the game main menu screen will be bright indicating that you can now play that content.

With that out of the way let me be clear. I do not consider you a malcontent. I also do not resist change just cause. My issue is that nice schemes to simulate command delays while being good for one aspect of realism totally break down in others. If improvements in the TacAI or an SOP feature make that problem go away then I will be all on board with more realistic command modeling.

Ah wth I didn't say what you have in my quote there. Please don't miss quote me - I can be harsh and mean when I want I don't need other people making up stuff.

Wow, this is news to me. I have never ever seen that. I would be suspicious that something else on your system is causing it.

To my knowledge no one has tried that. It certainly is not an official supported thing. Personally I would not try it and just start again. But if you are feeling lucky...

Any command delay or limit on the number of commands falls short for one important reason: in CM the player assumes all leadership roles from the battalion on down to the squad (and at times team leader). The squad Sargent should always be able to issue orders to his men. To him the macro situation and higher level planning is largely irrelevant if he is in the middle of a firefight or in danger or with his path blocked. His leadership on those, right now, right in front of him, issues is not hampered by delays in comms from the Lt Col three levels up. So, any time anyone cooks up a system that means I cannot have my squads conduct themselves in a sensible way just because the company on the other side of the map is changing its plans I'll be pointing this problem out and advocating that whatever that game mechanic is gets dropped from consideration.

Oh I forgot to add a smillie that previous post:

The use of the term is somewhat context sensitive but the basic idea is they are not official army but also not just guys with guns that you bumped into on the street and recruited. They are typicality actual soldiers (mercenaries or regular forces who were voluntold to join a special project, or recently "released" vets) who are equipped with a hodge podge of uniforms and equipment often last generation or cutting edge but inconsistent enough to allow lying sacks of politicians to pretend the are not regular army doing the government's bidding. Season to taste - more regular army types or more volunteers who are being paid - more last gen weapons or the latest and greatest - more actual locals or more guys from a neighbouring country that you can pretend are locals. Whatever you need just as long as they know what they are doing and will follow orders. Oh and make sure you have lots of groups local criminals and malcontents that are not very reliable around so you have someone to blame for stuff that goes more sideways than you really wanted.

Bringing this back to CM... @MOS:96B2P's post linked above about information sharing and C2 is the place to go for info on the subject. @Combatintman has given some good info on the Company commander's job. I'll just add that my way of using the Company commander in CM is to be aware of the information sharing component and try to be as realistic as possible and the reason for that is that if a platoon commander becomes a casualty the Company commander can offer command to that platoon's squads. Keeping your front line units under command of their superior improves their performance. As outlined by this post Here is how that works:

I believe that should work. Well that's all relative. If he doesn't by them then he cannot play them on his own or open them and peek at the opposing forces

Well a little more than once Doing so is costly but sometimes it is worth it. Just not often. Frequently. I would consider that it will happen every time and use that to judge if it is worth it. Frequently it is not.

Yikes you are correct. I totally miss-understood. Now that I'm clued in - thanks @Bulletpoint I have a question: do we have clarity that these are actually seen as roads with a new angle by the engine? If they are still a jagged road in the game engine's treatment then this is worse than leaving the jagged road in because vehicles will travel off, on, off, on in terms of the engine but look like they are on a road in terms of the visual. Or if it is treated as grass then the speed will not match with what is expected and wet ground conditions will also give a false sense of being safe on the road.

Correct. That is also typical of the way UI's work. The point I am making is that clicking on nothing or on a new object to clear the old selection and begin a new one is normal. Just like using shift to make multiple selections. Combat Mission uses normal standard gestures to control selections. Just as one would expect.

Oh yeah - that is a good point.

See I disagree with you here. Sure register legit complaints as you suggest. Make suggestions. That's all good. But BFC's DRM process is no worse than any other. DRM just sucks for customers, period. After all they are meant to stop the game from running BFC has made lots of improvements from CMSF1 days onward. I have had one DRM activation not work out in all my years (not counting a few bugs during development). Support had me fixed up really fast. Patches: oh come on what's hard about them. You download them and install them you are done. Just because people are hard of reading does not mean there is a problem. Perhaps they mean not getting frequent enough patches. Yeah OK there is some merit there for issues that have taking a long time to get the fix out for. I'll agree with that part. Upgrades: OMG no one else does this (yes, I am sure you can find XYZ that does but come one it is not standard practice). No one should be complaining about that - f'ing ever! Every other game just leaves the old version languishing and moves on. All the paid patch discussion are utterly tosh. If BFC didn't do upgrades for older games we would just loose out. Period. My problem is that while running into a problem is one thing but then extrapolating that into a mountain is ridiculous. This kind of thing is not limited to BFC. We are literally being silly if we think that BFC is some how unique here. Edit. I'm not trying to target @Thewood1 with my rant. Just supporting my disagreement with his assertion that we dismiss legit complains by bringing in my response to other way more extreme comments from the linked forums. Not trying to attack @Thewood1 personally but I'm OK with attacking some of the unreasonable ideas I'm calling out - none of which @Thewood1 made in this thread.

What you did there @Falaise is exactly the recommended practice for creating a map. Nice example.