A Canadian Cat

What was your organization like for this test? Was the LAV III TUA part of the platoon you were using to acquire ammo? My understanding was that ammo sharing happens automatically with in a platoon. I know that is the case for infantry the question is are vehicles part of this restriction too or not. Yes, good question. One additional thing that might be fun to try - dismount the crew and have a small team enter the vehicle. It might be possible. If it is can they acquire ammo that way? Yes, it would be. I doubt that this is something that will happen on its own. Acquiring ammo is way faster than it should be even with the move, mount, acquire shenanigans we currently have to do. If a larger reworking of acquiring ammo were under taken being able to do so from hear the vehicle would be a good addition.

Oh I misinterpreted this (over on TFGM I suggested that this should work) your opponent cannot choose forces outside of the modules he owns. @Combatintman is correct. I thought there was a way to see what you could and could not pick but I guess not. Hummm.

LOL if you ever were in a unit equipped with BMPs I expect that could be arranged

No surprise that @slysniper is giving good advice on how to use snipers in game.

One thing I learned from my tests way back when once you load a turn after starting the game all subsequent turns benefit from some things already being loaded. So, to get a true sense of load times you have to shut down the game each time.

Might be nice. In the mean time you can use this: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=3847 I really like it as it also offers some useful status. Ah - what? That is typical UI behaviour. How else would the program know you wanted to start a new selection?

That seems pretty normal. Javelin's are not perfect - close but not quite But those BTRs are not very strong so I am not surprised that a near miss still wrecked the vehicle.

That's very clever. Good idea.

Yep, all good advice. Stay under trees when you can. Area fire and withdraw. Even then use key whole positions. Honestly the Russian BMPs and BTRs have such poor viability that I typically use them in an area fire roll all the time. If they spot an actual target on their own fine but my orders are for fire support directed by the Platoon leader pretty much all the time.

Good to know. One question though: if the platoon leader his holding the super cool tech would he be the one to actually use it? Or would he hand it off to someone else when he decides that the time is right to send it down range?

Yep - fun /s I agree there.

Here are a few examples: Top to posts on this Reddit thread: Second and third on this Reddit thread: This omnibus thread on Grog Heads: http://grogheads.com/forums/index.php?topic=22382.0 Note: plenty of familiar faces there shedding light on the BS that pops up there. and finally nearly ever post at gamesquad. That this guy basically bitches and moans to himself and gets corrected by @Elvis every now and then. I have no idea why he bothers - whatever you do don't bother responding to his **** since no one else is reading it anyway Well other than @Elvis http://www.gamesquad.com/forums/index.php?threads/patches-im-depending-on-ya-son.146442/ Yep.

Yeah I see your point. I'm just not sure what proactive moves re DLC would change that. I suppose I'm not seeing a path 'cause I'm not looking.

Check your pictures - they seem to have text that I suspect is meaningful but I cannot read any of it because the resolutions is so low. Yes, if you are using an nVidia card there is a lot you can do to make things better. Highly recommend doing that - same as you. But for those crappy intel cards you are screwed. They either work or not and if they do they either perform poorly or intolerably The OP's root problem is they are trying to find a happy path that includes a machine with one of those crappy intel graphics cards. So they are kinda stuck with what they get

An excellent example of unhappy customers that do not contribute to learning. I'll go further and say "no thanks" ignore those people and don't spent time trying to counter them with policy changes. Facts matter and their current policies and customer service are excellent - don't fix what's not broken. Counter those dolts by pointing out they are wrong - as @37mm and others do. The thing is you can never change the minds of those ideologues but if you point out their mistakes and lay out the actual facts everyone else reading has a fair opportunity to learn the truth and make up their own minds.

There is a feature for the campaign where the author can set the likely hood of vehicles being repaired between battles. A low likely hood simulates a tight timeline where the next battle quickly follows the first. A high likely hood simulates a longer time-fame where damaged vehicles can be recovered, repaired and returned to the fight. As @George MC says sometimes the damage is extensive so the repair is a percentage chance not a certainty.

Hummmm... Testing that a few of us did a while back (yeah a long while) showed very little difference for load times with mods present: If that has changed I would consider it a bug. Note I have *not* noticed any issues with CMBS or CMSF loading or saving slowly for any reason (other than loading or saving really huge games that is:-).

You are supposed to be able to. You have to start it since you have the needed modules but they should be able to play since their game has all the components. This assumes you are both playing fully updated games of the same version number.

Oy! Let me take a stab. Summary: CMBN 3 working fine on your desktop and working OK on your Intel graphics card laptop CMSF 2 working fine on your desktop and not working well on your Intel graphics card laptop You want to know if you will see a similar profile if you upgrade to CMBN 4. I am not sure because the behaviour of those Intel graphics cards suck but if you made me guess I would guess that yes CMBN 4 would also perform poorly on that laptop. I am frankly surprised there is such a difference between CMSF 1 and 2 but CMSF 2 and CMBN 4 have way more in common in terms of graphics that CMSF 1 has with anything else. As for "can you downgrade back to CMBN 3". Hell yeah. You can uninstall CMBN 4 and then reinstall CMBN 3 or better yet when you buy the upgrade download the full installer for CMBN 4 and install it in a separate directory so you have both CMBN 3 and CMBN 4 running on your computer.

You have to contact support. They manage those no disk or bought from another source issues. No those dot not seem to be the same as the key. For clarity you got to the store page, log in and then click on "My Account" in the upper right corner and then on "My Orders" and then on the "order ID" number or "click to view" link. On that page you will see something like: Shipment # 1 - Shipment status: Pending CM Final Blitzkrieg Engine 3 CMFB-BGV3 https://battlefront.sharefile.com/<actual url snipped but not the key> Activation Code(s): <actual key snipped but not the url above> The bold key is the key you want. If the product does not have a download there will still be an activation code No idea. I think you realize that you still need to add the v1 codes though right... Yeah I have no idea Support for this one too. But does BFC handle activation for CMA? Like I said I have no idea

The system is also picky about the format of the BMP files. Yes, there are different formats. What program are you using to create the files? The files for mods need to be 32 bit with an alpha layer. I am not sure if the ones for the scenario should be as well or perhaps they should *not* be. What format are you using now and then try something different. If you are using 24bit now switch to 32 and visa versa.

Well for starters the UK forces do have AA assets IRL. As to what would be different between operating in Syria or Ukraine I would honestly expect very little difference at all. Clearly in Syria there would be no Syrian air force left at all. In the case of Ukraine I am sure that NATO would not be willing to destroy the entire Russian air force but no Russian air craft would be able operate long against hypothetical NATO forces in Ukraine. I'd say none would succeed but it is possible that some missions might get through. It would be so few that it would be effectively irrelevant.

I am not totally getting the question. Orders are executed in order so if you have a unit that waits for a trigger and then executes the counter attack then adding more orders after that will give them something to do if the trigger is hit and after their counter attack orders are completed. The wait for trigger statement is not a "if then else" it is a "wait until" statement. What they wait on is either the trigger event to happen to the time to run out.

Yes, the suggest forces bug has been reported. Bummer guys. Sending some screen shots of the steps you are taking and please clarify who has what modules's activated too please. Then some of us can try to replicate the issue.

The Blitz is running two WW2 scenarios this month. Sign up for the November scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMBN: Valley of Trouble CMBN CMFB: Battle for Chaumont - Second Round The form post on theBlitz for sign up.