A Canadian Cat

Yeah me neither. I am not sure if that is new or not. I fired off an email to Steve a few days ago to ask

Yes, looking good. I have a small peeve for everyone else - where are the likes and up votes? Some posts something humourous on a whine thread and nets 6 up votes. These guys are writing up an amazing beta AAR and they have one or two on some of thier posts. Let's go people!

That does not sound correct. I am not sure I am following your description fully. Do you have a game save or could you make one showing this?

Looks at avatar - yep checks out...

Yeah exactly. This forum is actually really good place for discussing opposing views. Steve does not ban people for having a constructive discussion. Heck he tolerates a lot more rudeness than I would this thread is a really long way from that.

Sounds like a reasonable assessment. All doable of course but also shows that this would be more work than just "make the maps bigger".

double post - grrrr.

LOL truly bizarre.

And keep in mind that resupply is not possible after the vehicles are brewing up

Just want to add a little to this. This is a modern match up and a battle on a map with rolling hills and forests. I have had a few engagements at around 2000m (ATGMs) which is basically hill top to hill top since that is the only place that has such LOS. I suppose if the map was bigger those same assets might have engaged targets on a previous hill. But the main point I wanted to make is that this map has a lot of choices for manoeuvre. I have activity going on along three possible routes - recon is out. I have picked a couple of near by routes as my main attack (they can support each other) and am manoeuvring my forces to take advantage of them. What I am saying is it feels like there is room to manoeuvre.

But if you do that then you will run into a different enemy unit. Oh wait, that's your point

OK that was fun. Instead of trading witty banter here I went and made a big map with a v4 engine editor. Mine is 2560m by 6960. It is totally flat - just cause I want maximum mayhem. Then I put a battalion of M1s and two battalions of T90s on it. That's right three battalions of tanks slugging it out at engagement ranges that start at 6800m. After about 30s everyone saw everyone and the T90s started launching ATGMs - a lot of ATGMs. No burning M1s but they started loosing their systems and becoming immobilized. So I gave all the M1s fast move orders to close the distance to under 4000m. Only 7 tanks made it close to that far. I stopped to write this with only three running M1s. There are a lot of burning T90s and a few burning M1s/ Crazy! Is that big enough?

I am liking it a lot more than I thought I would. But my main concern stills stand - First class armies against third or fourth class armies can lead to some very lopsided fights. Yeah, I can understand that. At this point I still rank CMBS above CMSF2 just because you can get a better fight out of a battle between a couple of first class armies.

Yeah even then that map was 2km by 2km - which back then was big. That was Engine v1. Now we can have even bigger maps and that defiantly pushes the limits of the game engine - @c3k and I hit them - cannot remember the size of that map but we had a lot of forces. I have a "Huge" QB going now but that is only a 2.5km by 1.5km map. I also have a game of korsun2017 on the go - that is pretty big. A mechanized battalion + attacking on a 3.6km by 3.6km map. As amazing as that 20 000 point battle was Engine 4 can handle bigger (and so can my new PC). Don't for get that part. My original PC was struggling at times with frame rates in the teens on that 2x2 map. My new PC is doing better than that 3.6x3.6 map.

But your 4.0 upgrade allows you to download the full installers. I would go that route. Download the full CMFI 4.0 install and install that. Then activate your original key and the upgrade key and then any module keys you have. Do no bother trying to install an original version and patch and update it in the correct order. Just don't

Sorry to be a web blanket (keeping the puns started by @c3k going) but I'm lost. All the responses seem to imply that @sonar has found away to have water at two elevations on the same map? I must be blind or something cause I do not see that in his pictures. Can someone help me out and post a clear example or use arrows or something on the existing pictures showing the multi level water? The way it works (or so I thought) is that water tiles all go to the same level - the lowest level that contains a water tile on the map. Which means you can create a hilly environment and place a lake at 65m no problem as long as the only water tiles are at that 65m elevation.

I try. I'll be looking forward to that.

LOL although I'm not sure if a smart aleck remark would be the best choice in this situation. Yeah that level of war crime (cause that's what it would be) if used routinely would have been all over the documentation of the war.

LOL that is one awesome picture. It is way better that this: https://goo.gl/images/NpFrbk

Ouch - are you trying to hurt our brains? 100m squares for a game that uses 8m action squares. Let's see that's 12.5 squares per side of the grid, that's 156.25 AS per grid square. I am only kidding we all know what you are trying to do - help orient us on a big map. And really no one should spend time thinking about action squares unless you get into the weeds over some game behaviour or corner case. I will try to forgive you for that

LOL awesome

Nice to see the detail on what your battle looks like. Sounds interesting... Especially the surprise element. Cool.

I usually remember to rename the highest ranking HQ with my name during Quick Battle force selection. Does that count as role playing?

Yesterday I added a couple of links that should really have been there the whole time. How did I miss the topic of mods? Oh and the latest bones threads.

Nice explanation. I added to my FAQ post: Anyone who revisits might think a lot has changed but I just added a section on mods and reorganized things slightly.