A Canadian Cat

No one has said that is not in the plan. What is not clear is what is next and what is after that. I am sure they will get there...

A frequently requested feature. Maybe one day - it would be nice to have. I think that would be brilliant actually. I am not sure if that has been asked for before or not. Something is off here. In the scenario design editor you can add what ever forces you want - no restrictions. You can even add forces form the other side to fight with you. Could you be talking about quick battles instead? LOL that would be nice. I would like to see icons for the TRPs - sometimes I cannot find them - despite how ugly they are. Yeah that is modelled already. This will no doubt cause lots of discussion since there is lots of debate about how it should or should not be modelled. Loads of fun. In the game all rounds are tracers for game play reasons - to help the player see what is going on.

One thing to check is the bank conditions. If there is impassible terrain on the bank then the BMPs will follow the river looking for a location to climb out. Be careful where your orders on the opposite bank land. I have never played that scenario and I didn't fire it up to see - just a suggestion that could explain what you are seeing.

.

.

Sigh multiple post...

LOL, that does not sound very grounded in real life

Check out this list: http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BlackSea/Campaigns/index.html The two battle pack campaigns are: http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BlackSea/Campaigns/The Charge of the Stryker Brigade.html http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BlackSea/Campaigns/The Push From Dniprodzerhyn'sk.html

Heck yeah! You and another guy that does not frequent this forum. naughtkris kicked my butt around before we started playing - you got the improved me. Clearly I have lots to learn yet - ouch. Indeed. The advantage of a club is nearly everyone there is there to play other people. Here, not so much. Which is fine BTW that's what those clubs are for! Yeah, I get confused too. Don't get me wrong new stuff is exciting and I'll play it when it arrives (or before if given the chance :-) but if I am being honest if the they never released another game, ever, I'd still be playing what we have now for years and years to come.

Meh, Steve seems happy and well adjusted to me. No one on the inside has nothing to do. All seems good. We on the outside have tons of stuff to play and keep us busy until something new gets released. Anyone that is bored, join a gaming club and find the best player there to kick you around. Then you will have lots to think about and learn.

Yes, thanks. Your sacrifice is noted and appreciated. Of course there was no feedback that the turret was going to ignore the arc. Well other than the burning tank

Just to be clear *I* didn't say *that*.

Define intentional. In the English sense I am sure it is not. But I am equally sure that there is *not* a bunch of code in there that decides if the turret can point backwards based on the dimensions of the cover arc. So, intentional or not the more important question is: does it matter? The behaviour is likely a side effect of code that is doing something important and quite frankly nothing that will be high on the list to change because of this discovery.

Ouch. That sucks. If you have Winzip and are willing to install its command line extensions (free for licensed users, I believe), I have a quick and dirty backup .cmd script for windows that I could help you get setup. It automatically .zips the files you want up and puts the archive into a specified directory (drop box). It also keeps the last 10 archive files so if you back up at the end of the day you have the last 10 edits of your scenario on hand. No help for lost files but could prevent that from happening again. LOL - I'm sorry that was just too funny. Testing isn't testing if you never give feedback / log bugs / discuss your findings.

Yep it is available: http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BattleForNormandy/Scenarios/Bloody Omaha1-1.html I also found: http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BattleForNormandy/Scenarios/Omaha Beach.html and http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/BattleForNormandy/Scenarios/Omaha beach, Vierville Draw Attack.html I should have looked at my own site when this first came up...

The consensus seems to be no. Surviving crew are much more likely to be evacuating the battle field. Tanks that loose crew are also most likely going to the rear as well - i.e. they do not continue to fight - most of the time. That will not work. Yep Very true of course. BFC do allow for some brave acts but they don't add code for rare or corner cases such as these. And that's a good thing - we should be fighting with average behaviour not extraordinary behaviour.

More hard work - it was pretty draining and kinda depressing. Which is probably fitting. There ware defiantly moments where things looked pretty bad and in the end the casualty level was atrocious. It felt very much like a pyrrhic victory

Sorry left out possibly important details - I always play WEGO (except for testing), no restarts, I always play on Elite unless a human opponent wants to play Iron.

That is a false equivalence. Those ancient creations represent civilizations long gone and any people who they oppressed and could be legitimately offended by them are gone to. Those Confederate monuments represent what is at least continued racisim. I'm not so sure about that. Yeah, that is more equivalent, having a governing class that continued to maintain those nazi symbols would be much more like the Confederate example. Possibly worst but closer.

The first beach landing is definitely winnable in the blue and grey. I won it - I managed to force a surrender after taking the beach defenses. It was very difficult for sure. And my casualties were heavily. I played it in version 3.x. BTW.

Indeed you will not likely want to play multiple beach landings. I did the first few missions of the blue and grey campaign and one was enough. @Bulletpoint is spot on for HE. As for MGs he might even have a point there too but they are much better than they were. In the original game you could put a HMG behind some bocage and then run a platoon across 600m of empty field and always take out the HMG. That is under modelled. After BFC tweaked the MG effects it became impossible to run a platoon across and an empty field and take out the HGM. So, much better. To succeed you need to combine the straight running across the open with taking advantage of any little terrain feature you can and doing some suppression and concentration of fire on key points of the defence to support those guys running in the open. It is challenging and draining.

I tested trees but not buildings or bocage. The reason is simple - I have game going on now where I have mortars on map with buildings and bocage obstructing their view. Therefore there is little need to test. I any one experiences anything different in game play we can revisit it.

Yep, it was both. I use walls for separating testing lanes frequently but I also use terrain too if the test involves something taller than infantry. After this I'll pay attention to this lesson and use walls more carefully.

So, cool when that happens. I hate it but cool. Sometimes a shell will go off right next to someone and they magically walk away. For some reason it seems to be my guys that get the 9 dead at once treatment and my opponent's get the he survived a shell going off close treatment. But it could just be me

Just to close the loop I had a look at the turn and its brutal. No wonder @JoMc67 is upset . But I would not characterize it the way he did. There are 15 men spread out over little over three action squares when the shell hits in the middle. They are all up and running. Nine go down. Yeah it sucks - as in it sucks to be them! If those men were stationary in position the casulties would have been much less. It is probably on the high end of what I would expect but I would personally have been pissed too but not at the game - at my opponent