A Canadian Cat

If you get the big bundle it should already be version 4. The version 4 upgrade is for those of us that had the older version.

Did I miss something? I do not think that I read the Armata would have an APS system capable of defeating top attack missiles. I guess we really do not know anything about the APS system being developed.

Also you cannot disembark and embark in a single order phase. If you disembark a team and try to get them to embark in another vehicle in the same order phase you will also see the cannot embark icon. The next turn after they successfully disembark you can then give them an embark command. Just in case you are trying to get men to go from one vehicle to another.

Looking good. Just a quick FYI pressing <shift><esc> will pause without the pause notice appearing on screen. After you do that once, per session, you can pause and play from the buttons and the notice will continue to be hidden. Very helpful for taking screen shots.

^^^ That's easy for you to say

Getting rid of OpenGL is a total engine rewrite. That will not get more games out in the near term. I am not arguing against the idea of doing that at some point I'm just saying it runs counter to your stated goal of speeding up releases. ?? compared to what? People occasionally mention this but I just do not see it. The vast majority of the time it just works. Every other time support can get customers up and running. There is nothing overly complex going on here. The issue is that DRM is specifically designed to stop the game from running. Except for a restricted happy path anything out of the ordinary and the DRM will balk. It is what DRM's do. As a development manager at a past company half my day was dealing with DRM and licensing issues from customers. *We* had an overly complex DRM and not only that we tried to implement features using it (customers wanted to monitor usage with it). Man *that* sucked and sucked the time from my team too. I *hate* DRM. I get why we have it but man it is a pain. The DRM they are using is the least intrusive that I have seen. Yikes, please don't open that can of worms. There was discussion back in the CMSF days of going RT only. Kiss of death - at least for me. If that had been the decision I would literally not be playing this game. If they make that move and drop WEGO I will no longer buy new products. Yeah strong statement but the fact is, other than testing, I only play against humans and I cannot play for hours at at time at any point in my day therefore RT is out. For me. My bold - my guess is this. I, personally, don't like the idea either.

No idea what happened, but drop box has the ability to restore earlier versions.

I see, got it. Just for clarification when you are referring to trenches are you talking about the in game fortification or this terrain creation?

Can I take it from that comment that you were aware of their plans? In noticed a couple of things slightly off in the article. One they called the game CM Shock Force Black Sea. No big deal just a regular journalistic mistake. And two they didn't mention the scenario editor instead they mentioned using the quick battle feature to create thier secenarios. To me it seems like the scenario editor is the place to go for setting up exercises to support a course. Somewhat like what @Bil Hardenbergerhas been doing.

Try this. If position in fox hole is not what you want move team out. Set a different facing. Move team back into fox hole. Repeat. Does that give you better than random results?

Oh glad you still want an emphasis on realism. Agreed. If we had the same results with nicer graphics it would be more fun. Hummmm this I doubt. The issue is not really how it looks, it's the way we think when we play. Those of us enjoying CM are looking for a certain level of fidelity and the ability to control and execute certain tactics. To succeed is hard. That's what we find fun. I highly doubt that making the game prettier will attract people who are not looking for that experience. This is the fundamental flaw in your logic. There is no flaw to say that better graphics and better UX would make the game more fun. It reminds me of: 1) steel underpants 2) 3) profit Now all we have to do is figure out step 2. Sigh. Sure that will fix everything

Facing should change the team's positioning in the fox holes. That sounds wrong. That also sounds wrong. Have fun with it. Shoot and scoop always made me think of poop and scoop

If you pick mixed forces you can select both airborne units and tanks. If you want.

His forum handle is @sbobovyc and his thread about changing models is here:

Yes. When necessary - if the above fails.

A couple of threads on tank / AFV fighting positions:

That is correct.

It depends on what you mean by effective. The MG team with the better view will likely do better directly targeting a spotted enemy just because they are more likely to spot said enemy. Yes, the game reflects the same effects as reality. The exception being that you cannot, easily, order area fire in the grazing case. So, the low level MG will need actual targets to shoot at. I have to admit I do as well. If there was an ability to area fire to create grazing fire then I might reconsider.

Right craters simulate well craters and you do not get to control exactly where they go. If you want foxholes I recommend you use foxholes. The foxholes we have are a compromise it is true. However the protective effect is supposed to be as good as if they really altered the terrain mesh.

Excellent. More scenario designers is a good thing (tm). I added my, hopefully helpful, comments below... Issues with a realistic map? I'm confused the scenario designers I know typically create their map from real life locations. It seems to me that is as realistic a map-scale as you can get. Am I missing something? Are you talking about too many forces for a given size of map? Or are you really saying the maps are not realistic in your opinion. I admit I have never looked into it but I have no reason to doubt that it is not correct - see below. As for hitting an attacking force with mortar fire - or any artillery - yes, you are correct, you need to slow them down with an obstacle, your defence. Normally you do not use artillery to directly target some enemy force on the move; instead you use a defensive kill zone to hold the attackers up and then you drop the hammer (artillery) on them. It is satisfying to pull off. Ah, ?? the missile, bullet and shell travel is supposed to be accurate. Either you have found a bug or your expectations are not in line with real life. While BFC is open to the possibility that you have found and instance of option a ). Quite frankly, option b ) is quite a bit more likely Yes totally agree - it would be nice to actually target grazing fire. Sometimes in game you can nearly get it - target some location closer to the MG and let the bullets spill over further away. Or target something further away so that bullets have to travel over your target area to get there. Clearly you cannot always do one or either of these so, yes it would be nice to get a feature to do this some day. Hummm interesting effect. Could be worth a look. Yes they can. If that is not working for you then its a bug (or some kind of user error). Yes, it would be nice to get more fortifications. Agreed. Since you are building a defensive position with the editor you can create your own tank positions. I'll hunt for the thread(s) about that. I suppose I could be wrong but I believe it is "shoot and scoot" not scoop. You should be able to get as many ammo dumps as you want. Just add more trucks. I never looked at the contents of the ammo dump in CMBS. It would be nice to have some RPGs and grenades included. I agree.

Correct. In effect what Steve's post says is that the leaves are not WYSIWIG but they do effect LOS. Not to far from what @Erwin posted above - I just disagree with him on the usefulness of looking from the point of view of your men in the game.

The sort answer is no. The game really only offers re-skining rather than actually modifying the models. There is a forum member who has experimented with changing the models. I have no idea if what you are asking for would be possible or not.

No that's not quite right. Leaves do block LOS. From Steve's post linked above: "The way it works is the LOS line is "degraded" as it is drawn from point to point. The more cumulative crap in the way the less strong the line becomes. The quality of the spotter, the less restrictions on view, etc. give the line a higher starting value than a LOS line drawn from a unit with negative factors. Some of the factors are specific (restrictions on range of view or height for example), others are general (optics of X type vs. eyeballs is the best example). Each piece of terrain has ratings which determine how much the line is degraded when it comes to that piece. At some point the line is so degraded that it is considered "blocked". " That means that enough leaves between two units the more likely that the LOS will be blocked. There really isn't any more written down that will help. My advice is to use a combination of the targeting tool and getting down at eye level to get a feel for what is possible. With experience you will get better. Your goal should be to give orders to you troops to put them in the best position possible, to give them their best chance. And then let them do their job. Just remember that sometimes it will work out in your favour and sometimes it will not. And that your opponent is trying to give his troops their best chance. So, even if you do nearly perfect and the odds are in your favour your troops can still come out battered.

Yes, but hiding a vehicle in a clump of trees is not quite looking through a tiny knot hole with one eye. There is a lot more vehicle visible between the trees than a single solider. So "one way" might be a little to strong. Lets call it lopsided. You are totally right, that vehicle in the trees will be harder to see than if the same vehicle was sitting in front of the trees. In fact I frequently re-position vehicles further and further back in the tress until just before the loose LOS to the place I want and then nudge them forward.

Yep, see