A Canadian Cat

Not now. I believe that was his "implement this feature like this" elevator pitch. Thankfully Steve doesn't ride an elevator to his office

Pretty much right. #4 does mean the unit's morale will be effected which makes them more and more caustics. And you already noted that shooting at said obliterated unit enhances its chance of getting spotted.

LOL we see it here fairly frequently with people's thoughts on game design.

Canada was right there with the Brits. Their variation of the above https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L1A1_Self-Loading_Rifle was also semi auto with the squad getting one L2A1/C2 which was full auto. And as you can see they used it for around 30 years too.

Yeah once the hunt is cancelled on contact all following order go out the window as well. So, not possible to do what you hoped or what @CarlWAW wants.

I really like that idea actually. Forget about an automatic fall back instead create a shoot and scoot arc that will then execute the next order once triggered. That way you decide where the fall back location is. That way you can set it for a stationary unit to create - sit in ambush here and fall back to this location after you engage a target. As well as setting it for a unit that is moving so you can create - move to this location and look for targets, once you find one and shoot at it then withdraw to this location.

That is possible. The AI script associate a movement type with each order which ranges from Dash to Max Assault. Given the way that the reaction works for lazer detection for example fast moves are taken to mean that the TC knows best and they are ordering a move to cover and therefore it is better to complete the move order rather than pop smoke and reverse. So, depending on what move order were actually given this could be happening. You can open the scenario in the editor and check this kind of thing out. Or you can play in scenario author test mode and see the AI issue the actual movement orders as the game goes forward. On the other hand tanks do not react directly to what happened to their comrades. By that I mean there is currently no mechanism for tank 2 react by popping smoke and withdrawing because tank 1 just brewed up near by. Each tank reacts individually. Having said that what ever brewed up tank 1 is more likely to be spotted by tank 2 because it fired. Once tank 2 spots the shooter they will react. For tanks though the reaction is usually to try to kill the shooter. Lesser vehicles might decide to get out of the way.

Good. Yes, installing older patches over the new game would put an older .exe in place which would then show an older version.

Oh man I went back to read and it's down again.

And back now... 40 min later.

You made two posts, in one day. We'll take what we can get. Glad to have you back - he says hopefully...

Oh I love the unknown unknown quote - I use it often. Usually for a real situation, where there really are things that we didn't know we didn't know. I love that quote. Our own PM at the time had some good ones too: Jean Chretien, "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven." I cannot even remember what he was talking about but the quote just makes me laugh.

Yeah, if you purchased the full product after the v4 updated was released you should have the latest version. I agree with @StieliAlpha contact the help desk. Just for clarity the latest version of CMFB is 2.00 engine version 4. On your main menu screen in the bottom right corner that's what you should see with the latest version.

No, but it is a game play simplification. In the WW2 titles the ability to call arty without a radio is meant to simulate field telephones. They are not directly modelled so are abstracted to allow anyone with the skills to call artillery even if the are out of radio coms. Having the same thing in CMBS is probably debatable but that is where it comes from.

Obviously good points all. I just want to throw in a counter point (only slightly) of view on time. Time is a big balancing issue. I have the flip side reaction: a personal pet gripe of mine is launching a new scenario and seeing that you have a company(+) sized force and have to defend an area for 2 hours. It is nearly an impossible task for a force that size to hold out anything like that long on the defence. Clearly time is an important balancing issue for the defender as it *is* the thing that will allow them to win or loose. In an attack in CM the defending side will very, very rarely be able to actually defeat the attackers from a destroy their force perspective. All they really have is time. There are many and frequent complaints that attackers do not have enough time on these boards from players playing against the AI. For their fun they want as much time as possible. But when playing head to head the defender needs there to be less time - not more. This leads to time being a balance problem for head to head battles frequently. I think that is a good idea. Cool - I'll have to keep that in mind for future requests.

It's possible but @Bootie did say that it was up for a shot time.

Yeah Shane has a been in touch with his service. Check out his post:

LOL, probably. We had an icon for download that was using the discrete icon commonly used for save (we viewed the action as a save). People were confused. Partly because they didn't view it as a save action and partly because they didn't understand what the icon meant. Yes, I realize there are issues with our user experience not being clear but also there are people who have never used a diskette in the work force now. Fun times

LOL my daughter would have some choice words for you Boys in her gym class were always annoyed with how frequently she out shot, out ran and out kicked their asses. Yeah those of us at home are not likely to be safe if things are that bad. Yep, as above and @sburke said that was the explanation I got when I first brought this up. One final though. Once I had kids I looked at armed conflict and asked my self "would I want my son or daughter to fight and risk thier life for this". I quickly learned that the number of conflicts I thought were actually worth it dropped a lot and I also learned that there really wasn't a different answer it I considered my daughter fighting or my son.

True the setup zones and cover arc colours are not moddable. The icons are though. My Russian icons are red too but you could take an existing mod and tweak the blue version to be for the Russians. At least for the setup turns. See my signature for links or search for other choices here: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?tag=floating-icons

This thread has a post or two on the subject of settings:

Interesting. I have not see that yet. Anyone have saved games that show this? Or screen shots even? Or Screen shots before the save and saves that then open with the vehicles in another position. Anything like that?

Not me - I don't know anything about that. Well I might imply that it is user error but not for the reasons you state. It is a support weapon that should not be brought too close. So, there really is an excellent chance that a ) you are forgetting that the enemy wants to kill your guys so that is going to happen and or b ) you are bringing it too close. LOL yeah sure. But try staying 300m away that will help - oh and that gun shield its really only good for incoming from the front not the sides. Actually come to think about it 1000m was likely where they were parked for the infantry to dismount and assault the final km on foot. At least the bulk of the time anyway. Yeah, I would say that. Again not me. Incorrect that was the actual change that BFC made recently that had a pretty big effect. But it doesn't really help much if you bring the HT too close because then the enemy can get shots on you gunner from the sides - where, guess what, the shield isn't. Having said all that someone did present a somewhat interesting case for the gunner facing a lot more targeted fire than expected. That was an interesting finding. However none of the changes already made nor any future changes are likely to make HT's the uber IFV that some people seem to think it should be. There that pretty much sums it up: Now that I have, sort of, fulfilled your prediction can we please.

Yep. Similarly we humans have the same restriction.

Or full support to head to head play in campaigns. One of my top three freatures.