A Canadian Cat

Yes, having a team in C2 spot it would help. So would having someone in the command chair of the BMP. As would opening up the BMP, which also requires someone be in that chair too. Having said that those Tunguskas are nasty business. They are very powerful in a recent game I lost a significant number of tanks to them. I wonder if they are being used in a way that matches reality. I'm am suspicious that we are using them in ways that would never be done in RL.

Yep, I have a few opponents where we use a house rule like that but for others where we have not discussed it I as gamey as they come :-)

The game does not support doing that. Similarly with tanks and other crew positions. Etc.

That wouldn't be popular. Not that I don't agree. So, in this case what is the criteria? Two crew members left means they bail and run for it? What about three? What about a three crew member vehicle? Or not crew size but: If a crew bails then they never recover? Just curious what you think would work.

And they set up the tow lines under fire?

I was unable to reproduce issue #1 but found out how to create issue #2 reported. If you issue a move order and then a hide command and then more movement orders you will get a hide command at each way point and you will not be able to clear them.

LOL indeed.

Yep, the spotting will be reduced for sure. The game actually considers each crew member as looking through thier view ports. So with only two crew they will be slow to spot. The rate of fire should also be reduced. I believe that should be modeled by the game too. Yes, in real life withdrawal is the right thing to do. But we players often do things that run counter to what soldiers would have done.

Yeah that's pretty big. Dropbox would be best then. Let me know if you want me to create a folder to share. If so I'll need your email (apologies if you have given it to me in the past - I might find it but probably wouldn't :-)

Sure. I'll PM you my email in case you don't have it. You can let me know if you want me to create a dropbox folder or if you can share directly. Or if they are small enough just email them too.

Got it. No problem. I don't know how it decides when to fire AP or APCR. That decision is unknown to me. Mostly because I have not paid a lot of attention to it. Perhaps someone else can shed some light.

I tried to reproduce this with 2.00 and 2.10. No joy. Here is what I did: For a unit with no movement orders I selected hide and then added movement orders. Then I turned off hide. Worked as expected 'Hide' appeared over the unit and not over the way points. Cleared from the unit as expected. For a unit with no movement orders I added movement orders and then turned on hide. Worked as expected - similar to above. For a unit with no movement orders I added movement orders and then selected the last way point and turned on hide. Worked as expected, 'Hide' appeared over the final way point. I could clear it an re set it at will. Can you tell me what path you are taking that leads to trouble? Most likely I am not doing the same thing as you.

Unable to acquire is strange. Depending on the vehicle passengers may not man any weapons systems.

With a little magic . While in real life the crew would guess at what type of ammo they might need and have it ready in the breach. For example if they thought they would need HE because they were supporting infantry and didn't expect enemy tanks but an enemy tank appeared, they would fire the HE and reload AP because it is faster to fire a round than it is to take it out. In the game the round in the breach is magically whatever the tank crew decides they way to fire. As for the TacAI deciding which round it is pretty clear between HE and AP. Infantry and soft vehicles get HE, tanks and armoured vehicles get AP. Where it get sticky is with the special AP ammo. Should the crew use their better ammo on this target or hold it for a worse threat that might come in the future. I have no idea how that actual decision gets done. I'm not sure what you mean by sub-caliber projectiles in this case. Am I missing something about that gun - aren't all their round the same calibre? No. I see the appeal and for some people it would be fun. The down side is the increase in management that would produce. I don't want to spend my game time picking ammo types for units to fire. I am not alone. Having said that if a crew of a weapons system is making a poor choice repeatedly it is something that BFC can tweak. Anything to make the TacAI better.

BMPs have a dedicated crew so mounting a hq unit will not fill the crew spots. As for the hide issue I keep forgetting to check myself.... Maybe I'll remember tomorrow.

In a QB you *are* playing a scripted "scenario" the difference is the QB script is created without knowing what forces will be assigned to what groups. That means the QB scripts have to be a little more generic. No

I'm not sure if it was a dream or not but I would advise against doing it. Flavour objects are meant to be small. The way the game works they provide cover but not concealment. What that means is that your men will get some protection from bullets behind the T55 flavour object but they will not be hidden by it. That will feel wrong. It will feel even worse when the flavour object disappears after a few HE rounds strike it. Most flavour objects are small posts, park benches. They are pushing it a bit with the dumpsters and concrete barriers that are in CMBS but probably one of those by themselves will not be a problem but a whole series of them could feel wrong.

The short answer is no. The long answer is not any different than it is for you really. The way the AI works is, there is a layer that follows a script that was programmed by the scenario author, that layer issues orders just like you do. Then those orders are executed and while that is happening the TacAI manages the individual soldiers and tries to carry out those orders. Just like for you the difference between real time and wego the wego AI has to wait for the turn to be over before issuing new orders, while in real time they can issue their next orders any time it feels like. I'm pretty sure that the computer waits for the last orders to finish before adding new ones while we humans frequently cancel orders and give new ones. That flexibility is something that the real time AI really doesn't take advantage of.

Thanks @Ales Dvorak Sadly the link to the scenario is broken - I will add it to my list to contact the authors and see if we can get permanent homes for those scenarios.

I have no idea. It was posted by @nightops as an expanded and randomized version. So, these are defiantly not the same.

This list is where I would love some help. Does anyone know where these came from? Where they are available now?

Hey @Erwin awesome stuff. I am glad to hear that the higher numbers you had were a simple file copy mistake. I downloaded your CMFI files (108) and did a diff with mine (106). Here is what I came up with. One more CMBN battle left in the CMFI list: Station Stop Saint Jores v2.btt You are missing (I figured if I am looking at what I was missing I might as well point out any you were missing since its not much more work): Caltagirone H2H.btt -> http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FortressItaly/Scenarios/Caltagirone H2H.html Cesaro, Sicily.btt -> http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FortressItaly/Scenarios/Cesaro, Sicily.html The collection of tiny meeting quick scenarios -> one http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FortressItaly/Scenarios/Tiny Meet QS 005.html all http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-fortress-italy/cm-fortress-italy-add-ons/tiny-meeting-quick-scenarios/ GL Operation Ladbroke.btt -> http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FortressItaly/Scenarios/GL Operation Ladbroke.html RDM - GL - In For a Pound.btt -> http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FortressItaly/Scenarios/RDM - GL - In For a Pound.html Veni vidi vici(EN).btt -> http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FortressItaly/Scenarios/Veni vidi viciEN.html I am missing 12 which can be roughly grouped into a few categories. Total blank - I have no idea where you got these - do you? Area semi-similar to Our-Walsdorf.btt -> I am unable to find this publicly at all CMFI GL Nachschub Dienst.btt -> I cam up empty San Donato H2H V1.btt -> I came up empty Vire.btt -> I came up empty Found but only as drop box links in discussion threads: AD Reverse Slope.btt -> Seems like the reverse slope scenario with only a drop box link in this thread http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119369-seinfeldrules-scenario-thread-cmfi/ FGM Something about Lucia.btt -> I see it mentioned and linked here: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/whats-up-with-that.24151/ Kasserine Bahnhof.btt -> Only a drop box link in a thread here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121700-north-africa-mini-mod/?page=8#comment-1679002 Rats in Gabes.btt -> Only a drop box link in this thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/121700-north-africa-mini-mod/?page=6#comment-1664902 Found mention of them but no links - even to drop box: Brolo Landing.btt -> Cannot find a publicly available location. Found it mentioned for testing here: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/threads/wanted-testers-for-a-new-cmfi-scenario.15052/ GL The Bridge over the River Musa.btt -> I cannot find it publicly available, but it is mentioned here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116731-coming-soon/?page=1 Cool found it with the associated mods on the mod site: El_Guettar_release_version_1.btt -> Cool found it on the mod site: http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=1477 Found something similar but part of another package with a different name CMFI AQS 003V1.btt -> I find a mention of AQS here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/123373-blind-quick-battles/ but the actual scenarios from that are here http://www.thefewgoodmen.com/tsd3/cm-fortress-italy/cm-fortress-italy-add-ons/tiny-meeting-quick-scenarios/

Thank you! That would explain why your scenario count and mine don't match. I haven't had a chance to look at the files yet but I'll start with the updated zip file. Thanks. Excellent thanks.

Yeah, CMA is not listed and Shock Force is grouped with the CM1x games too. I have no idea why that is. Some kind of historical reason. We should revisit that - at some point...

Fantastic.