A Canadian Cat

My thoughts exactly. Oddly enough while I never put this on my top three wish list, in practical terms this might be the best thing in the whole release. Not a day goes by that I don't get burned by the edge panning and now it never happens. Yay.

LOL my wife's kinder-gardeners are getting impatient and restless. The staff are too. I'm sure Steve thinks I am being irritable and impatient too Wise words that come from experience. No one could possibly be done playing all the content out there. If you are board look here and find something new to play: http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/index.html

Thanks for sharing.

So, it sounds like the timing of the units disapearing and the arrows appearing is a little off from when the points get registered.

Indeed. Now if instead of offering more size chioces instead there were more versions of each tree type that were randomly assigned then cool. I'm still not sure if making that change would be a high enough priority for BFC.

Yep, sounds like it.

Oh yes please. Darkness hits this too. The trouble with true WYSIWIG is that game play suffers but I agree we already have mechanisms for handling that - artificial brightness for night time, toggle off smoke. I personally would like to see a toggle for darkness and fog. One level for what we have now - indicates that there is fog but allows you to see enough to play and one for WYSIWIG - so dense fog is like playing inside a smoke screen, you cannot see much. For darkness similar, one level that is like the artificial brightness now and one that is WYSIWIG so when the tank comes around the corner and you only see it when it is 10m out that is what happens in game you cannot even see the house two doors down. Perhaps three levels would work better. I'm easy. I'm not sure this is high value. Of course more is cool, especially the multi size of the same species, but there already is quite a few varieties and adding them is more work and more computing load so I'm not sure if it ranks high enough for me to ask for with the current engine. Yuck, more work for scenario designers. Pass thanks. This would be sweet. Yikes speaking of not sure if it is worth it. This would mean special versions of all textures and then there is the issue of would we need variations of the variations to match where the flames are on the vehicle. Yes this would be awesome but I think this also falls into the category of is that really work that is worth doing.

Disturbing, how so? I used to work on a team that, in part, relied on the work of a member of another team. Many mornings at stand up I would hear one of our team members say "I have not heard anything from Joe (not his real name) which means he is working on it".

Yes, points is a challenge. That challenge is not restricted to CM2x or even combat mission for that matter. I think you have your rose coloured glasses on there. We went from an arbitrary and mysterious point allocation for occupying objectives in CM1x to a clearly understood point allocation in CM2x. True CM2x changed how exit points are awarded but not for the worse just different.

There are 670 points allocated to those launchers and crew. The crew are included in that number so surviving crew means getting slightly less than full points.

LOL you are probably right.

I may have set the force strength level below 100%. Sounds like a good LRS scenario.

Typically when something gets stuck in a building it never comes out. Very Hotel California. If you have a save of the gun stick or better yet getting stuck it can be reported.

Yes, the US forces are a scout platoon of a Cavarly squadron with their vehicles removed and an additional scout team added.

Yes, it can be. The more you play the better you get at finding them. Start by exploring with the LOS tool (aka target) and watching what is blocking your line of sight. After a while you start to notice things that you know will block it and you will spend less time exploring around with the target tool and more time finding good positions. The LOS test is based on the current posture of the selected unit and against an enemy at a standard height. So infantry laying prone have issues testing LOS from way points behind walls. For vehicles sometimes locations that the tool says have no LOS do if a tall enemy vehicle are sitting there. Watch for the words "reverse slope no aim point" that is telling you that your unit cannot target the ground at that location but if something taller was there your unit could see it. And that enemy unit could see yours.

Agreed there are some truly amazing maps being made these days.

Oh cool. Well done. I tried to make it progressively harder to get LOS on the AA battery - looks like that mostly worked. And I wanted there to be a nasty surprise if you dilly dallied too much. You hit the sweet spot in that match up taking your time but not wasting it so you were already heading back before the QRF arrives. The US can still deal with the QRF, mostly, but it is hard to have no casulties if you end up mixing it up with them. Back when this was tested @c3k managed to win like that too and my initial response was - crap *I* cannot do that well when I play. So yeah I have won the battle from both sides but never that decisively. Well done @Michael Emrys. You know what I forget. I'm not at my gaming computer so I'm going to have to look that up. Thank you. And the map is nearly a real place. Well it is a real place but I made the stream actual water and the road higher quality with a better bridge and tweaked the buildings to fit my purpose but the elevation, fields, trees and even the fact that there is a farm there etc are from a real place. I personally prefer to work to recreate a real place than to try to make a realistic looking place out of my memory.

Yes, this. Typically the attacker's setup zone is pretty small and obvious - blasting that is crappy, hence the no first turn arty for the defender - but having a large area with multiple avenues of approach than that changes things. I am not 100% sure if "kidding" means user fixes or tweaks then I could not disagree more. Having end users tweaking core behaviours of the game or properties of armour or weapons systems would mean that this would end: +10 Less rules are better. The only thing I insist on is the standard artillery rules we already discussed - nothing else. @c3k is right. And if you get an attacker setup area that is big enough then I would ditch the first turn artillery rules too. Some people have all this complex stuff with percentages and bans and it just makes things complex for no good reason (setting an environment so that favourite gear X is more relevant and hated gear Y is limited is *not* a good reason:-)

Resupply - fixed in the original I think the immobilized vehicles com under the category of vehicle repair so all ready covered.

I can see from the campaign tree here http://www.combatmission.lesliesoftware.com/FinalBlitzkrieg/Campaigns/Kampfgruppe Peiper.html that the first couple of battles Red does not get any refit, repair or resupply. There is not much in the campaign. But you should embrace your misfortune and learn from your mistakes and soldier on. After all a read commander might very well have faced the same hardship. The victory will be all the sweeter if you have to work for it.

The manual does not explicitly define what the various terms mean but there are four settings to control what shape a force is in the next battle: refit vehicle repair resupply rest For this discussion refit and vehicle repair are the important ones. The values for those settings will control the likelihood that a lost vehicle is replaced in terms of personal and equipment (refit), or if existing damaged vehicles are repaired (vehicle repair). So the settings for those values after the battle in question will control the chances that a damaged vehicle will return to service or a destroyed vehicle will be replaced. I do wonder what would happen if a vehicle was just immobilized and refit was set to 100% while repair was set to 0% would the vehicle in need of repair be replaced or not. In other words what is not clear is does refit apply to all lost vehicles or only destroyed vehicles.

I love it: CMPW (Combat Mission Pay to Win). Might make BFC rich but the game would suck. But I can see it now. Next time I score a nice artillery hit on my opponent's forces I'll trash talk with "BOOM that's $52 right on your head". LOL I know. Exactly what I was thinking when I read that. I would help out but the only problem is that if the wine has to be kept flowing during development to keep them on side the quality we have come to expect might suffer.

A few versions ago I looked at getting Paint.Net to save BMPs in the needed format and failed. I even found a plug-in that was supposed to help but it did not. I concluded that Paint.Net could not do it so I am using Greenfish Icon editor instead. Or was it Art weaver. I forget :-) but it is in that link I posted a few posts ago. If a newer version of Paint.Net works that would be great but I have not looked in a while.

You absolutely can do transparency in the BMP format but only some apps can write the correct format (and still others might default to the wrong one but you can change the settings). No I did not use Photoshop for those icons. Games use the BMP format because it is a bit map which means you can read it into memory and you are done - OK slight simplification - whereas jpg needs translation and interpretation to reconstitute the image. Bottom line using more storage space but less CPU requirements makes since for a game.

Good. Normally they do cross just fine. If you have examples where they don't you can share a saved game and someone can log the bug.