A Canadian Cat

Yay - have fun.

When you create the QB map you are really creating a scenario but without pre-selected units. But the part of the scenario that still matters is the battle type. If you want the map to show up for an Assault QB then the scenario needs to be marked as being an Assault. I know we think of QB's as using maps (especially for H2H play) but they really don't, they are QB scenarios. To play against the AI there has to be a plan in place too and setup zones. To make a credible plan you have to know what type of battle you are creating if for. The plan for an Assault will not be the same as for a meeting engagement so the system needs to pick a QB map (really a scenario remember) that has an appropriate plan.

32 BMP. That's a 24 bit file with an additional channel for transparency. It is not a case of colour X is considered transparent it actually has a full channel of 256 values for transparency so you can create a variety of transparency effects. I have had trouble with PhotoShop (never could figure out how to control the BMP format) in the past and PaintDotNet (only supports 24bit BMP files). So, I use ArtWeaver which is much more focused on icon sized image editing and supports the 32bit BMP format. A couple of notes. Did you know I have NATO floating icons? http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=2681 http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=2678 Also did you know that BFC released the briefing graphics templates for CMBS? http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=3811 Also if you are interested I actually used a font to create my icons (with permission) which you can find here: http://www.mapsymbs.com/

No, it's the other way around. As soon as you add an exit zone any unit that is part of an destroy unit objective counts as destroyed if it does not exit. Having the exit zone changes the way destroy unit objectives behave.

As long as you know how destroy unit objectives interact with the exit zone you are fine.

Yep, what they said. One thing you can do is use target briefly more often. It means you don't get as much area fire but it also means your targeting teams spend at least some of their time open to new targets.

OK got it. I might start using that in my pitch: "You guys need to get the early war title done in time for Emrys to play it"

No there is no troop preview. It would be nice though. The only thing I can suggest is before picking the troops for the real battle do a few rounds of troop picking and looking in the setup using a local you vs the AI game. That is really the only way to see what a force looks like.

Excellent stuff @Heinrich505

Wellllll no I guess not. We do have some interesting wrinkles though. For example in Ontario there is a dual system where a fully public system runs next to a publicly funded Catholic system. I'll stay away from any politics but point out that while the Ontario curriculum mandates as science based approach to teaching the science classes the Catholic system is allowed to also teach the Catholic belief system. I honestly do not know what that looks like in a science class though but the certainly cannot just ignore evolution.

Seems OK for me. I switched to my phone to write this and everything was working fine.

In Canada the Provinces provide education and set the curriculum so in that respect things are similar. There is no national curriculum in Canada either. Well I do admit that we do yes.

Stop shedding the harsh light of reality on us. We were all happy holding out hope that one day we might get an early war game but now my hope has drained away.

Well that has not been my kids experience.

I would love to see that. That would be another family all together though. I cannot imagine them adding that onto CMBN.

Oh man - sigh. Fixed in the original.

I am not convinced that we have much to really worry about. Sure those interviews are horrifying. I just do not think they really represent the true state of a generation. My kids both had teachers that spent time in Grade 7 and 8 and then again in High school talking about plenty of important events that shaped the world as we know it. So, it was not just my kids who got a bunch of background information at home they got it at school. To me it feels like when I hear my neighbours worrying about the behaviour of teenagers and young adults in our neighbour hood. OK yes there is a group that smokes dope in the parks at night and come home from the bars and make noise on their way home and hog the side walk walking around in groups. OK they are being self absorbed teenagers big surprise. But I coached quite a few of these kids for years, I talk to them when I see them on the street and at the corner store or when I see them working their part time jobs in the grocery stores. You know what, they and their friends are present and respectful nice young people. On the whole. We can all find sad, terrifying or otherwise bad examples but don't paint them all with the same brush.

That's a lot of randomness. I doubt any one will be able to find a pattern of air support usage or not.

No the Poles are there - added in the Common Wealth module.

Interesting. The vehicle that is itself armed is the one that allows the passengers to set a target arc. At any rate during setup you can compensate thusly: with no orders for anyone involved dismount the passengers, give them a target arc, remount them and plot your moves. The passengers will maintain their cover arc orders as long as no other combat related orders are issued - which you cannot seem to do anyway.

Which is good advice in general. But is it small stuff if *you* are in a squad that rushes across the street to the safety of a nearby building only to find there is no door?

I've had it happen to me. Hopefully it will be that simple.

Not any more than the other titles - with the exception of the AP shells exploding when they hit the ground as the OP said. Those casualties were always pretty rare really.

Ah its both depending on the context. @CameronMcDonald for a scenario the forces and their behaviour are controlled by the scenario author. For Quick Battles they are random but with in a framework that depends on your force selection type (Infantry only, armour only, mixed etc.) and the type of battle (attack, probe etc.). @Jammersix did not specify but I think he is referring to QBs. Edited to add: as for air power I do not recall seeing any air power selected for a QB. Mind you I spend my time testing small QBs because that is where the force selection algorithm usually gets into trouble. @Jammersix can you share some of the QB selections you are making when you see air power not being used?

Works sometimes but sometimes not - that is suspicious. Is it possible that you have a blank AI plan set as active? There are five AI plans and when you are testing one you want it to be set to be used Frequently and tall the others to be "Not used". I'm writing this from memory so those choices might not be exactly worded correctly. If one of the other AI plans is set to be used then that would explain what you are seeing.