A Canadian Cat

Yeah, all the levels are always there in the c2 list. If you delete the company HQ and just keep the platoon I believe you will find that the off map company HQ and Battalion HQ will both still be in the C2 list.

The example team's screen is telling you that it is out of contact with the company HQ but that the company HQ is still in contact with the off map battalion HQ.

Found it. Another useful tool created by@Ithikial_AU:http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116086-combat-mission-victory-calculator/

Just to be sure what was the status of your tanks main gun? Could if have been previously disabled?

OK I'm talking about how the game actually works right now. What you are talking about is a change in behavior that you want. Both which are fine...

I tend to set my ambushes up with the ambushing troops hiding and another trigger team not hiding but in good concealment with visibility to the kill zone. That way if the hiding troops don't notice the enemy I can unhide them as soon as possible. Bottom line if you give a hide order expect those troops to notice nothing. They might notice something but don't expect it.

Found it. Another useful tool created by @Ithikial_AU: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/116086-combat-mission-victory-calculator/

Someone created a really handy victory point calculator recently. It let's you put in your current values and then perform what if analysis. Searching on my phone is annoying so I'll look for it later if no one points you to it in the meantime. My suggestion would be a US bonus value set so that if all their vehicles get destroyed they still loose but if they all get across they win. Not sure how easy that would be but the victory calculator will help you figure out the correct balance.

I agree the click movement order lines to select units is workable in many cases - like when there are several units moving in a spaced apart formation. My concern is that when there are multiple units moving in a confined space that it would be frustrating to make adjustments if your selected unit keep changing. If BFC were to try to implement this it would need careful attention during testing. I personally would not like to see one situation improve while another gets worse. Indeed. The flip side of that is: in a complex game system like the CM series one need the UI to be as efficient and quick as possible so that we spend the maximum amount of time doing fun things like tactics etc and not digging around in the UI to find that command we want or to set the multi options we have to play with. Efficient means more that one thing need to be efficient. What I am getting at here is you have several behaviours and commands you would like to add and so do others as well plus still more people want various options (such as what weapon system should fire, what formation should be used). If BFC went all the way on those things then the UI would be so big and cumbersome no one would be able to figure it all out and using it would be slow. Just saying. In the mean time while we wait for whatever improvements might come, here are couple of things I do, perhaps they can help you. I use double click on the map and the tab F12, +, - and v keys a lot for this type of situation. If you have the a group of units moving through an area you can select then one double click on the map to jump to the location where you want to change orders then press F12 to select the unit again and usually the v key to flip the camera back around forward again. Then I make adjustments. Many times the other units / vehicles are in the same formation so a press or two of the + and - keys often finds the next unit you want to adjust. If not then tab brings you back to where the units are and you can select the correct one and then double click on the map to get back to the area again F12 v again to get the right unit selected. In case that helps anyone.

OK got it thanks. I do a similar - sometimes. If the scenario designer has mixed units up too much or in a QB where it is some what a hodge poge I do that. But if the setup has clear areas of responsibility for platoons / companies then I will probably not do what you have pictured and instead explore the formation as it is and make my adjustments from there. Yeah tricky stuff there. Setup zones are not universally sized or shaped. I think writing code to sort that out would be challenging. I would prefer to have an algorithm that lets me pick an HQ and then click a form up around command that would pull every subordinate unit around it. To keep things simple I would make it do one level and one level only (i.e. no selecting the battalion commander and expecting ever single unit to be organized). Instead what you could do was select the battalion CO and have all the company HQs organized around him. Then with a little manual spacing of those company HQs request the platoon HQs get organized around each company and then a little more manual spacing and then call the squads to the platoon HQs. That way you could massage the organization to meet the setup zone and situation. The computer would just have a fixed pattern for subordinate units and any units that cannot move into a legal location would do as now - just stay where they were.

Thanks @RockinHarry someday I'll have to have a closer look at that and now I have a starting point...

As @womble mentioned a cover armour arc that covers the entire map is what I us for AT guns much of the time. A regular cover arc that covers the entire map would not be different from having no arc.

LOL Tries to look casual.

Looks like you have some answers and some more to read. +1 on the Tactical Problems Blog that is excellent stuff. Some of those threads are pretty good too. But not all - you will no doubt figure out yourself if you are getting value out of a thread. I am going to give my answers to your specific questions since I do not agree 100% with @Warts 'n' all - more points of view hopefully will be helpful Maybe and maybe not. By default a unit will stick to its cover arc. At times they will break it and ignore it but those times are hard to predict. Therefore if you set an arc expect it to be obeyed 100% even when you really wish they would not. If your men take fire they might break the order but probably will not. If they take casualties they might break the order but probably not. If the get really beat up then they will break the order but they will also not be in very good shape either. The more motivated your men are the more likely they are to keep to the arc. My default is to not use cover arcs. The most common occasion I do is for scouts and FOs that I do not want to be shooting. I give them a short circular cover arc so they can defend themselves if really bad things happen. I might also give a cover armour arc to an AT asset or my own tank - when I do that it will be a circular arc that covers the entire map (or to their max range for infantry AT assets). You read that right - the entire map. One other special case is to have a tank poke around a corner or other protection at an angle and then have the turret face forward. In that case the tank will get a 180degree cover arc that extends to cover all of the map in front. One thing I am experimenting with is circular cover arcs for platoon HQ units to help keep their platoons in C2. Just click on the HQ and you can quickly see if their squads are close enough or not. Like I said above expect your arc to be obeyed. Which means if you have some narrow arc set expect the enemy to drive around in plain view outside the arc without challenge and move up and take out your defenders. That is why my default is no arcs. Yeah, I don't do that at all. On defense I like to find them a couple of spots with good vantage points over likely areas the enemy are going to be coming. I make sure other defensive units are *not* near them. I do not want MGs that attract fire to be drawing any attention to the snipers. Then I just leave them to do their work. Occasionally I'll get them to hide in cover for a while and then go back or switch positions. I do not remember the last time I gave a sniper team a target order. I just let them work. On the attack I use them less. Having them handy but back a bit seems to work. If they are with the platoon HQs then they are not usually in the line of fire but are close to the action. If I see an opportunity I'll move them up to a part of the line that is not currently taking fire but has a view of some enemy that are holding me up. Then I just let them do their thing. That sounds pretty much OK to me.

Are you sure that is not in the game already? My impression is that troops move slower and get tired faster moving up slopes. I have not tested it directly because it always felt like it was working.

Contour lines would get my vote that or a separate topo map view. Grid lines actually do not really help and strange shading would be just well strange.

I know we have had this discussion before but I am still not convinced that this would be good. If I have spaghetti set of paths from vehicles in convoy I do not really want to be changing which vehicle I am working with just because I clicked slightly away from the current set of way points. I fear that will be more annoying than what we have now. Inventory management improvements would be nice - including returning stuff to vehicles.

I am honoured by your request but I am not playing my turns for my existing games at a reasonable speed - sorry everyone. And I am behind with some activities related to [redacted] and [redacted]. Adding another game is not something I want to do right now. Sorry.

Oh we love doing this type of thing. So not a bad thing to start a wish list again So here are mine (top three are always in my sig line when one gets done I remove it and replace it with another): 1) Head to Head Campaigns via PBEM, 2) Command line support (here is my proposal), 3) Add "Custom" Quick Battle size so users can specify points You have a bunch I agree comments later. 4) Persist the camera shot cut keys so that I can use them when playing PBEM. This actually has the potential to be the single most useful feature in the game Many many times I have a battle with two ro three distinct combat groups that often, once in contact means I have multiple view of the battle that are important. Having the ability to swap between an important unit in those groups would really help with watching the play back. 5) support for coop play 2v2, 3v3, 2vAI, 3vAI etc. via PBEM So for me that means a way that there is a turn file for all to watch and give orders to their assigned units and produce a part of a turn file that are then merged together once all player have played and then that creates the turn file for the opposing side. Or something equivalent that lets players view and command their troops without manually sharing / managing a single turn file. I like it. Yes, nice. 6) Also a way to turn off building transparency. Nothing kills the immersion of a screen shot like xray vision on buildings. Not sure what you are actually getting at here. Oh yes, exportable statistics for after the battle would be really nice. +1 LOL. I have been asking for that for a while. My first pitch was to just get rid of it but Steve him self says he uses that way all the time. So toggle if off please. +10 Cool but persisting what is in game now would be enough for me. meh meh +1 there. Been discussed before and you and I plus a handful of others seem to be the only ones that want this. Might be nice Yeah that would be nice +1 I think something should be looked at here but not sure that what you are proposing is the right way. Meh Indeed - perhaps a pole after we have all argued about this list for a while...

Sure, blame me Glad to see you guys having fun and making things better...

LOL that would be @kohlenklau. I did not even get that one at first.

Yeah, very cool. It is good to have formal support now. I'll have some feedback for you guys - via PM or email. I have been working with both sites a bit and am having some happiness issues (yes I mean the site behaviour has made me unhappy ).

Now there is a common refrain...

Yes, in case anyone else missed it that was my point, BFC are not some how special in this regard. LOL that is a good side effect. We had no such benefit because we had a way more complex setup. We even had an option for a license server some customers installed inside their own network and floating and fixed licenses and any combination there of. Plus several applications that used licenses at various times. etc. etc.

Oh I meant to say that is one amazing picture. Did you ever find out if it really was a copy of your game? Someone went through a lot of trouble to make box that has nothing at all to do with your game so I almost wonder if it was a pirated version of your game or just a total sham.