A Canadian Cat

Looking good guys. FYI I am working on a solution that restores the square avatars. I actually don't care about the avatars but the white space over kill and header area screen hogging is driving me nuts. Give me a few days and I'll share.

I believe that is correct indeed - except perhaps being behind a tall wall when the opposition is an MG. I bet the do. But they add cover so trees on heavy forest will likely provide the best cover. I highly doubt that trees in the open will provide the same cover as trees on heavy forest. In fact I would log that as a defect if I saw that (which I do not have any indication of from experience).

Got what right?

Hey are those your quotes back! Humm. I just did it with one of your pictures. I copied the image location from one of your last pictures. Then I clicked on "Insert other media" and picked the "Insert image from URL" option. The dialog that came up I pasted the url into the box and the image loaded. I pressed the "Insert into post" button and tada:

Ah, gotcha. Oh I would love that. It has been suggested but you know what it has not been brought up very often. I think this would be one of the best low hanging fruit changes that could be made. It probably should have some restrictions because there can be a lot of ? contacts floating around which could lead to a lot of ammo usage and firing all over the place. One situation where it could be made to work and have a desired effect is when a squad comes under fire. The friendly units near by (who are probably there on over-watch) will likely get new ? contacts from all the enemy shooting. That would be a perfect opportunity for the Tac AI to say I'm not going to wait for full recognition my buddies are in trouble I'm just going to fire where it sounds like the enemy shooting from. Ah, you mean can they talk to infantry when they are buttoned up? I know they can when they are unbuttoned. Not all tanks had a way for the tank commander to talk to the outside crunchies when the hatches were closed. I am not sure at what level this is modelled. I could not find that he did. Hopefully soon. No, likely not. My point is we players are needed to make the decisions that the squad NCO would make. That is how the game is currently designed. I do not think the Tac AI is up to the job. Even a squad that is out of contact with its Lt can decide basic things based on the last orders they got. They can defend themselves if the come under fire, they can break contact if they are loosing the fire fight, they can finish the enemy team if they win the fire fight. They can decide the route they should take to withdraw, if something really scary shows up they can get out of doge before taking casualties / fire even. The Tac AI can only defend itself and possibly withdraw a short distance and heaven help the Tac AI if a tank shows up.

This has been brought up before and the problem with it has not changed either. Would it be reasonable behaviour for a squad that looses sight of its Lt to suddenly just stop thinking on its own? Wouldn't the leader be just as likely to drop further orders and move back towards the Lt's location? If the location where the completion of their orders placed them became dangerous wouldn't the squad leader lead his men to some nearby cover with out consulting the Lt.? The bottom line issue is the game offers us the job of being the unit commanders from the Battalion commander all the way down to fire team leaders. The Tac AI is pretty cool but it is not up to the job of leading squads - even the AI has a scripting system to handle that. Also asked for before. But if they did that we would hear complaints about units "walking into known ambush just because the shooter ducked for a while". I personally like the way hunt works now and would not like it to change. Requests for more explicit cable comms have been made before. Yeah it wold be cool. I don't remember BFC ever commenting on that. They do have a big to do list though. Yuck, command delay. See above discussion about squad leaders not being able to make reasonable quick decisions for their men under that type of command regime. Not sure what you mean there. Tank commanders can communicate with nearby infantry already. Again totally not work able. Why 10min why not 5min why not 20min it just makes not sense at all. You might be interested in this thread: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119732-command-friction-applying-c3-effects-in-combat-mission-playtest/ I think a lot of what Bil suggests in there covers your ideas except that you as the player have to exercise the self control.

Ah, I think that you might be the only person that actually cared - I don't mean that in a bad way just saying. I don't think they moved to the latest version of the forum software to add this feature as per your request. Although I have to say that the time frame from your request to brought into reality was the fastest turn around I have ever seen Right, just what I did, but not to the desktop to a folder I named. So game -> screen shot -> hard drive -> forum via drag and drop -> posted as you saw.

Very neat. I think I'll find that more useful than move mode - Going to try it out.

I had to look it up to and I strongly suspect it stands for Jesus H Christ Mind you I would not want to speak for @Rinaldi And we all know that wtf means Why the face.

And you are not wrong. I will try to do better at ignoring stuff like that. I find it hard...

LOL, sure, OK, perhaps. Just trying to help. I can think of 10 or so things that could be done to improve things and square avatars isn't on that list. But that is just my opinion. Only a couple of things I feel are even worth mentioning and I passed those thoughts on to the boss.

Oops. I agree with @Bud_B that the screen shot is really cool. It sounds like @womble agrees with Bud too.

Actually you should be celebrating because full sized images can now be accessed. Check out my thread I just posted here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/120825-zala-capabilities/#comment-1632122 Click on the image and it will open sized down for the screen in its own space just like before but now there is a "Full Size" button in the bottom left corner click on that and tada full sized image in a new tab. Jump for joy!

OK did some testing. I created a quick battle and let the US side pick what ever it wanted. I picked a small security detail plus three FO teams and three air controllers along with one each of the drones and two 120mm and two 155mm batteries. Here is the Pchela-1T being used to call a precision strike: The air controller doing the same with the Orlan-10 (forgot the screen of his observe mission) Now with the 120mm mortar and the Orlann-10 The Zala 421 cannot call the precision fire but can call regular Here are some of the rounds coming in - not neccessarily from the calls pictured because the enemy was moving way to much in the early turns so my first barrages missed. And from the end screen - all M1s are imobilized and messed up and the other vehicles are all toast. Here are some game saves so you can play around: https://www.dropbox.com/s/tkgo2on4l33sghm/UAV Artillery test.zip?dl=0

LOL I resemble that remark. That's true.

I understand that being told your world view has a glitch in it is hard - I have had to adjust mine a few times on various issues. Not easy. What you don't seem to see is that as sucky as journalism can be the truth and evidence eventually win out. In paces where there is an actual free press there are actually people looking to find out and prove the other guys made a mistake. They fact check each other, they scrutinize each other. So, it is true that you cannot necessarily be certain that a particular article in the main stream US or British media will be perfectly correct but you can be certain that if they got a fact wrong someone will point it out. It might take a week or a year but they will. Because of this those reporters carefully check things before they write them. Just that alone sets the bar pretty high. Note I am talking about the facts in the reporting. Clearly opinion and choice of stories to cover etc can create their own skew on the world but they start from facts that have a good chance of being correct and if not of getting corrected. It is also pretty clear that places that do not have a free press do not get that benefit. What you get then is government approved stories, government versions of events. In short total crap. I heard about an excellent example this morning from China - that way I'm not seen as attacking you. It turns out there is a pretty big child abduction and trafficking problem in China that has gone nearly unnoticed. There are a handful of citizens groups that are investigating on their own - and finding kids. In this case there was no actual direct conspiracy of lies coming from the central government it was a case of a lack of a free press meaning that only stories the government wants to talk about are covered. No one is looking for problems or other issues to report on. Couple that with the bribery of various levels of local officials involved in registering the kids and the whole thing is off the central government's radar. If there was an actual free press this story would have been covered for years and likely because the facts would be out people would be trying to make changes. In the example here your government is lying to you but because you do not have a free press you cannot tell that they are. There is no hate involved - honestly none. Just because people are pointing out that you are not listening to the evidence of what your government is up to does not mean any one hates you or Russians. It is just no so.

That's just twisting stuff around to suit your purpose. Steve's argument is they see no indication that they would see an increase in sales that would off set the additional cost. Mind you it would have to do way more than offset the cost because there would be a fair amount of work involved to get it there. Yes, what I am saying just because some other game that you think is representative of Combat Mission is being sold on Steam does not mean Combat Mission would see an increase in sales that would offset the cost. Don't forget that "because I said it would" is not an argument and that is pretty much all you got. And heck you might even be right that all Steve has is "cause I said it wouldn't" but the thing is a) any of our opinions matter less than Steve's does and b ) Steve's opinion has been formed actually selling war games. That is just wrong or at least a massive exaggeration. You cannot even test a new store front properly in a week.

@hattori you are making me nervous now I am certain I have done it but I think only certain UAVs have a lazer designator on them. If someone does not beat me to it I'll put together a test and give you the run down.

Glad you enjoyed it @Heinrich505 I kind of felt like a skimped a bit on this one but I did try to make my screen shots count.

Agreed! @Kashash don't get sucked into what some disgruntled gamer says. Try it for yourself. You might find you are disgruntled too and don't like it but you might well find you like it. I played the old CM before the new stuff to and I have never looked back the new games are way better in my opinion. But like I said don't trust my opinion either try it for yourself. The demos ted to lag behind the games a bit in terms of patches and features. CMRT and CMBS demos are the closest in patch level to the shipping games and by all means report back here with questions.

I expect you are correct, we agree more then we don't.

Oh by all means stand away. It is very true that the terrain effects cover and concealment. All I am saying is you can not create a table like @markshot is asking for. I suppose you could create a table that was of some value and somewhat representative but it would *not* give you the ability to look at the terrain tiles the enemy are in and come up with a percentage chance your troops will cause casualties. The game simply does not work that way. You are much better off forgetting about tables like that and just consider the effects of the terrain you see on the map. Exactly.

LOL, I forgot about your thread about image attachments. It is different for sure. "It sucks" might be hard to address though

LOL I'm in trouble then (aside I failed my basic reading and bought APS equiped tanks in a recent QB against @Sublime, even after agreeing not to ). My personal take is to play with less house rules, the more there are the more chances of making a mistake (or not) which can lead to disagreement and the more there are the more it indicates someone is trying to shape the battlefield. I personally would rather have few to no house rules (I'm in favour of the no preplanned arty bombardment for the defending player for example) and let the battles play out. But I am flexible too cause I'm still playing @Sublime :D. BTW there are combinations of UAV and precision artillery the Russians can use. I forget what they are but I have done it. Loads of fun to wreck an M1 with precision artillery.

I though you volunteered for that job. Thanks in advance BTW Good, I never noticed the preview thing before. Now I wish I had. Yep, my cat lost an ear. One thing you can do is edit your avatar image to increase the canvas size (keeps the image the same but adds more space around the edges) stay square and figure how to position what you want so it shows in the circle. With a little experimentation you can probably get something you are happy with. Oh yeah and I figured out how to get the '@' to work better: don't use capital letters. Yesterday I could not get @L0ckAndL0ad to work and at the time I thought it was the '0' in his name but it turns out that if you type '@''L''0' it will not find him but if you type '@''l''0' it will. Same for @ASL Veteran.