A Canadian Cat

Oops yeah I totally missed the fighting part. I though you were asking only about force selection. Listen to Pete he has had his afternoon coffee - clearly I need more

Yes, you absolutely can do that. On the QB setup screen there is an option for "Unit Purchase". Both sides have a drop down that lets you choose between Automatic and Human. You can go the other way and have the computer choose both sets of units - if you like surprises. You can also use the Suggest button in the force selection screen to have the right hand side populated by the computer and then you can tweak it as you see fit.

Hey, if you knew that's how it worked way back how come you didn't tell us Just kidding we just discovered it - so it was a surprise to us.

Thanks for looking at this. I suspected it would be something like that. I had seen artillery take out individual obstacles and I had seen engineers not blast them.

It uses the current height of the unit when determining LOS from future way points. Now that is interesting - I never noticed that before.

And that is the problem. I would normally feel pretty confident that my tanks would not fall to Panzerfausts but I am running out of time. When rushing errors occur. LOL - go a head let you men have a good cry. They will feel better afterwards in the POW camp Lots of good suggestions there including this good use of the hide command.

LOL yeah. Just like the what CEOs always say - this is our most important moment. I did not think you could clear hedge hogs either. But I am not sure that you really can - need to test (not sure when I'll get time to do that mind you). I wonder if it was a side effect of blasting the bocage and they were collateral damage. If you cannot issue a blast command over hedge hogs then you can only clear them if there is a wall or bocage near by and only if you get a bit lucky.

Minute 19: Orders During the turn several contacts are detected on the left moving towards the corner of the road. I am going to try to move my platoon up and cut them off. Since my men are going to be too close to the site were the tank has been firing I have switched it to a 15s target briefly. Figure 132 Covering fire on the road Followed by one team moving to the hedge hogs and firing past the obstruction where the enemy contacts seemed to be heading. Figure 133 Secure the road While another team races to a spot where they can surprise the Germans. Who will surprise whom? We will find out next turn. Figure 134 Secure the road Meanwhile in the woods the platoon moves forward to the bocage. This time with the tanks close behind. Figure 135 Moving up to the bocage The mortar that already dealt with the AT gun gets setup to do the same to the IG Figure 136 Setup to fire on IG

Minute 20-19: Maintain fire on the known enemy location so the Engineers can do their work. Figure 123 Still firing down road The bocage breach does not go as expected. What it used to look like. Figure 124 Plan was to breach bocage to the right The breach was forward and not to the right. Now that I think of it the blast along the right bocage could have been interpreted as a breach forward toward the bocage sticking out into the road. Figure 125 Breach And it did just that. But look it also took out half the hedge hogs. This might just work out better. The tanks can move down the road now without going into the firing line of any guns in the trench works. I’ll take that. Figure 126 That was not as planned - but good The IG and tank duel. Figure 127 IG fires at tank Figure 128 Tank fires back The tank actually was hit. No significant damage. Figure 129 Tank takes a hit The IG looks fine too. Figure 130 IG still OK Over near the woods a lone German tries to get away. The tankers overreact. Figure 131 Escape ends badly

Minute 20: Orders The orders are more of the same except it is time to breach to bocage to the right so the tanks can get around those hedge hogs. Figure 117 Move up to breach More moving up the road to get better LOF on the enemy at the end of the road. Figure 118 Continue to move up road The mortar team that took out the AT gun will move up and attempt the same for the IG. Figure 119 Move to deal with IG Meanwhile on of the woods tanks will keep their heads down. Figure 120 Suppress IG 1st platoon HQ in the woods needs to shift to maintain C2 with his men. Figure 121 Move to maintain C2 The planned artillery is on its way. I am not going to cancel it but I am behind schedule so instead of softening the farm defenders up before the assault it will have to suffice to stifle the enemy’s ability to move resources. I hope it accomplishes something. Figure 122 Planned artillery has begun to fall

Minute 21-20: This was a pretty good turn for me. The road is getting more secure as time goes on. The ambush along the side has been neutralized. Figure 112 Finish Off Ambush The last remaining member of the German ambush team surrenders. Figure 113 Last German surrenders In the woods as my men move up new HE starts arriving. This looks like it being fire from a gun. Figure 114 Moving up in the woods Sure enough a few minutes later an Infantry Gun is spotted in the trench works. Figure 115 Infantry Gun spotted My men moving forward in the woods also confirm the fate of the AT gun. That is good news. Figure 116 Confirmation of AT gun status

It is all about taking religious symbols / god's name in vain. Saying god dam would be very frowned upon by many - which is why it makes a good swear phrase. Similarly Tabernac or Calisse - which are taking other Catholic symbols in vain and are therefore popular swear words in Quebec.

I have not looked at this at all so if I am off base someone will let me know - I am going to guess the point is to call the artillery preplanned during setup when you do not need LOS to setup the artillery calls. Then you can stand back and watch the fireworks and then try your landing.

Don't let patch levels stop you from getting CMFI if that is what you want (let the goodness of CMBN be what stops you). Both CMBN and CMFI have been up graded to the latest engine version. I believe that CMBN has had a minor patch more than CMFI - there was one after the vehicle pack. But there really isn't any thing in CMFI that interferes with game play.

You came out ahead - that is certainly success. Infantry keeping eyes on, MGs keeping them buttoned. Three or four vs one - excellent. Shame you never got to find out how much damage you did to that Panther.

Cool I did not realize your forum name was sooo significant. Nice, mud and frost grog.

I have no idea. Do you think you are seeing reduced explosions in game in the marsh right now? I don't recall noticing.

No not tilting at windmills - except that most of the suggestions have been suggested before so chances are their inclusion in v4 not be a direct result of this thread. But hey you never know one suggestion and its discussion could put one over the top. Minus the editorializing yeah seems good. Meh, I think the surrendering we have now suffices. Improvements to the TacAI would be nice. I would like to see it in some circumstances area firing at ? icons that it sees. For example if one squad of a platoon is moving forward and comes under fire from a unknown enemy the other member of the platoon would automatically engage in area firing near any ? that they might get from their squad mates coming under fire. Interesting - what would that look like? Oh please, oh please (I'm just a broken record on this subject) I'm not sure about this. I don't think I have ever missed having that. Given that the tab key already has a job what would you use instead? Sure, although what we have not does not bother me. Auto selection is important - I'm going to make sure that auto force selection gets testing attention for any new product. CMBS is much better in that regard IMHO Yeah, that would look nice but after reading what Steve had to say about it I'm thinking we will not see that any time soon - but hey do not really know what Steve might try to accomplish. I would agree that will not likely happen. My top three wish list items (also in my sig): Head to Head Campaigns via PBEM, Command line support (here is my proposal), Add "Custom" Quick Battle size so users can specify points

I see you already have some suggestions. Here is the forum link to my turn helper app: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/110328-announcing-whose-turn-is-it-a-pbem-turn-management-program/ Once you have either CMHelper or WTII? up and running it really is pretty seamless. The only thing Green as Jade and I cannot do is have the game start and load your PBEM turn directly. Perhaps one day.

Welcome to the forum. I have never seen the games go on sale. You can wait and see if that changes but I suspect you will be in for a long wait. I don't know anything about rifle grenades.

I totally agree - even if that answer is not exactly what one person suggests but some kind of combination of a few ideas. I am sure that is the good thing about this forum from BFC's point of view. I am glad they think the good out weights the bad

According to http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=337&Itemid=581CMRT 1.02 had the fixes for TCP-IP so 1.03 will too.

PBEM stands for play by email and that is in all games and works well. WeGo over TCP-IP was not available at first in CM2x but was added back in. I was going to say in Black Sea but checked and see that it is mentioned in the engine manual for CMBS, CMBN and CMRT. It is also mentioned as a new feature in the CMRT title manual. I know some fixes happened recently that really helped fix things up I just cannot remember if the discussion was here regarding RedThunder or regarding Black Sea. It would be good to confirm if the patch for CMRT 1.03 contained those fixes. PS. When you purchase the game you get a title specific manual and an engine related manual. The engine manual has details on how to setup your TCP-IP environment.

I'm having general trouble understanding why some people are having trouble understanding what Steve said. If you want to ask questions about why is project X not in the list or I wish project Y was higher priority or comment on the same then this is the place - in this unlocked thread. If you want to push for or suggest your favourite feature feel free to create another thread on *that* topic. If you want to create a wish list or a if unicorns could fly list then feel free to do that - same in your own thread. All of the above are strongly encouraged on this forum - this is not rocket science guys. Actually forget that rocket science is actually pretty easy - this is not brain surgery guys.

Nice, you even found few uses I had not thought of. I think this is good. Outlining and exploring what we would like to use a follow type command for and what behaviour we would want to see will be more useful for Steve than trying to create a command definition. That way he can focus on how to fit things into the UI. Especially if the way the UI works is changed in v4, then our ideas of how to fit the follow command into the current command system could be rendered pointless. But if we stick to how we want to use it and what we wold like it to do that will not be rendered useless. We might not get everything we want mind you True - I still think we don't want WWII convoys looking like Google cars though Well at some level the kinda will with a convoy command but I still think the spacing should be longer than 8m. Our SOP in the 80's was 2s between vehicles in a packet and 10s between packets. That was to allow civilian vehicles to have some hope to be able to pass us. The packets would no doubt tighten up a bit if it was for real. This is safe zone driving with trucks - that's based on my experience as an army truck driver in the reserves for a summer+.