A Canadian Cat

Having mods around during an install does not cause this kind of problem. There is a slight chance that a mod might be interfering with the new version. I suspect the problem will still be there after running with any mods moved out of the way but it is worth trying. If it is still broken then the issue is likely missing or extra stuff the got picked up during the install. With the new install files distribution method if you do not unzip your install files into a clean empty directory before running the install program it can pick up additional compressed files that it can find and totally pooch your install. If moving the mods out of the way does not fix your problem then I would do a fresh install (carefully running any installers from their own new empty directory) or contact the help desk. The above is assuming a PC. If this on a Mac then I got nothing.

Well if you can reproduce it regularly then that is probably a clue - I have only seen this very very rarely. Most of us are not seeing it with any regularity at all. So if you (or anyone else who sees this often) can start saving PBEM files so you can package up a set of before during and later during turns that would be helpful. For Ken

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the June Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMRT: Studienka CMBS: Morning Coffee The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the June Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMRT: Studienka CMBS: Morning Coffee The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

Actually put the item in your cart and it will shop up at $105. I just did it my self.

Indeed that has not been discussed because various people keep trying to engage in "He hit me back first", or "your government is just as bad as my government" distraction techniques. And this is the heart of the matter. The answer to your question is yes. It is that simple. The Russia government ordered the invasion of Ukraine on trumped up excuses trying to hide what it was doing the whole way and when other nations responded first with demands that such activity stop and then with sanctions the Russian government's response was retaliation in the form of sanctions and a stepping up of threatening and harassing fights of various kinds. To this day I have not seen one shred of credible facts or a logical argument that casts the events any other way. You can see how some people here can get frustrated because instead of putting forth and argument for why invading Ukraine was justified all we keep hearing is distraction techniques, fake information and logical fallacies. Honestly I really would like to hear an actual coherent argument for why invading Ukraine is justified. And by an argument I mean an actual thought out set of reasoned and informed points. I do *not* consider "well country X does it too", "to stop <insert fake information here> form happening to Russian speakers", or "because some other foreign government took over Ukraine" etc. etc. as well reasoned. Bear in mind that it is the Russian government that invaded a neighbouring country so the burden of justifying that action is on them.

This is the standard ammo sharing with in platoon formations. Members from outside the platoon will not take part. All ammo types should work. This kind of ammo sharing is usually by the single missile or magazine or belt depending on the weapon that the guy asking for ammo is using. So if you unit is from outside of the platoon in question you have to use the acquire command. If you want to take the ordnance away from the vehicle then you need to acquire if first. A note on that acquiring: the guys in this test did take a missile from the BMP and they could then walk away from the vehicle with that missile. If you did the same thing with an MG crew they would take a single belt or mag or box which likely is not really enough but that single belt, mag or box is theirs to keep too just like the single missile.

A little time has passed - do they pass missiles down the chain. Well actually they do. Pretty cool! The BMP now has no missiles - they have been passed along. Oops I messed up and took the next screen shots after one more missile was fired - rats. The first team next to the BMP has a missile and access to three. This actually works because you can see the third team away from the BMP was actually positioned too close to the second team out so he is actually in sharing distance for the first team too. Hence access to three missiles. The second team away from the BMP also has a missile and access to two. Wait that's not right he has a missile and his neighbours on either side to do so shouldn't he have access to three then? The third guy away from the BMP has the third missile and access to two - which again makes sense since his neighbour has one as well. Well not quite because if I am right about why the first guy has access to three (due to being close to two other teams) then this guy should be in the same boat. I also forgot to take a screen shot of the next them but he's got nothing. The four missiles from the BMP were passed down the chain and one got fired so now the three remaining missiles in the platoon are distributed one each to the first three teams nearest the BMP. There does seem to be a bit of funny business in a couple of places but no missiles are unaccounted for. It seems that count of what is close buy is not quite right. Could even bee that I paused it as the items were in motion and the UI had not been updated yet. Or it could be a bug - but since the actual missile count is correct I'm not going to fuss about it. What I am not clear about is what happens when the guy on the end who has no actual missile but has access to the one next door sees a target. Does he get the missile right out of the launcher from the guy next to him? I don't know because in this test the guy next to him pretty much spots the aircraft at the same time. To test that some creative terrain would have to be created to give the guy without a missile in his launcher better sight lines but still have sharing access to this neighbour. Sorry I'm not going that far.

OK here are the pictures to show how this worked. I forgot this was on the picture thread - good thing I have pictures then The setup is I have an air defence platoon with two BMPs stripped out. They have one vehicle for resupply just to keep it simple (that one BMP has four extra missiles, each of the teams have one missile each to go with their launcher). I set the launchers up in a long chain from the vehicle. Also on the board were various other AFVs and tanks placed far away form these guys and the US side had to to FOs and five air assets that were ordered to target the other AFVs and tanks away from the air defence platoon's location. It did not take long before they were chewing through their ammo... And I even started to get nervous when I started seeing these noticed popup that there might not be any reason to use the spare ammo... OK now that the teams have all fired off their missiles there are only four left in the vehicle. Pretty quickly this is how things look. Two left in the vehicle The team nearest to the vehicle now has one missile and access to a total of three. The vehicle has two and the team has one. So access to three total (but actually that is a bit odd really because the next team over also has one missile so shouldn't this guy have access to four?). The next SAM team has one missile and access to two. This makes sense he has one and his neighbour has one so he could access two. The thrid team in the chain does not have a missile but as access to one. Again that works because the next further guy has nothing and the next closer guy (above) has one missile so this guy has access to one. The fourth team out has no missiles and no access to any either. Again that works (none of the other teams further away have any missiles or any access either).

Yep a long time indeed. I think about it this way. Those crews did not know the detail armour information about their enemy. Heck half the time they miss identified the enemy vehicles. They just had the gun and the ammo that they had on hand and did the best they could. We already know way more from our player, as all knowing all seeing deity over the battle field, than any tankers or soldiers did during the war. I for one am totally fine with not having that information to add to my player as deity advantage.

LOL - that took me a while to read. I only figured it out once I realized I should have it sound like a Newfoundlander in my head. Then I could understand what you were saying. Now that would be really cool...

Oh man taken out by a shot through the gate - that's just nasty. Bummer.

Interesting I use direct into vehicle move orders and put pauses on the vehicles and give them move orders too. Just the stuff that you don't do. And I have had this happen to me I think two times now (both times in version 1.1 or was it 1.01 - I forget). I do what @sburke suggested - shoot em. (in my defence both times I was playing on a big map and waiting for him to get back would have been crazy).

Just so no one gets the wrong idea... That is not the case. Vehicles on the move suffer a reduction in accuracy but nothing lasts a whole turn, it is based on what the vehicle is actually doing at the time it aims and fires. You might remembering the bug from long ago where any vehicle with a movement order suffered from a reduction in accuracy. So if you had tank with a move order and it was on permanent pause it would fire with less accuracy than the same tank with no movement order at all. That is not longer the case and the issue has been fixed.

I'm a bit confused about who is confused about what. Lets start by pointing out that all these soft factors are defined in the manual. For the CMBS game see page 94 of the CM Engine Manual v3.01.pdf In there it defines what the different soft factors do. The reference on page 31 that says no modifier just means that the experience attribute has no modifier (there is only conscript, green, regular, veteran, crack and elite but no pluses or minuses in addition). It does not mean that the experience soft factor has no effect! Page 94 describes the different soft factors well enough for me. Have people read that and are still not sure what effect they have?

LOL yeah it was the hockey.

Remove it? I'm not sure that is the right phrasing. Its more like they never put in into the new game. I don't really miss it myself I only ever think about it when some one bring it up like you just did

Nope, I never read the OP - not even now. Clearly from the reaction that was a good call. I did read you poor guys reactions - that's kinda like watching a car accident - I just cannot stop looking at all the wrecked vehicles and confused people

Not really segregated but regiments were raised regionally so it we ended up with sorta separate but sorta not brigades. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Canadian_Army#Second_World_War Also by the second world war there was no segregation by race either (which apparently Canada did do during the first world war - I didn't know that). From http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/those-who-served/black-canadians-in-uniform/history#second So, there should only be a mix of English Canadian and French Canadian voices if there are members of two or more battalions on the battle field otherwise you should pick either English voices or French voices depending on what Battalion you are fielding. It also seems that some number of the Canadian soldiers should be of African decent too - not sure on the numbers but it would be cool to see one day.

Oooo now you are talking....

"Some of you may die but that is a risk I am willing to take" My daughter is auditioning for a role in Shrek the Musical so that quote lept to mind.

Just use the ignore setting and then you will not get sucked in...

Bottom line if they created it I would likely follow it. But... That is three more forums needed for what I can count two example threads. I am not sure that is really worth it. It also increases the chances of threads being started in the wrong forum. I have to say I'm not really for it. But as you said it is up to BFC not me. Just my 5 cents (Canada does not have pennies any more).

As you can see there is only a slim area of consensus on "general" house rules. Usually when you ask such a question the rule set gets bigger and bigger and more stuff gets added and before you know if you need to have a decoder ring and know the day of the week to figure out what is allowed I'll play by any reasonable set of rules you might want to suggest as long as there is a discussion first. Frankly the only one rule that is not really negotiable is the no artillery attacks on setup zones for attackers or during meeting engagements. BTW Reasonable means short and simple and that are intended to make the game more fun.

Wow, what a lot of FUD and miss information or at least FUD and miss communication. I live in Canada. During the cold war the Soviet air force used to test the US and Canadian air defence partnership with frequent flights were close to our air space. Similar flights were conducted near other counties air space. Once the cold war ended so did those provocative flights. Putin started them again. That is what we are talking about. All this justification over radar and transponders and misinformed reporters and baffle gab is just a distribution. Putin's government has brought back an old provocation from a conflict that we thought was passed. He chose to do that. The only conclusion is that Putin's government is seeking additional conflict or at least trying to bully other counties. That is obvious and clear. Just because some reporter screwed up the details and some people here used incorrect terminology or you misunderstood understood what they were talking about does not change that. Quite frankly this is a common strategy when someone has no legitimate point on which to stand. Distract the other side with issues of details either real or made up in an attempt to avoid the basic issues. Putin's government has been conducting deliberate provocative flights for the purpose of intimidation. Are you actually attempting to deny that? Do you feel it is some how justifiable? Let us stop being distracted by pointlessness. Edited to remove odd phone auto correction involving piglets of all things ???