A Canadian Cat

Sorry I missed this latest discussion about artillery effect on tanks and IFVs. OK I ignored it - other things to do. There may some day be more work done by Charles on how it is handled, I don't want to speak for him, but I am unaware of any plans to make changes here. Why you ask, because most of what people think is wrong is just not correct or not as far off as they think. I've kinda stopped paying a lot of attention to artillery doesn't effect AFVs and artillery effects AFVs too much threads. Way back I recall some discussions and you can find my input into those discussions - no I'm not going to search for them for you (use google's site directive for better searching "site:community.battlefront.com" followed by the search terms you want. After a bunch of testing I was forced to conclude that artillery can in fact destroy T90s and M1s fairly handily actually. Those that don't get destroyed have so much of their systems messed up and NS that they are not very effective any longer. Sounds about right to me and others and those that didn't agree didn't make enough of a case. The short version: Any differences in how the game performs and RL can be debated and perhaps some dialing up or down might be in order. I have no comment on that status because I have no RL experience or evidence and live it to Steve and Charles to decide. Any notion that exposed sub systems are not effected by artillery is just not correct. Any notion that exposed sub systems are effected to much by artillery is just a big question mark. Given that they are effected in the game if you want to argue they are too effected then you need some RL evidence. Any notion that far away shell landings have too much effect on tanks is just not in evidence - if you've got some then share.

My understanding is yes. That I have no idea about. This is where TRPs get into an abstract territory. They don't do a perfect job for artillery since they would have to be set for each and every battery. In other words they would not be universal really. The lore is that they also represent setting up and ambush or a placement of an MG where you range the kill zone so your prepositioned men will be planning the ambush. I have not seen tests done that show small arm fire s more effective when directed at enemy units on or near a TRP. TRPs have an abstraction to them that don't represent everything perfectly. Not having them though would be worse IMHO

This is the only part of your answer that needs adjusting. Absolutely Panic and Shaken states lead to soldiers reacting and ignoring your orders. In those states they mostly just try to flee. Soldiers in good order will also ignore orders and react on their own too. Many times tanks or squads forget about your target order in order to fire at other threats that they spot during a turn. Tanks will withdraw and pop smoke especially if they perceive a threat they have not spotted or cannot engage. In this example a truck or a half track is withdrawing because they are likely to be destroyed and don't have any way or an effective way to respond to the enemy. The point is units do not have to have their morale effected to drop orders and take matters into their own hands. Morale effecting events do that too but they can also react on their own without becoming a panicked mess. Exactly this. The Tac AI that governs the actions of each individual soldier makes its decision based on what that soldier sees and his role. A truck driver sees pretty much any enemy unit as a direct threat to his existence and he will easily take action to evade the threat.

Ah as a communication check list I can see the value. As a set of rules everyone should use I balk. I totally agree that communication is a good thing.

This exactly.

Oh I get what it's for. I just don't agree.

There are two things here that are separate. The PBEM++ system which is in now and you can already play in CM Cold War. Then there is an official tournament system that uses the PBEM++ system. Matrix (or Sltherine I have not idea why or what the difference is) will apparently be starting it soon but you cannot just play whomever like. You can now you have to come at it through their official tournament system or website or something like that. I don't know the details.

Too many rules The more rules you have the more likely I'll accidentally violate them because I cannot remember them. LOL says the guy who helped develop the Hard Cat rules. Speaking of which I should really be pitching that to opponents more and try to get some games going using them. Yeah this is pretty much it for me plus for probe, assault and attack the defenders can get TRPs and the attacker can pre-plan what ever they want. The thing is once the game is going there are no safe zones. Don't expect the setup zone to be some permanent home base that will not get hit by a barrage. Why not. I'm approaching a village why wouldn't' I blast the heck out of the enemy approaches or retreat routes. Mulligan - what's a mulligan. There are no do overs in life, why would there be in combat mission. I have no idea what you meant by engine process problems though... If you want to have restrictions on this follow the Hard Cat rules - they at least are more realistic than a blanket ban - which I would never want to have. Huh - what is this. PBEM use password protected .ema files there are no .bts files in PBEM - except any intermediate saves I might make if I have to go to dinner or something. Am I missing something? Humm I feel like I am missing something here Yeah, that's not going to happen. I can look up if I played a scenario before but not a map. Heck sometimes I don't realize I've been on a map until deep into the game. As for scenarios if someone specifically wants to play a scenario blind, sure I'm OK with putting the the effort to find one we haven't played but anything else I just asking me to make a mistake that violate your rule. Sure OK but there are a lot of variables here. So, I'm happy to discuss it but writing it into a rule like this might just mean I cannot play you. Take for example a long running game that just finished I played a turn a day during the week but not the weekends pretty consistently except a few times I managed to put in three or four turns in a day. That would have been in violation of this rule. Better to discuss things with your opponent than a hard rule. That I agree with. For sure if you really are bailing. But see above. My bottom line is less blanket etiquette rules and more discussion with opponents.

If the AT gun's orders are placed at the end of a long set of truck orders there is nothing you can do. When the truck ends its move if it is safe enough then the AT gun can disembark and set up. If the truck has no move orders you can give the AT gun team a dismount order - that order will be executed before any new truck move orders (including automatic ones). This means if you are trying to setup an AT gun you might be able to intervene to limit some of the chaos. So, for example lets say you gave the truck a long set of move orders and the AT gun an order to move a short distance to setup. If your turn ends and the truck is nearly done its movement and you can see the situation has changed you can make some adjustments. You can decide to disembark anyway - which you wanted to to in this example. To do that cancel all truck and gun orders. Then give the AT gun a dismount command and then move it into position. After that you can order the truck to do something or not - your choice but at this point you are guaranteed that the AT gun will dismount before the truck takes action on its own. Because the truck saw a significant threat and so reacted to protect it self. Typically when you are setting up an AT gun you will be fairly safe. In your case that safety didn't last long enough and chaos ensued. Welcome to Combat mission.

That's the secret tea / red bull combo for improved solider performance

Yep they just don't update the sub system status when a tank is destroyed.

No line - straight to the imaginary fire

Forum, Scenario depot and mod warehouse all good for me. This is the link I am using: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/ https://isitup.org Can help you find out if just you are experiencing a problem or if everyone is.

Cool. Are you playing a human opponent or the AI?

Oh man juicy tidbits and cold water on our heads all in the same thread

Nope, I would spend a bit of time navigating the roads or at least controlling where they cross water, forest and other high risk areas.

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the January's Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMFI R2V Reno River CMSF UK Battlegroup Attacks The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the January's Scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMFI R2V Reno River CMSF UK Battlegroup Attacks The form post on theBlitz for sign up.

I have worked through my build issues for my Mac install and I now have a testable version to offer anyone who is blocked. I should emphasis this is beta and only has some basic testing on both a Big Sur and Monterey machine. However it runs which is better than the 1.0 version is doing on those OSes. I am running the same build on my Windows machine where I play my games - my own beta tester so it's pretty solid from a functionality perspective. There could be unforeseen issues on a Mac - just remember what I have now is beta software. I have reached out to everyone I know was blocked but if there are other people who cannot run 1.0 on their Macs that I missed or don't know about please message me and I can see if I can get you back up and running.

Steve started typing a long informative post and then the forum software lost it all so we went out side to do something productive like chop wood. During his marathon wood chopping session he got tired and his grip on his axe slipped. The surgery to repair his injured leg took a few hours and now he has a few days of recuperating in hospital before he can start retyping the great update. How's that? Probably sub standard since there is not conspiracy and frankly its way to believable. Totally made up BTW just to be clear.

Yeah the price and availability of graphics cards is crazy. I got lucky and there was one 3000 series on its way to the computer store. It was a 3060 which would not have been my first choice but I didn't want to stay with my old 760. No complaints.

You cannot. However: the game has an abstraction that allows the gunner to magically have the "right" round in the gun whenever they are ready to fire. The Tac AI chooses what the right round is though so you don't get input on that either.

Actually I'm a little frustrated at the moment. I have things running again in a development environment. That made me happy. Then I finished the official build and packaging and tried to test it on a clean machine. It just will not run. I cannot even see what the problem is. I have an open question with some Mac experts on what I should be doing. Honestly I was hoping to contact some people today who had previously offered to test but there is no point yet if the packaged app doesn't run. Sigh. The story of development.

Interesting. I'm not seeing anything extra. I'm on Win11 now and I see the same dialog choices I remember and the same ones in @Redmarkus's screen shots above. What exactly do you see that is different? Not that it is particularly important if people have been able to follow the steps. I'm just curious.

Interesting. I did that on Win 10 Pro. Mind you it was over a year ago now. I wonder what its like in Win 11... I think what is happening is the game is effectively running at a lower resolution but scaled by the OS. So the game engine renders things at 2160p and the OS scales that by the scaling factor when actually displaying it on screen. If I recall correctly my screen capture dimensions were not the full 2K size until I switched the scaling setting. That would explain the super ugly effects at least.