A Canadian Cat

When I was testing CMRT I tested out fortifications and found no issues. I did that because of a previous release that did have an issue with barbed wire. If you find out some kind of fortification was causing your problem could you please PM me and I'll make sure it gets logged - it I find it has not been already.

Yeah, I was wondering as I finally read this thread. I was just going to say pretty much what @YankeeDog said. I find when I choose typical I get a nice variety of skills and morale and leader ship. I hardly ever touch it because I prefer - even in QBs - to play a force with some variety in it.

Wow 5 battalions on the battle field at one time. That is a lot. Just wait until the bullets start flying. You might be able to play it if you turn down the texture and model quality far enough.

Here is a concrete example: Closeup of the South East corner of the map. This example the contour "lines" I created were 5m apart starting with the top of the hill at 112-113m. As you can see I did not draw a solid line but spaced them out along the contour line. After that I added a few tweaks to shape the hill a bit. The non even '5'm heights are me creating a more interesting shape to the hill. This is based on a read place so the contour lines came from Google Earth.

The camera smoothness is something that has steadily improved in CMBN. On my old machine I noticed things are better, it seems, each time they update things. I think the issue is those improvements have been added to CMBN (and the newly released titles) but CMSF has not received any love in the past while. Something that BFC has said they intend to change. No idea where that is on their priority list though.

I hat it when that happens. My impression - untested mind you - is that CMRT is much better about *not* doing this. I am sure I have seen my tanks turn their turret and fire before the driver turns the tank. Was I dreaming in movie mode colour?

While true, knocking out the other guys is the best defense. You still will want to turn to face that direction because it could be a life ending decision to decided that the spotted enemy tank is the only one over that direction.

That is looking really good. Nice work. I agree the tilted sheet metal on the roof does not work because you cannot have its corner hanging over. To bad it would be a nice touch.

The only way I am aware of getting a head count is to put the unit into a QB and start it or use the editor deploy units and hand count the guys on the field. The order of battle is not mod able, so, nope no way to reduce below 50%. How ever what you can do is remove an entire platoon from a company or remove a squad from a platoon. That can take the overall head count below 50% for higher level units.

I remember those days. Your "That's Dad Time" quote made me chuckle. But what I remember was that once the little one was asleep I was right behind him Not to worry @sfhand and @ratdeath are correct there are plenty of us out there who are very relaxed about turn rates. I follow @sfhand's strategy of playing several opponents at once and at any given time there are a few turns for me to play. No one gets upset over two or three day old turns. I only ping opponents when they pass a week old just in case there is a technical glitch - which can happen from time to time. People that want to see two turns perday are very upfront about telling you that. I don't get to play against them and we are all OK with that So far I have played and met loads of nice people and only had two that proved to be jerks (and they both rage quite so it was easy to ignore them). That is a better average than the parents at my kids' schools

Good. I think that means you are using your AT guns and heavy weapons well. So many people put them in an over-watch position and then complain that they get spotted too easily. Limited sight lines covering particular avenues of approach is the right thing to do. I recently finished a game where I had a 75mm AT gun covering a ford - it could see pretty much nothing else and it killed two or three tanks (I forget) and was never spotted the whole game. I love it when that happens. Sounds good. I like the bonus that you can rotate 90 degrees and fire into another key location. Those spots don't come along every day but they are nice when they do. Once we get the ability to move AT guns short distances in all the current games I think you will be able to find more spots where the gun can be moved a short distance and cover a different tight lane. I am really liking that feature in CMRT.

Yep, the statement "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" is way to simplified. While they are often convenient pals for a time, eventually they can turn out your enemy too.

Ooo I totally forgot about that. Yes, I use that often once you realize what it is telling you it is very helpful.

Sounds like a good place. One question - what if the Sherman tanks don't come that way? How good is your spot for other avenues of approach. Note I am not saying you should abandon the idea and look for a universal AT gun location because that probably would be a worse thing to do. Just be aware that a well placed gun often will not be part of the fight if the enemy comes at you in a different way. Once you accept that and make sure you have a plan to deal with those other enemy approaches you will be happy. Well your way is much more analytical than mine - which is eyeball it. See this: which has the advantage that the enemy tank is already there. Which brings me to... Sounds totally reasonable - I like it. It will probably turn out to be incorrect but hey what else can you do? Actually one suggestion is to play test it. Use the same map and see what the AT gun can see when Shermans come driving across the map. If that is too gamey for you use the Marder. Since if this were real live you could order the Marder to drive to the ambush location and the AT gun crew could sight it. You can setup a red vs red game and drive the Marder around letting the AT gun crew see what they can see. Again I like it - good plan. Does that imply that you are Italian? It does not really matter because "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" anyway. But it does sounds like a solid plan.

There has been reporting that there are several (no many) independent groups fighting the Syrian government over the last few years. I remember hearing many different names but none of them stuck out because they are all kind of muddled together under the title "a bunch of groups of foreign fighters". This is one of these groups and they have been particularly good and creating contacts and support on the Iraqi side of the border. Now that they are operating on both sides of the border the main stream media started telling us about them specifically. Note I have no idea of the nationality make up of this or any other of these groups but I personally suspect that these groups we call foreign fighters probably have lots of people that would consider themselves locals. After all those borders are a bit blurry right now and for many in the area, they always have been (as @ScoutPL pointed out). You are quite correct these guys *have* been around for a while and the media has not singled them out for coverage until recently. I don't know what to say, I could blame general reporter incompetence or ignorance but really it could be more public disinterest in what is happening in Syria. If people really cared about what is happening in Syria reporters could spend time filing more stories and then they might get time and space to cover some of these groups specifically or cover different parts of the conflict in more depth.

Yes, but the region they are making their gains in is very upset with the current Iraqi government because of divisive politics. So while the force we are all fussing over is small they are making their gains with the help of locals who are upset that the deals providing some regional autonomy they thought they had negotiated were being ignored. I'm not saying the ISIS group is not scary, just saying they are not super soldiers, they have local support.

OK that was cool. I take it the unexpected thing was that the Stug fired on the T34 it had spotted but instead hit the one that drove from behind the building into the line of fire. Nice video footage.

Nice story. When I saw the windmill picture I thought it was going to be a reference to "tilting at windmills".

I concur tough is for sure and yes, the party is over once you are out of 9mm. I have a feeling that if the game simulated knife fighting they would keep going though:)

You have lots of answers about what can happen but to prevent it being a problem make sure you keep your guys in their own fire lanes. In other words when you are in contact with the enemy do not have units one behind the other. Especially tanks. Make sure, when ever possible, they have their own unobstructed LOF to the enemy. I lost count the number of times a tank would be shooting at the enemy but the round hit a tree right over top of my men. Or the tank came to a halt just as the gunner pulled the trigger with the round landing in front of the tank right were my men were.

There are a few: the blitz which is where I am. A few good men and We band of brothers are also popular around here.

No sadly it would not work. Oh, I just realized that I never fully answered your question earlier. I did look into it. However because WTII? compares the turns in the game directories with those in the shared directories it gets confused on the second machine. It has no current logic to handle updating the game's outgoing folder. So what can happen is the new turn for your opponent on the first machine will look like a new incoming turn to the second machine because it interprets the outgoing turn as if it were a new incoming turn on the second machine. It is something I could look at tackling in the future but it was not something I wanted to play with for the 1.0 release. I have a few more features I want to add but I will put supporting multiple machines on my list to keep it in mind. Some of this could be alleviated if I did not have to support a single shared directory for multi machine support. In other words if I could require that there but two sub directories under the shared folder (i.e. a forian and a forsfhand directory) then it would be easier to figure out what is going on.

No the demo uses the same as the released game. Hummm, maybe I am not really right. The confusion comes from CMx1 and CMx2 do not mean the first and second versions of the current engine. The original games CMBO, CMAK and CMBB used an engine commonly refered to as CMx1 and they were the first versions of the combat mission games. Then they rewrote the engine and produced CMx2 games starting with CMSF and Afghanistan. That was followed by CMBN. Those games were released with what you could call version 1.0 of the CMx2 engine. I don't know exactly how BFC would like to refer to that but that is how I think of it. The next thing they did was create a 2.0 version of that CMx2 engine and create CMFI with that 2.0 version of the engine. Then they also released an update to CMBN so it too now has the 2.0 version of the CMx2 engine. I do not know if the demo for CMBN was updated to 2.0 of the CMx2 engine or not. Now, recently they released version 3.0 of the CMx2 engine in CMRT. BFC have stated that they intend to create an upgrade for CMBN and CMFI to give them the 3.0 version of the CMx2 engine. It seems like this is the plan going forward that as they improve the engine they will create updates to bring the old games along. They have even said they plan to do the same for CMSF but they have not really given a clear time line for that - not that I can find in the public record.

Only if you take over control of their force selection and press the auto select button and then manually reduce their artillery and boost something else. So, not really

Ah, got it. That setting is meant for handy capping - to give the less experience player boost. So instead of an absolute point change for both sides it only applies to one side. In your case if you want more points as the defender instead you have to settle for giving less to the attacker. Which works out relatively but does not allow you to pick an absolute point value. There have been a few requests for custom point settings for the QB. Hopefully BFC will consider doing that at some point.