A Canadian Cat

LOL thanks. I don't think the forum system counts yours as 10 for each like though. You'll need to put in a feature request for that.

Cool story. Thanks for sharing.

Wow guys. I'm out of likes for the day but there are lot more great screen captures - keep them coming!

I am glad you like it. The game itself can sort in various ways too actually.

Reported.

reported

There is no timeline for it but BFC are working on it. It's never long after the full installer comes out but it's usually not the same day either. Hanging in there.

They have not produced the patch install file yet. Currently there is only the full installer available. They'll get there...

Snow and new regions = a lot more textures added.

That's for sure. I read over every informative and precise discussion thread that @Battlefront.com and @akd have. Mostly my eyes glaze over but I am always impressed at what they accomplish with regards to the TO&E. And thankful.

Nice one. I watched it start out looking good. The tank was facing the armour ? contact then choose to target the spotted infantry but before engaging got a solid contact on the armour that it then engaged and hit. Then a the 36s mark things go off the rails with two armour targets to choose from. Thanks for capturing a nice example with game save...

That would be very nice.

Point to point for what unit? By that I mean what height should the check be made at? I get that the current tool doesn't always use the height of the final position but mixing the heights of infantry and tanks would not make things more intuitive. I honestly don't see what you are suggesting as more intuitive at all. The current system is very convenient and quite intuitive.

No, you cannot select them to fire directly. They will get used when you target smoke. I have no idea when they get fired. No, fire does not spread. Yes, sort of. WP rounds are supposed to cause more suppression but it's not a chemical weapon cloud

LOL I spotted that at just past the last minute. Steve figured it would be a while before anyone noticed. Predicted it would the in the first hour. Took a little longer than I thought. At any rate the bug is in the bug tracker already.

You should have an email with details. Check your spam folder. If not reach out to support.

LOL This is great news. I love how every time people fail to read or fail to understand the part about keeping things quiet. It's even right there in bold Important.

Some of that does seem familiar. Do you have a game save? PM me and we can discuss how you can share it with me. BTW I'm a tester so I can report the issue once I can reproduce it or have a save.

You already have bunch of good answers so I'll try to add a bit and place some emphasis... Both players and the computer troops are controlled by what we call the Tac AI. That AI simulates each soldier's reactions etc and determines exactly how a squad will follow the orders you (or the computer AI) gave them. As such it also takes over then morale drops. Shaken or Paniced troops are not under you control and well try to do their best to stay alive. Even before becoming shaken troops can decide they should reposition. This is part of the game. If your over all situation is good squad talking that action can frequently save themselves by pulling back. If your overall situation is poor (taking fire from multiple directions, surrounded) troops taking action on their own often ends in disaster. As you saw. That auto cannon is still pretty nasty BTW and the missile take a few moments to acquire a target. The crew is trying to get rounds on target ASAP and inflict some damage right away. Ant short ranges that is likely the right choice. If you get a BMP facing off against a Leopard at 2km you will see the crew make a different choice. I'll add to what others have said by reminding you that: Again the Tac AI is in control of that. These troops are not perfect, they are not uber, they do not read your mind. The Tac AI does not produce super solider results. It shows better behaviour for better trained troops and worse for poorly trained troops. It's meant to be realistic not perfect. BTW not making the right choice some times is realistic. Yeah, there are people who just cannot get past that these are not super soldiers that can read the player's minds. The fact that things don't go your way, the fact that things don't go the way you asked / ordered is one of the things that makes this game so awesome. You have to adapt and find ways to give the troops you have their best chance to succeed. It is very rewarding and fun. I am sorry your friend feels that way. Perhaps when you share this thread they will give it another chance. It is. Have fun!

Not to mention while Steve and Charles were digging around on that issue everyone else was testing and trying to find other problems to prevent them from getting out the door. So, if even if Steve and Charles met for coffee instead they would still need to give us time to try to find any other show stoppers we could. Those hours could not possibly have been used to get it out the door earlier because other people have stuff to do too. Speaking of which...

In fact the gun will use the ammo from the bearer first - so that once they are out they can go get more. Although I'm not sure if there are any sources of 88 ammo they can get it works well for MGs and such though. You can tell what the gun crew has on hand and what they have access to from near by units: This mortar has 16 HE rounds in their possession (see number on the left). The have access to 32 (see number on the right). The total rounds they have access to includes all ammo bearers or other mortar teams in the same platoon that are within two action squares (~16m) of this unit. This can cause confusion. For example if you have two mortar teams close to each other and each has 16 rounds of HE then both will show the have 16 rounds but access to 32. Clearly there are not 64 rounds that can be used only 32 but either mortar team or both could use them. I like to make sure that my mortar teams are far enough apart that they are not double counting and that particular ammo bearers or trucks are close to one and only one mortar. That way The totals in the right hand box make the most sense.

Yep, nice job noticing that so early in your life. It took me longer to see that was me and change my mind set. Don't get me wrong I can still get impatient but I try to avoid that mind trap as much as I can. Learning to manage complaining is an important life lesson (so is learning how to manage complainers :-). After all no complaints means no progress. We owe each other some consideration of if our complaint is at all productive and if it is great but then we also have to ask ourselves after repeating the same complaint for too long is it really productive any more? Hint it's not

But who would those people be? When I started playing CM and reading and posting here I ready every single word written by everyone (well other than a handful of people who proved to be either rude or astronomically ridiculous but thankfully that is still a small number). It's a lot, I don't do that any more. One thing I noticed is that frequently the reports of bugs are not at all bugs. There is a category of things that are reported because people are unhappy they had their asses handed to them or their favourite kit is not uber enough. Reading those bug reports are not very productive. Frequently explaining things to people lands on closed ears. I used to (and occasionally still do) because it's good for other people to hear the explanations even if the OP refuses to understand. These seem like bug reports but they are not at all. So, they would have to be weeded out. Who's going to want to deal with that? I just don't read posts like this after a certain point but if I were one of those moderators I would have to reject the bug report and answer the complaints under your plan. Pass. There is a category of things that are reported that just aren't wrong they are inside the possible range of outcomes. There are so many posts of the form "I did x and bad thing Q happened that's a bug". It is way way more likely it is just that Q happened to them but usually good thing W happens. Who's going to run the tests to verify that Q is happening to much? Who's going to make a call of how much Q and how much W we want in the game? Frankly I've done lots of this and so have many other testers its what we do. The problem comes with when do we spark up a study like that? If one of us did that for everyone of these individual reports we'd do nothing else and waste a ton of time. But your moderators would have to do something like that or have the OP do it or get a tester to do it otherwise its not a real bug and should not be on your list. I'll take on some of those but mostly I'll pass. There is a category of complaints that are just not going to be solved because there is a game limitation. Some of those are widely known others not. I guess a list of those would be helpful. If people read it. The CM2 FAQ Thread There is a category of complaints that are arguable and we all do argue (I'm thinking of the panzer shreck firing from inside buildings arguments). The game designer makes a call and that's what gets implemented. If its arguably the right call then it's not a bug its an argument. Should that go on the list? BFC says not OP says yes. Maybe OP and other actually do find documentation that the call is wrong then it gets on the fix list. Most calls don't get changed. Each of those calls have at least on OP who doesn't think it is right. Someone has has to deal with all those complaints. Again pass. Then there are the myriad of complaints that just don't pan out. I cannot count the number of times I've tried to reproduce a reported problem but been unable to. Often they just aren't bugs. Sometimes the description is just incomplete. Trying to tease out what the missing bits of info are takes time. At the end of that often its still not a bug. I'll take on some of those too but mostly I'll pass. At the moment I have 9 emails I have sent to my self of issues reported here or elsewhere. Every now and then I'll pick one and try to work it to a report-able bug. I'll keep doing that, that's what I signed up for. I'm sure most testers do something similar. That's just one part of the imperfect system that outlined.

Oh man that is what the third hilarious post from you in a day. I don't usually think of you as the funny guy (usually think of @sburke or @c3k did one of them hack your account :-) - thanks for the laughs.

It's here: https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/cm-mod-warehouse/combat-mission-battle-for-normandy/cmbn-infantry/cmbn-vms-british-unit-skins/