A Canadian Cat

Just so no one thinks I'm ignoring @37mm I see that Evlis and Buzz have reproduce the problem that's twice as many testers as needed so I'm just going to sit back and watch what happens

LOL there always seems to be more ideas than time.

The formatting worked well. I liked the picture in picture. The narrow perspective is different. There were so many small fire fights in this battle that were not covered at all. You could have done several squad level comics from this one battle. I think the idea worked and you should be OK with doing it again.

That's it for me then. My avatar does not make it. A fitting end to a trouncing by @Bud Backer

I got to live another day. If memory serves that is my last tank. It is the top HQ on the battlefield and the tank commander was renamed to be my name. Just to make the game a little more personal.

The rule's @MOS:96B2P quoted don't have book keeping. @Bil Hardenberger and I created them to avoid that.

The amount of sharp ground is governed by your texture settings (in the game's options) however the game will also automatically downgrade the draw distance if the simulation is struggling so maxing that out is not always the best choice. Windows 10 does not support normal screen capture for games. It seems you have and nvidia card so you have GeForce Experience which has built in support for capturing the screen and videos. I would start there.

Yes, well done. Actually those first smoke screens you saw were me doing just that. Putting up smoke so I could move to the tree line with the BMPs and infantry so when the smoke cleared I could cause some havoc. Well that explains a lot. That move was a total disaster for me. I had a lot more luck with my <redacted> doing shoot and scoot operations in the <redacted>. Yes, they are extremely nasty. Your men were on the receiving end of those a fair amount. At least there were some surprises for you

Oh here I was thinking this was all wrapped up and I was commenting old news but I am all caught up. Sweet.

Drove it like he stole it. Nice. Yeah I really wanted to cause more havoc but bloody hell 4 T90s and 8 BMPs - good thing didn't try. I only knew about half of that but even that was more then enough for me to want to get out of there too. Not many men made it back to my lines. I didn't have a Bakhityarov on my payroll.

I don't remember for sure but I think the first hit took out the main gun so all you were ever going to get was MG fire. Not that that is any fun but probably not total annihilation. Interesting. I had a lot of problems with visibility that is for sure. My tanks were nearly always the last to spot - which equals dead. I was pretty happy with the smoke really. I used it to reposition my tanks so they were not in the same location when you last saw them. I had no problem with the smoke my guys threw around. So, I guess we were both happy. You prevailed so I guess it did work better for you in the end This first action that @Bud Backer is writing about was my bold move to drive over the hill and into his setup area with the intention of disrupting his plans and causing havoc. It did not really work for me though. As you can see from those frames my tanks ended up ahead of my infantry - which I didn't think was a big deal but clearly I was wrong. My losses in that skirmish far out weighed any kills they got. My only hope is that it spooked @Bud Backer about my intentions. I doubt it did much of that though I'm reading this now and will throw my two cents in here and there. Follow the quoted text back to the original post so you can see where in the comic these comments pertain if you need more context.

That was the difference I was not sure how it applied to what you are actually doing here. By saying that @BletchleyGeek is "Correct!" I take it the change you are making is to create new types of platoons for the original formations but keep the past platoon definitions around as opposed to redefining the way the existing platoons are armed. This means that old scenarios will remain largely unchanged and if people want to see differences they would need to edit their old scenarios and delete and repurchase formations. Obviously new scenarios get the new TO&E.

Waves back from the mirror trying to carefully use the correct hand +1 So, how much will these changes effect exiting old scenarios without editor changes? You have explained the process a few times and I was about to write up my understanding of how it will work but stopped because I was not confident I was getting it right. (If a true test of understanding is can you explain it to someone else - alas I do not grok this yet). Will existing CMRT scenarios see Soviet rifle platoons' arrangement of small arms change when running in the new release?

TheBlitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the March Sceneario of the Month has started over at theBlitz. This month the scenarios are: CMFB: Die Patrouille CMBS: Summer in the City The forum post on theBlitz for sign up is here.

TheBlitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the March Sceneario of the Month has started over at theBlitz. This month the scenarios are: CMFB: Die Patrouille CMBS: Summer in the City The forum post on theBlitz for sign up is here.

Ack now you are making it hard. The whole point of making the WW2 just kept going scenario is that BFC would have *all* the necessary models and formations because they would have to complete end of WW2 TO&E for the Soviets and the Allies already to go. If we just create a strategic back story for fighting to continue for six more months all that would be required would be the creation of the game and the amalgamation of resources from the CMRT and CMFB plus the creation of scenarios. Once you start adding new cool units and reorganization of armies then it becomes a whole big thing

Now I'm even more confused. Are you saying that with an older version of java the campaign files were correctly extracted? This is not something I would expect. I would expect a newer version of Java to work correctly but if it were to fail I would expect it to fail without doing anything. I found the latest update for Java 8 is numbered 241 (https://java.com/en/download/faq/release_changes.xml). Is that what you mean? The latest version of java is 13.0.2 (https://www.oracle.com/java/technologies/javase-downloads.html) hence my confusion. I will send you a PM asking a bit more.

I'm not Mike but I use his tool frequently. What kind of error do you get? It is possible to create a Java run-time install for use with just the scanner that makes sure the right java is available for it. Also what is java 241 I am unaware of it - probably just a shorthand name you are using that I'm not groking.

I don't have the link you refer to but the FAQ: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125783-the-cm2-faq-thread/ has a link to your excellent C2 thread:

Interesting. I might start out reading those in game numbers but I try to use these weapons based on my in game experience. For me that means I try to hold Shrecks to 150m and try to get them to 125m before using them if at all possible. For Bazookas I normally don't let them fire over 100m and try to get them under 90m.

Yeah, *that* is not at all what I said or meant. We do however see a large spread of opinions about what is working and what is not - which clearly means that there is no way to satisfy everyone no matter what choices BFC made. Which is why it is a good thing that BFC's default is to make decisions that *they* feel are the best ones and only tweak things if someone actually shows evidence that they got things wrong in some way.

I have not actually seen my men open fire at the crew before they are out (or didn't notice). Given the changes made over the last few updates that have toned down bailing crew's responses the chances of the crew getting the best of my men has dropped to basically zero if I have additional teams to cover the assault and close to zero if it is just the assault team. I will grant you that occasionally the crew manage to cause a casualty first and things can go wrong if that happens and you only have one team covering. The thing is that does not happen regularly any more.

That did seem kinda fast, yes. I have definitely seen guys get taken out just before or as they throw. The grenade usually bounces at their feet and then goes off killing a comrade or two. I don't think the game would model a round triggering the grenade but that might be a good story to explain that.

Agreed it is very dangerous and those crews are going to shoot at your guys. The best way to deal with them is to have another team or two in position to open fire on them as soon as they jump out of the tank. If I have one or more other teams covering the tank I typically watch the crew go down or surrender instead of watching my already freaked out assault team take a casualty, run and then take more casulties. Plus, one of the best ways to cover your assault team is to have another team actually firing at the tank. Even if its just small arms plinking off the armour the tank crew seems to care about that and focus on them. Sure it is a dangerous job but so is assaulting the tank. Spot on steps removed since I would not change them Thumbs up - cover arcs are to prevent your men from shooting - so don't use them when you think you might want your guys to fire. I personally would not bother with the cover arc for the assault team because if bad stuff happens I want them to be free to defend themselves. I get that the idea is not to reveal their location but if the TC does open up I'm cool with them taking him out while they approach. Nothing makes a tank crew more skittish than loosing their boss. Plus, if the tank's infantry support does show up I want that assault team to open up on them too. At that point your assault is likely toast and things are going to end badly for the assault them - the least we can do is let them fight back. IMHO we owe them that.

Wait, which is it - too fragile or too powerful.