A Canadian Cat

Fair enough. There has to be a balance struck - if men surrender automatically too quickly people will be unhappy with the game play. Also, the morale mechanism does not take into account the platoon's situation. It has no idea how out gunned they are. I do like you idea of allowing the human player to allow specific units to surrender rather than it being all or nothing. I think that would be OK. My main point is I don't think more surrendering would make players happier. In fact I think there would be complaints about it. Who knows what Steve might feel about your post but my guess is he will not change anything because he is mostly happy with it. Perhaps I'll be proved wrong. If so I hope he makes some of my suggested changes after yours.

Has this been brought up before? I certainly don't recall. I think the main reason nothing has been done is because there isn't much, if any problem. I see enemy soldiers surrender all the time - probably just slightly less then mine . There is definitely code that simulate morale and suffering casualties *is* modelled. I have no idea what your expectations are but I don't see a problem with the way the game behaves. I would expect that if surrendering was more frequent we should start to hear complaints about that. There are two things I do have an issue with around surrendering: One is spotting: While my troops are attempting to surrender the still spot for me. Like they have their hands up but are still yelling out the situation to the LT. I strongly suspect that if troops were doing that they would get shot for not actually surrendering. It would be nice to see them no longer report spotting information. I am sure that would take some work especially since they have to be able to go back to normal if they get rescued. Two: the process of actually surrendering and disappearing from the battle field is interesting. If enemy solders don't disappear quickly it means there are other enemy troops in good order near by. That is valuable intell that many times you don't have by other means. I don't see how you can fix this if you want the possibility of rescue to be in the game. Perhaps there could be a hard upper limit on how long they can offer their surrender but not disappear to limit the intell leakage.

You should take @IMHO's comments to heart - need to do some repeated tests to be sure you can see the average instead of just a bad day. I'm no expert on particular optical gear but yes some of the older tanks (which the Ukrainians have) are not nearly as good as the newer ones. Yes No - although having said that I do wonder about if the Tac AI could be improved in this regard. Having a statistical test scenario could be used to make the case that the TC should be ordering a switch to different ammo when APS takes down their first missile. I am sure the missile choice is because it packs the most punch at that range.

It was widely disliked. And unrealistic in my opinion. The issue is while it may make sense for wider planning maneuvers it makes none at all for squads or team leader save the moment tactical situations. Since CM demands that we play the roles from battalion commanders down to squad Sargents it just makes reacting to small scale situations unrealistic.

Are some of your me going in the door you expect? If not there is likely a problem with the map and the door is inaccessible. If so you are facing a problem of your me are trying to execute your orders as fast as possible and some soldiers have grown impatient with thier buddies being slow and have gone to look for another way in. What you can do is split your squads and set the orders so there are pauses that prevent this impatience. Or someone suggested using the assault command for the entry order. I have not tested it but is sounds promising.

One more thing @Sgt.Squarehead who acknowledged your previous report?

Hummm I'm not sure why I said I would check in a week or so. No one is doing any work on internal campaigns and scenarios for Black Sea. When a next module is started people will get back there. I would expect this to take a while to be looked at.

Ok fair enough. I see that your conclusion was based in something real - your experience. I have never felt like that over a scenario design. I certainly have messed up the balance and other times given up trying to get it balanced for both sides. I suppose sometimes I have felt hurt over feedback, at least initially. That's ego for sure but I shake that off before reacting to it. I hope that doesn't come off a snug because I don't intend it that way. Just to explain why I reacted with a "what are you talking about" post - because I don't feel designers make scenarios hard to fees thier ego based on my experience.

?? You want scenarios that are easy? Ego - nope. Who wants to design a cake walk? Who wants to play a cake walk?

Oh yes, please. I would love to see that. There are many people who play in tournaments and campaigns at TFGM site that this would benefit - because those organizing them could do even more cool stuff.

It can be. Normally with scouts I only give them sort move orders to get from one place of cover to another so I don't really want them stopping in the middle. In that case I am not using hunt. For recon in force I'll use hunt but no one has a cover arc cause I want them to engage when they spot the enemy. That's how I would use it.

I once had a conversation with a marketing exec about pricing. He said there is a lot of art in pricing but the usual rule is that if you set your price so that some people don't by because it is too expensive then you have your price set correctly. Obviously if too many people feel that way you will not maximize your revenue but if no one is upset about the price then you are also not maximizing your revenue. Me too. I personally get the appeal of a single sand box engine. As a player that would add fun. As a tester not so much. For this past release of CMFI we had to pay some attention to older content and features not breaking but just the content from one game - imagine if we also had to pay attention to all the other games' content too.

Oops I should have picked something that was clearly a feature instead of something that is a behaviour fix. My bad.

I have not checked your math and I don't doubt you. I have to admit I am a bit surprised by that too. I would have guessed differently. Clearly if you decide to get the module you are better off just buying new. You could drop a note to support to ask for clarification - it is possible this scenario was not considered when pricing was set. LOL the principal that people should not be payed for their work? That principal? I know you have heard the explanation before and I know some people just ignore it or reject it but most games don't upgrade old engines they put out more content on the old engine. BFC decided to do things differently and now CMBN is just as "new" a CMSF because they did the work to update engine and not just create additional content and let the old games just lag behind. Goofy anomalies like what @Offshoot have encountered aside I am glad they did. Now I don't have to agonize over playing CMFB engine 4 with the spiffy new engine where MGs work as expected over CMBN engine 1 where they don't.

Sure - they do in grammar so we can apply it here.

LOL does double sarcasm make his initial trolling comments true

50 here too and I don't find the hexes or squares help much with topographic issues, for that I really need to get down to ground level. And I was referring to all computer games. So many have hexes built into the UI. One of my favourite things about CM is it just looks like the real world. Now if we could just get roads the curved... While not impossible but I think I went through there once about 10 years ago. These days I head East to Montreal more - kid at McGill.

Yes, it will. And this is a good point. One that I just don't think about since I don't play much against the AI. If you want to then you will have to look at the plans and assign units to the groups that exist.

LOL nice. It is a good thing that you can enjoy the game when things go poorly. It is very important since we all spend a fair amount of time loosing.

Yeah I got confused - @Bootie did clear it up with his previous post.

Personally I hope they slllllloooooooowwwwww roll any bones. First, enjoy Rome To Victory. Second I would rather not see expectations set high and then delays annoy people. Regardless of how reasonable and understanding the people in this thread are there a enough that are just not. I'll take 200 "please tell us something" posts over on "you missed the dead line that I expected because I am hard of reading and entitled to my entitlements therefore the company must be going under and I'm never buying from this company again" posts.

This is what my friend and I did back in 2012 to fight that 20 000 point battle. http://community.battlefront.com/topic/104558-axis-side-20-000-point-quick-battle-dar/I wrote an instruction sheet on how to do it: http://www.lesliesoftware.com/forforumposts/2012/Force Selection Instructions.pdf Those instructions are focused on by passing the points limit but the same technique applies for multiple national forces or date shifting.

You can actually get that by giving the unit a cover arc (press the shift key so it is circular). With a cover arc the hunt command will only stop if the spotted enemy is inside the arc.

Oh yes that is a good point. Looks like @MOS:96B2P has the definitive recipe.

It should be there. A link should be created in the program group - assuming Windows here. If not there are instructions at the top of these threads on how to create your own. See item 4 in the Special Upgrade 4 Tech Tips above