Chris Ferrous

As far as I'm concerned this is a rare and fairly insignificant issue since by targetting just in front of the big building or directly the smaller one the mortar is still very likely to hit the (obscured) target from time to time. What WOULD be a BIG issue for me would be if the fix eats up computer power and the game becomes slow or even unuseable to me using a six year old single pentium 3.2Ghz pc. Currently the game seems to run seamlessly and almost without limits to size (within reason) or video quality.

Well spotted, because I didn't go to the trouble of e-mailing myself! Yes, I was doing hotseat and it was fine. I guess you'll have to look it through a few more times to get the stats on whether any error is permanent (which seems unlikely), rare, or random.

When I got through to the full map the US are the defenders. So that's what you wanted wasn't it? But now you're saying it has swapped around on another set-up? If confirmed then it does seem almost like a random error.

Ok, everything is clear now . . . Xian, I believe you showed a picture of the preview map? That is wrong and its zones are mis-labelled. Otherwise the game sets-up entirely correctly with the Germans as attackers in the corner and the US as defender in the town area. I don't know if the preview map would still be wrong if the Germans were to be chosen as defender.

That does not necessarily look like a genuine 'swap zone' error then does it? If the map is SET for German defence and you chose, as you did, a German attack then it could be the map should not have been chosen (although you probably wouldn't have know) OR the game is failing to transpose the force set-up zones to comply with your choice. But that would be a different matter from actually swapping zones in error I'll try the same set-up on mine (but versus the AI). Back in a mo.

I've just checked in the editor and that map has the Germans set to defend the town. Which side did you pick to play as defender, Xian? I've no idea how the game copes with the concept that maps are designed for Axis this and Allied that, and yet a map can be picked, presumably almost randomly based vaguely on the attack / defend / terrain criteria. Could it be you had the defender / attacker choice set to random? Is that what causes the 'switch' in these cases? I for one have never seen it but I've only had a few practice games on QB maps.

War is hell: case proved. Oh, and it's not fair!

Personally, I don't think this is an 'ugly hack' at all. Bringing on artillery and mortars after 5 minutes takes only a few clicks; select the few units as a reinforcement group, maybe 3-4 clicks plus an F key, and then allocate an arrival time. This can be applied to organic artillery just as much as to attached assets. Couldn't be simpler, mate.

There's a few things to consider here:- 1) If you feel you may be subjected to a first turn or very early barrage attack then your force, whether attacking or defending should be spread out and if possible not be in an 'obvious' place. 2) You should always deploy on the basis that the enemy might use artillery against you before you've moved, or the instant you set off. 3) Map-makers and scenario designers really should provide enough space to deploy both in attack and defence and even if it is a realistic / historical map a degree of artistic licence should be used to create terrain cover shields nearby. This shielding terrain represents the approach to the map or defence in depth or reserve zones for the defender. This 'cover terrain' should not though be the subject of a game objective. 4) Players of QB, and designers, should ensure that a realistic force density happens on the map. It is possible that CMBN is partially culpable on this point because it would seem players can choose to have too many 'points' on too small a map. I say partially, because players should use their own discretion on this point. 5) I believe CMBN is responsible for not limiting artillery as a proportion of the force chosen in a QB. In CM1 there were very good algorithms for limiting unit combinations, but unless I've missed something these limitations are no longer imposed. 6) Scenario designers, as mentioned above and elsewhere, can entirely prevent first turn / pre-planned barrages by bringing on artillery assets as reinforcements even if they're off-map artillery. This can happen as early as the fifth turn / minute. 7) The 'gentlemens' agreement' is an option but it should be entirely unnecessary if 1-4 above are followed. 8) One more possible issue for CMBN to address; in game terms I do believe the default load-outs for artillery ammo are set too high. They may be typical fire plan figures historically, and I've no reason to doubt that, but in game terms I think these quantities should only be achieved when a designer specifically tinkers with it. For QBs especially I think smaller ammo loads with an exponential increase in price for more shells is the way forward.

I too would be interested to know what the script looks like, but in all honesty it's probably not worth the effort. It's difficult enough to get the AI to do what you want in a single battle let alone in a series of battles with variable forces dependent on previous outcomes. My preference would be to make a battle series with a theme rather than sticking to the campaign format as you'll have much more control over each situation. All you'd be losing would be the carry over of the unit with its losses or replacements BUT, apparently, unlike CM1, you cannot import battle damaged maps, so if a battle needed to be repeated according to your campaign it would start off all over again on a pristine map, or at least as pristine as it was when you first made it. Also, producing a related series allows players to pick which situations interest them the most rather than working through the campaign. I'd still like to know how battles are linked into a campaign though.

Rockin Harry Absolutely brilliant stuff. Really useful. One thing I noticed though: I believe in your 'modular buildings' block fronted by the rubble and bomb crater, I can see internal windows and doors. Now if these buildings were connected internally the doors should match up inside, but it's rare to find internal windows. I've been trying to 'go inside' all my co-joined buildings and switch off inappropriate doors and windows etc., but it really isn't easy, and it's definitely time consuming. Do you know of a quick way of sorting out all windows to a blank wall, or do we have to rotate through the selections by clicking? The reason I mention this isn't so much cosmetic, it's because I'm sure I read somewhere in the forum that internal windows could lead to buggy LOS and LOF. Great work though.

To be honest I have seen something like this, i.e. unable to 'unhide', but I think it's because it happens there and then; if you press hide your unit hides, but if you change your mind it doesn't happen until the playback is activated. Then if you 'get in a loop', you press hide again thinking you're cancelling it, but really you are reactivating it all over again, and so the situation continues. In my early days (is it only 5-6 weeks ago?) I had similar problems with the dismount command.

Actually, the trees seem to be represented abstractly, so a tank can visually drive straight through a tree (or a telegraph pole) without manoeuvering around it. Hence you can park a tank with a tree sticking out of its turret. Strangely, tank shells seem to hit specific trees? :confused:

PM sent

Interesting and disappointing if replicable across the board. You say it ONLY happens in TCP/IP games and even then ONLY to the guest? Weird. I've certainly not seen this but I have seen graphical examples which may or may not indicate similar issues. Basically sometimes one sees soldiers with hands grasping an invisible weapon and yet they either have a weapon strapped on their back or apparently no weapon at all. I've seen one instance of a loaded HT being hit and some of the survivors had no weapons, but that seems realistic, and I'd say it's a commendable design feature. I wonder if the two things could be related? Perhaps disembarking is treated the same as bailing out and weapons are randomly lost? Strangely, tank crews always seem to preserve their side-arms!

It's just seaweed. An unusually high tide for the time of year!

The US AI is proving harder to develop than I thought. It may be that this will have to be released as HvH or v German AI only. That much is ready anyway. I'll keep at it. Meanwhile if anyone wants to test against either side then please drop me a line. Cheers

Do the Ammo Bearers represent a genuine historical team? Either way, should they be regarded as 'first-line' troops, and should they be modelled with lower combat ratings?

Thanks, YankeeDog, that's a great help. So, the 'Scout Supply Mission' will nearly always work for their Squad, and with luck, it'll work for the whole of their Platoon too. That's very useful information.

A bit of smoke may help! Seriously, if I have some 'rear-echelon' troops near a re-supply wagon can they pick stuff up and walk it to the frontline and then share it out? Or would they have to be hit first and given buddy aid before a guy in the frontline benefitted?

As noted above, I think this could be a significant drawback in QBs with pre-designated target zones. As I said, the solution for avaoidance in a custom designed scenario is to have the artillery asset arrive as a reinforcement. This also works for off-map artillery which can be brought in as an off-map reinforcement.

I believe an objective which disappears has been achieved and you need / can do nothing more with it. This happens definitely with 'touch' objectives which you simply need to pass through and not physically occupy. I suppose it may be possible that an objective is mutually exclusive so it could be that if your opponent beats you to it then your equivalent objective disappears. Must be possible. I too was surprised that the RAFF campaign gave me the HQ 'box' objective even though I had yet to set foot in it. Then again the AI Germans were routed and surrendered so I suppose it was fair enough. Saved me playing out the last half hour of time alloted.

In my experiments with the scenario editor I've found that if a support target is painted for the AI it will hit it almost immediately with the best stuff it's got. It seems that the extent of the pounding the target takes is dependent on just how many target areas are designated as the AI will 'reserve' some stuff for the next target. When designing for CM1 I frequently had off-map artillery assets come on as reinforcements even on turn 2, but just to prevent such 'gamey' pre-emptive strikes if the opponent's set-up area was significantly constrained or blindingly obvious. Designers should ensure that they do either keep back artillery assets a few turns or allow sufficient map space for the opponent to deploy with some stealth and spread such that a first second pounding would be more luck than judgement and the whole arsenal could be wasted on an empty field. Of course, in a QB there's no option for reinforcements so artillery, if any, is there from the start. Which map was it, BB? I'd like to take a look at it. I guess in your case, BB, you just happened to sit on a target zone.

Actually, I'd say 'Whumpf' is onomatopoeic*, and subconciously the perpetrator had 'bursting into flames' in his head when he wrote it. * for the uninitiated, things like 'cuckoo', 'boom', 'tick tock', 'ding-a-ling' etc..

This might be an appropriate time to ask: does CMBN model restricted turret turning? For instance if the tank is between trees, narrow hedgerows or in an alley where there is literally no turning radius for the turret without it snagging.