Georgie

Very realistic looking. Is this from your imagination or did you have an actual village in mind when you made it?

Thanks for the tips guys. They sound like some good solutions to my problem,

I am making a scenario and am finding it hard to us sandbag walls for gun protection. Cant get the gun placed very well no matter what I try. The gun barrell protrudes through the wall or sits too far behind the wall to provide protection for the crew. Are these gun positions actual as shown or are they just an aproximation and the gun will still move to the aim point although it is sticking thru the sandbags. I have tried foxholes for gun crew protection but some times the gun winds up in a foxhole up to its axle with the spreaders? buried in the dirt. Can the gun still move to aim at targets?

Of the permanent German fortifications, ie concrete, who manned these fortifications. Were they manned by the German unit charged with the defence of a certain area during a certain battle or were they the responsibility of a "fortification" unit that manned all the pillboxes etc. in a given area?

Russia would have still won the war I think but if Germany had won the battle of the Atlantic then she would have won the battle of the Mediterranean and the US and Britain would have not been able to invade Italy or France soon enough to deter Russia and Russia would have wound up with all of Europe. Maybe that's why the US got into it as soon as it did.

I uploaded " The Hinterland" 6 or 8 months ago to the Repository. Its a fictitious map and battle and is 4x3 if i remember correctly. It is my first attempt at a published scenario and the map is a product of what I thought would be fun to play on.

I didn't change the map size. Unless some one else has the same problem then I will have to conclude that my computer is a bit unstable at times. damn, damn, damn

I have had many instances where while placing foxholes and occupying them during the building on a scenario that after leaving the 3D mode and then going back to the 3D mode some of the fox holes will have shifted position by 50 yards or so and left their occupants some where else. Has anyone else experienced this?

Thank you ian leslie, I don't quite follow you on the turn around times.

I've been following this thread and I'm sorta mixed up. I think that the difficulty level has nothing to do with the AI and just changes the info available to the player. Am I right or ?.

The problem I have with the face command is that it cancels the target command on the last waypoint. Also the target command cancels the face command on the starting waypoint if there is a pause command. With the new brief targeting command it would be useful if you could string a series of brief targeting commands along ,say, three waypoints, pausing 10sec at each waypoint without the hull trying to turn towards the target at each waypoint. The turning action slows down the targeting action. Right now the targeting command is tied to the face command if the tank is not moving and it would be better if it wasn't. I dont always want the hull pointed toward the target. It would be nice if two targets could be commanded at once. One for the main gun and the coaxial and one for the hull mg or say you have a tank facing a hedge row from about 100yds or so and you want to shoot up 3 likely places on the hedge row. Right now the tank will rotate its hull toward each target. This is a disadvantage because it slows up targeting and dosen't make use of what turrets were designed for. Some thing for version 3.

My hope is that in Version 3 the AI improvements will include a realistic targeting ability for tanks. IE, can not shoot straight down or straight up. It would not have to be perfect , just a "realistic" limit. It sure would make town and city battles more realistic if close tank fighting is involved. I know that BF has kinda disavowed this improvement as too involved and not worth it but hopefully the time has come to do it. If memory serves me, in some eastern front battle there was a good amount of city fighting that included tanks.

Hello Pete, there is no pinch. This refers only to RR bridges. There is a drop of ,what looks like, a foot or so of the bridge span from the entrance and exit rails. Looks to me like the gravel bed of the RR ties raises the level of the rails slightly above the tile level that they are on and since there is no gravel bed on the RR bridge and since the editor does not take this into account the rails on the bridge are about a foot or so lower on the bridge than they are on the approachs to the bridge. Find a scenario with a RR bridge over water and its pretty obvious if you take a close look. I'm making a scenario and hopefully you have a work around or can tell me if I'm doing something wrong.

Thanks Sgt Schultz. I have tried everything that I could think of and your solution sounds like it will at least help. In CM1 you had to pretend that there were rails on the bridge but there was no height difference. BF missed it by "this much". Correcting the height difference must be fairly difficult or BF would have already done it.

That sounds reasonable. I'll give it a try in the scenario that I am working on.

Vanir, What is the advantage of playing with conscript tanks? Both sides I would imagine.

On bridges there is a drop of a few feet of a railway span at both ends of the bridge.Can this be prevented or corrected in the editor? Regular roadway bridges are ok.

What I would like to see is a Sticky by BF listing future modules and what will be rolled into those modules. Will patch 1.11 someday be included in a module or will it always have to be downloaded separately?

Been away for a while and am unsure about the 1.11 patch and version 2.0. Seems like some people have been having trouble with both of them. Will the next module come out as a package with the new module plus patch 1.11 and version 2.0. Any help will be appreciated. Thanks in advance.

It would bring the mortar to squad or at least platoon level. Hey Joe see if you can drop one on at the corner of that building over there; I think there are a couple Krauts waiting for us around the corner.

We can thank our lucky stars that BF survived their lean times of CMx1. CMx1 was good but I'm thankful that CMBN is here and I am willing to pay the additional cost to make sure more like it are in our future.

The following is an observation by me and I may be over reacting. Every one playing this game likes to have as many as possible of scenarios to choose from. Many people like to have a variety of mods to choose from. Scenarios and mods, except for the most simple ones require a lot of work. This work comes from a desire to create the scenario or mod. The desire to create the scenario or mod comes from the potential for it being used and appreciated by as many players as possible. BFs present practice of creating new games at a fast pace with out a map and mod conversion tool is disrupting this balance and will lead to a shortage of scenarios and mods in the least popular games which in turn will cause them to become even less popular which will lead to a drop in sales of that game and players will become more particular with their new purchases. In my opinion it is a self defeating practice; inputs please.

One problem I imagine is the inability to convert CMBN maps to CMFI maps. Good medium size and large maps and very time consuming. BF is producing different games at a record pace and with them so close together it is splitting the community between the games. There needs to be a map tool and a mod tool to keep the interest of the scenario designers, map makers and mod designers. If they make a map or scenario or a mod with great effort and then see it bypassed with a new game some of them will lose interest with the hopeless effort of providing some thing for each game. HELP BF.

I would imagine that the idea was to find out where the threat is by advancing one tank and if it came under AT fire to withdraw if possible, return fire if possible and for another tank with the aid of infantry spot the AT gun and take it out while exposing as little as possible of itself. Hull down , corner shot etc.

Hmm, take note of this BF. Maybe we need a little "failure" simulation in the game. I would think that the KT transmission didn't always fail just during deployment but also during the actual battle when the drivers weren't so careful. It would also add another layer to force selection. Maybe you don't want 2 KT and would go for the 6 IV s.