Collingwood

Very slow. Interestingly Engineers spent more time removing/clearing mines they had themselves laid, than enemy mines. Even with a map of where the mines were laid it was a process that could easily consume hours of time and occasionally someone would be killed. To add to the fun, sometimes a minefield would be lifted and they would realize one or two mines were not accounted for, and despite best efforts couldn't be found. Yet a scheduled attack was due to roll through the 'cleared' area.

Ah, of course - I have some of vein's earlier mods. Thank you

Ze Skunk, I like that flames mod. Which one is it?

Outstanding!

Yes! thread's purpose is served now I think. Cymru wins.

I managed to get one to flame, let's just say I was quite surprised by how high those things can squirt.

Very nice, Tashtego!

One of the most basic yet effective ways AI plans differ is in defensive placements. For example, if the key to a scenario where you are attacking with armor is location of enemy AT guns, they vary by plan. Otherwise, you would just mortar exactly where you knew they were last time, wouldn't you

It's not so much that total conversion mods aren't allowed but that it would be very difficult to achieve, since the vehicle and equipment are not only 3D models, their performance/rules are hard coded. As far as I can see, whatever you can mod in the game as it is, is in fact allowed. To get an idea of how much work would be involved, think of it this way: CMFI/CMRT are in a way 'total conversion mods' of CMBN. They use the same engine (with some tweaks along the way) yet I believe most of the work is in ToE, making the models and coding weapons performance correctly etc. So with a full time staff of 6 to 12 guys + 30 volunteers for testing and scenario design you might turn out a SCW module in 6 months or more. Probably more, since you would be lacking BFC's familiarity with all the ins and outs of the code and engine.

In CMRT I usually get quite satisfactory QBs by: Don't let the AI select the forces - I choose forces for the AI that I would take if it were me - and as per Womble's excellent advice: I make up kampfgruppen/battlegroups. I give the AI up to 50% more points than me, and select meeting engagement. I don't take Arty - and medium calibre mortars at most. I don't take Air support. I also sometimes try to avoid micromanaging squads and instead issue orders that will cover several turns, on a platoon or even company level. Unless there is something going obviously pear shaped I don't step in for a few turns - I let my plan play out and enjoy the chaos and carnage that ensues. Mark makes a good point: if you play with the mindset of using all available tricks to win (as you would against a human) then the AI will come off worst always. Finally, against the AI try not to thoroughly research before each turn all the LOS and the perfect action spot to move your men to: instead make reasonable orders with a general view of the terrain.

I know what you mean, and there's no way to change the location of those reports that I've found.

Yes Mark, although we seem a grumpy and demanding lot, in fact your efforts are much appreciated. QBs are the gift that keeps on giving.

I second this. In a recent QB the AI launched a pretty surprising counterattack that had me needing to re-organize one flank and my centre to contain it. That really added to the sense that there was some kind of intelligence I was up against. In previous QBs it mostly felt like I could just keep moving forward regardless, nothing would develop to stop my plan. That's changed so kudos to the QB map/AI designers, great job using the trigger capabilities.

For anyone out there still looking back longingly at a game set up over an entire large table or occupying the attic, but without the room - there is the option of "World in Flames". That absolutely massive game has been converted to PC. However - although it's for sale everything I read on its forums indicate there is still a long way to go before it's ready, therefore best thought of as a paid beta. There is no AI - but the multiplayer sounds like it has serious issues (crashes, bugs etc) and people are resorting to some strange workarounds to try to complete even one turn. All of that said, if the developers don't let the weight of the thing crush them to death and manage to iron out all the bugs - and get some kind of AI happening, it could be a hit with strategy masochists.

I too like the new feature.

All scales of scenarios have their attractions and I like them all. Small (platoon sized) are so much easier to immediately get moving on. I can knock over a wego in an hour easily so they're good for a quick fix. Of course the effect of small losses are magnified - an unlucky break can be the end. Company level is about the happy medium, but it takes a fair bit more work to set up and get going. Battalion level I agree is a nightmare in deployment and the first few moves. Sometimes I find it really demotivating. But, once going, it's just as easy since you're not moving every unit every turn - there are times when you leave several to their own devices (providing support/suppression fire) until other actions develop. Where I find the extra time comes in is keeping track of everything - rewinding the action and moving to the next hotspot. When a large scenario really starts rolling it's quite a thrill.

When a mummy T-34 and a daddy T-34 love each other very much, -

Rotary phone ? You youngsters and your tech. What's wrong with the party line with operator connect! LPs are having a bit of a resurgence. My son has just invested in a turntable and it has become hip for albums to release as LPs as well as CDs. I wonder when cassettes will make their comeback. On the notifications/shipping front, I believe shipping would occur in order of when the order was placed, and certainly it would be good form for beta testers to be among the first - there has to be some reward for all their work.

Agree with JasonC, unless the angle of ricochet is very shallow they're mostly harmless. I speak from first hand experience, having been hit in the throat by a ricochet. Apart from the surprise of still being alive, no harm done at all. The bullet was completely deformed into a blob.

Wonderful. Thank you very much Kieme.

Very very nice work Kieme!

I have no dog in this fight - but the code already knows about the different terrains in an AS - obviously because otherwise movement, LOS, cover, etc wouldn't work in any AS with more than one class of terrain object such as a tree and house on grass with a road. Software is very good at iterating through an array of variables and displaying them. Basically since the software (mission/map editor) exists to create multiple terrain instances in an AS, the game/code can handle it, whether it be in an array for each AS or a database for the map - the values can be retrieved - for LOS, movement, Tac AI decisions, whatever. Having said all that I've never felt the need for information on the terrain under my cursor

Not me. I want the banquet - one plate at a time. Sure, I would like the kitchen to serve me my courses a little faster but I don't want to wait for years for a complete meal. I'm hungry now

CM isn't the only software that does that. Many other things I own insist on placing some things in 'my documents' on C: and I agree it can be a tad annoying.

I can imagine a simple solution passing through every coder's mind right now: "ok, let's just check the ratio of reported kills to make sure it won't create angst in the players, and adjust it appropriately before printing the final screen. Fiddle the balance sheet, so to speak."