The Steppenwulf

+1 for this. if we could get more car variations - essential for more realistic urban areas. Shipping containers is another - low polygon count as models and add immersion to industrial areas. is this possible please?

Spot on. Further to Ian's response, I think the broad object of the movement choices from a gameplay perspective are; where are my moving troops likely to encounter enemy fire (if at all), what is the bounding distance concerned and the state of the terrain and cover over that bounding distance, and then, what are the pros and cons over selecting one movement type over another given those other considerations.

Nice idea, I dearly hope some love is given to urban combat mechanics in version 4 in some form or other. It's def needed! For eye candy - smoke plumes from random burning buildings (like knocked out vehicles) would add some immersion value to the game.

Thanks for the update Steve - esp looking forward to specifics about the features for version 4.0

Nothing like a degenerate youtube video to remind the community why the game is best kept away from steam at knock down prices

Yeah especially when the entire unit is wiped out gettin' out the back of the truck!

Putin denies Russian involvement...

BS shows a higher battle count than all the other games, does it not? That means therefore that BS is healthier than any other single family when taken in single comparison. If one were to group all the ww2 games together to illustrate comparative interest against BS that may be a distorted picture; I can imagine that many gamers will interchange between playing BN/FI and FB and perhaps even have multiple games going across the ww2 era families. BS -as a different era game - won't necessarily benefit as much as th other families in this regard.

There are two manuals. Other than the game manual there is the engine manual. The latter should be included in every game download I believe. The info regarding the scenario editor - among other matters - can be found in there, which is where I pasted the info you enquired from.

Editing buildings:- CTRL+Left-click on wall ................change windows/doors layout ALT+CTRL+Left-click wall ............change windows/doors layout for WHOLE side of building (all floors) CTRL+Left-click on roof ................change shape/type of roof SHIFT+Left-click building .............. change “Facade” (texture) of the whole building CTRL+SHIFT+Left-click ................cycle through balcony types for selected floor CTRL+SHIFT+Left-click on ground floor cycle through balcony types for the WHOLE side of the building (all floors) ALT+Left-Click ..............................change building details ALT+SHIFT+Left-Click...................cycles through stages of major damage to building including complete rubble Hope that helps!

Any progress with this mod?

Yes, these files are interchangeable. Consider that the file is merely a 32 bit depth .bmp with a single colour operating as a transparency layer. You could make one up in less time it'd take to find it in another game folder.

Thanks for your feedback Fizou! Note that I have small hotfix for the weapons icons and HQ options, all which stupidly missed the v2.0 cut. Direct link for download:- http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?wpfb_filepage=hotfix-hq-options-v2-1-rar

Bumping this thread because:- Version 2 is now up at CM Mods III:- Find it here:- http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=4368

+1 for me - either/any faction is good. Can I recommend PM the other individuals in the thread who may have indicated an interest!?

That's fair enough, though it all seems far too "balanced" for my design interest. To be fair to myself I'm currently working on a completely different campaign idea of my own so I would be wise to stay out of the organisation of all this in any case. Nevertheless, I'd still love to play, so please count me in as a player. Perhaps when I get my own campaign idea fully functioning I can bounce it off you guys and see what you think.

OK, so I did some investigating and for the idea I'm proposing: If we were to use stock QB maps we would have to make some amendments in the Scenario Editor to the VP areas for touch/occupy and the maps would all have to be renamed in the editor as Large Assault maps irrespective of size. Effectively we have to customise our QB maps specifically for our game. This is very easy to do and i need to get a grasp for this anyway for another campaign ideas I have. Therefore, I can do the editing and distribute the completed maps. Points allocation; After further consideration, I agree Kinophile that 10k is a tad low. Revised suggestion; 15k, 10k and 5k. It should be note that a full infantry battalion on map (at approx 15k points) is a hell of a lot of pixel troops and micromanagement for players. Suggested House rules (just ideas literally off the top my head): 1) Each side can have NO more than a company of MBT's in total M1's,T80's & T72's - 2) Each side can have NO more than one Mech-Inf Formation???? 3) All commanders must spend at least half of their points on ground forces (i.e. purchasing a formation with a cost that is at least half the budget) 4) Anymore - we really need to nail this coz we get this bit wrong and the game could be ruined. I am aware that this is Shift8's thread and I feel like I've hijacked the original idea with something of my own.This is just an idea though- best progressed with a consensus. Perhaps Kinophiles alternative idea appeals better?

I think this an altogether different format from the one I've suggested. Just to clarify What I'm suggesting is three simultaneous battles and no scripted development based on success or failure. That doesn't mean that your idea does not have merit in itself but that's for everyone else to decide. I'm willing to go and examine the practical detail of my suggestion (i.e. setting up this in QB's) and then report back on how it will actually work in practice. Regarding points ratios, in addition to the all out defensive structures that a 2.5k point commander is likely to adopt, there is also the fact that the attacking player with 10k will not know that his opponent is a 2.5k at the start of battle. Indeed the main objective for both sides will be to leave opponents guessing as to who is commanding what, in order to delay immediate and catastrophic defeat. Thus strategic and tactical bluff as well as strategic and tactical delay are major facets of the overall game-play. That said, perhaps 3k, 6k and 9k might be more appropriate numbers and ratios to work with. I am hoping for some other contributors to offer advise on this matter and thus help calibrate these figures.

Yes but you wouldn't know that from the start though, so good recon is vital a) to establish what you are up against and b) to inform the rest of your side what size enemy force could be/or are not facing. It would be if each player approached this as a meeting engagement. However, I think the idea I was hoping to coax in preparation from each side was that using prepared defences and setting up your forces for the purpose of counteracting such imbalance would be the way to strategically deal with this possibility. It's all about considered gambles - some serious considerations need to be made about what balance need to be achieved in selecting each force. Without giving away my personal strategic thoughts, player style and ability is pretty important too. That's just the principle of the idea, the actual point numbers I gave are arbitrary, I confess I've only every played one QB against a real opponent and I have no idea what a defensive v attack might play out in terms of points. But think bunkers, trenches mines and AT infantry, artillery, drones and aircraft this is the reasoning for such a disparity. I must say though, I think the idea is that the player who gets the full quota of points should win comfortably if he faces an opponent with the lowest quota. The real friction in the contests is when the forces are either balanced. Or a player possessing a force with the highest points quota is under pressure to defeat a middle points quota force because sit rep reports that the opponent's highest points quota player is demolishing his opponent. If a player with 2500 pts can manage to hold off a force with 4 x more assets that is real challenge. I mean this is just some possible variations that jump out of the top of my head. I know there is whole lot more possibilities and I'm sure events will play out in a kinds of different ways. Imagine if a player that has set up for defence receives info half-way through his battle that, due to a fellow player's defeat, he is now expected to go on the offensive and try to get a win for instance. Not a pleasant prospect! Players priorities could change during the course of the battle depending on the traction others are gaining in their partic. battle. I don't think it matters. Players will choose their own stance as discussed and agreed by each side. Budgeting for the points would be under-spending in all cases though, just a screen shot for post game analysis/examination would be all that is required. I'm sure we can all trust each other not to attempt to cheat. As I questioned in my previous post, I don't think Victory Conditions are affected by the type of engagement are they? And exactly how do victory conditions work in QB? These are important matters to consider. In summary regarding Kinophile's points- The exact ratio of points is very much open to debate. Lets' get a consensus on that! A stated I admit that I'm not very experienced with this, but as I also said, it's important that the highest quota player should be able to beat a lowest commanding one comfortably, if he picks a well capable force and knows his assets well, as well as demonstrates good tactical command abilities and is an experienced CM player .

By way of suggestion: 6 players 2 sides (2 x 3) Each side split into Left, Centre and Right with one player nominated as Captain. 3 maps (must be between 2km x 2km & 2 x 3km) agreed upon to play Here's the interesting strategic bit:- Each player is nominated a number of points by their respective captain with which they can select a force. There are 3 bands of points 1. 10,000 points 2. 5,000 points 3. 2,500 points Each side decide what players get what points and who will fight which map - Captain's hold final decision. The points each player holds (nor OOB) will not be disclosed to opposition. Obviously will depend on players integrity to spend under budget but screenshots could serve as proofs for post game analysis of force compositions in any case. The idea behind this of course is that each player will face slightly different tactical considerations according to the points they have and this shapes the strategy each side adopts. The side that wins is the aggregate score of all three battles. Armour limitations and other force restrictions - TBD Victory conditions - TBD (not sure how this works in QB set-up but touching opponents rear line rather than casualties would be ideal) Battle environment conditions - TBD Battle length - TBD Other battle parameters - TBD Lets's crack on!!

Yeh I did indicate this

Yeh the 32 bit matter is annoying. That said there's a lot of games produced pretty much up to the present that are also 32 bit, after all it's not that easy to go breach these RAM limits. 64 bit - I asked Steve in thread sometime back (2015 perhaps) about this, he replied that it wasn't in any plans for the short- medium term. I took that to mean that we are looking at the next game engine iteration - CM3.

Thanks for the clarification. Kinophiles 10km and 5x5km report didn't ring true. But we know what he means. 3 x 3 is just about playable but no large forests or water, few flavour objects and only gradual undulations in terrain. Personally, I play with HD textures so 2km x 2km (with interesting terrain) is a fair enough trade off - esp with battalion size (max) forces. As I understand it, CM Game Performance relies heavily on single thread processing power so 3-4Ghz processor is the most important component. My old Duo Core 3.5 GZ was just as good as my current Quod Core 3.5 Ghz. RAM speed is obviously important to make the most of this. 32 bit processing means that anything above 4 GB RAM is pointless, though a good graphics card can offset this slightly and squeeze a bit more memory. Memory Bus size is key in a graphics card - a 256 bit card is standard if you want it to process efficiently.

That's incredible - i thought we were still restricted to 3x3

I'm up for this - though I've not tested my new desktop (3GHz Processor, 4 Ghz Graphics card) with anything larger than 2km square and a battalion. Can I suggest, with this many players interested, we break up the players up into sides commanding battalions and then aggregate the results somehow. EDIT: Sorry I meant 4km square (2x2 ) - Max size is 9km square anyway, right?