Glubokii Boy

I have come across this oddety also... Its a pain in the... Like many other things in CM there seems to be some randomness to this...that complicates things... A fix would be nice indeed...

Imo let's wait...i think it would be a far sweeter ride to follow the war in the right direction and not jump back and forth wich is what we are doing on the eastern front now...1944 to 1945 to 1943...it does not feel 'great' ... If CM3 indeed starts with Barbarossa i will have no problems waiting 6 months longer or however long it will take to get the earlier TOEs/OOBs in order... After all...the avliable equipment in the earlier parts of the war where not all that plentyful as in 1944, 45 i belive... A 1941 TOE/OOB may not need to be quite as big as the later ones...saving on dev.time...

I would bet that it is the problem with the AI behavior and not the outsourcing of the modules that is causing these endless delays... It's difficult to playtest a scenario if you do not have a working/finished gameengine to test them on...

Ahhha... That's the working title for CM3 Barbarossa !

IIRC... The idea to provide master maps with the games is a post CMBN and CMFI addition...atleast as far as the basegames goes when it comes to these titles...

I wounder how windows (openings) are treated...Surely the shot could pass through a window every now and then and explode inside of the building rather then aginst the outer wall... Is this modeled or kind of abstracted. If it is abstracted maybe thats whats happening here...An explotion inside the building ?

Superb description of the action...along with some very nice pics... Good stuff ! As i was reading through this last episode i was thinking...hit that place with arty ! ...and indeed, in the last post, i see its on its way. nice ! Your opponent has lost alot of AFVs so far...

Neat soulution imo ... That ought to work just fine.

Hello... Some kind of rules like these will be intresting to try... One question that comes to mind though...especially with regards to the WW2 games... Will not 'special teams'...like machineguns, AT, engineers etc run a risk of being penalized when it comes to areafire, targetarc and multiple movementpaths... The player may decide to 'assign' such company, battalion assets to move along the with the various regular infantry platoons... Even if the player decides to group (assign) the teams to certain platoons...they will still not be asigned to these platoons as far as the gameengine goes... And might end up far out of C2 of their organic HQ...and that organic HQ may be far from having LOS to intended target are... The platoon HQ that the player have 'assigned' these teams to may very well have LOS to the needed area...but that does not help the teams as these are still assigned to their organic HQs... This could sort of limit the usefulness/flexibility of these teams...could it not ? IRL such teams could be temporarely asigned to a different platoon HQ as needed... This is not possible in game... Thanks for sharing these ideas

It may not be possible in QB battles but in regular scenarios surely the scoring with regards to friendly casualties is a useful tool to 'punish' reckless playing and a disregard for casualties. Mayby more scenarios needs to put a higher degree of emphasis on this...

Holy smoke ... A nice example of the beauty of playing WEGO... I bet that turn had you jumping and twisting in your chair...going from slight panic to a sence of reliefe and maybe a degree of satisfaction... All without being able to intervine during the playback... A turn to remember i'm sure

Many thanks for your detailed answer...

Thanks for the AAR. Very well presented. With regards to HILL 113...would it be possible to get friendlies onto it from your deployment zone without exposing them to the enemy ? From the pictures it looks like that hill would provide some decent LOS/LOF into the rear of atleast NAIs 3, 4 and 5...and maybe also pose a threath to any enemies moving along point 107 from a second direction... Did you ever considder moving any friendlies there ? I'm not saying it would be a better move then the ones you have executed but simply looking at the pictures it seems like an option atleast... What was you thinking regarding this hill ? Ps...looking forward to the next 'episode'...

They weighs less...you can cary more with you... uumpf, oohh...sorry !

In many scenarios i think the inflexibility of the AI might also be a limiting factor when it comes to the players freedom to choose how, where and what to attack or defend. I have a feeling that the designers often needs to 'guide' the player forward (using objectives, timings and such) in order for the AI plans to function properly. The AI is very limited to what degree they may react to events taking place on the battle field and to allow the AI to provide the best possible challange the player freedom may at times need to be restricted. The skill of the scenario designers a constantly improving though and new tricks a technics are found how to maximize the current game engine

Oohh, darn... I believed that the CS-variant was a somewhat more modern update (after ShockForce time-frame)... But indeed...there it is.

Do CMBS include the AT4-CS(confined space)...? i don't remember... This weapon should be usable form inside buildings without any suppresion or casualties...The standard AT4...not so much

I seem to recall reading that the CV90, armed with a 35 mm gun, is a serious contender to be the next IFV of the US army...

hello... I don't know if you know about this thread...If not it might provide you with some intresting reading... Hopefully this will be atleast somewhat related to your questions...

Thanks, Elvis....for more frequent postings.

I used to have the same problem but i managed to figure it out and it work fine after that (no unwanted rotation). Have you tried doing it the way MikeyD described in this thread...IIRC the right way to do it is exactelly like MikeyD shows in the picture in his 21.160 post. The important thing is the placement of the withdraw marker (this is the key IIRC). I belive it needs to be placed like shown in the picture... Infront of not only the withdraw order location but also infront of the 'starting possition' (the previous order location).

I am pretty much 98 % sure that this is the way it has been working...atleast for me... In my scenarios i have usually set the second number to be the time i want the Ai guys to leave... And it has worked that way...they will remain att their current waypoint until the time in number two is reached and leave immidiatelly thereafter... It the goal of the second number would have been to reach the next waypoint at that time they would have left earlier...would they not ? And not exactelly on the time specified in number 2...

When it comes to the exit between...and times i think that the manual is not very clear... I always had the impression that the first number means... Do not leave before XX min And the second number means... Must leave before XX min. And not neccesarely relate to a target time for the next waypoint... But the manual do indeed describe it like you mentioned above...but A few sentences below that statement the manual reads.... "The first number instructs the group to keep executing an order until that time in the scenario, while the second number instructs it to leave a map zone and move on to the next order in the plan before that time is reached" Kind of how i remember it to be...have been.

If you don't mind waiting a few weeks longer i would get the CMFI-module... As i understand it you have all the previous CMFI titles.. This will complete this front for you and the next CMFI module will be the first game/module that has been designed from the START with all the latest features (v.4) in mind i belive... After that... Ones the CMRT module is released a bundle-option with the basegame is likely to be avaliable.. Get that game then...

This is a tricky thing to solve...getting/maintaining the intrest and motivation of the comunity scenario designers... Numorous threads and numorous suggestions has been brought forward over the past few years...Nothing has really struck home ! Not even things like THE PROVING GROUND...They are all pretty much failures. That is a shame...How should this issiue be solved ? That is indeed a tricky question...