Zenomorph

Hi, I'm wondering if it's possible to somehow check what LOS will be at the position a unit is moving to. I'm pretty sure I saw some guy do this on a CMRT youtube video of one of the tutorial missions. I tried this myself and can't re-create it. Thank you!

Hi everyone. I use the game Winspmbt to help me create the designs for maps in CMBN. The map editor is pretty easy to use and serves as a good aid for visualizing how I want the CMBN maps to end up. I so wish Winsp had the overlay function that CMBN has. (I even emailed the creator of the game to ask them about that possibility but received no response.) But I'd really love to create a larger scale tactical map that I'd use to create larger scenarios. By this I mean, in terms of scale, an editor that has say 3-6 buildings/hex as opposed to the squad-level Winspmbt games that have only one building/hex. If you've seen the game Canadian Crucible it has pretty much the precise scale I'm looking for. (And you get bonus points if you know of a game as gorgeous as that one that has a map editor. The map is a thing to behold.) I should add that I'm familiar with Hexdraw and Campaign Cartographer and, while you can create awesome maps with them, they're just too unwieldy for the time I have available. Winsp is really very simple to use. Thanks as always for any help!

Yes. That's what I've been doing. But thanks for the response!

Hi all. I'm trying to simulate a situation where, due to losses, a single platoon is folded into an existing company. For example, the editor's panzergrenadier company consists of 3 infantry platoons + a weapons platoon and I'm trying to add a 4th infantry platoon to this scenario. I can see where you take an entire formation and edit it down to a single platoon but even then I can't seem to get that platoon to fall under the command of the company where I want it. I was hoping that there was some tricky way to do this. Thanks for any help!

Yeeeesssss! That was it! Thx so much akd!!

I think a really interesting question would also be what if Hitler had departed for his everlasting inferno at the height of German power. Say just as the German army was reaching the gates of Stalingrad in the summer of '42. What if the generals had been able to dictate the progression of the war rather than the politicians. I also wonder if, for all of Hitler's evil, if such a scenario would have been preferable. The generals would have surely at least prolonged what may have been inevitable. It would however have given the Nazi's more time to carry on their murdering and pillaging.

Ugh. I just don't see it. I have "Flak (Mobelwagen)" and "Flak (Zugkraftwagen...)" but no Wirbelwind. So strange. Is it even possible to have accidentally deleted it? I'd doubt it but I'm sure I had it on there before. I'm pretty sure I downloaded a new skin a while back for it also. Could that be the cause do you think?

Holy cow! I tried out the demo! LOVE the look of the new graphics! AWESOME! So retro.

I'm just trying to add a wirbelwind to an existing formation but I can't find the wirbelwind under "single vehicles" in the editor. I seem to recall I did so once before but can't seem to find it now. Does it go by a different name in the editor possibly? Thanks for any help!

Hello all. I'm looking to buy CMSF but I prefer the European-style environment over a desert one. I'm not sure which games/add-ons I need. Thanks for any help!

Actually I love that matchup. To me a great game is when both sides can't count on ko-ing the other side's vehicles too easily - especially not frontally. Having both sides needing to use their wits to maneuver to get in flanking shots is, to me, a MUCH more enjoyable game. If anyone has any matchups like that other than Shermans I'd love to know about it. I'm sure everyone's correct about the 105s v the IIIs. I was in too much of a hurry I think - would rather have been, ya know, playing the game rather than stumbling around making a mess in the editor.

Yes, thanks! Duhhhh on my part. I think I didn't make sure I was adding a unit while having the proper platoon selected. Thx!

Oh trust me, I've got "issues"!! But, given the responses, I've been wondering the same thing. I'm not getting the results that people are mentioning. I simply created an open field and set up vehicles at 2000m, 1000m and 300m apart. I used 20 vehicles per side figuring that'd give a reasonable average. I think I might have accidentally picked the wrong type of Sherman (since there are several) v the Pz IV for example. I'll try it again when I find time. But thanks for the responses!

Really? I'll have to try that. I'm pretty sure I tried Pz IIIs against Shermans in my little test and it didn't go so well for the Shermans. I know I read somewhere - probably here - that the Stuarts had an amazingly spot-on optics/targeting capability; able to pick out even small chinks in enemy armor. I suppose that'd have to explain it.

Ok, I've asked about armor matchups before but after spending too much (and frustrating) time screwing around in the editor I'm hoping I've earned the right to ask this question more directly. I'm just trying to create a scenario(s) with decent head-to-head matchups by opposing tanks. If anyone can offer advice on this I'd GREATLY appreciate it. I'll give one matchup I found that I kind of like. Taking 20 tanks from each side I pitted the (waaay upgunned) M4A3(105) Sherman against the Pz IVG (latest) across an open field. The result in 1 turn was 5 of the Pz's knocked out. Woohoo! BUT...all the Sherman's were blown to smithereens. Still, I liked that result (sort of) bc I wouldn't plan to actually face the sides across an empty field that way anyway. A result where maybe 5-7 of the Shermans had survived (and also not been panicked) would have been about perfect. I just want the Allied side to have a decent chance of getting in their own kills and not just serve as target practice on occasions where the two actually do square off head-to-head. Thanks GREATLY for any advice. I did this similar test with many tanks and the result is usu a one-sided slaughter - usu by the Germans of course. Even replacing crews with regular v elite hasn't made much difference.

Thx akd. I guess I have a few questions tho. If I add a vehicle to a formation will the vehicle automatically receive the leadership modifier etc from the nearest HQ - esp if it's not even the same vehicle type? Plus, it'd just be better to "create" a platoon if poss bc having the unit part of a larger formation helps for controlling them in battle. For example when you dbl-click & hi-lite all the vehicles in a formation so you can better see that you have the entire unit generally on the same task. I don't believe a single vehicle added to a formation would be hilited and you have to remember to get to it. Anyway, this whole question emanates from some frustrating time I've spent in the editor trying to find decent head-to-head vehicle matchups. I think I'll start a thread asking for advice on it too. Thanks for the reply tho!

Hi all. There are a lot of great single vehicles in the editor that I'd like to incorporate as platoons etc in a scenario. I.e., four tanks plus an HQ tank for example. The "pre-packaged" formations in the editor have limited options for units relative to what's available in the game as a whole. Thanks in advance!

Thx. Kind of a bummer tho. I'm thinking of Sgt. Horvath in Saving Private Ryan when you saw he had canisters of sand from Africa, Sicily and then France. It'd b fun to create a campaign along those lines. I know you could do it anyway but creating OOBs in just one game is enuf for me.

Apologies in advance if this is a poor question. I also haven't had time to read thru this whole thread. But I'm not clear re the goal of this project. There are TONS of third-party products that can be used as an operational layer for CMBN if one so chooses. Games like The Operational Art of War can even be further customized to your heart's content - you can even make the gameplay itself as simple or as complex as you want by adding "phases" per turn. Not trying to rain on anyone's parade. I'm asking bc I imagine I'm missing something.

Hi all. Hopefully the title is clear. I haven't yet come close to playing my way thru CMBN and so I thought it wouldn't make sense to buy FI at this point. If however purchasing FI would make new units available I thought it'd be fun to throw them into CMBN battles - even if not historically accurate. Thanks in advance for any input.

Not sure what you mean there. Do you mean put the vehicles in and start blasting away to find out what happens? I actually tried that. That's one way but it's pretty cumbersome.

Hello all. I'm wondering if anyone has or has seen a simple table that shows the likelihood of a given weapon doing damage to a given armored vehicle. I asked this once before a long time ago and, while I appreciated those that took the time to answer, I mostly received very detailed armor penetration tables and the like. I simply don't have the time to make sense of them. I'm not much of a fan of the Close Combat series of games but I liked the little colored target icon that shows up when you try to target a vehicle. Green meant a good chance of damaging your target, yellow-avg, red-poor, black-none etc. The game also took into account frontal, flank and rear shots. Something with that level of simplicity would be hugely helpful to me. Thanks in advance if you can help!

HOW (!) did you get those 3d images you have shown here? PLEASE tell me that's not an in-game screenshot and that you were just screwing around in photoshop. If it is, I'll have to buy a MUCH better computer.

Hey! Didn't Lt. Spiers in Band of Brothers have to explain to some private that a soldier giving up hope that he'll live thru the war is essential if final victory is to be achieved? Never more so w pixeltruppen!

I was thinking about the recent thread regarding reviews on metacritic. My guess is a casual player might get as far as all the pointing and clicking needed for "following" and give it up. A shame bc I'd think it'd keep some from getting far enuf into CMBN to really get a feel for it. I seem to recall reading a user review a long time ago to that affect.