sleepercell

Sorry boys just gotta say it: F$^k steam

thanks weapon2010, good to know

Has anyone noticed this? I just saw this happen in a CMBN PBEM where my HMG's have a 2.2 minute deployment time. Now in the new CMFI GL I'm seeing two different deployment times in the same scenario (1st mission of German campaign: Fustian). Both are section HQ HMG 42. One has a deployment time of 2.2 mins, the other 10 secs. ??

Wherever you move your M10: make sure you draw a "partial" or hull down target position from the threatened/attack area

Wouldn't want to shake any internet pedestals, er... pillars of the community.

Bill you're a tactical monster; love your style. However, i have to wonder if you feel a bit of an advantage because you made the map? ...Kinda like, want to come swim in this new shark tank i built. ...Anyhow, i was trying to express such in the peanut gallery but got admonished and reprimanded by c3k so here it is. ...As a result I take the opportunity to challenge c3k in an AAR duel just for the leftover clickers... Come on Ken, it's time to k-k-k-kill me.... Just for the hell of it I challenge Emry's to an AAR battle too. If i lose you can add me to your sig list. Won't publish till after 15 turns completed tho; keep the intelligence old.... ....Damn good AAR Bill, keep it coming!

First need to say I'm a fan of these AAR's and especially Bil's methodical critique, examination, and execution of his tactical skills. Nonetheless, I just feel that it has to be addressed or called into question that this engagement is incredibly weighted to Bil's advantage simply because he made the map. I've made a few and I know I know every inch of territory on those suckers; just seems rather counter balanced to me; especially since Bil is clearly the dominant combatant. Just noise for the peanut gallery...

Anyone else having problems seeing GAJ's screenshots in this thread? They showed up fine the last couple days: today, nada?...

Fairly certain that Jon S answered the first question but I had another regarding this topic. I've noticed that certain assets, the airborne 75mm pack howitzer for instance is available both for on map direct and indirect fire missions. Obviously a nice feature. However using the Allied Priest as an example, this indirect fire feature doesn't seem to be available for on map units or other potential artillery assets such as the HMC's with the same gun as the pack. Though you can "purchase" these as off map assets. Wouldn't it be more realistic for this option to be available for the Priest for example where there direct fire role seems to have been relatively rare? Any way to get the cake and eat it too with these? Needs a later version? Possible to mod? Would be fun if while you're opponent is raining some hell fire on you you could suddenly cut that much needed barrage off at the neck. Thanks for any input

I'm curious about the effect and necessity of C2 in regards to heavy weapons such as AT guns and machine gun sections when setting up scenarios or playing in general. For instance if you have a typical AT gun platoon with say 3 guns and an HQ and you realistically spread these out across the map, inevitably C2 is cut to two of those assets. Does this greatly effect the combat capacity of these units? Was this how it was in reality (i.e. four soldiers and a gun hidden in some treeline with no communication and orders to simply engage the first enemy on sight? For the sake of the function of the game is it better to purchase a heavy weapons section and spread it all over the map disregarding C2 or to narrow down the sections/platoons to where you have an HQ in C2 vicinity with all your assets? Lastly if the answer is spread out with loss of C2 to some, what are some opinions on the best location for your HQ? (i.e. Last defense of the major LOA or on the front line with the first to engage?) Thanks, sc

yeah, but the budget was slim so he takes one in the first scene!

A small contingent of US. and Canadian Special Forces attempt a daring rescue of captured Intel Operatives from Nazi occupied Alcatraz. ALLIES VS. AXIS AI ONLY Was having a murderous time trying to post this to the repository so went green as jade (thx amigo!). Sorry BF, hope to upload soon. Anyhow, for those that are hungry for a new scenario, please give er a go. http://cmmods.greenasjade.net/mods/4727/details

Got it, appreciate the clarification. The last hail Mary ? that I'm not sure needs a thread. Is there any way to ensure that the AI doesn't surrender? Thanks again, really enjoy your scenarios.

Thanks mjkerner, Not to belabor the point but this is the text in the manual that has me a bit confused. ("The AI does not break the rules. If you paint a Map Zone for a Setup Order outside of a valid Axis or Allied Setup Zone (as defined in the Map Editor), the AI will never setup there. Therefore, make sure that your Map Zone for Setup Orders for the AI plan matches a valid Setup Zone in the Map Editor. To make this easier, Setup Zones are always shown on the 2D map when you select a Setup Order in the plan.) In your experience units will just follow their group orders even if they are not in a SUZ at start? (the manual text would seem to contradict this)