Bud Backer

Legally I have obtained permission to post these, but not to charge money for them. I don't know what the YouTubers do, but I do recall my wife mentioned that some companies began lawsuits against people posting videos because they felt the posters were profiting materially from it. Not going there. Anything I do will be above board. Steve's been receptive and positive and I intend to keep it that way! Big stuff coming for Dima and Sasha this afternoon. Get your flak vests on...

Missed a few beasties then, and its not resolved! LOL

You're always here. You never take holidays! Come on! Not falling for it!

I agree - and that people genuinely want to help others is wonderful too.

Another thing you might want to consider is that with the Quick Battle generator you can make a great number of combinations of map size and force size. Like a large map and a lot of scouting? Set the QB to large map but small battle, which will give you space to roam, but not a lot of units to manage. I too don't like a very large force - it's a lot of work to micromanage, so I understand your desire very well. I tend to play with reinforced platoons or companies, not battalions. The thing about QB's is that they are best played against a human, and not the AI. The scenario designers (Battle designers) can compensateir the AI's limitations. But the QB generator cannot. However, I think the true fun is playing with others and you should have no trouble finding willing opponents of similar experience level, right here on these forums.

Thanks, gents. It does not affect non-firefly Shermans. It does affect Stuarts but not the Reece Stuart. It affects the AA tank I've never seen this with any to&e other than Brits and Canadians.

Lol!!

Thanks, Womble. You are of course correct. Initilly I wasn't aware what was happening, so the dramatic fluctuations in ammo levels were confusing. Once I knew what it was for, it took a bit of thinking to see the purpose. It does mean, however, that for units like ATGMs in CMBS, where each unit may only come with 4, say, one must be vigilant that other u its are not all depleted. It's something to watch out for, but it's certainly useful.

Thanks, mate! I was initially purchasing singletons in a QB. Then I went and did the same in the editor, after doublechecking I had not accidentally set the units to be missing men. I didn't find anything with a search at first either. The only talked about fireflies in that thread so I cross referenced this one as it mentions the others. Thank you for digging into it.

It's not just fireflies. It's Stuarts, crusader AA as well. See here: http://community.battlefront.com/topic/119502-missing-tank-commanders/

Yeah, it means being double careful.

I was experimenting with some formations for Canada and when I looked over the units I discovered that some tanks (Fireflies, Stuart's, Cromwell AA) were all missing their commander. Now I know the firefly is not supposed to have 5, the manual explained that nicely. It should have 4. The manual even shows it to have 4. But several British and Canadian ones lack the commander. Is this intended (and it's a deviation from the manual to boot). I cannot Open Up these selected vehicles as they lack the dude in charge. Has he run off for tea? In game: In manual:

Thanks, JonS, you confirmed what I sort of figured out by experimenting in CMBN just a few minutes ago. I was trying to see the utility of it and realized that for something like a Bazooka or mortar this could be quite handy indeed as one might have LOS and its neighbour not yet if you don't want to reposition the one that doesn't you can keep firing the one that does. It makes sense, but took a bit of pondering to wrap my head around until I realized that.

I'm sure *someone* is benefitting from it, but it certainly confuses the heck out of me! Thanks for the reply.

I have a PIAT team that shows conflicting ammo info. I know it's not a mistake, so what does this mean?

John, Thanks, we're both glad you like the results! I'll definitely take a look at Rottmann's book, looks interesting. Regarding the T34 / Panther matchup - The panther is ideally positioned to cover the entire map and I don't have confidence that the T34 is on equal terms here. It might penetrate the front armour of the Panther, but I can guarantee even a glancing blow from the 75/L70 of the Panther is pure death to the T34. And bearing in mind spotting capabilities and optics, I'm not inclined to challenge a Panther face on. Getting that distraction and flank shot is what I'm going for but setting it up is taking precious time (and time means lives in this scenario) so it's ugly. Dragging out the fight is not being done for the purpose of narrative, believe me!

Not silly - you might be looking in the wrong place. In CMRT you should open CM Engine Manual v3.00.pdf and not the CM Red Thunder Manual 3.01. The latter has info specific to CMRT, but the Engine Manual explains things common to all of the CM games, including PBEM. I think the section on Two-Player games starts on page 26 of that manual.

Ok, I tried your test and I can confirm that it's not using the missiles on a 1-shot -1 ammo expended basis. I can't figure out the pattern, as sometimes it appears to be taking 2 missiles for one shot, and sometimes just 1. And back to the topic of this thread, on a clear day with no wind, no hull down, no obstructions, no smoke, no movement, ATGM units deployed, and no suppression or morale issues, the hit rate is not quite stellar - approx 50%. With 200% ammo depletion rate, it would take on average 4 ATGMs to hit (never mind take out) a target. Is this how it's supposed to be?

Haha ok, no biggie! I was feeling a bit silly not seeing the obvious..