PhilM

You could also try: http://www.thefewgoodmen.com You will find opponents there willing to play the kind of games you are after. Also, if you want you can PM me on here: I'm happy to start a game with you. I suggest that you get Combat Mission Helper - aka CMH - by GreenasJade to manage the game turns into and out of dropbox, if you don't already have it.

To nitpick a little, but also for clarity: I think the alternatives are visual close, visual distant, voice ... and radio. That is, the distance distinction is for visual not voice. As an aside, after a thread on this aspect of what the UI actually means, and how it is explained in the manual, the manual for RT has a better explanation, but still explains (page 31) the UI panels in the order of 7:Chain of command; 8: Ammo; 9:C2 link and 10: Suppression - "out of order" with their physical location on the screen, and breaking the link (!) between chain of command and C2 link. I thought Steve had agreed that the order of explanation in the manual would be changed to switch 9 and 8 around to illustrate better the link between chain of command and C2. (That the icon in C2 link illustrates the method of comms shown to exist by the green dot in the first line of chain of command ... AFAIUI!)

Now there's an evocation of a bygone era ...!! Mods and rockers in 60's Britain ...

A very well deserved break! Thanks for all you have done. Do we get to see pictures of the finished models? Judging by the standard of the mods, I am prepared to be amazed by those too ...

But GaJ had (somewhat reluctantly, I guess) to ask for that: the idea is he shouldn't have to ... Which was rather the idea of making the donation button and process more prominent, so that this would not be the case ... But, of course, it is up to GaJ anyway!

The login button is at the foot of the first page - and for me, always off the screen; I have to scroll down to see it, but you can log in first if you do that. Agree that it would be helpful to see that box at the top of the first page ... Not much else to change beyond that; download times and access are always good for me. I think you could (in the light of your thread on costs and donations ...) perfectly justifiably make the "donate" button and process more prominent: perhaps a few words about your personal funding of this, not official BF site, etc? I'm sure you would not want to be seen to "beg", but it seems entirely proper to me to be more upfront about it, and remind us (OK, me!) what may happen if we don't help out with the costs ... And as always, thanks!

I have been back to snaffle up each of Aris's RT mods, as they appear (along with a few others ...): I have not seen any perceptible delay in logging on, nor in download times for any of the goodies ... (And btw: thanks, too, to the family treasurer for indulging we "something for nothing" merchants for so long ... )

Ditto! To both!

Aris, thanks so much for all of your work ... (And Juju too!)

Serves me right, I guess, for moaning in another thread about the forum software issue that incorrectly marks posts as read before I've seen them: where's that glitch when you really need it!

If by any chance you are using a Mac (?): - the game install will default to the Applications folder; - in the Applications folder, right click on the relevant app and choose "show package contents"; - the finder window that opens will let you navigate into the contents folder to see first "resources", then "data" folders; - make a "z" (named to ensure that it is the last loaded, so mod files are used to replace the previously found stock files) folder under "data", and put mod files / folders in there. Hope this helps.

I'm not sure if we are seeing the same thing but interpreting it differently, or we are getting different results? But for me, mousepad / touchpad scrolling to change the view height seems to me to give infinitely variable view height, not in "jumps"? That's why I assumed you might be using only the view key levels, which are indeed (big) jumps. I agree though with the 3d world in 2d issue, it is a problem. But - though I don't want to fall out with you over it, and we can have different opinions for sure! - I still feel the game estimate of view and vulnerability you can get of a *future* waypoint that you think will be a good one to get to for your purposes is probably better than you would have in real life: sitting at your start point with a limited, at best, map, scanning the ground and thinking "That gully looks a good route ...". You don't *really* know until you get there ... and you certainly couldn't get the view from the enemy position, as you can in the game. But we can agree that the "3D in 2D" thing is not perfect!

Probably against my better judgement, I'll bite ... My bold bits of your post above: this is what you think BF should apologise for over the way the games models these aspects? In a word ... rubbish! Does that work with Google translate? Site a deployed MG42 correctly, and *any* squad of *any* nation it catches in its sights will be mincemeat in a very short time, and at a range at which their personal weapons are of limited use ... Cannot bother going on, really ...

I agree with all of Womble's points above. But, from my bold bit above of your post, it sounds as though you are using only the pre-set level views, changed by the number keys? If so, then you can as a - better - alternative, by using a mouse or keypad, scroll continuously through the full range of the view height available, and not be restricted to the pre-set levels? So you can move the camera height exactly to that of the unbuttoned TC, say, and see what he sees ... (A bit of an aside, but I find my mouse with mini touchpad by far the easiest way to view: move and pan in any direction, with height adjust as above, all available at your fingertips, and easier to get fine control than with the keys.) Having said all that, I think Womble's point on not expecting guarantees is key here: how precisely *should* you be able to determine LOS etc from ANY point in the 3D space of the battlefield, before your pixeltruppen get there?

Yep, if you give a group move order, but - say, because the vehicles are very close together to start with, or the actual paths chosen by the AI (to avoid terrain, etc), as opposed to the straight line shown on the screen, end up intersecting - the vehicles can baulk from infringing the "personal space" of another vehicle, and wait and/or pivot around trying to avoid a collision. I've seen traffic jams like this - very unfunny if they are under fire! But I've not seen this pathfinding confusion turn into *reverse* orders to get out of it, and certainly not over any distance? Only because I have seen other posts saying people have had problems with hotkey assignments, having tried to edit the file, I thought I'd ask a "Doh!" type question: you're sure that you haven't given them a reverse order via an errant key assignment? (Check the colour of the move path displayed?) It would sort of make sense if it were the case, as the swivelling around at the beginning to "face backwards" before they move off would not help with the initial traffic jam situation? Just a thought!

My sentiments (my bold bit) exactly! I appreciate so much that BF will update the earlier CMx2 titles to stay current with RT "v3.0". But - though not a programmer (nor is this my living) - the current route of having to go back and make BN v3.0 (?) and FI v2.0 (?) seems like it is much less efficient than having one engine, which then has plug-in data sets for any and all periods you want to buy. (Leaving aside the naming oddity that the latest apparent version, BN v3.0, will actually be the oldest in origin ...) Version upgrades for the engine would be paid for (though patches, free); as would be data packs for the periods and fronts you want to play. You start CM vx.x: THEN decide which of the "data packs" that you have you want to play with ... If you don't want to upgrade the engine you could just stick with what you've got; if a new engine version is needed to work with a newly developed period/front data pack, then you have a choice of buying it (them) or not. If, say, some new unit data is required to make original BN units work nicely with the new capabilities of v4.0, then those upgraded units for the old title(s) could be bought as an optional part of the cost of buying 4.0. (The upgraded units will have to be developed anyway, to make BN v4.0 in the present scheme?) It doesn't SEEM like this is any more work, nor less revenue-generating, than the separate families approach. Surely it is easier to keep developing one engine (and UI, etc), than having to keep 3 (plus) versions of it looking the same? And fewer resources spent getting BN to v3.0 and FI to v2.0 means more resources to allocate to new income generating material? But I have the luxury of not needing to make this work, nor pay my mortgage: so what do I know!

Ok, thanks for considering it anyway. And thanks for all the options we HAVE got!

Thanks for this Juju ...

Having played around with my choices, I have changed slightly: keeping Axis Grey but with "faded" grey (rather than tan) for FOW. I find I like the two tones / shades of the same colour. I still like, and have, red for Soviet: any chance (cheeky, I know!) of a "faded red" set for Soviet FOW, so that both sides have faded versions of their own full colour for the FOW versions?

Thank you SO much for all of these: beautiful work, and they improve the game so much. Brilliant!

Another suggestion: you *may* have inadvertently given a "group order"? If you select a HQ unit, but accidentally double click it, you have then selected not just it, but all of its subordinate units too. You think you are giving an order to just the HQ unit in question; but ALL of the units get the same order, as the game thinks that is what you want to happen. Any units already with move orders will have that same extra movement leg added to the end of their current paths. So, if you have a close in view of the HQ only on screen and don't realise all of the above has happened, and then click the red button to move the turn on, well ... chaos ensues. Ask me how I know this ...

Yep, apologies: when I answered that question with a flat "yes", I should have been more circumspect, and said just as you now have. I think I took the basic tone of the admitted "newbie" type questions to mean "do I still need to use some sort of cloud storage arrangement", and it was a "yes" to my interpretation of the question that I gave. It doesn't have to be dropbox specifically. Sorry for any confusion I caused.

Yes You don't need to do anything with your files; CMH takes the file(s) from Cmx2 outgoing email game folder and puts them in the associated dropbox folder; when the next turn back from your oppo reaches the dropbox folder, CHM sees it is there and puts it in the game incoming email folder, and alerts you that it's your turn. All you need to do is fire up the game and go to saved games, and the file is there for you to play. Easy! Yes Yes, if you set it to do so Yes

Been there, done that, have the T-shirt ...! I'm not sure either whether it's a bug, or intended to represent the vagaries of WWII comms etc. It has certainly happened to me with perfect spotter LOS; I wouldn't call the mission otherwise ... What irritates me most, though, is that it still happens AFTER the spotter calls FFE. If he cannot see well enough to gauge the accuracy of the spotting round(s), then surely the FFE call shouldn't be made? Not calling FFE would start another issue of having to re-site the spotter and call the mission all over again: but isn't that what you would expect if the spotter could not, for whatever reason, actually spot? All in all, I lean towards it being intended: but no less frustrating for that!

So, should we start calling you "Shelly"? CMx2 PBEM is in even safer hands than I thought ...