PhilM

Sent you a PM ...

Or, this is the link to the place to report bugs / issues, from CMH's Help / report a bug menu entry ... https://h2hh.fogbugz.com/default.asp?pg=pgPublicEdit Paste in your error text and describe the problem ...

Or, there is this wording in the Help system ... Occasionally, if you have a crash of your computer, it will leave CMH in a state where it can't run anymore. To recover from this, you need to do one of two things. Either: a. Run CMH from a command prompt with the reset-state option DOS> cmh.exe reset-state OSX> ./cmh.app reset-state or b. Delete CMH's AppState.txt file At the top of the log window (Options->Show Log Window) CMH tells you where the log file is stored - the AppState.txt file is in the same place. If you can't access the log file, you will need to search your disk for AppState.txt. Under Windows it is usually in a place like: C:\Users\username\AppData\Roaming\GreenAsJade\CMHelper\ Under OSX it is usually in a place like: /Users/username/Library/Application Support/GreenAsJade/CMHelper/

Doh, sorry! Read your OP to mean that CMH wouldn't load games / battles, not wouldn't load itself!! I use 1.6.2 myself, on a Mac: no problems so far. Perhaps try deleting it altogether, downloading a fresh copy and installing / running that?

I suggest that your best bet is to use CMH's "report a bug" process (under the Help menu) to ask GaJ (the author) the question directly ... pretty sure he'll get back to you ASAP.

My reading of Steve's post was that the Pack will include (two player) scenarios, as well as (single player) campaigns ... so it won't be just single player content? I see it as a welcome way of using VP content in pre-made battles (scenarios and campaigns) rather than just via QBs ...?

Plus 1 from me too for the advice ...

Yep, I'm looking forward to the new stuff too! For me, Gothic Line in particular, I like CMFI stuff ... just odd I guess!

I'm pretty sure from what Steve wrote above that the answer to this (my bold bit of your question) is yes ... Bulge was hoped to be finished a while ago, and is now almost ready, but BF are only "starting work on 4.0 very soon" ... so 4.0 cannot be in Bulge. Some "under the hood" changes are mentioned, but they aren't "4.0". Oh and BTW: thanks for the update Steve!

I love the rifling inside the barrels ...

What makes you think that they haven't already started?

No problem ... it's a great game when you get into it! The "mechanics" like these become second nature after a while ... You're hopefully sorted by now, by just a few more thoughts after the other guys also chimed in ... You said about nothing seeming to happen after you'd selected a movement path; they can - especially if you are in a high / distant view - be picky about being selected with a mouse click. You *think* you've got the cursor over the path leg, and click ... but nothing happens! It means you haven't successfully selected it and made it live ... you will see the "glow" of the leg and waypoint once it's selected. If in doubt go closer in to the unit / movement path to make it easier to select. Then all the options are available, as described above. On the adding a target order to a waypoint ... If the movement leg - and so the waypoint at the end of that leg - are active (highlighted) then that waypoint is where the target order will be applied - though confusingly, as Ian said, the LoS line still appears from where the unit is as you're setting it, not from where it will eventually be applied. But if no movement leg / future waypoint is selected then the taget order is given to the unit's current location. Practice a few times, to make sure you can see which of the two is happening ... Another thought which came to mind ... avoiding changing movement orders when you don't want to! Example: a tank is under fire that will likely kill it, you order it to reverse away to cover, to keep its front armour facing the threat until it is clear ... then later go back to check its orders, and with the reverse waypoint selected - inadvertently perhaps - you hit a forward movement key and without realising edit the reverse order to a move order. Your tank will still try to get to where you want it, but will first do a very graceful half-pirouette in place before trying to move to your waypoint ... but sadly showing its rear to whatever is trying to kill it. Usually not a good outcome! (Ask me how I know this ... ). And you defn should have the manuals which Ian describes ... I'm on a Mac also, and the downloads should auto create and populate the documents folder with the latest manauls ... I can dropbox them for you if there isn't a quicker way to get them from BF themselves. Oh, and hit Alt P (?) to turn on all movement paths ... then when you have any of your units selected, all movement paths will show. I find this helpful ...

I'm not sure if the online manual (you mean on BF's site?) is an old one ... but your download will give you a documents folder, in which the latest copies of the manuals reside? If you look there, that is up to date ... On the waypoints things .... If there is only one, it's a circle; add more, and any intermediate ones become triangles and the last one a circle. The point is that triangles show intermediate waypoints, the circle is the end of that sequence. Having set a sequence, you can edit them by clicking to make a leg the active one ... its line and end point glow to show it is active. The movement mode can be changed by a key press, and eg pauses and targetting options added to the active waypoint. Once successfully added, clack anywhere else to exit ... the various waypoints will be labelled with pause times, etc? Make sense? Shout if it's still not clear ...

Apologies for my ignorance. Although you seem to be implying that you don't believe me, it was a misunderstanding on my part. I believed that the teams labelled "Assault" were just that, and so moved them forward; and that the Engineers, who must be protected at all costs to build the bridge, were part of the "back story", to arrive if and when the river crossing had been secured and not risked in combat. But given that the crossing was secured, perhaps the teams on the map could still have built the bridge if 4 of the 7 had not succumbed to incoming artillery after the battle was closed off? Thanks for the opportunity to take part. I'll step aside and let someone who understands the game better than me step in so that you run your operation how you like.

OK, so yet more I don't understand ... My briefing emphasised the importance of keeping the bridge engineers safe: but I never realised that I actually got any "engineers" ... There were two teams described as "Assault", with satchel charges; are they the "engineers"? Cannot think who else is. At my last submitted turn, of those two teams: 1 Section was complete with 4 men; 2 Section had one wounded out of 3 men. So how come the "Battalion Pioneer Troop is down to only 2 men and the bridging construction is a no go."? So ... 4 Troop (platoon)? HQ Team all OK; 1 Section has 2 casualties and a wounded out of 10, 7 OK; 2 Section has 1 casualty out of 10, 9 OK; 3 Section has 1 casualty and 2 wounded out of 8, 5 OK. How is this "Barely two sections left"?? And 6 Troop (platoon) "hit almost as bad as 4 troop" ? 6 Troop HQ Team all OK; 1 Section has 2 wounded out of 10, 8 OK; 2 Section has 1 wounded out of 10, 9 OK; 3 Section has 4 casualties and 2 wounded out of 10, 4 OK. ?????

I just realised, as Drop Box told me the folder had been removed ... Well that's me somewhat puzzled, and somewhat disappointed. I get the FoW thing, for keeping the very last turn unknown ... but there were still 7 minutes left in a 30 minute battle, or a quarter of the time, give or take. Isn't that a large proportion to lop off arbitrarily? And I certainly don't now get all the stuff about gain more ground, and take the buildings objectives, etc: when you've just canned the time I had left to do that?

OK, just don't give me the job of actually building the bridge!!

Hey guys, thanks for both sets of additional info ... much appreciated. (But, there does sound to be a bit of a misunderstanding about the tanks thing: "vehicles cannot cross" v "it was technically never prohibited to try to cross" ... ) On the whole thing of VLs: perhaps in calling for smaller, "more achievable" VLs I gave the wrong impression. That would still be, for me, a second choice. Given all that you say (I agree) about trying to replicate the real world in both PzC and CM, I'd sooner see a map with NO VLs, rely on the briefing from the CO as to the objectives, and let the GM apply some realistic analysis to the outcomes to see "what happens next". Given that I thought (doh!) that there were no VLs in my battle, this "interpretive" resolution process was what I thought was happening anyway ... hence my initial question about "how far do I go?" And finally, I hope this hasn't seemed like too much of a moan. I really do appreciate all the work you've put into it so far, and I am grateful to be able to take part. OK, one last heave up that hill!

OK, I'll try and make this my last whinge (honest!) When you mentioned objective area, I thought ... jeez, what an idiot! (Me that is!) I must have them switched off, and not realised there was a VL! So I loaded the latest turn and hit Alt-J to turn them on ... only to find that they were on already as I'd thought, and I had just turned them off ... And what disappeared as I turned them off was a green area covering not far short of a quarter of the whole map! (Including the buildings in question overlooking the river, it's true). But the "green" area was SO extensive that until that instant I had honestly just assumed that that was the terrain tile colour for that area - and never imagined that that whole area was a VL ... which perhaps explains why I got to ask the question that I did. Doh! And such a large VL? I don't see the point really, TBH ... I cannot really expect to occupy / clear all of it, and stop the Axis side keeping a man in it somewhere? So how does / would it work in mission objective terms? I already have most of my men (excluding the tanks ...) in it, and they can / would all be so by the end of the battle ... but so what? It is very reasonable to expect me to secure the crossing by occupying the overlooking buildings; but in case that I'd respectfully suggest that those buildings - and perhaps one other flanking position? - should have specific, achievable, VLs of much, much smaller area ... something that I could occupy? (And that I could know was an objective!) And the tank thing? Well, I'm not not doing it because it's risky, I'm not doing it because that is "the story" of this mission ... which in turn has governed how I've approached this CM battle.

The briefing says that tanks cannot cross without the bridge ... the point was, they aren't supposed to (be able to) cross yet? And from what I recall of the map, the terrain is such that (in CM terms) they cannot anyway? (Though maybe they can ford somewhere?) But in keeping with the briefing, this is why - besides LOS - all the tanks are currently set well back from the river, providing suppressing / covering fire across to the other side? I'll happily press on with the foot sloggers. I was going to go further anyway, accepting that I need more of a presence across than I have so far. It was just a question of "how much further"? But the tank across? It's a bit late now to change the premise of the battle ...

B Coy reporting in ... Less than 10 minutes left; some clarification on my orders requested! To make progress in the campaign, for this mission do I need to: - clear the enemy fully from this map? - or *merely* have a presence on the far side of the river at the end of the time period, and assume that the bridge can then be built under those conditions? I'm hoping to avoid one or both of: - unnecessary casualties pursuing an objective I don't need to reach (i.e. fully clearing the map); - failing the mission overall by *only* completing 90% of it in an attempt to avoid casualties (i. e. getting my men across the river, but not enough of them, nor far enough across, to deem the bridge able to be built) and so "spoiling the ship for a ha'porth of tar". Make sense?

Original link and download worked OK for me ... thanks for posting John, looks an interesting read from a very quick first skim.

My slightly delayed communication from the front (in this time zone ...) The opposition trying to play peek a boo? First demolish the hiding place to take a peek: Then boo! And boo again!

Hex 3,6 battle ... finally found the range for that pesky AT gun!

The "Tidy" and "Tidy Dropbox" options are not available per battle, by right clicking on the row; they are selectable for CMH in total ... (at least in my Mac version anyway, I would guess the PC version is the same).