MOS:96B2P

Interesting stuff. In my test, IIRC, I always used the crest of a hill/ridge. That may be one difference from your testing. Not sure if that should matter ............... I just did a quick experiment on my CMBS v2.0 Engine 4 test map with a US 81mm mortar platoon. They targeted 50 meters on the reverse slope. So seems to still work for reverse slopes. Below is my TACSOP for the mortar team. 1. Deploy mortar in a firing position with LOS to the crest of the slope. 2. Have mortar team Target Light1 OpFor up to 49 meters on the reverse slope. Notes: 1)In a mortar section the difference between Target & Target light is the rate of fire of the mortar not the type of weapons fired.

Wh, wha, what? Don't think I follow.......................... Wow, the forum lets you go back and edit posts that are seven hours old .

The following might be interesting. In May 2015 I experimented with US mortars in CMBN. I had a fire team, a mortar team and a spotter all in the same action spot facing a ridge. The fire team could target /about up to the crest at 112 meters. The spotter, spotting for the mortar team, could target 135 meters (approximately 23 meters past the crest of the ridge). The mortar, using direct fire, could target 161 meters (approximately 49 meters past the crest of the ridge). That was a few game engines ago and have not re-tested recently.

96B was Intelligence Analyst. I worked in the G2 of the 82nd Airborne (in the TOC when we were in the field). 96B was changed after my ETS to 35F I think. 13E ............... Communications for artillery?

I agree. I don't think Hunt made a difference. In fact it could have helped if enemy fire had made the tank stop (with no damage) before taking the detour. There was a thread recently that explained the chance of bogging is increased on the edge of a road. Sounds like that's what got the tank bogged. But at least the tank wasn't immobilized. If I understand correctly it sounds like the 100 meter waypoint placement was the problem. One hundred meters gives the AI a lot of autonomy to choose how to get to that waypoint. In the type of terrain in the screenshots the placement of waypoints as described above, I think, would have prevented the detour. A rule of thumb I use for vehicles: The closer the terrain the closer the waypoints. For example, in woods (when I think I must send a vehicle into woods) I place the vehicle waypoints as close together as the game will allow me. On a straight level road with no other traffic I "might" place a waypoint 100 meters down the road. Good luck with your PBEM!!!

.....................

This would be my first guess. When crossing a wall, train tracks , bridges etc. I always place one waypoint directly in front of the feature being crossed and one directly behind it. In general the more spread out the waypoints the more autonomy the AI has in choosing the route in between the waypoints. Unlike infantry vehicles don't Pause at every waypoint so its not going to slow a vehicle down to give it more waypoints. If in doubt, especially in a competitive PBEM, give the vehicle more waypoints in general and specifically give more waypoints when crossing a feature or driving through woods. Having said all that I don't know how the waypoints were placed so the waypoint placement may or may not have played a role. Its just my first guess . This is also a possibility by itself or in combination with the above discussed waypoint placement. From the screenshots it looks like the tank might have had multiple linear features to cross. If the final destination, to a single waypoint, was on the other side of multiple features the AI might have decided taking the road to get to that waypoint was a better idea and used the autonomy it was given???? Can't be sure........ In the screenshots the Panther starts facing west. It seems it was ordered to pivot 90 degrees to the south and then cross the train tracks and then ..... just stop on the other side or did it have to continue to drive to get to the waypoint? About how far from the start position in the first screenshot was the first waypoint placed? If you remember. In any case, it is frustrating but if you are able to figure out what caused this you can probably prevent it in the future . EDIT to add: From the screenshots and previous discussion I assume (I shouldn't do that) that the crew was not under fire, suppressed or panicked etc.

+1 This. A lot of cool things can be done with partisans.......... Wow. So English is not your primary language? All this time reading your posts on the forum and I had no idea. Thought you were from the US but living in Europe for some reason. Your understanding of English is much better than many native speakers. Very impressive.

I know in CM driving along railroad tracks causes damage to vehicle wheels and vehicle tracks. For this reason I always try to cross tracks perpendicular to minimize the time on the tracks. The perpendicular crossing probably has a cumulative damage effect. However, I don't remember ever having a problem with limited perpendicular crossings so this tactic seems to work fairly well.

+1 YESSS!!! But seriously out of the two choices probably North Africa. I would buy both North Africa or early war Europe however I pick North Africa for practical reasons. With the content Battlefront has already made in CMFI and the desert terrain in CMSF I think (could be wrong) North Africa would be the easiest for Battlefront to produce so maybe more likely that they would create CM North Africa. PS - Since @IICptMillerII brought it up. I think early war in the east (just the east) is even more likely. Battlefront has posted about working back in time on the eastern front.

Going through what I hope is the last Beta test. Long scenario (static campaign) so it takes awhile. But it's looking good so far. Just minor easy to tweak stuff so far. Thanks for the interest.

+ 1 YES!!! I'll probably buy anything Battlefront makes but Fulda Gap would be very, very cool.

I hope with the new CMFI Rome to Victory release BFC adds footpaths to the editor along with flat roofs for modular buildings like CMBS. For now I'm using the red dirt tile with tall grass and/or grain crops on each side of the red dirt. It generally has a similar look as a trail.

The ditch itself looks pretty cool. I wonder if you used mud tiles for the ditch line if it would stop some of the tanks, some of the time (or at least slow them down). The ground conditions can also be changed between damp, wet & muddy to tweak how many tanks can generally make it across. Heavy rock tiles are no-go terrain for vehicles if you wanted to positively stop them all the time or channel their crossing point. Good luck with your creation. It will be interesting to follow developments.

+1 Especially in CMFI. I hope the new CMFI module will also allow flat roofs on modular buildings as CMBS does. With flat roofs you basically have some late North Africa scenario possibilities. Then with partisans, French North African forces and mods you might be able to get the post WWII Algerian revolution.

In the American Midwest my Dad and Grandfather use to say that corn should be knee high by the Fourth of July (Our corn is generally waist high by the Fourth now). Of course I don't know what they planted in the area you are depicting or if they were even able to plant with all the chaos of war around them. If they were able to plant I might just pick whatever crop in the editor is about knee high on a walking pixeltroopen and call it good.

Yes Ukrainians can Acquire and fire a Javelin. As far as I can tell they fire it just as well as their US counterparts with the same soft factors.

Nice. Stackpole publishes a book, Mountain Warriors: Moroccan Goums in WWII with that dude on the cover. It will be interesting to see what they look like in the game.

No problem my friend. S*&t happens.

+1 THIS!!

Ooops. Bad quote @Erwin. Just be be clear @MikeyD said the above not me. (I just found it interesting.)

+1 I suppose the below quotes from the article are basically the reason. They are trying to force developers to use their product which does not support cross platform use. Games and graphics-intensive apps that use OpenGL should now adopt Metal. Similarly, apps that use OpenCL for computational tasks should now adopt Metal and Metal Performance Shaders." Apple introduced Metal, its proprietary low-level 3D graphics API, in 2014.

Interesting. Thanks for looking into it. +1

To fire indirect on map mortars must be within close visual C2 (12 action spots) of their chain of command or within voice C2 (6 action spots) of any authorized HQ, XO. FO team or within 2 action spots of a radio equipped vehicle.

If that means what I think it means......... YES!!! Thank you.