kch001

Thanks. I guess it would make sense that the armour quality was reduced as a result of the overall progress of the war. Was it a case of lack of alloys or trying to speed up production? As far as I have understood then the face hardening was abandoned when the use of capped AP rounds become more common. However this is not directly related to the lower quality glacis.

Just recently read through Michael & Gladys Green book "Panther" and they challenged the idea that the Panther G had a glacis that was of poorer quality than the Panther D & A. In that book, they cite critique of the US Army test that was made against a couple of captured Panthers, which is one of the main reasons why there is an impression of the armour being of poorer quality. Apparently the Panther G had already suffered quite a few hits before the test, and therefore should have been excluded. In Red Thunder, it assumes that the glacis of poorer quality, right? Anybody know more about the issue of the poorer armour?

I dont think the scenarios are affected. It seems like it is something that happens when moving from one battle to the next.

Have you tried to PM ChrisND? He recently fixed the Kampfgruppe Engel campaign and it seems like the Scottish Corridor is suffering from similar "disappearing" weapons.

thanks for the advice. I will definitely try to give it a shot.

Rambler, what German uniform mod are you using?

I will definitely give it a shot. Thanks for sharing!

Thanks a lot! Are you also working to adjust the "Scottish Corridor" for missing units?

Thanks for the explanation. Hopefully I will someday get to a skill level where I will be able to create a scenario.

Any possibility of making the bunkers "Pak 38/40"-sized for spotting purposes? I think it would be great if we could have a bit more of a camouflage effect for them, as it would be normal to assume that they would be heavily camouflaged (same thing should ideally apply to vehicles that haven't moved since scenario start, but I realise that a tank camouflaged in a forest waiting to ambush, is not the same thing as a tank stopped on a road that simply hasnt moved yet).

That is a really nice looking site! Will you also add a mod section?

Hi.. quick question.. The Orsha and Ratzymin master maps are meant for quick battles, right? When I load them up as a scenario they are empty. I just wanted to make sure that I dont have a bad install. Thanks

If you PM him, then I think he can tell you how to pass the savegame to him

Did you forward a savegame to ChrisND? I am also quite anxious to see this corrected.

TWC no better spot to die Another scenario with vehicle pack

I believe it is just the campaigns.

Hopefully.. lets see. It would be great if BF could iron out these few OOB problems that seem to have crept into the scenarios.

Do you have a save game that you can send to ChrisND so that he can log it as a bug? (see the thread below regarding stealth tanks)

Did you receive some files that you can take a look at?

*DELETED*

Since I can see that you have been around a while on the forum, how would you proceed with this? Will you raise it as a bug in the tech assistance part of the forum?

I would also love to see the old campaigns made compatible again. Apparently you can play them with 2.0 engine but since I bought the entire bundle then I have no clue on have to "downgrade" the game to 2.0 when needed.

NPye great work! Is this something you are sharing or will share?

I havent had any problems with saved games. What I was referring to was the debate going on in the CMBN forum where it has been discovered that the engine upgrades have caused some problems with the campaigns and scenarios included in the base game (i.e. disappearing units etc). I dont think CMFI + GL has the same issue but i just wanted to make sure.

Hi all, I just wondered whether anybody had had any problems with CMFI+GL campaigns & battles and updating the engine to 3.0 Personally I have not experienced any issues, but I just want to make sure. (and apparently I cannot spell "campaings")