sttp

Not gonna lie... I've lost my CMMODS login info, and in my experience it often takes a bit to get a response, and an even longer bit for the files to be made public anyway. Plus I'd really like to post all 4 game titles together. I'll get all 4 combined and posted as soon as I can.

These are pdf's with large, labeled pictures for every QB map, covering CMFB, CMFI, and CMRT. I always get frustrated trying to remember which QB map is which, and having to load up the scenario editor just to find one gets really, really old. So I created these. I'll eventually put these on CMMODS. As soon as I finish the CMBN one, which is a significantly bigger task, and has had to take a back seat to a different project I'm now invested in. So I decided to just post these here, now. Can someone please let me know if these links work for plain ol' public download / access? If not, I'll repost proper links in a new thread. Dropbox recently got rid of its "Public Folder" feature, and the new way to accomplish almost the same thing is not very intuitive.... Here ya go: https://www.dropbox.com/s/jffokwaq2w017bj/CMFB - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/3l4xpbdhps0mgq6/CMRT - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/4rh9ya8wbe3tldr/CMFI - Alol QB Maps - lower quality.pdf?dl=0 https://www.dropbox.com/s/p9vhj33u708h0f9/CMFI - All QB Maps.pdf?dl=0 *NOTE: the "lower quality" CMFI pdf is actually the same quality as CMFB's and CMRT's -- plenty good enough. The higher quality CMFI pdf was my first, though, and features lossless images... which is great, except that the file size is almost 300MB.

--- We need an option to immediately Undo any type of "Split Team" order we've just given. This one's really affecting a little project I'm working on right now -- creating a spreadsheet of a bunch of the different unit types that shows how all the team members and important equipment (satchels, bazookas, binoculars, radios, ammo, etc.) are divided up with the various split squad commands. (If anyone else happens to have already done this, would you mind please letting me know? Thanks.)

Oh my. Some of those CMRT screenshots are just stunningly "beautiful"... especially the sense of destruction and even dread present in that first one. You guys are experts at tweaking just a few variables -- subtleties in the colors, minor architectural adjustments, for example --and yet still completely capturing the mood and general feel of a particular place and time. Well done.

This sounds fantastic! I'm sure this CMFI module will be well worth the wait.

Really appreciate this status report, Steve. Fingers crossed that your two update threads won't be derailed this time by things like "Will it also have features X, Y, and Z?", "Why not!?", "Why should a patch or update cost so much?", "Let me tell you how to run your business more effectively so you can get your products into our hands more quickly," etc., etc.... C'mon guys, we can do it!! Just say thanks for the update here and then go replay your favorite scenario or something to remind yourself how good these games are.

Decent arguments on both sides here. That said... yeah, it's pretty disappointing that a fix couldn't have come our way by now. It's true that Steve didn't publicly acknowledge the AI problem until 5 or 6 months ago (IIRC), but that doesn't mean it wasn't known about well before then. Several users noted and a few mentioned it right here on these forums long before that. And let's not forget that BFC has admitted that they knew of the issue at 4.0's release -- apparently it was pointed out by a few beta testers -- but the company didn't consider it game-breaking enough to hold the product back. I happen to disagree -- it absolutely is game-breaking, to me -- so I have several scenarios on-hold at the moment. It's just not challenging to attack anymore. But maybe we should also remember that there are other issues that need to be (re)fixed in this patch, too. Like the one where a few soldiers will not move even while their unit is ordered all around the battlefield. That can have some pretty devastating consequences. Is it tied to the way infantry is now more spread out when moving... or how they use corners... or something else altogether? Who knows? Well, I think the point is, after EIGHTEEN MONTHS(!!), BFC does (or should) know by now. If they need more beta-testers to check out any incremental changes, fine, I'd say it's well past the time to just go ahead and enlist a few more. Customers are obviously getting pretty upset with this delay, and -- as much as I like this product, and respect what Steve, et al., are doing -- it's becoming really difficult to say that all these obviously annoyed customers are being unreasonable.

For CMx2 titles, each man on the battlefield has his own soldier animation, at least so far as I've ever known. I would be extremely surprised to hear that this were not the case. What is it you're seeing in-game that makes you think that 5 men, for example, are being represented by 3 animations?

The ability to copy and paste pieces of maps into other cells. As it works now, if you want to move some feature(s) even one cell over you have to basically do the whole thing over. I'm convinced that this is part of the reason we don't see more user created maps and scenarios. I know I've been burned by this a few times, and it makes me just want to quit the editor altogether sometimes. (But who am I kidding... I usually pick it up again a few weeks later.) Also, an "undo" button in the scenario editor.

I think I do have a saved game. Do you want the command phase or replay? And please let me know how to get it to you. Thanks

Has anyone found a solution or reliable workaround to this problem? I'm talking about when you order a squad / team / etc. to change positions, but 1 or 2 soldiers won't budge. This can be hugely frustrating, and make a real difference in the battle. For example, I'm playing "la Valence" from CMBN right now, and the US Forward Observer Team has been rendered basically useless for a few extra turns because one of the 2-member team won't budge. In this same turn, with my fresh reinforcement platoon ordered forward, 7 members are still right where they started.... So there go 3 or 4 lost turns to go back to "collect" those who won't move. For me this has only been an issue since Version 4.

Thanks for spelling it out, Steve. That's exactly the kind of thoroughness I was hoping someone could provide, and perfectly explains the unexpected results I've seen a handful of times. Also, it's great to hear that you guys are pulling data from the same sources as are used on that website.

I'd recommend one of the sound mods, definitely. Or I"d at least replace a few of the default gun sounds with some other wav files. (Since several of the guns use the same sound file by default.) I won't recommend a specific sound mod -- there are several, and each has some good, some bad -- so your best bet is to just download a few and try them out. Put the particular ones you like in your Data/Z folder (which you'll have to create) and the game will pull the sounds from there instead of the default directory. You might want gridded terrain too? It can help make reading all the little changes in terrain elevation much easier. Have fun. I kinda wish I could play these games again for the first time. So exciting.

Very useful. Especially those resized mine icons. Is there any reason your modified icons wouldn't work in the other CM2 titles? (I don't have time to test that right now, and figure you may already know....) Thanks for the mods!

Maybe cycling the "deploy" button for the MG team would make a difference? That's the only thing I can think of, since the deploy procedure is often much longer and more complicated indoors. What IanL said about the different shades of red or blue that make up the setup zones could be relevant too. That was the first thing I thought of. (Sorry, not assuming you're stupid or anything! It's just that I cannot duplicate the behavior you mention... although I admit my testing was not totally thorough.) Plus I suppose it very well could be unique to the Mac version.

Unfortunately I don't recall the specific armor matchup, but I do recall that StuG's have been involved a few times. That may be just coincidence or bad luck though. (Note: I am not implying that BFC has any of the armor values wrong. If there actually are any discrepancies, it could very well be that the penetration calculator site is off.) Also, just wondering... do the CM2 titles model the fact that armor is weaker near its joints? This would make an especially big difference with respect to some of those Sherman variants.

1) The ability to know whether a certain area of bocage is truly passable, before hitting the big red button and getting your troops killed as they take the long way around, out into the open. The gaps that show up visibly in the bocage model / texture (especially for the low bocage, it seems) just are not a reliable enough way to predict the path the soldiers will ultimately take. Or at least give the player some way of telling the squad to stop before entering area XYZ and exposing themselves to enemy fire. 2) Similarly, the ability to know, before hitting the big red button, whether an area of street is passable for a certain vehicle type. To maintain realism (since, in real life, you sometimes wouldn't know if it's passable until you were there at the apparent obstacle), maybe the AI could just have the vehicle stop at the farthest place on its path it can go before it would otherwise turn around, backtrack, and take the long way. Another workaround might be having the vehicle path through narrow streets snap to the exact center, sorta like happens with bridges. (I've found this to be a big problem especially with CMFI, with all the little half-action-square side streets like with the wonderful Valmontone map.) 3) For infantry, a slight difference in icon size based on the number of troops in that team or squad, i.e. the icon for a two man scout team would be smaller than the icon for a full 12 man squad. At least for the highest overhead view. This would give a much better idea of actual troop density across the entire map. 4) When in veteran mode and above, the ability to declutter the enemy contact icons so that only confirmed contacts are displayed. Right now the icon options are all on, all off, or tentative contacts only. Confirmed contacts only is the only remaining possibility, and it would often be useful. 5) Sometimes the ability to see the plotted paths of your troops during playback would be useful. This could be another ALT hotkey option? 6) When a squad is split and one of its teams is selected, something indicating (with just a glance) where the other teams from that squad are located. There are several more that I'm sure I'll think of as soon as I hit the Submit button, but that list would be a pretty good start. Merry Christmas everyone!

Yes!!! Awesome to hear. Christmas just got a whole lot brighter with this news. I think I've now played every single small-to-medium + fair-weather CMFI/Gustav Line scenario, and I can't wait to get my hands on some new ones. Especially given that these missions will (presumably) feature all those new version 4 AI plan enhancements. I know it puts me in the minority -- probably significantly so, if relative number of CMFI forum posts is any indication -- but Fortress Italy is my favorite in the entire series. Not sure why... something about the environment / atmosphere / architecture / terrain. It just feels extra real somehow. Merry Christmas everyone!

I'm talking about the penetration calculator located here: http://www.wwiiequipment.com/pencalc/ Do the CM2 titles pull their penetration data from the same sources? I've had pretty good luck with this site... but with a few notable and hugely frustrating (as in truly game changing) exceptions. I guess maybe those instances could be chalked up to random chance, the modeling of subpar German armor during various timeframes, things like that.... What are other people's experiences with this website and its predictive capability with respect to Battle for Normandy, et al.?

Well, unfortunately, there wasn't really a Christmas bone last year (I guess because of Chris's departure?), and I'm prepared to be disappointed by the absence of one yet again this year. In fairness to BFC, Charles was pretty forthcoming with the company's plans just a few months back. There was a pretty substantial October bone, which is at the top of (and is part of the reason for the genesis of) this "General Discussion" sub-forum. All I know is that I just cannot wait to get my hands on this new Italy module. But from the company's perspective, is there really much benefit in providing a revised projected release date every few months? It just seems to lead to a lot of discussion where people basically say "thanks for the update... and also, why is it taking so long?!" I'd imagine that you can only answer that so many times without snapping, LOL.

Just an idea for CMx3. I think there's a need for a movement command in between Slow (crawl) and Move, and another in between Move and Quick. A hierarchy like this: "Crawl" (the current "Slow") "Creep", or "Tip-toe", or "Quiet"... something like that, with a speed somewhere near the middle of the current Slow and Move commands, plus it wouldn't tire troops out as fast as the current Hunt does.) "Move" (which could remain as is) "Hustle" (a little slower than the current Quick... halfway between the current Move and Sprint) "Sprint" (fastest, which could be left as is.) Then maybe a "Hunt" or "Scan" box could be checked which could be used with some of those (Creep, Move, and Hustle). This would modify the spotting routine and rate of tiring. I know some people will say this would be too much micro-managing, but it's only one more movement command. Plus the check-box option. (Or just keep Hunt as is.)

Wow, thanks, I didn't even know that Seizing Ciembienne existed. Can't wait to play it. (Starting tonight.) If it's even half as good as Tiger By the Tail then it'll be great. Tiger By the Tail has become not just my favorite city scenario, but my favorite CM2 scenario overall. I've replayed it an embarrassing number of times, and I don't even usually like city maps. But I'm really excited to try this "new" one.

Ooh... and now the speculation begins. I like the way that sounds.

Awesome. I'm a big fan of anything that'll remind me which map/scenario is which without me having to load it up (for the 20th time) into the editor. Thanks.

I used to think target arcs gave a spotting advantage, too. I'm still not 100% certain how that all breaks down. But I view that text you quoted as referring only to turreted vehicles, which can basically "face" and focus their attention in a different direction than they're moving or pointing. An infantry unit given a general face command vs that same unit with a target arc centered in the same direction... my impression from the forum is that there's no difference in time-to-spot. But I would love it if this was wrong and you could actually use arcs to force units to focus and decrease their spotting times.