Kevin2k

Quick battle meeting engagement, playing as Germans. Several tries before, and the US always won the tank duel. Also this time my Pz IV tank crew had bailed out, with one sherman still on the hunt. But I was granted 5 off-map mortar assets, and the two command teams in the center just managed to take a peek and direct the mortars. Mortar casualties were 100. US forces surrendered.

Personally, the development communication and release dates are of no concern to me.
A software company has a product and sells it. It does not sell what it does not yet have (except some pre-order exceptions). Whenever I am contemplating things that have not yet been released, it just means that I am probably bored. Which is fine in itself, as long as it doesn't get me annoyed. That is then my problem, not the software company's problem.
It was only the initial state of the v4 upgrades that I was not happy about. I have mixed feelings about that time between v4.00 and v4.02.

Honestly, carrot was the first thing that came to me, there must be meaning to it. I have to retreat and reflect on things now.
Or maybe play some CM, we'll see how it ends up. 
 

Personally, the development communication and release dates are of no concern to me.
A software company has a product and sells it. It does not sell what it does not yet have (except some pre-order exceptions). Whenever I am contemplating things that have not yet been released, it just means that I am probably bored. Which is fine in itself, as long as it doesn't get me annoyed. That is then my problem, not the software company's problem.
It was only the initial state of the v4 upgrades that I was not happy about. I have mixed feelings about that time between v4.00 and v4.02.

Personally, the development communication and release dates are of no concern to me.
A software company has a product and sells it. It does not sell what it does not yet have (except some pre-order exceptions). Whenever I am contemplating things that have not yet been released, it just means that I am probably bored. Which is fine in itself, as long as it doesn't get me annoyed. That is then my problem, not the software company's problem.
It was only the initial state of the v4 upgrades that I was not happy about. I have mixed feelings about that time between v4.00 and v4.02.

Personally, the development communication and release dates are of no concern to me.
A software company has a product and sells it. It does not sell what it does not yet have (except some pre-order exceptions). Whenever I am contemplating things that have not yet been released, it just means that I am probably bored. Which is fine in itself, as long as it doesn't get me annoyed. That is then my problem, not the software company's problem.
It was only the initial state of the v4 upgrades that I was not happy about. I have mixed feelings about that time between v4.00 and v4.02.

I get that it must be dissappointing to really be inspired to see more Eastern Front coverage of this game. With only CMRT the base game around, without winter months. Though I don't care too much myself. I enjoy Italy + GL the most currently, and with the 4.02 Patch it is finally in good enough shape. That interest will probably shift to other battlefields in the future. I don't know much about the Rome to VIctory era, and does not really fancy me currently. Also because Germany was in no shape for proper opposition in the last year of the war. But maybe Rome to Victory is a nice opportunity to learn some more of those battles.
As to modding. CM seems to be limited on purpose in regard to modding options.  I put a lot of time in a Flight Sim Strike Fighters, which whas written to accept modding of almost everything. Though I love what it is, and what it can do. That tale did not end well commercially.
I may have taken it for granted over the years, but yes, I suppose they are nice people.

I get that it must be dissappointing to really be inspired to see more Eastern Front coverage of this game. With only CMRT the base game around, without winter months. Though I don't care too much myself. I enjoy Italy + GL the most currently, and with the 4.02 Patch it is finally in good enough shape. That interest will probably shift to other battlefields in the future. I don't know much about the Rome to VIctory era, and does not really fancy me currently. Also because Germany was in no shape for proper opposition in the last year of the war. But maybe Rome to Victory is a nice opportunity to learn some more of those battles.
As to modding. CM seems to be limited on purpose in regard to modding options.  I put a lot of time in a Flight Sim Strike Fighters, which whas written to accept modding of almost everything. Though I love what it is, and what it can do. That tale did not end well commercially.
I may have taken it for granted over the years, but yes, I suppose they are nice people.

Churchill is not (just) a person, how can a person by himself start out with these adventures in early life, do WW1 and WW2 like that, and still come up with new adventures: https://winstonchurchill.org  ? Well, even if a person could do such things, it would not be him.
As to Kursk. My thought after reading about it was; Attack anywhere, but for gods sake not there.
Edit;  What I was reading about Kursk were the usual Osprey Publishing 'Campaign' books. https://ospreypublishing.com/catalogsearch/result/?q=kursk

Wandering back to the topic of models again, I thought I'd share my weirdest kit build ever.
A welded turret Sherman 76 based on a single set of tiny drawings of a design drawn-up just in case they  didn't have enough turret casting facilities to meet their 76 Sherman quota. I have seen nobody else ever tackle this item, or even mention it anywhere outside of page 205 of Hunnicutt's 'Sherman'.
Did I ever tell you the story of when I got a phone call from R. P. Hunnicutt? 
I recall it was a Saturday, the mid 1990s. I was sitting on my couch staring vacantly into space when my phone rang. I answered and on the other end someone said "Hello, my name in R.P. Hunnicutt. I was wondering if you'd be interested in doing some art for me." I moved the phone from my ear and just stared at it for a few moments. Then I brought it back to my ear and said "SURE!" After the conversation ended I very slowly put the phone back down and just stared at it for the longest time, unable to compose my thoughts. Eventually I thought, "Well THAT was random!"

You can drive it right into the enemy forces and cause lots of trouble.
 
Maybe a temporary fix is to put "churchill-iii-75mm.mdr" etc. from CMBN in a mod folder and rename it "churchill-iv-75mm.mdr"? I will try that later...

You seem to be doing it right. Is it maybe that not all 3D models/objects can work with an Alpha channel?....
Edit: I get the same thing. .BMP with lots of red color is visible in game, but as soon as I add an Alpha channel the headset is not shown at all.

Used pixelformer many times for Battlefront .BMP images with alpha. Does this screenshot help:
Edit: instead of 'save', you have to click 'export' to get a new .BMP.

At least in Photoshop 6.0, I could not work with .BMP files with alpha channel. In fact I never seen .BMP files with alpha channel anywhere but in the Battlefront games. (Other games use .TGA or .DDS or something for that.)
There is this free program that does support .BMP with alpha channel.  http://www.qualibyte.com/pixelformer/

Then go beyond local. See how the upper levels welcome new ideas, and find they don't want to hear it, but one is free to be very upset. 
Climate change is one of those concepts that is hard to prove and hard to disprove. ( I haven't even tried , or just a little maybe ). One can spin it at wish. The ones that shout the hardest have been caught lying about simpler things before.
Who is a "denier"? it is a spin.
I have a rather small carbon footprint anyways. Do you like me now?
 
 
 
 

I think that AFB is only a fictional movie base. All the better.

In a way yes. Let it be their problem (the journalists/BBC etc), it is their credibility shrinking.

Edit, let me rewrite
Your quoted bold line seems to now agree that patch .brz data remains, which is the main point of my posts. But what do you mean "unaccessed"? The extra brz is there and alphabetically gets priority over the other data.  In case that leftover brz contains a "strings.txt" file then the game will be unplayable as such**. It will be mandatory to manually remove that brz file. The CMRT and CMBN examples that I illustrated earlier have exactly this "strings.txt" conflict.
**though the main menu will still look fine, the quick battle setup screen for example will be unusable since all words (strings) are out of place there.

Yes. Ploughed fields are the worst moire offenders. My memory is coming back and I think I gave these particular tiles the extra treatment: Decrease the contrast between raised and lowered areas of the ploughed field. Make it a more uniform earth color tile.
Cobble stone roads were also more prone to unpleasant rendering.
A tile with a uniform color cannot have any moire or annoying pixelation. So it is about finding a comprimise between desired texture detail  and an always safe but flat uniform color.
OpenGL/Direct3D may have rendering options with similar goals, I don't know the particulars, but at least in Combat Mission games it was not to my liking at all. Hence my adjustments.
 

That is because the v2.0.0 patch does not delete "data\red thunder v201.brz". Meaning you are running a v2.0.0 game executable with a v2.0.1 strings file in "data\red thunder v201.brz". Then you get the usual mismatching strings. You need to remove "red thunder v201.brz" manually. Patches can not backdate properly in case a .brz file needs to be removed, since patches doe not remove .brz files. (I just tested this myself to be sure)
@BFC Elvis, I read in several places that you suggest that older patches can backdate to an earlier version. But I am afraid that is not generally true. For that to work patches need to delete .brz files "from the future", which of course they don't.

There is a minor issue the scenario Allah's Fist. It appears when a reinforcement arrives in impassible terrain and remains stuck for the remainder of the scenario. I have moved the unit in question over 1 action square and now it is able to move freely. Here is a link to the updated scenario:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/j5dkfyhnq5pt93i/AAB9JnzIDNo5Kr-jZ8e6B7Nna?dl=0
I will pass this up the chain of command and hopefully it can be included with a future patch for CMSF2.

Platoons that include the HQ in the first squad have a unique UI because the team list view (below) doesn't have enough space for the team / formation list that normal HQ units have. For those units you will see a little HQ symbol in the lower right of the team list view. Click on that to switch HQ views.

 
Once you click on the HQ above your view now looks like below. The second and third (if there is one) team are no longer shown and you can see the HQ UI. Clicking on the HQ in the upper right will switch back to the squad view above.

 
Your screen shot shows the HQ view but you don't have an HQ link - which is odd. Try clicking on that upper left corner of the HQ Flag icon pane where the HQ link shown in my screen shot would be on your game. Hopefully that will switch to squad view and you will see the casualty fee second team.

Each QB Defender has 2 sets of orders for a VP Objective.  One AI Group is ordered to defend on or near the objective.  Another AI Group is set in ambush elsewhere on the map with a variable timed movement order to advance to the objective.  Your ideas are based on triggers that ARE available to scenario designers, but not for QB Maps.  Sad but true.  I can assure you that QB Map makers are vocal in their support of improving this part of the game.  

👍Good find! Assuming these are actually yours.
 
 

👍Good find! Assuming these are actually yours.