Pericles

On a similar note, Paper Tiger - a seasoned veteran of CM and this forum (and maker of the Scottish Corridor campaign) - has not been heard of on the forum for 367 days.

Infantry running along river beds 25 feet deep.

I can't attach the .brz file because it's too big. But the issue is encountered immediately in the Cry Havoc! mission (for those players who decide to send units across the river). Must have been a mistake by the map developers (putting in a deep water tile at a river crossing point). Oh well, not a huge deal, and definitely not a game breaker.

I'm currently playing the "Cry Havoc!" battle in CMBS, which pits U.S. vs. RUS. To my surprise and disappointment, I was able to order one of my squads to cross a section of river that was about 25 feet deep. The squad traversed the river section by running at full speed at the bottom of the river. They were submerged for about 45 seconds. This looked terrible. Any plans for Battlefront to fix this? Options are to remove the ability for infantry men to traverse bodies of water greater than ~5 feet deep (so that characters' heads aren't submerged), or to add new swimming animations.

That's a fair assessment of the AI issues. I recently played a night mission in CMBN for the first time and the spotting limitations really screwed up the AI behavior. I had two enemy armored vehicles drive right past entire tank-supported platoons that had been in place firing at the enemy for most of the mission. That enemy vehicles simply drove past them and into a field of no consequence.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 1 being terrible and 10 being perfect, what is your opinion of the quality of the AI in the Combat Mission series (engine x2)? My opinion after many hours logged with CMBN and CMBS: 7/10

At this point in the series, with all the theatres and vehicles and armies on offer (with no changes in animations), it's a simple equation really: new animations > new vehicles/battlepacks

Josey Wales is not me. I like his style too.

This is how all AARs should be done.

Good AAR. I hope you are able to keep output up (so many AARs published on the forums involve only weekly or bi-weekly updates).

Genius.

This is high quality discourse right here. Subscribed to thread.

You're right, I'm a bit hungover and surrounded by family, so perhaps I'm prone to overreacting to benign exclamations.

"Bummer"? Doesn't seem like a genuine apology or sympathy from a tester. To recap, no one who purchased the engine 4.0 upgrade was capable of licensing and playing it. This has since been remedied for bundle engine 4.0 upgrade. Problems remain for the single CMBS version 4.0 upgrade but will of course be fixed, probably within the next 24 hours. In the end, these are minor nuisances for a superior strategy game and a significant update to gameplay features.

Who doesn't have disreputable or controversial ancestors? Country boundaries and wealth disparities are the products of shameless and brutal self-preservation and tribalism, all the way back to when we were swinging in trees, red in tooth and claw.

Thank you IanL for your making us aware of your controlled and reliable experiment. It seems that moving slow has the same bogging probability as moving fast, which is quite stupid and needs to be changed. MOS, I request that you repeat the test for wooden fences. I hypothesize that the unit moving slow over wooden fences will not take track damage, whereas the unit moving fast will. I base this on my experience with track damage in CMBS.

That's crazy talk.

So it appears that Erwin and Pericles (Team 1) are up against MOS:96B2P and Euri (Team 2). Team 1 believes that bogging probability is higher for "fast" than for "quick". Team 2 believes that bogging probability is not higher for "fast" than for "quick". Perhaps we could resolve this via consensus. All those supporting Team 1, please write "1". All those for Team 2, write "2".

I have always interpreted the "fast" command as being included in the game so that the player can maximize movement speed at the expense of spotting ability and increased chance of bogging. However, after reading your reply and that of MOS, I recognize that my assumption could be incorrect. But I still think that the proposition that bogging likelihood is higher for "fast" compared to "quick" is a sound one, in part because it seems to reflect what would happen in reality (moving at maximum speed, not paying attention to intra-tile terrain anomalies) and because bogging likelihood is empirically higher for "quick" compared to "slow". Pending a controlled test of the proposition (a repeated experiment of the kind MOS divulged), the proposition remains contingently falsified.

I don't yearn to see that. As long as infantry fall lifeless, the realism spell is not broken. But seeing infantry hosed down in flame or spilling out of flaming tanks without any flame on them is a considerable spell break.

There is a reason the developers gave us the option of "fast" and "quick" movement. Stop being greedy and go with "quick" unless there is serious urgency.

The character animations in the Combat Mission series haven't changed since CMx2 was first introduced in 2007. If you had to choose one additional character animation, what would it be? My choice = characters on fire, included those hapless pixeltruppen unlucky enough to have been "affected" by a flamethrower, and those vehicle crewmen spilling out of a flaming tank, IFV, etc. In addition to having characters on fire, the animation would include the requisite stop-drop-and-rolling and jerky arm movements.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-army-restricts-use-of-artillery-rounds-after-cracks-found-in-high-tech-shells-costing-150000-each

If the evil powers of social media have indeed beset me, I am grateful that their influence has been largely constrained to this "b/w" abbreviation, rather than emoticons and lmao's and the like. I have suffered for this grievance, reputationally, as evidenced by the critiques from "senior members", and physically, as I have written over 100 words in an attempt to explain the absence of five letters. Never again. Between.

Agreed. I will end by thanking all those who contributed to this discussion, as I have learned something about the differences b/w CMSF and CMBS from it. To constructive discourse, and decimation of pixeltroppen in modern combat environments!