Oliver_88

I just split things such as anti-tank and scout teams as and when I need to. I also sometimes split my infantry sections in order to separate the "bren group" from the rest, for the sake of brinish infantry section doctrine, that's probably the only time I might split a section before needed and leave then split, because recombining the remaining two teams back into a "rifle group" I consider an little bit of a pain. Otherwise I prefer to try and keep units un-split, mainly just for ease of management purposes really, less icons cluttering the map and four rather than ten units to control and keep in c2 with the platoon commander.

Erm yes and no from what I've seen. I believe the intent is indeed to be able to create battles that do not use vehicles but just infantry. But the problem is the "Infantry Only" formations are not also shown in the "Mech Infantry" categories also. The various formations and the categories that they are assigned to in Quick Battles mirrors somewhat how they are assigned in the Scenario Editor. However in Quick Battles compared to the Scenario Editor the "Infantry Only" and "Airborne Only" get their vehicles taken away. That paragraph probably does not make sense ha. There's no "Air Landing Battalion" in "Mech Infantry" for example only in "Airborne Only" so you can only choose them with their vehicles taken away. I've asked for the same thing in another thread.

Italian versus Italian?

Huh yeah I'm also curious now. I've just got the "all in one installers" for both CMFI and CMBN installed, what would be being used by them, what's best to use instead?

To nit-pick back in the images I put the "supply" in the move section because it's something that creates an movement path. There's nothing movement based in the admin section just commands to create detachments and combine etc. But I understand the rational behind the nit-pick. And yeah I would think any non-instantaneous acquire feature would need to track what's been already requested from vehicles and subtract that from the acquire list. Or just first come first serve like with embarking anyway.

Indeed sburke in essence your impressions correct but excluding the "hop in hop out" as Erwin states. Here's the example (using units I am more familiar with though) about the manner in which I envision acquiring from vehicles could work compared to the current system. Do not take the distances/terrain/times shown in the screenshots as gospel of course. Also to note that acquire could continue to work in the exact same manner as current system with regards to units that are inside the vehicles already. This is instead concerning acquiring from vehicles when the units are not inside them already. So in this example I have an five man pioneer section that I have rotated out from the front and need to obtain them more ammo from an carrier before sending them to the front again. The carriers are from an carrier section and have their crews mounted in them, so there are just four passenger seats remaining. Pictures might paint a thousand words about how I envision a alternate system, maybe a million words in the case of my unintelligent writings. Using the current system, to restock the same section from the carriers at any point after the scenario begins the user would need over separate order phases to; Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So in another example I have on the frontlines an rifle section and light mortar team from an platoon. I cannot rotate either out into the rear at the moment but need to obtain some more PIAT projectiles and small arms ammo for the section from one carrier. I also need to obtain some bombs for the mortar from another carrier, but am content for these to be shared with the mortar team rather than obtained by them. As I cannot rotate everyone out at the moment I decide to obtain the ammo using an detachment from the section. Using the current system, to restock them from the two carriers in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to; Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the first carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the section detachment from the first carrier. Order to embark the section detachment to the second carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the second carrier. Another example being having multiple units (pioneer section and some rifle section again) and needing to resupply them from the same carrier at the same time. They have both already been rotated out from the front so moving the entire sections to the resupply should be alright. Using the current system, to restock both from the carrier in the same manner the user would need over separate order phases to; Order to disembark the carrier section from the carrier. Order to embark the pioneer section to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark the pioneer section from the carrier. Create the section detachment. Order to embark the section detachment to the carrier. Order to acquire the ammo. Order to disembark (and recombine) the section detachment from the carrier. Order to embark the carrier section to the carrier again. So yeah the main difference would be that there would not be any need for units to actually have to embark the vehicles in order to acquire some ammo from them. So no having to disembark any other already mounted units/crew just to enable the resupply. So no having to create/recombine any detachments units just to enable the resupply (you could continue to use detachments but that would be an tactical choice rather than an requirement). Units no matter their size should be able to supply from any vehicle no matter the number of passenger seats that vehicle has. Also as your not embarking the resupplying can be chained with various other commands even another resupply at another vehicle etc. Another difference would be in the time it takes to supply your units. Rather than being based upon how many full turns are required to embark and disembark and etc into various vehicles. The time taken would instead be being based upon what items you are actually trying to obtain from them. For example obtaining 2000 x 0.303 MKVII, 500 x 0.45 ACP, 9 x PIAT HEAT would no longer take the same time as obtaining just 5 x PIAT HEAT. Has anyone else also had the situation where the embarking unit are mid-embark at the end of the turn and are therefore required to wait another turn for them to be fully embarked before acquiring? Hopefully that describes to you what I mean. Something like this would instead mean that it's just the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" that we would need to micro manage over upon during an single orders phase (as it should be). The rest we entrust to the units to carry out over the next various turns until the tasks complete. But within current system as well as micro managing the "which vehicles and what ammunition to acquire" we also are required to micro manage and baby the units each separate turn through embarking, acquiring, disembarking etc. And it's that last past that I reckon no-one feels the need to want to micro manage over.

Agreed and I've tended to do that with them. The few extra bombs for each platoons mortar does not go far though. In some ways acquiring from the carrier/anti-tank sections vehicles before the scenario begins makes that situation worse. But it's easier than requiring to send the mortar to those vehicles (or vice versa) to resupply and juggling through the mount/acquire/dismount or dismount/mount/acquire/dismount/mount. The ammo is also meant to be intended for the carrier/anti-tank sections own mortar, but as those sections cannot obtain their mortar from the vehicle through acquire (because bug) the ammo is up for grabs to the rifle companies at the moment. Maybe once the LMG can provide more than single shots at range the burden that I place upon on the 2 inch mortar might subside somewhat and the platoons then cease to deplete their 2 inch ammo so quick, not sure though as it's an brilliant piece of kit to use. So yes again to answer that question I've ran out of ammo with some weapons. It's just the same feature that exists with ammo bearer teams. Just works between vehicles and infantry also. It's not specific to the 2 inch mortar or commonwealth either. This is the part in the manual that I believe describes it.

I also completely understand that point of view, especially considering the size of the development team. I am wanting the patch to come out and would not trade that for longer wait with some user interface changes for example. But should be seen to at some point, or else what should software never ever update any user interfaces, never streamline or improve anything? As Erwin stated in response to you on that different players have different priorities and I would definitely not consider an rework upon the acquire system to be an waste in time. The vehicles in convoy are used just an example its not the entire motive for such user interface changes, you dig? It was just an slight correction upon the statement "adjacent units share ammo already" as rather the situation goes "adjacent units within the same group share ammo already one magazine at a time and only once that ammo is depleted". The ammo sharing system between adjacent units is an last ditch "crap I'm out and need a mag" kind of thing. And I do not believe that was quite the answer to what Erwin was talking about, only acquiring ammo from vehicles was, which we see as somewhat clunky. But seeing as you ask. Indeed I have had platoons run out with certain ammo types. Such as for the single 2 inch mortar in the British infantry and airborne platoons. Any resupply for them depends upon the availability of some infantry carrier/anti-tank section vehicles. Also ran out with grenades in an platoon before. I am sensing some facetiousness. So yes please. And please also do one on how you would during battle resupply this pioneer section from this jeep in an airborne only battle. Do not bother I know the answer. First turn order disembark on crew. Next turn order embark on pioneers. Next turn order acquire and disembark on pioneers. Next turn order embark on crew. I am not so sure that distinction is that much of an barrier to such an system to be honest. I gather such framework for units that occupy action spots (such as infantry) interacting with those that do not occupy action spots (such as vehicles) already exists. An 2 inch light mortar crew for example knows there's an carrier containing 2 inch ammo nearby and gets that ammunition added onto it's own. So sharing between vehicles and infantry can work despite the distinction. As well as various other actions between the two types. So acquire should be able to also and it's not something completely revolutionary to the workings in combat mission.

Not in what you want to resupply with sburke. But having told them what to acquire should be able to be trust them to go and pick up that ammuntition from the ammo source. But instead even that has to be micro managed, because the user interface requires you to do so, not because we want to.

We have to micro manage in the game due to the user interface in some manners. The acquire being an example. We have to micro manage in creating an scout team, sending them into an vehicle, acquiring the ammunition, leaving the vehicle, regrouping with their section. Sending someone to resupply is something that I reckon no-one wants to micro manage over (other than what ammunition is acquired) and would prefer to trust. But the user interface means we have to micro manage rather than trust as you cannot just order an move to acquire.

I could be wrong but is that not maybe missing the point. I do not believe Erwins stating that such things are not possible (other than the engineers blasting through). Rather that such things are possible but the amount in user interface actions required to accomplish those tasks is maybe excessive. They are taking numerous turns/clicks to carry out when with an more streamlined user interface that could be halved. An shoot and scoot is kind of possible as you state. But consider how many key presses and clicks you need to do to accomplish the task. And even then that can end up just being an scoot and scoot instead (when unit sees enemy too late during the pause), and leaving you needing to try and repeat the manoeuvre again. Or leaves them waiting to die as Erwin describes (when unit sees an enemy too soon during the pause). But with an command for the purpose and the fixed degree cover arcs that Erwin also mentions consider how much that would cut down your workload to accomplish the task. The selecting the group then placing the arc is not quite an solution to Erwin's example. As that would set them to the same arc. And he states setting them to different arcs. So take four vehicles moving down an road, and first need to cover front, second left, third right, fourth rear. Again consider how many key presses and clicks are needed to set just four vehicles each their own individual arc. Where as if an arc could be set with an single key press with your cursor on the terrain consider how much that would take to do the same. Adjacent units from the same group share ammo. Adjacent units from different groups cannot. So 1 Platoon cannot share with 2 Platoon etc. I use the same method when wanting to resupply my sections also. And I believe from what Erwin states in the quote above he does too. You suggested the same thing as he stated it needs at the moment basically. But again look at how many user actions you need to carry out over how many turns to accomplish that. And you need to do the same procedure when that sections been moved to the reserve and is right next to the ammo source already. And then compare it to if acquire was just an move command, to make the order would only take an single turn and much fewer user actions to accomplish. I took his post to be able saving time and making actions easier rather than stating such things are not possible in any manner at the moment.

Disagree. Using the names of birds such as the Martlet, Fulmar, Skua, Roc, Gannet are great ways (esp those that are seabirds) to name your naval fighter aircraft. Likewise using the names of fish such as Swordfish, Barracuda, Albacore, Tarpon are great ways to name your torpedo bombers. It's almost poetic. And in another point in our defence we have not as far as am aware named any aircraft Fairey that's just an aircraft manufacturer. Should have stuck with the names Martlet, Gannet and Tarpon rather than going and adopting the yankee names. Using same names now that have always been used on ships. So if they used to be good names then for what reason are they no longer good now?

yeah indeed I was talking about that, bugger thought not

Quick question. Does anyone know whether its possible to mod the action spots (the coloured squares that indicate where the sections various teams are going to end up). As in some scenarios/maps I consider them an touch too crap, invisible I mean. So would be good to mod them to be something more opaque. During my searches I am not seeing anything that might be them in the extracted brz's. I'm guessing it's not possible and these are created just through code instead, rather than an graphic similar to the unit bases, as reckon someone else would have done such an mod for this before me were it possible. But thought would ask to make sure.

Was curious so just tried this (in CMBN) on those urban Dutch ones. And the regular 2 inch mortar (not the airborne one) could indeed fire from the top! I presume the same would be true on any CM building that has an floor named "Roof". E2A: So can the 3 inch mortar!

x 2

Not unless they are the airborne 2 inch mortars that airborne sections are equipped with. Those can shoot from buildings. However the sections are only provided smoke rounds as standard. However the ammunition between the two mortar types is the same. So get that airborne 2 inch mortar some high explosive through acquiring from an vehicle, sharing from an adjacent standard 2 inch mortar team, or buddying aiding an incapacitated team, and then you can have an airborne 2 inch mortar firing high explosive rounds from buildings. It's only able to do direct fire however so basically becomes a grenade launcher rather than an mortar. There's an video in the thread linked below. CMBN rather than CMFI but probably still stands true.

patches page seems to have some missing icons or something next to each patches link would link an image to show it, but seems battlefronts not the only ones to update their website recently, imgur's also updated theirs and I cannot find how to login to the bloody thing now....

I get that plus the addition of the image slideshow when I use the website on my iphone in landscape view.

I'm rather sure when entering my billing information I did not enter Aberdeenshire as my county. EDIT: Aw seems have been beaten to that realisation.

I would avoid now. It's an shame though.

Sorry seen this late. The game you were mentioning I reckon is Naval Action.

Had it on iphone and got the computer version when they released also, there are some problems with Atlantic Fleet in my opinion though, it's likely to remain like that as its no longer being developed. Not that I did not enjoy the game while I played. If you go for it remember that it is even on the computer just an iphone/ipad game with upgraded graphics. Needs an save feature. Not much to do on the campaign map sometimes except press next until an engagement occurs. AI does not see player submarines at periscope depth unless they have been torpedoed. No naval fighters are airborne from the battles start. Need to range them on deck one turn, launch them next, then they can do their job. Problem is the Germans one or two shore based aircraft are always always used on first turns. So naval fighters are just glorified anti-shipping platforms.

http://cmmodsiii.greenasjade.net/?p=6802 there go that's the cmbn ones, took longer than expected to write up and upload noticed the cmfi ones have missed some vehicles, so that's not uploaded