RMM
-
Posts
355 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by RMM
-
-
1 hour ago, Frenchy56 said:
You could tag it [snow] so it shows up when there's snow on the ground.
Yeh, I was wondering about that, because I see that tag in other mods of his in. Sometimes, a file's tagged both [Whitewash] and [snow]. Tks for the tip. I'll change up the tags accordingly
-
Playing through the training scenarios/campaign, but the PzIVJ's are appearing in their camo skins of the mod instead of the whitewash skins. Wrong tag (it's labelled as [whitewash])?
-
11 hours ago, Chibot Mk IX said:
I partially agree with you. Using Bazooka against targets in open is not good idea. But in CM these short range portable WWII AT weapons are still very lethal against weapon in open. I saw a panzerschreck rocket took out 4 GIs before
I agree that's how it works in the game, but what I'm saying is that IRL, it wouldn't work that way. By their very nature, these SCW weapons had to have a hard surface against which too impact, so they were deadly against troops behind some sort of wall, but in open ground, you'd have just gotten laughed at.
-
Nice! That's what I was looking for and a new mods/scenarios source to boot! I thought CMMODS had gone down, but I'll be mining that now for sure!
Tks
-
36 minutes ago, waffelmann said:
I have a mod installed. There the naming is: "force-specific background nnn XX.bmp" (eg. force-specific background blue 2.bmp)
And I see these pictures.
Which mod s it, and you mentioned pictures, but I don't see any attachment here?
-
2 minutes ago, hank24 said:
A deep recon Quick Battle can be designed the same way against the US forces in CM:FB as described above.
I saw someone had posted on Scenario Depot a bunch of FB QB maps/battles, all categorised under different kinds of engagements. Will have to look n see if they did such a setup already.
-
What on earth is this?
Why would someone think to limit how many thumbs up can be given in a day?
-
I look forward to those scenarios .. and purchasing RT!
Gonna indulge in my latest purchase of FB for a bit first though
-
13 hours ago, Erwin said:
And if you'd read my post from a couple days ago, ya woulda gotten there faster...
Oh I did, but didn't grasp the concept that the dismount had to be ordered first, since I see 'Dismount' appear when issuing a move to the infantry, so thought it was already being done.
-
4 minutes ago, IanL said:
Yes. With no orders on the vehicle select the passengers and issue a Special | Dismount order. Then issue normal move orders for the passengers followed by orders for the vehicle.
Ah hah. Interesting. I will certainly try that out. Thanks
-
3 minutes ago, IanL said:
Let me try again.
You have a stationary vehicle and an infantry unit near by that you want to aquire ammo from said vehicle.
On turn #1:
Give the infantry an move order into the vehicle to embark into it.
During play back the mount up.
On turn #2:
Give the infantry an acquire order and load up. Then give them a dismount order. Then give them movement orders to where you want them to go. Then give the vehicle orders to where you want it to go.
During play back watch your newly loaded infantry disembark from the vehicle while it waits for them and glory in watching the two units move off separately.
Hmm, I'll try it out to confirm, but pretty sure that's what I had done in the past, only to watch the vehicle takeoff with the pax still on board. Unless...usually, I just issue the infantry a move command which is then labelled as 'Dismount' at the of the path. Does the Dismount have to separately, initially ordered before a move command is added on?
-
Just now, IanL said:
Ah, yes accidentally giving orders to a whole formation when you just wanted to give them to one unit. Yeah, that can suck. I have done that occasionally. I am now trained to be careful about that but as you said that's not the case for new players.
OK now that I get what you are talking about what was your proposed solution?
To have a selection in the Options that could turn that feature off; ie. with the feature turned off, only one unit will ever receive an order, but being an option would allow those who do use that feature to retain it as they wish.
-
9 minutes ago, IanL said:
People more learned than me have said this was not normally done during combat. CM does in fact have Germans equipped with Russian weapons and visa versa when it was done on an official scale.
It's not my call - I don't have a say in how the game gets designed other than voicing my opinion - just like you. I do test for them so perhaps I am heard more but I can assure you Steve makes these calls and he doesn't change his mind cause I said so.
Interesting. I do also appreciate your being willing to listen to people on such issues and provide the insight and feedback that you can. We all hope that some of it may filter back to Steve
-
Just now, IanL said:
Indeed that would be a bug.
See you like to micro manage. That's your style and that's great. Some players find the number choices in the orders panel to be intimidating. Those players would not like more layers or choices added.
Steve make design decisions about how much choice we get. He typically tries to find a balance. Not everyone is satisfied either way. The important thing is for us to understand where his choices come from. Or not. I'm just trying to provide some insight.
And I do appreciate it that
-
5 minutes ago, IanL said:
I have a feeling that we might not be talking about the same thing. I think you are talking about the quick commands Pause, Cancel and Withdraw. I have literally never hit one of them accidentally such that I felt like a game was ruined.
Are you talking about something else?
If not can you explain how such an event would take place?
Sometimes, mostly with newer players (which I was just at the end of last year), one may have highlighted an HQ unit (double-clicking) in order to see who it controlled only to then issue it a move command before deselecting the highlight, with the consequence that all that HQ's units receive the same command meant only for it, with inevitable consequences in many cases!
-
7 minutes ago, IanL said:
Correct
On the turn you acquire ammo you can acquire what you want the then give the passengers a dismount command and move them on their merry way. Then you can give the vehicle move orders and it will wait for the passengers to disembark before venturing forth.
Well no, per your 'Correct' response: the vehicle cannot be given any move command until after the infantry disembark; otherwise, they won't. Any pause command followed by a move order is treated by the game as the vehicle being in motion, and the infantry will stay on board.
-
12 minutes ago, IanL said:
Yes, clearly there are some situations where it is not clear. I would prefer those questionable gap issues be fixed by them properly matching between if it looks big enough for a vehicle it is big enough for a vehicle.
Absolutely amen!
-
1 hour ago, Vinnart said:
One thing also important to remember in reference to Ian's excellent advice for using engineers to blow gaps for vehicles - Give the blast order as a parallel line on the side of the wall your on that you want to breech for example instead of through it putting waypoint on other side. Doing it this way assures a gap blown wide enough to get a vehicle through, and also prevents your engineers from running through the gap to the other side potentially into a kill zone.
Now that's an interesting insight, coz the game rules instruct one to plot the blast path through whatever it is one wants a hole in. So if you plot a path along the wall, hedgerow, etc., they still blow that hole?? Gonna have to test this out!
-
16 hours ago, weapon2010 said:
one suggestion is to do a trial run in the same scenario against the ai , do a few tests, see how it turns out?, you don't like the results , dont do it , try another tactic, not a solution , but might alleviate some future pain
Except that in PBEM, one doesn't have the option of try n see. Otherwise in SP, for sure. I've certainly done some do-overs when just against the AI, but either way, that's really laborious compared to just having the system review the path when it's plotted
-
2 minutes ago, Freyberg said:
I don't agree with some of your other ideas, because I don't want to have to micromanage units, but this suggestion I like.
The thing about micro-manage features is, if done right, they can be ignored by those who don't want to use them
-
2 minutes ago, Freyberg said:
I don't agree with some of your other ideas, because I don't want to have to micromanage units, but this suggestion I like.
Actually, the Team have said they won't be implementing map damage across battles, nor the ability to import troops or maps (with damage) from a previous battle to a new one, as it would represent a kind of Campaign feature, and the game has a Campaign feature.
...but the Team also said they'd never do CM Fulda Gap, so who knows....
All comes down to how many are willing to pay for the upgrades, features, etc. After all, at the end of the day, it's a business.
-
8 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
@RMM the important thing is that as many people as possible should enjoy the game. If you like Camera 3 or 4 who am I to say you shouldn't? I feel I am a little bit of a cheat when I disable trees and view it from a bird's eye view. Oops there must be a bunker foxhole or trench. Happy gaming
Indeed
-
Trying to use some of the (Loading) Splash Screen mods from BfN, but apparently the file names must be different, because game is continuing to use the animated AFV model pics instead. Any one know what the file names are in FB? In BfN, they're 'force-specific background blue (or red)', but that's not translating to FB
-
15 minutes ago, chuckdyke said:
Camera position 5-9 to resemble military maps (topographic or roadmaps), function to plot move or for FO use commands without revealing eg bunker or pillbox dents in the terrain. Foxholes deemed to be camouflaged it will enable us to have proper standing patrols. Game integrity, example to make trees disappear. Camera 1 POV selected unit, Camera 2 POV Fighting compartment AFV. The use of Camera 3 and 4 I can't see the use of. If you occupy key terrain or hilltops your spotting ability will improve dramatically.
Well, I will say that I default to 3 all the time. For me, it gives a balance between height above the field while not being too far away, but I like the idea of POV's and military map overviews
Aris FB tank whitewash mods not activating?
in CM2 Scenario and Mod Tips
Posted
So, one can add more than one tag to file names?