Ssnake

The commander's HMG has powered traverse, but uses a hand crank to change elevation (use the arrow up/dn keys).

With version 4, only combatants' positions are reported and tracked in the map display - basically, for performance reasons. The unfortunate side effect is that you can't generate that white noise "easily" as you had in mind. You could have, however, a neutral Green party with only civilians in it, and a Purple party with hostile fighters disguising as civilians. Now, once sighted, they would be shown on the situation map and as such give away their positions.. However, you could put them and Bluefor units under highly restrictive fire control orders. Now, if you also make sure that where these hostile fighters are you also have lot of civilian noncombatants that might look entirely the same, and if you penalize the human player (heavily) for collateral damages among the civilian population, you would still force the human player to carefully observe a cluster of people before deciding which of them is actually the intended target, and use the minimum force to achieve the goal of neutralizing the threat, rather than dropping a 2000lb JDAM onto the marketplace because "nuking from orbit is the only way to be sure". It's not perfect. But it might be close enough to the effect you're after that you may want to give it a try.

That's how our squad medics work. They may not have the best chances to restore a casualty back into fighting condition, but even the worst ones have at least a single digit percentage chance and the best ones will revive 50% of all casualties, without the arrival of specialized medevac teams. So, in itself your observation does not necessarily show a bug. It's more likely that it is a feature, even if it isn't as well-known as maybe it should.

Or, maybe you just met Camouflage.

Hmmmm. I suspect "a glitch in the matrix"; if the soldier was already considered "dead" by some previous event but somehow he didn't receive the memo (a state machine update) so you could still control him though hotkeys etc., then he "couldn't get any deader" on subsequent checks (IOW, no change of status). If this could be reproduced, it would be a different matter.

Thank you, dear Google Overlords.

Western tanks are no miracle machines. But disputing that is refuting a claim that very few people (and certainly no experts) ever made. To make a true difference we'd have to send them in the hundreds, not by the dozen - along with a sufficient allocation of (primarily) HE rounds. We'd need to send 2.5 million 155mm rounds every year, minimum, and the means to cut the flow of supplies to Crimea. But that's the operational picture; these clips are always tactical incidents that get dispersed to the public to influence public perception of the war.

1980s M1s had about ten tons less mass than M1A2SEP as shown in this video. There is a penalty for lugging all that extra armor around.

We tried the generic approach so we don't lose ourselves in a myriad of nation-specific markings that would clutter up the GUI. I could imagine that in the future we'd first set a "configure party" dialog where you'd set camo schemes, affiliations, and possibly select things like specific artwork, and then you'd have a reduced selection when placing panels etc. But this would also mean that someone had to research, and then create such custom artwork for about two dozen different nations, minimum. That's not exactly a top priority for me, to be perfectly honest. But I appreciate the input.

You may be suffering from a bug that will be fixed by a patch later this year.

Yes, unfortunately mass editing assigned colors is a comfort function that we haven't found the time to work on yet. Then again, it's not about precision. Just moving all three slider closer to 255 while approximately maintaining the relative distance between them is enough; alternatively, use one alarmingly red or blue-ish color for the one or two swampy terrain types, but then you'll continue to have the eye squinting issue to some degree whenever they are sprinkled, and there's lots of contour lines around. Things will get better, pinky swear.

One option is to edit the map's terrain theme and to reduce the theme's color saturation except for difficult types of terrain; these, in turn, should be made darker overall. That should make it more obvious which parts of the map to avoid. You keep the mobility parameters, you just change the colors. In the Mission Editor, you extract the theme. In the Map Editor, you open the default (blank) map, save as a new delta, then load the extrated THM file. Edit that file, export it (and overwrite the original THM file), then close the Map Editor (no need to save that delta map). Now, back in the Mission Editor, go to Map > Replace Theme... and pick the just edited file. Badaboom, badabing.

A definitive "maybe". 😜 It's not entirely trivial. You need to consider a vehicle's power-to-mass ratio, traction, ground resistance, and slope angle (which is notoriously fickle to use, as there's going to be a high degree of variation at the triangle level, so we'd need to implement some low pass filtering; but if you build a moving average for every triangle, that would require massive CPU loads). Then, depending on rain in a scenario, ground conditions are variable, so we could make a terrain analysis only for the starting conditions. For the moment, I recommend editing your scenario with the "Theme Colors Enabled" option for the map display. That will give you a better insight to where difficult ground is that isn't difficult enough to be shown in the regular map.

Thank you for supporting our work.

Thanks for the correction; I was actually not quite sure if I remembered it right when writing my nonsense. If I had thought about it a bit longer it would have become obvious that the important fixes in gunnery training must have been done prior to the Six Day War.

Computer-owned units cannot be player-controlled, not even if you're in test mode. Computer-controlled is any unit not under the direct command of a human player. E.g. from the external observer's position, the unit would be in a hybrid state of being computer-controlled while the player gives no commands, but (partially) human-controlled while the user gives direct commands to this unit.

The important point here being that in prior skirmishes with the Syrian Army, the Israelis turned out to be terrible shooters. But General Tal recognized this, and took corrective measures to improve the overall training level - an investment that yielded immeasurable return during and after Yom Kippur 1973.

Even if it was (and I didn't perceive it that way), our egos aren't so frail that they couldn't handle criticism.

We've gone to great lengths to implement other command input options than the map screen - the command interface from the external observer's position, and the bird's eye view - to allow you to give commands while assessing the "ground truth" with a direct view to the combat situation. Note that the map screen deliberately omits details (no map is ever completely up-to-date), and updates the positions of units with a delay (the delay is generously short; that's marked for change).

Ah, sorry. Why don't they add distinguishing punctuation? Well, that was a rhetorical question.

Date modified 1954 and 1949 seems to set a new record... Either way, I think the way to resolve it is to first check the map UIDs of both maps and then see which of them is in actual use. We did create an internal tool to analyze which scenarios use which map; not sure at this point if it's included in any of your installations and if it works with the new map packages; I'll have to check with the guys, maybe they also have an idea whether these modification dates indicate some form of data corruption.

As long as areas are being added, at some point I'd simply delete old versions. Where a scenario requires a deleted one, you can replace it with the latest variant, at no loss whatsoever. It's not a winning stategy when areas are being changed for a specific multiplayer scenario. Some accumulation of redundant maps is probably unavoidable. This might emphasize the need to keep the meta data of every map up to date before publishing.

No, it's the one we announced as downloadable in the Version 4.3 release notes, but not everybody may have actually downloaded it, so I included the UID in the first post.

The map is available (UID bb104aa2-be76-4587-87ed-2c4cd3bca5a9), here's reading material for inspiration: https://issuu.com/chacr_camberley/docs/wip_-_bar_special?fr=xKAE9_zU1NQ

I guess this makes sense. Not everybody is adept using the search function. And at this point, it's also probably pretty solid what needs to be done and what should be avoided.