sand digger

Targeting the hedge and not the ground in front of it would be more realistic, assuming the hedge can be seen. If for example the enemy is entrenched immediately behind a hedge the game as it stands ensures that you have a big problem, to get at them without saturating the area with your heavy artillery usually requires a flanking manouver. Which is challenging fun to do if you like extreme micro management, something this game enables you to do very nicely. So I guess it is a problem in one way, depends how you want to look at it I suppose.

I've had several situations like this, basically what seems to happen is that the shot either just clears the intervening terrain or it does not eg one shot will clear, the next one fails to do so. I'm assuming that the correct arcing path of the shot has been modelled although it is difficult to tell if this is so.

Yeh something needs to be done, perhaps it is being done right now because the printable manual has disappeared. The paper manual that comes with the game is unnecessarily difficult to read, pity because it was a good move to have such a manual in the first place so a A+ for effort.

This game feels a lot more realistic than CMx1, it feels like you are actually involved in something that is real, particularly where infantry are involved. That does not necessarily translate into the OP's 'fun' though, perhaps realism negates fun to some degree, particularly when it involves more work than it should. The one thing carried over from x1 is the virtual impossibility of ascertaining at a glance the lie of the land which makes tedious work of setup and planning. I can look out the front windows of my house at real hills and undulations and easily see such detail, if that can't be done in a game then include artificial aids to provide such information. Of all the things to carry over

Waiting for sensible comments.

Moving on from the armour accuracy threads, Marders do seem to be just a bit too vulnerable, its understood that they are thinly armoured but it does not follow from that that every hit on one is a kill. Their hull down profile is not particularly bulky and besides, any hit above the gun is basically only going through a shield and not going to rattle around inside like in a tank. Being open means that the crew should be able to spot much better than in a tank so realistically, all things being equal, the Marder should get the first shot off. Also they would be less claustrophobic to fight in than a tank which should have implications for crew morale. Most of the stuff I have read here, unfairly in my opinion, concentrates on the Marder's disadvantages. Anyone for a fan club? Great game though, Mr Fussy says buy it

Now that CMBN has been released all attention swings to the greatest seabourne landing of all time. But I would just like to thank all those involved with TOW2 for their obvious talent in developing what could have been a truly great game but was still despite its few crucial faults a brilliant game which I enjoyed lots. If its any consolation, TOW2 is still way in advance of CM in several important aspects. Thanks again

Yeh where are the bodies, they should be there simply as an indicator. PC'ism has reared its ugly head?

The whole terrain and land reality thing is a pain, no better than CMx1. You look at some of the scenarios and it all looks so artificial, like WTF is this supposed to represent? Once the gameplay starts then reality does kick in but trying to work out a defense during setup is a nightmare ground wise.

For many years I have avoided this strange string of threads, mainly because mental health is important to me. But curiosity being what it is, may I ask from what sanctuary for the disturbed does this crap come from?

See what you are getting at, bocage has dominated the game a bit too much, it's tedious so the game becomes tedious.

What you get in real life is a lot more visual information than you will get in any game, that should be obvious. So to compensate aids like a workable LOS system are essential to at least make up for reality loss to some degree. Makes me wonder when basic knowledge like that has to be explained.

No time for gay gimmicks like 'baddy aids', there is shootin and fighten to be done.

Another seeker of contour lines here, they would help work out avenues of approach for a start. Bit surprised they or an equivalent are not standard.

Lacking anything else I suppose cumulative track damage is better than nothing but crew experience/quality would be relevant to all aspects of a tank's performance and so would be a lot more realistic. A simple demonstration of that would be German ace crews who, for various reasons, were able to gain experience over time and so improve their performance which would include looking after their vehicle.

Nice example NCOIC of driver experience being very relevant.

Does driver experience come into any of this? It's as relevant to mobility as anything else and more relevant than most. Anyway if a player can visually tell in advance what is passable and what is not then no problem.

Throwing a track would more likely be related to driver experience and vehicle speed in relation to the terrain than anything else. Like most mobility failures it would not be cumulative, either the vehicle would have effective mobility or it would not.

Any cumulative physical track damage would be unrealistic so I hope that is not a feature. Tracks usually will break or not at the time of the incident, they could crack I suppose and then break later but basically cumulative physical damage does not usually happen in the real world. Other than the usual wear and tear of course.

So, where is this thing happening, seven pages...........

It seem to be that the Steam lot have all the problems, there have been heaps of discussions about the BF version here covering all sorts of issues both real and imagined together with their fixes. As a search would reveal. Putting up a heading in BF's forum saying essentially that the game is unplayable is simply irresponsible, to say the least.

No response to my morale query I see, perhaps gushing with enthusiasm is more welcome but I'm not here to make 'friends'. Or 'enemies' for that matter, just interested in the game play. So it looks like we are going to be stuck with some sort of robot morale impediment, I sometimes think that developers can't help exercising control over things simply because they can. Not because it adds to realistic gameplay.

The only interest I would have in birds is, can they be shot. Although the sound of flies around corpses as B56 says would be a nice touch. Otherwise what is this, some sort of nature reserve?

Reading the thread heading it looks like a complaint against the BF version, which is a bit misleading.

On morale and casualties, it can work both ways. Usually local casualties ie those within an individuals vicinity, induced caution at least but sometimes they created anger due to the loss of mates and a determination to avenge that loss. Its using a very broad brush to say that casualties always reduced morale and therefore effectiveness. Also unless there is an awareness of casualties then they can have no effect on morale or anything else, thats relevant to any concept of global loss of morale. Separate groups may well have no such immediate knowledge. Basically what I'm getting at is in war anything can happen and particularly individuals and groups can react differently to each other in similar situations. I just hope this is reflected in the game but that seems in question.