A co

To quote Womble: "And the interior is also modelled geometrically so that a penetration damages the things that would actually get in its way given the angle of impact and any deviation caused by the act of breaching the armour. " If this is the case then it is new since CMRT, no? That would be good news. Anyway, to the original poster's question, all of Battlefront's games are made with maximum effort toward research, detail and realism, IMHO.

That would be nice. The idea was to an Italy module going to the end of the war? Or am I remembering wrong?

Also you can not assume that the enemy vehicle spotted your BA-64 from a distance and intentionally drove up to it to shoot it. The AI doesn't have the ability to 'stalk' its targets like that. Probably it made its move for its own rigid AI reasons, and spotted the BA-64 only when it got close. That said, I don't blame you for being surprised and frustrated at the situation. For my part, I just accept these unfortunate incidents as gaps in the alertness, judgement, and reporting by my troops. After all, in the real world they'd have to see a contact well enough to make sure it wasn't friendly anyway, before engaging it, and we don't usually complain about the lack of that limitation in the game, or about the absence of ground to ground friendly fire incidents. The consolation is that the enemy suffers as much from fog of war as you do.

Ah, I didn't know that. I thought those titles were just there for organizational flavor.

Next to the category of 'gamey' is the category of 'looks ridiculous'. And the main example of that is driving your forces in single file up the edge of the map, as I've seen a newbie opponent do once. As it turned out, his men were trapped against the edge and he suffered a disaster, so that 'gamey' move wasn't necessarily an unfair advantage for him. But it made the battle look extremely silly.

As I understand it, the game itself doesn't account for differences in historical training levels or effectiveness of certain nations. The factors are experience level, the plus or minus modifiers, and maybe the modifiers of leaders when in command of the shooter. These can all be adjusted by the scenario designer of course. The game probably does account for differences in the rifles of each nation, and the scoped Nagan has a pretty good reputation I think. Making all snipers green if you think things are out of whack seems like a good solution; that's the scenario designer's prerogative. Of course choosing the 'typical' quality setting when buying troops would essentially allow the game engine to determine quality based on nation and date.

I guess I will have to finish making a scenario one day, and put in some of those depleted units.

Considering the long and grueling nature of the Italian campaign, I'm wondering how often units would actually start an engagement with a %100 headcount. My impression is that scenario designers rather rarely start you off with anything less than %100, at least at the platoon and company level. But wouldn't units normally be at some fraction of their TO&E strength, unless it was the very start of a well-prepared operation?

My friend gave me a couple of my CM games, and as I recall once you have the download code sent to you it is as if you 'own' the game, no difference to one you paid for yourself. And yes, he paid for his own as well. Great gift idea- what other gift returns so much fun and challenge for so many years?

Thanks for all the work you do on this!

I have a vague memory of suppression effects being adjusted in some of the lists of changes in a patch in recent years. Can't remember if it was being increased or decreased now, but it seems BFC has paid attention to the effects. The game might be a lot less playable if the pixeltruppen were more reluctant to raise their heads, shoot, and move, when being shot at.

I have seen them fire at aircraft as they should. They can only target the planes when they are actually attacking, though. They don't fire at the sound of planes in the turns prior to the attack, when I guess they are considered to be out of range. Smoke, suppression, or intervening terrain features can prevent them from firing.

Probably the best you can do is purchase the air assets as Crack quality, but even then there's no guarantee about which side they'll attack, or how accurate the ordnance will be. Air introduces a very unpredictable element into a battle, and the lack of control frustrates many players, I think it's fair to say. But best of luck with the scenario.

Footage labeled as JU-87 G shooting at tanks. Doesn't disprove or prove any argument, except that it was possible to get multiple hits on a tank in one run. The 'unknown tank' in the video is likely a Valentine.

RedBarron, You might be interested in this video of a CH-53E lifting, and losing, a Chinook-

Seeing the tree getting mowed down looked new to me, even if it's not; guess I'm only used to seeing really big HE eliminate trees in one go. Can we see an image of the MTLB on the field, either before or after its destruction?

It only takes half a minute to copy your existing game set up into a new folder, so why not do it just in case? Both of my game versions use the same incoming and outgoing email folders, etc, so no need to make a duplicate of those. I just remember which version to use when opening files from games I started in 1.01. The 1.02 patch notes on the website here list several changes, no? http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=337&Itemid=581

Sublime, are you running version 1.01? I assume so, because I'm using my version 1.01 to run our Angriff battle. (And a hot one it is!) I also have a version 1.02 on my computer, and I'm wondering if it's going to run into that bug.

I've got an opponent now. Thanks, all who replied.

I downloaded it. Looks good from the short description- clash of opposing recon elements, medium sized. If anyone wants to play this battle with me,either side, send me a PM. And no I don't mind waiting 'till after Thanksgiving.

I never really grasped the concept that Soviet infantry is supposed to function differently in the game, compared to other nations, in terms of command and control. I just split up the platoon commander's squad and treat his team as a normal platoon HQ unit. (I usually split up my squads into teams anyway, because I can't stand to see them bunched up.) It's true that employing your company commander as a platoon commander is usually more risky for him. It depends of course on what you need to accomplish. If he has better artillery privileges than his subordinates, I would keep him safe.

I think you will need to have the company commander take them over, if he's not needed more elsewhere.

As far as accuracy is concerned, aren't big-bore, long guns like the 85mm more accurate at long range, generally, than smaller shorter guns like the Pz IV's?

What people should really feel guilty about is living in total ignorance of history and of how things work in the world outside of their own experience. (They are surrounded by 'unknown unknowns'). Wargaming is, for most of us I think, a big and very salutary stimulus to learning about history. It could even lead to learning about social, economic, geographic, linguistic, technological history, and God knows what else. It's reasonable to ask oneself occasionally, "Am I ignoring the actual horror of these battles that are depicted on my computer screen?" But really I would rather be in our position as wargamers than in the position of those who turn their back on history. And why does it fascinate us? Perhaps because once we stopped living by hunting we've been re-enacting various version of the hunt ever since.

Ah, now I've got it working. I was not aware that the code in the e-mail for the download is not always the same as the code given with the purchase record in 'my account' in the BFC store for the same item. To paraphrase Dante, "Do not abandon hope, all ye who enter here!"