LemoN

Oh, trust me, after taking a break from CM:BN for more than 6 months and coming back, seeing that there is still no patch to fix the game (but instead some yummy DLC that doesn't change much) and then trying to play some proper battles, just to see that the TacAI is too horrible to even make me believe I play a proper wargame, I realised that there's only one thing CM:BN is good for. Mindless QB's slaughtering AI once in a while. I'll leave you on your high horse of arrogance concerning your historical accuracy for the moment, that is indeed very high, the thing that isn't is the realism. Tell me, how can a game claim to be realistic if it has casualty rates that far exceed reality and things like rambo tank crews that put even Delta Force to shame and blind and deaf soldiers that will ignore enemy soldiers right in front of them? How can you claim to be "unrivalled" in realism if you don't even have hand to hand combat and instead have to watch soldiers how they shoot at eachother with SMG's at point blank range... just to miss most shots? How can you claim that your game is realistic when you have the possibly worst implementation of CQC I've ever seen in a game that claims to be a sim? Tanks that magically take damage to their subsystems? Entire battles being lost because there's a single broken chickenfarmer hidden somewhere in an objective, while an entire army passes by outside the window? Soldiers running into a house in a straight line one after eachother, no grenade throwing, no clearing, etc? I'll tell you one thing, your competitors may be lacking in some areas (mainly multiplayer) but they sure as hell are doing a LOT of things far better than you. Also, I don't give a toss about graphics and and eyecandy. Also, "wanting you gone" isn't correct, but seeing how arrogant and obnoxious of reality you are I'm not going to shed a tear when you're gone. That's a difference, as I still have hope you'll get off your high horse and actually realise that you neither have the products of ~2000, nor the competitors.

Thank god there IS an alternative now, a far superior actually. Namely Graviteam. Which is why I won't shed a tear when BFC dies.

In short, horrible coding and optimisation on a bad engine.

Actually making the game use more than one core would certainly help. ATM the entire game seems to be bottlenecking the one CPU core it runs on, in the process having the same horrible performance with octocores with extremely powerful gfx cards... just as with an outdated weaksauce dualcore. I know that this is a huge task, but it's pretty much the only solution to the problem.

All of them are elites with +2 command.

I was playing Germans and it was just a random QB against the AI, so nothing of value was lost.

The three amazing feats of CM:BN. 1. Hand to Hand combat. 2. Amazing spotting and cqb fighting capabilities of soldiers. 3. The AI always knows what weapon is best for the job at hand.

Of course there are loads of counter examples, that's what you get when you have a buggy and barely working spotting system. I've had a tiger roll in front of a line of foxholes just 25m away, it fired at the units there (roughly a platoon and two 57mm's), the smoke from the explosion then hid the tiger (just 25m away) for three turns for all ground units while the tiger was happily blasting away at said units. And no, it wasn't area fire. I've had tanks spot infantry in ambush positions in a light forest with maximum trees at 100m+ while the entire LOS was blocked by tree stumps when zooming in ( it was nearly as dense as dense forest with maximum trees) at least 10 times in a single game, I've had ATG's in ambush position at the edge of a forest being spotted and killed with two shots each by buttoned up Stug 3's at 1500m without me being able to even react (WEGO, and I didn't even move them after setting up, and they were on hide), etc. There are many odd things happening in the game, sometimes you have tanks and infantry being damn near invisible while happily firing away from an exposed position, sometimes you have units light up like beacons in the most extreme cover and camouflage imaginable. But for me (and many others by the looks of it) there is a problem hidden between those, namely tanks being able to spot too well in certain circumstances (it seems like spotting is mostly fine on more open maps) and infantry often being on LSD while they're supposed to be spotting.

I'd love to be able to purchase special camouflage for units, especially AT guns and tanks. One thing I'd also love to see is slit trenches and gun pits. ATM units in trenches seem to take massive casualties when under artillery fire, which is OK considering how damn wide and shallow the trenches in the game are. I'd like to see slit trenches that are very narrow and deeper than the ones in the game. I disagree with this. "Defender" may refer to virtually any type of scenario, from positions prepared for weeks or even months before the actual battle, to units being desperately thrown gaps the path of an enemy advance to plug holes in the front. Giving all defending units some kind of camouflage bonus is just as unrealistic as giving none a camouflage bonus.

You have to differentiate of course. Having remote control spacelobsters is a different thing than having basic functionality like armour arcs.

You mean cranking out a paid DLC instead of fixing large problems with the game and adding/removing things that should/shouldn't be there? What any sensible developer would do: 1. After launch, ask the community if there are any perceived problems or missing things. 2. If easy, tweak/implement and patch into the game, if not, move on. 3. Release Expansion that adds functionality that is not patchworthy. 3. ??? 4. Profit! Instead BFC seems to do this: 1. Release game that's barely working (CM:SF). 2. Tell the community that you'll implement improvements later. 3. Release DLC's en masse that don't add crucial functionality. 4. Release another game that has some of the improvements that should've been patched into the first game, still with many barely working things. (CM:BN) 5. Tell the community that you'll implement improvements later. 3. Release DLC's en masse that don't add crucial functionality. 7. Release another game that has some of the improvements that should've been patched into the second game, still with many barely working things. (Bulge) 8. Etc.

It really depends on the brass quality and the pressures involved on that particular load and the measurements of the chamber. I've reused some 8x75 brass up to 12 times before I started to get case ruptures in the odd 1-2, at which point I dumped the rest of that brass load. I've also seen .303 rupture after 1-2 reloads due to the chamber measurements and the fact that it's rimmed, even though I didn't even fully resize them. Given the fact that the 8x33 has lower pressures than your regular full sized rifle round you should, with careful low pressure loads, get at least 8 or so reloads out of the brass. Also, don't reload .303, it just ends in frustration if your rifle happens to have a slightly too large chamber (something which is very common with Enfields)

1.Buy 300 rounds 2.Reload them 5-10 times each 3.???? 4.Profit!

Honestly, I've got no idea, but at least you guys can actually get them in full auto!

Meh, looks rather cheap tbh. If you want the ultimate reproductions there's only really one company to go with. Their FG-42 even has the original Closed-bolt semi automatic and open bolt fully automatic system! http://hza-kulmbach.de/index.php?lang=en http://hza-kulmbach.de/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=46&Itemid=61〈=en Stuff they produce according to original plans: MP-38 MP-3008 FG-42/I FG-42/II K-43 MKb-42 (H) MP-43 I MP-44 VG1-5 PS: 7.57x33 Kurst, never heard such a funny mix of 7.92x57, 8x33 and a mangled Kurz.