Elmar Bijlsma

The whole Box/Book thing probably just stems from us being used to getting our software in boxes (or cases) not books. BFC's one referencing to it as a Steel Box is not what led us astray, it was just them falling in the same trap we did. Bit of a non issue anyway. Ah, a manual printed on steel/aluminium pages. That would rock. Anyway, I think that BFC should team up with GHQs 1:285 line of tanks. They ought to be able to strike a very good deal for one piece of armour cheap, with a GHQ leaflet included. Wargamers are in their heart still the type to push miniature tanks across the carpet going *POW* *BLAMMO* And if they vary the type of vehicle included, they might create some forum buzz. "You got a Sherman? I found a King Tiger in my case, bitches!"

To be fair, the game is missing the USMC entirely. But nah, I don't see a future for dragging the wounded. The medic aid as implemented now is a fun, simple touch. Doing anything more involved would be a distinct negative to me and won't add to the subject at hand.

O o p s ! Double post

Except for the various pyrotechnics and the like I think the game looks fine. There is always going to be limits to what a small outfit can do and the scale of the game and the toolkit nature of it limit the graphics further. Sure a big AAA title RTS or FPS that limits the unit sizes and puts them on much smaller hand crafted maps looks better. But that would be unfair expectations to have of BFC and CM.

Hehe, yeah. Kudos to Steve for putting up with us. I certainly wouldn't.

In the interface if the "Deploy" button is sorta greyed out it is deployed, deploying or will deploy when reaching the end of the set of orders it has. If it is (un)deploying, the unit status on the left just above the interface bar will show the relevant soldier status as "(un)deploying". Also, the MG unit card will have a big fat NOT DEPLOYED or PARTIALLY DEPLOYED (I really ought to look up that last) printed across it if that is the status. And there is of course the eyeballing of the unit itself. Is the MG on a tripod? You aren't the first by any means to have trouble with this but (and please don't take this unkindly) I am forever puzzled how it can be so, given the plethora of cues given to the player. One of those things, I guess.

With the OP starting out like that I wasn't going to get my ire on out of sheer contrariness. And you know, he has a few valid points. The padded envelope wasn't the best of protection for the Steel box so it does suck if it's broken on you. And no, despite the video it wasn't as steely as I had imagined either. And the manual, I can read it just fine but I can fathom your complaint on that point too. In fact, I was getting all sympathetic. The thing about having a valid point or two is to not overplay your hand, which is what you did right there.

Balls in your court on that score. Though I'm guessing the UK, you failed to follow your own suggestion. Bit of bad luck though. Hope you get it soon! And without getting nailed by customs.

I did not exactly get a bent out of shape vibe from anyone, except maybe Steve who started to fray at the edge a little towards the end there. But nothing more then a little snark, which I cannot object to overly much, it being my primary mode of communication. For all the panache you were probably the rudest fecker in the thread.

The door to the Peng thread is not locked. The instruction booklet thrown inside that explains how to open the door does contain long words though.

No, I just thought it was a stylish yet unhelpful and insulting comment the responding to which would not improve the thread much. Besides, any response quoting you would rob you of a chance to undo the two spelling errors you made in your attempt at high-minded wit.

Because you seemed to be arguing something different from what WoD and I were pointing out. I, and I reckon WoD, have no problems with how it currently is. We don't require area fire made easier or have problems with relative spotting. Not advocating for any change in how it works, I am absolutely fine with how the whole thing works. I was merely pointing out that us area firing SOBs aren't any more gamey then those guys that do not. Or at least that we are more consistent in where we draw the gamey line.

Very little, except that there are a subset of players who object to area fire on an unknown threat, but think nothing of tip-toe-ing around said unknown threat. I am not objecting to either of those in game behaviours, whatever floats your boat. I am objecting to one response (area fire) getting the Grognard Stamp of Disapproval, yet much the same thing is apparently fine and dandy tactics according those same people. Just pointing out that logically they have very little ground to stand on.

Okay. Now we are arguing properly, instead of reading what is not written or taking fancily worded cheapshots. Instead of ordering a tank to stop, I order my tank to go around the field and take out the unseen ATG from behind. Gamey? I assume so, because now we are talking detailed instructions to cope with the unknowable again. Because the one is a needed fudge allowing gamey to also allow realism, while the implementation of instamt artillery is 100% gamey.

At the risk of inviting high levels of snark, I totally get Wrath of Dagon's point. There really isn't all that much logical distinction between area firing an unseen ATG and stopping a tank in response to that ATG. Both are counter measures to a hidden threat the tank knows nothing about. I do not see the distinction either. To say one thing is gamey and the other is perfectly fine is inconsistent. Yet people are lining up round the block to call the one naughty and the other sound tactics. Nowhere does WoD indicate that he doesn't get the split between realism in gameplay or that he should be particularly accommodated in his (and mine) more relaxed attitude to area fire. Just that creating artifical extra hoops is not really the way forward. Seems to me he is just pointing out the people that are not area firing on unseen targets, bless their little hearts, aren't on the Grognard highground that they think they are.

It is a well known fact that zooks and shrecks are too accurate and deadly when they are being used against you. And not accurate and deadly enough when you are using them. Funny, that. *edit* Maybe next time I will just read the thread all the way down to see if Chainsaw beat me to it.

Why not? In the end it is one set of white boys versus another set of white boys. This ain't Syrians v NATO. Sure, ideally they should use different faces or the same faces but with different file names to let modders like your esteemed self do their thing. But it strikes me as a bit of a non-issue.

Deliberate. The captcha to keep out bots, the difficult captchas to keep out the riff-raff.

Severely disliked this one. Disliked it from the start and was proven absofeckinglutely right by what unfolded. The setup zone lacks elbow room. Why in the name of all that is holy does it not extend all the way to the back?! That way I do not have to crowd my support in to the very few decent spots within setup. It was largely due to this I kissed goodbye to a substantial part of my mortar support who got nailed while still conducting their opening barrage. They could've done that from further back, except the game would not let me. That and a rather substantial part of my fire support going astray. As luck would have it the mortars that got nailed were the only on board mortars actually hitting their assigned targets. That was enough for me to ceasefire. Looked at the next campaign scenario and, not being put in a good frame of mind by aforementioned, quit in dismay at the sea of units I had to control next. I LIKE hard scenarios. But I loathe with a passion such insufferably lame design limits. What was the rational for limiting the setup zone to such an exposed area? There was perfectly usable terrain right behind the setup zone. Why? Had I not wanted the pre planned barrage (promptly reminding me that these are currently humbugged) I would have run most of my mortars to the back anyway. It was such a glaringly exposed position that I did not want to be there before a single round dropped. But the cover afforded was meagre, so I had to. Maybe I'll try this campaign again someday. Post patch maybe so I can at least get decent use out of my mortars before they get smacked in such a bullcrap way as not being able to set up somewhere at the back.

Not really. There are many, many accounts of unseen shooters, from small arms to rather large cannons getting off multiple shots without revealing their position.

Ah,you probably were getting the IP of your router, not your connection to the net. There are various ways to look it up. Easiest way is to just google "my IP" and you'll get a site that will tell you yours. And welcome to the forum.

Stunningly simple, stunningly useful.

I am somewhat bemused BFC haven't just included a Z folder from the start. Takes no room at all and since has been the cause of more then a little confusion they might as well.

There's the Point du Hoc one, though technically not beach. A bit too vertical.

You can test the water (hah!) by selecting the unit you had in mind and hovering the mouse cursor over the intervening terrain.