Elmar Bijlsma

Now you are just being silly!

AROUND the end of April. A significant difference, adding a bit more leeway to BFC.

Some amazing footage from Operation Manna on this anniversary. http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1460851/a28ea869/uit_het_archief.html Look at those Lancasters go. Amazing and quite emotional sight, even to this 34 year old Dutchman. Also kudos to the less divinely named Operation Chowhound, of course!

I fear it will be a while before we see the Brits. Even if the module doesn't require substantial coding of its own it will still be delayed by CMSF:NATO and Afghanistan patches and the undoubted CMBN patches. I hope we will see the pace of modules as it was once told to us, but it will not be any time soon. Though the extra codemonkey will no doubt help BFC pick up the pace.

If Battlefront were working on a trailer, they can stop now. Excellent.

Lucky you. That will be the second module. Yeah, but that is not how you phrased your original post. You had phrased the question specifically and then made wishes based on that which fell outside that specific framework. I merely sought to take away any confusion of what people could expect from a module.

Uh... those aren't even in the ballpark of what modules are intended to cover. Modules only cover closely related themes to the full game. What you are talking about are separate games.

I advice taking the blue pill on this. Trust me, better move on and pretend you did not see the glitch in the Matrix that is the Cesspool

Must... not... make... religious... joke. *edit* I'll let do it.

Anyone able to ID those "Shermans"? Anyway, and I repeat myself, it isn't in question if it could be done. It is very much in question how frequent and safe it was. And all the evidence points to it being a very risky proposition to fire one indoors. It is a generally acknowledged downside and the reason why these days similar weapons have a liquid or other substance incorporated in the device to dampen this effect. They would not have gone though the trouble if it wasn't an issue. Now there you have hit upon a valid point. How will the AI cope with the limitation? Though usually I would expect the AI to be on the defensive and 'faust users placed by the designer where they ought to be. But still, an issue worth considering. Personally, I still prefer realistic weapon behaviour over AI considerations.

That would be the British sector. Sorry if my "arguments" fell short but in replying to such a long post I don't go in to exhaustive detail. It was possible, yes, under some circumstances. But on the whole not common. BFC have a longstanding tradition not to model uncommon occurrences, because the player would make that uncommon behaviour the new norm. Again, never said they weren't used. They weren't used very much. Which if you look at a selection of period photos of German tanks, you will have to agree with. Not a lot of pintle mounted MGs to be seen. Again, the uncommon should not be the norm. Well, CCs and PayPal are the two common ways of payment on the internet. If you scoff at both then you are making it needlessly difficult for yourself. I would try PayPal if I was you.

Credit cards may be crazy common in the US, they are far less well established in Europe. Most people do not use a CC.

Hi, welcome to the forum. First off though, may I beg you to ease up on the formatting cacophony? It does your post no favours. On the inclusion of light AA guns, I kinda agree. They really ought to have been included if only in the ground role. Possibly it is an animation issue? THey would, I assume, require different animations then are currently being used. One can only hope that when BFC get round to doing them they will do them justice. Do disagree on the pintle mounted MG42. The Germans do not seem to have used them very much. So I don't mind their absence much. I expect British armour to not have them either. On the indoor use of man portable anti tank weapons, you are barking up the wrong tree. With the exception of the PIAT, it was BAD to use them indoor. And when I say bad, potentially fatal. Your modern Panzerfaust 3 you linked to is indeed modern and has design features to counter act these effects. But BFC are probably better of disallowing their use. Short of a full simulation dealing with rapidly expanding gasses there is no single accurate way to do it. On the video of the in use game, Tyrspawn himself make it very clear it was his fault, not the AI. He gave a poorly conceived order and it was faithfully executed by the AI with the expected results. Oh, and overpowered Sherman? You may want to back that statement up. We have had several lengthy discussions on its strengths and weaknesses. On the Tiger II: There weren't low numbers of them. There were NO King Tigers opposite the Americans at this time. They hardly saw Ye Olde Tiger I! BFC's chief motivation in including the Tiger I was to prevent a riot. I'm sure that with the appearance of the Brits, we will see the King Tiger. Modules: Look in to the CMSF modules for an idea what to expect in regards to price and amount of features. Currently the full game will included the fighting in the American sector. Brits, SS and various Paras will be for the 1st module. Forces for Market Garden in the second module, and odd bits of remaining equipment in a 3rd module. Sounds fair to me. DRM: That is a discussion that has come and gone. DRM is perceived, not unjustly imho, as necessary. BFC have chosen protection that won't be too much of a hassle so I am not worried on that score. Not every DRM is Starforce/SecuRom! There are other options then credit card payment. Have you tried PayPal?

*zing!* I would take a semi historical scenario to be based on a real action but altered for playability, balance or catering to a 'what if' without losing the realistic flavour entirely.

Can we just cut through the chase and throw this charming personality out? Might as well get it over with now.

If it was intended just for BFC to read and reply to, I suggest e-mail. Everything posted here is liable to draw comment. Imagine that.

Would be nice, I agree.

Also, HE is nerfed a little to counter the worst effects of the bunching up. PS Please remove images from quoted messages unless it is relevant to repeat it.

Not torpedo targeting specific, but the Grey Wolves mod is pretty much It for SH3. Never could get much result from using the TDC manually. Took ages to get readings on ships and even then the margin for error was huge. On targets closing quick, already nearby or worse zigzagging it was next to useless. I stopped using the manual TDC data collection and just went to the map to fiddle with TDC settings till I could get a intersect that looked about right, or straight up seat of the pants firing through the scope. Since I like to get close anyway, 1500m or less, that works out fine.

This device shows you why the Germans lost the war. They were fiddling about with a kampfraumheizung device to warm themselves while the Brits worked on the WASP, also a device to warm up Germans.

I wonder if there really is a good case for the *ping* to be included? Sure, great if you are looking over the shoulder of the guy firing a Garand. But not so much when the recipient a few hundred gets treated to the same sound. It is the same with how many soundmods included the brass and bolt sounds for sniper rifles, which anyone more then a few metres would never realistically hear anyway. PS I would warn against the accuracy of the two anecdotes involving the *ping*. One involves Germans popping out of cover and killing the shooter upon hearing the *ping*, the other tells of the clipper strip being thrown against a rock to fake a *ping* for the aforementioned popping out of cover to be killed by a still fully loaded Garand. Both interesting notions but wildly unrealistic to do on a battlefield.

The more distinctive a voice or the line the more grating it becomes. "Kraut bastards are trying to outflank us" might sound cool the first few dozen times, after that it'll get old. A bit more neutral voice gives more mileage, imho. Best is of course something that can be both cool and neutral. CMAK (and CMBO?) Brits had a few good lines that way. "Would/will you look at that" and "look at him burn" (you could hear the smirk in that one) really hit the mark with me.

That too is incorrect. Or rather, only half correct. The crude spotting is from action spot to action spot at first to save CPU cycles, but does get resolved to 1:1 if the action spot check gives the thumbs up.

I think you'll find Other Means has been around longer then 2007. His alleged join date is an oddity from when this forum got moved.

Very Freudian.