Elmar Bijlsma

Normandy>Commonwealth>Arnhem>Odds and ends, IIRC.

Ah, but why did Shermans get that reputation? Because they used petrol engines? So did the Germans and they don't get this trait. Oh hell, not even the Panther got the "burns easily" and they caught fire without anyone shooting at it! Besides, these are tanks loaded to the brim with explosives and the fuel, in the safest area of the tank, is supposed to be that big a factor? Hmmm, that doesn't seem likely. I'm of the strong belief that there wasn't all that much in the design of the Sherman that made it catch fire any easier then other tanks. IMO it's a case of fairly weak armour meeting up with the potent guns of the Germans. Even the 75L48 is a pretty bad ass gun. Germans typically had better armour going up against weak Allied guns. So no wonder that they enjoyed a better reputation. But the moment German tanks got shot at with decent guns, they went *woosh* too. Shermans brewing up should be the natural result of armour v gun, not some magical +2 bonus to catching fire.

Yup, they were used in Normandy, though it's unknown to me if the direct fire usage had taken off at this time. Since the Germans always manage to get their hands on their exotics (Wirbel and Ostwind etc) it's about time the Allies get some loving in this area. I'd like that M12 more then twelve flavours of M4. Scrap 3 M4s and get us the M12! Mathematics tell me this is how it works.

IIRC correctly barrel wear and tungsten shortages were a real problem leading to the demise of the ATR in the Wehrmacht.

Hehehe. I wonder if the "burns easily" trait returns. I always felt it was bogus. Great to see the .50 in the AA mount modelled. But will be interesting what usage we'll get from them. I see the M7 Priest but it's a real pity the M12 GMC is juuuust off screen. Right? Right?!

Ah, yes, that comms by Moon three months ago. Moon, unlike Steve, is almost the German octopus. Not due to any predictive skills but he is German after all and here observed as lamenting the lack of extra appendages. I understand you guys must be really, really busy at BFC. But it's time you guys made us bigots. The information flow is a bit.... glacial.

There was the early 2009 thread containing the now infamous: Conclusively proving that Steve is in fact not a German octopus. Me? I would be happy to have the frigging title announced before year's end. :eek:

The patch has been ready to be released for days. They are just mindfecking you at this stage. What did you think was going on?

Please do look at Command Lines. Not only did they display important information right where I am looking the most, it was a good visual indicator of units belonging together. Yes, yes, you can double click to get the game to select the same units in a platoon too, but it's not the same. Somehow the clicking on the HQ and seeing lines go to its squads tied them together. Dunno why that is more pleasing then mere highlighting, Jedi mindtrick possibly, but I do like them lines for their direct intuitive visual cues.

Uhm... read again? NOT what Erwin was saying at all. I thought this was all rather reasonable until you showed up to have a rant.

Steve in post #20 just above.

KETF do not appear to be working correctly. It sems to me they function as HE rounds.

The arty/air information is indeed too meagre, as has been discussed a couple of times. No disagreement from me there. As for multi core support: I get why they've held off. There just doesn't seem to be too big a pay off. I've got a few games that have it or had it patched in and it's not having that much of an effect. The overhead on juggling that data from one core to the next seems to be large enough to undo most potential gains. So while I would like to have it at some stage I don't think there will be enough of a boost to make it worth BFCs efforts, for now. Too many other things to code that are more beneficial to the experience. Except for draw distance being at times underwhelming, it runs just fine on my rig in any case.

Ah! But I've grown so used to asking for it that at this point I'm not sure you guys implementing that feature would actually stop me from asking for it. And besides, who am I kidding? It would just be shockwaves next. And you might say the latter gives you no upside for giving in to my frequent harassments, but you'd be trading up. Shockwave pestering is proper vintage!

Well, I'm glad people decided to wear their Underpants of +2 Maturity. Makes for a much better thread. On that note, I hope tracer bouncing off terrain will NEVER happen, because it will make the entire game crap and make kittens lose their cuteness. If it is at some point included in Normandy I will NEVER PLAY THIS STUPID SERIES EVER AGAIN!!!!! *sits back and waits for the results of this cunning use of reverse psychology*

Bigger then the difference between England and that subsidiary, Scotland.

meade95, with all due respect, but all that over naming the bottom level units in a scenario editor? By all means go apesith over the QBs or somefink. But this seems a bit of an overreaction. Not that I don't agree that it is a bit weird that this feature apparently got taken away. Don't use it or particularly care, but I disapprove on principle. Steve, if implementing the renaming of units is a low priority, then why was taking that option away from them high priority? To the untrained eye it is completely baffling. Why do you care that Lt.Winters is going to be in every second scenario in CM:N? Care enough to prevent it, no less. It apparently wasn't causing issues. This cannot possibly be what it it looks like.

That's the MG3 firing.

What, no Shilka yet? Seeing it spray a target with 23mm is just the most amazing thing. Especially vehicles, where rounds bounce off in every direction. On the other end of the scale: The CV9035 is a colossal disappointment. It's spotting suite isn't as spectacular as I'm led to believe the genuine thing is. Don't think the passengers are using the available optics at all. The KETF ammo is seemingly not actually KETF, and will be fired in to every light armour that comes along. Its one saving grace is that its protection seems better then what the UI shows it to be.

Tried the various possibilities of getting to this forum (each in a new browser session) and I always arrive logged in and remain so. Weird that others are not.

But it doesn't happen to me. It may happen to you (and others) only here, but that doesn't make it inherent to this forum. The interesting thing is thus: Why you and not me? What link are you using to get here? I'm getting here via: http://www.battlefront.com/community/index.php

Well... it's not something inherent to the forum. Working A-OK for me, always has. And the forum login and the store/website login has always been two different things. Good thing too, froom a security point of view.

Celine Dion is a WMD. Who wouldn't give up the fight when the Canucks threaten to play her music at you? The Dutch auto-win to the tune of Be sure to watch the accompanying Wallace and Gromit clip, as it is rather good

Hi and welcome to the forum! What save game are you looking for? The one to send to your opponent during a PBEM should be in "Outgoing e-mail" folder.

Yeah, I thought of that too. But in the span of a tactical engagement, it has the potential to be a bit too gamey. Too make Intel rewards credible you'd have to all kinds of delays and condirtions. More effort then it is worth, imho. Good to hear something is being improved. The sight of a string of prisoners heading to a rear area always was more satisfying to me then the scoring gained from them. Having them go *!* just doesn't cut it.