Elmar Bijlsma

Whether or not fire is hard to program does not affect my expectation to see a vehicle that was at the forefront of every major advance.

The vehicle is almost certainly a Loyd Carrier. You can tell by how far the tracks stick out past the glacis and the two thingies pointing down towards the suspension. The tracks being higher at the front is another clue. If the turret of a Sherman was behind the tree it would be too far to the rear (and as Mord mentions, too small).

I'm hardly claiming the sky is falling. But when I read the following then yeah, I could think of a few things. I think most are pretty notable omissions, and one hopes they make it in. Well, apart from the Crusader AA which is merely my favourite wishlist item. And no, 3" Mortar=/=81mm. And if the Priest ain't on the list because it is already in the base game, I see a few other items that could be struck from the list. More then a few Shermans for starters.

No Croc, no AVRE, no 3" mortar, no 25pdr*, neither Priest or resulting Kangaroo, no Daimler Dingo, and no Crusader AA**. *But the cannon catergory says AT/Howitzers: despite having only AT guns in it, so there is hope **Yes, I had to mention that one. At least the vastly rarer Wirbel and Ostwind aren't in either, so that is okay.

Oooooh, there's a subject I will come out of exile for. Yeah, this is a known problem. I myself never managed to get past it. I take it you are using the latest greatest version? Reported fixed so often that with latest patches I could not be arsed to check if this time it was actually true.

But then you also have to squeeze it in to the UI some place, one that is already quite crowded. And I doubt there are many situations where a specific command combo would be of use given the complexity of the environment. It will always require tailoring to the exact needs of the situation. Take my own favourite "hunt+cover armour arc" combo. I would forever be adjusting the arc to cover the area I expect trouble from, not some default scheme. And then there is of course the always scarce coding time being used. Yeah, I know, that one is getting old. But it is a real concern nonetheless. I don't think BFC could justify spending much time to allow for a fairly specialized and narrow feature.

Both sides? There's just one side that has engaged in disruptive behaviour Steve and it would've been nice had you rounded on them, not me once again. I would rather be tossed off the forum then just take the unwarranted and stifling negativity without comment.

God forbid we talk about issues we feel that impact gameplay. No, this thread is so much better for having you call us whiners. That really helps things along. For my part, I wanted to give my €0.02 but refrained from doing it in the previous thread because it was such a counter-productive atmosphere. Thomm, I hope they don't go the route of specific commands. The flexibility of the CM system is briliant, imo. Some pretty clever stuff can be done by combining several order types to get great results and specific behaviour.

UI elements like, oh, let us pick something totally at random... cover armour arcs? Hunt+Cover Armour Arc was pretty much the only way I moved AFVs around previously

But GaJ rather odd response was not the only one that appeared negative in tone. Sublime and you had a 1-2 go at those being critical where you introduced sweeping statements in to this thread. When I then post that I didn't feel appreciative of receiving last threads parting shots I get this as a direct reply: That is not usually a reply inserted in a thread that goes swimmingly. If it is not as you now make clear a rebuke of people in this thread then it sure comes across as parting shots for the last thread in a new thread that would've been better off without it. Especially as you were the one with the lock and last word in the previous one in any case. Anyway... I am happy to hear it is a mere unfortunate miscommunication.

Yet in this thread I am not really seeing the line being crossed. Yet the negative response is as if I was carrying on like one of the more rabid participants in the now locked thread. Is the bar really that low nowadays? I hope not!

Well, this thread sure leaves me regretting that I participated. For all their claims on how the opposite numbers are irrational and overly emotional, some of those defending the status quo sure did not feel themselves above re-fighting the old thread in the same negative tone.

I just don't know if I even understand all issues correctly because the status quo is so disagreeable to me I am truly surprised we are having this discussion at all. Seems to me the Old Hunt behaviour is worth having in it's own right. Having it then be the default movement for AI (tank) movement would so vastly improve on the current behaviour I am hard pressed to see it as a kludge of any kind. I would rather have a good kludge then the current behaviour which just stands out like a sore thumb. In gameplay and realism it is just not good enough. On various issues in the past I have had considerable sympathy for the priorities BFC are required to make. But BFC's limited means cannot be a Get Out of Jail Free card for every shortcoming. This basic behaviour strikes at the core of gameplay and credibility and needs to be improved. If not by the old hunt behaviour then by something else. And not in the next title.

Hmm, yeah, did not really mean to re-start that thread, kinda slipped out as I typed as they are rather related subjects. But hysterics? Really?! If you are going to call my behaviour hysterics then let me at least get a '**** You And Your Granny' in there. I think "dismayed" sets the bar a trifle low.

I am not sure what further explanation is needed other then that it is nice if tanks could move, stop to engage an encountered target and if target is destroyed or moves from view that movement is resumed. And if this is the default behaviour for AI tanks, it would make a lot of difference in the believability of tank encounters. Steve might not like to read it but CMx1 tank engagement where enemies stopped to engage you looked a HELL of a lot better then CMBN's putting a round on target as they zip along. I'm dismayed the discussion is even being held.

The redux version is that including minimum and maximum depression would trip up the AI. It would not be able to engage units outside the normal elevation angles. Even if BFC would spend a lot of effort and program some responses to help it cope it would invariably be the wrong thing to do in the players eyes. Advance when it ought to have backed up etc. Backing up or advancing to get within the elevation parameters would likely see AI tanks get killed in new and exciting but ultimately dumb and unsatisfying ways. So it is considered a lot of effort for no real improvement in the experience. It is a bit of a pity but it cannot be helped. Well, except by maybe a very large pile of money.

Oh, he loves CM. But it is the stalking, threats and restraining order kind of "love". Bitter what happened to him here? I know why he is banned, and as others will no doubt confirm he could have been banned a dozen times over well before that. No-one ever got as many breaks as Dorosh. So no, not bitter about what happened to him here, just generally bitter. And maybe bitter about what happened to what in his noggin is his game. Anyway... Don't see the point of complaining about a lack of DDs. What are we supposed to simulate with them? The thrilling waddling slowly to the shore, defenceless? Or since this is so far just covering the US side of things, them being flooded and sinking? Or are we supposed to be interested in the implications of collapsing the screen before combat? Essentially nothing of what CM simulates makes any of the DD aspect of a DD relevant. If you mean to simulate DDs in combat, ordinary Shermans are entirely adequate.

Pffft, and whose fault is it he cannot defend himself here? He only has his own lovable self to blame for that.

Took me a moment to figure out what they meant with the Hornet. Hornet or in German Hornisse which became better known as Nashorn which to translates Rhinoceros. But yeah, what is up with the lack of more mainstream reviews. It is September now! Not even Rock Paper Shotgun? Then something really has gone wrong. If I were BFC I would contact Tim Stone who now has a regular column at RPS. Though I am pretty sure Mr Stone drops by these pages occasionally.

Expectation bias?

It's not about the difficulty per se as I think the first one is almost equally bad and that one is an embarrassing cakewalk. It is about there been one bottleneck that is subjected to nonsensical preplanned defensive fire, barbed wire, mines, loads of arty, defending infantry in dubious positions, ATGs in overwatch, cruddy positions for the attacker to start off from and to top it off wide open spaces on either side of this bottleneck. In short, every effort has been made to limit the player in his options which are little more then the choice of where to drop the arty and how much meat to push through the grinder. Fun? Not for me it wasn't. And while I certainly put it stronger then most, it is clearly not a well liked scenario. You can defend it all you want but I cannot recall a community ever disliking a scenario to this degree. That is not the sign of a scenario maker hitting the mark.

No, what the designer did was prevent the player using any other tactics apart then "once more into the breach". God forbid any of us have fun! That it is so bitterly complained about by a community that is used to what Rune cooks up should give anyone pause. It is a turd of a scenario and I hope we do not see its like again.

First is bad because it is too easy (no casualties on the first attempt) the rest is bad not so much too hard as too limiting to the player. It is by far and away the worst campaign for any CMx2 that I have come across. And that includes Taskforce Thunder/Lightning which persisted in bugging out on me before the end. I like challenges but not quite as much as I like having fun. The latter the campaign was very clearly not designed to do.

I myself use a 32" 1920x1080 HDTV. Suits me nicely. You definitely do not want to go bigger then that though. You'll pull a neck muscle merely scanning the screen.

Could this be UAC moving files? It did this for me when it got patched in with XP. It placed files in "user/my documents" or some such folder whether I liked it or not. That and other features caused me to switch off that steaming pile that is UAC ever since, including for Windows 7.