Mattias

Personally I´d not. Buy a conscript forward observer (sans transport) and two conscript calliope batteries. Pre plan to have them fire with a 5 or a 10 minute delay at the positions where you logically can assume the enemy will be (not that hard on most maps). At a price of -less- than a regular rifle platoon you get 480 instant 114 mm rounds that are pretty much guaranteed to rain on anyones parade. Nah, no rockets for me M.

Ehm, I thought this was in place already. While waiting for CM:BN I contemplated buying a game from Matrix games and I distinctly remember changing my mind because of the 20-30% Vat. that was added in the end. And that was a download, to Sweden. And I´m not 100% sure but isn´t it illegal in the UK to have stuff brought into the country without declaring it? I.e. those that have received the game without paying tax are now actually, actively by not acting, evading tax? Oh, all the exciting aspects of this glorious hobby M.

I have a hard time imagining anything more easily achievable and instantly gratifying in a CM:BN seeting than for example having a US infantry squad spot a MG 42 in a building. Split the squad. Letting the BAR section hang back firing suppressive fire while the other two advance. Let one section fire into the house at short range and close in with the assault section, move order to the house, pause for ten seconds with area fire to get some grenades in there, BlackCat style, and then into the house with the next movement order. Victory, no losses, fantastic! And this is nothing special in CM:BN. In small battles you might experience it a few times, in bigger battles often. And it all scales out beautifully. A tiny game is tactical a challenge with micro engagements like the one described. Bigger battles pose composite challenges where the dynamics of the different unit types makes the tactical considerations grow exponentially. I´m the kind of player that has a hard time getting a lot of enjoyment out of games like War in the East. I can handle it and I can relate to those who love it, but CM:BN is so much more dynamic/exciting when it comes mixing cerebral with seat of your pants play. I am an experienced player and I find CM:BN continually and hugely, both in detail and as a whole, rewarding. Which would indicate that it is simply a matter of taste. And I belong to the segment of the Forum that is frankly in awe of Battlefronts patience when it comes to dealing with the multitude of opinions and perspectives brought forward here. Sometimes they might appear to be a little too tolerant towards a rude poster, some times they might appear to be a little to intolerant towards a nice poster but looking over time you would have to have a fragile ego indeed to consider them bullish. Remember that they have to face the same issues about ten thousand times, often brought forward with the intensity and conviction of a fanatic spotting someone taking a dump in the holy grail. Each time they have to be prepared to methodically and humbly explain the basics and intricacies of the physical reality and human existence as seen in a world war two perspective, and as interpreted in a simulation (which by its nature has limitations). And all that to people that generally in the end "reserve their right to an opinion of their own". Sure it´s natural, but don´t pull other peoples strings if you are not able or prepared to accept in full, and without snide remarks, a perspective that goes completely against your own. Mmm.. Bit of a rant that might not be completely relevant with regards to the OP but there it is... M.

A quick test: Two platoons of Elite +2 US engineers searching for 10 AP and 10 AT mines on various ground types, including dirt road and cobblestone All 10 of the AP mines were found at the price of three casualties in two detonations. Eight mines were found without casualties that is. I used Hunt and Slow for the search in this case so I cannot comment on other movement orders. In this short test I observed no obvious differences in ease of spotting depending on the ground type. With these troops the marking of the mines was instantaneous, zero seconds delay and the mine marker was white, in all ten cases. However none of the AT mines were found. Absolutely no indication even after sitting, Hunting and Slowing over them for 30 minutes. M.

Are you absolutely sure about that? It sounds like heaven This forum sustains a large number of humorous, hard partying, ass kicking life lovers, that are at the same time pretty much always right when it comes down to the facts, and are willing to put in the work that it takes to dig up the truth when it is hidden. Separating serious from fun like it is some kind of law of nature is high school stuff. M.

****No there any more****

This is the one Michael, http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/21_cm_M%C3%B6rser_18 Oh, and the US rocket artillery. At the current price I´d say they are banned in any QB game I play. Even the one with the lowest rarity. What is that 50-80 points for 320 or 384 4.5 inch rockets. Inaccurate yes, but in an infantry only scenario they can cause absolute devastation. M.

Yes..... But if that 2s @ 2000m sighting happens to be an M-10 I want my Panther to react to it (after I all I cannot predict, target type or time frame beforehand#. But not hard to test however. The fact is that your AFV´s do not stop, as SOP, because they are being shot at. I had three StuG´s moving "slow" into LOS of two M4´s. The StuG´s spotted the Shermans almost instantly but then went on their marry way, shots bouncing off them, until they were destroyed after a minute or two #The Shermans were out of the arc of the main gun). To give a perspective though, this exactly how turret less AFV´s would behave in CM1 when you used the "Hunt" command. That is now -not- the case in CM:BN, giving the current system an "edge" when it comes to turret less AFV´s. The new system has still penalised turreted AFV´s in WeGo though. I can see why this quickly becomes a mess when entangled with other priorities of the design process M.

Absolutely! Alas, it is not an option I´m afraid. PBEM is my game. Planning and no hands on execution. Heart and mind, against the most devious minds on the planet that´s where it´s at Coming to think of it.... Are there any primarily RT players out there who really like the "Hunt" command and find themselves using it extensively in it´s current form? What are the primary advantages of it when compared to other move orders, other than as a "move to contact" substitute? After all there seems to be new lessons to be learned about pretty much everything in CM:BN.

Just pointing out that this is really two, partly intertwined, questions: Nr. 1: Are fortifications cost effective in a QB perspective? Nr. 2: Can fortifications fulfill a realistic role in game? Nr. 1 is just a matter of taste, priority and tweaking. Nr. 2 is where there is real room for creativity and development. My point is that the discussion will move off track if the perspective is limited to, "Fortifications are not cost effective because they are not realistic". And, eh, it only takes a 25 point AT mine field to stop that tank. You don´t have to buy all 10 you know. Pretty good value for points if you stop it in the right place. Besides as we all know mines are not for killing, they are for hindering. M.

Interesting stuff! And you ran the test 50 times... One wonders what parameters are factored in, and to what extent the result is based on the roll of a die? I real life there is a great number of factors influencing the outcome, the skill level of the unit placing the charges being very important indeed. Any chance of you running a test on that too M.

Why take the risk then? It´s not like there forum is dependent on you giving an answer this very minute. How about testing before posting? The fact that someone, you in this case you, says "yes i think that is how it works" will only serve to confuse the discussion, when the assumption is not based on facts, no matter how innocently and well meaning the intent. The CM:BN "slow" command does not replace the CM1 "hunt" command. "Slow" moving vehicles do not, as a rule, stop to engage spotted targets. That´s bad information for starters. And, secondly, turret less AFV´s do not stop any more than turreted vehicles (they don´t) and if the target is out of the arc of the main gun, they will not engage at all. For WeGo players the loss of the CM1 "Hunt" command meant the loss of one very important tactical tool since, as has pointed out, a brief irrelevant spotting might stop the vehicle for more or less the whole 60 second turn. And since WW 2 tanks, as a rule, stopped to engage that means that the player now has to choose between low accuracy firing while moving)or tactical inflexibility (speeding from firing position to firing position) when compared to CM1. M.

In other words, it´s working just fine. The next turn around you´ll get to buy. M.

Thinking about it I find myself unable to coming up with any gamey and unrealistic tactics. Or is just too early in the morning? Leaving the gun makes sense in a number of situations, to scout or to take cover for example. The price you pay, in all cases, is the same as for the tank crews getting out on foot, you loose the ability to quickly use that crucial long range fire power. It seems to me that that price should outweigh the benefits of potential gamey exploits, instead making it a a viable tactical alternative... M.

Amen to that! By now CM1 has cost me about 0,025 $ an hour of good clean fun M.

There will however be some good battles coming with the very actual naval crews in the Marine-Infanterie divisions, but for what I had in mind we need the next, UK, module. Unfortunately you won´t seen any scenes like this though gunnergoz, since the Feldunterwasseratmengerät snorkel system never made it into production before the war ended M.

It is a real world limitation. The pressure of the gases exiting at the rear of the launcher reflects back at the shooter if there is a big enough obstruction behind him. Then again, if you were to fire it from then inside of a barn your only problem would probably be setting the house on fire CM1 style. Correct about the 60 and 100´s M.

Constant cerebrally constricted communication calls for comic relief. Great stuff mjkerner! M

Aw, I´m just mad because all my Spielberger books are locked away in storage And from a collectors standpoint I can definitely relate to you LeadMeister. M.

And I for one am stunned at the utter and complete lack of perspective. You are hopefully healthy and living in a civilized country, and today you hold in you hand what is probably the best tactical wargame ever. And because your box was of poor quality and broken (as both of mine were) you, I, and every loyal customer are the victims of a, not clear what, crime, violation, abuse brought upon us by Battlefront? And this bodes ill for the future? What future exactly? A future choke full of stupendously good gaming and poor standard quality boxes? It´s not that you are wrong in voicing opinions or indeed complaints, it´s the frankly ludicrous level om importance you seem to attach to it. M.

Cirrus, If you are wondering why this issue is even being discussed you have only to reflect on your wording of the original post. A big red thumbs down for the way the game is designed, the limited spotting such as it works in the game is a "very annoying feature". Had you only made a simple request for an extension of the UI it could have been judged by it´s own merit; earning you a friendly non argumentative response or a place with thousands of other ideas, somewhere in the forum archives. By now it is quite clear what you want and why you want it. Battlefront has stated their case and explained their reasoning with regards to the mechanics being discussed here. The way things are handled right now seems completely logical when seen in the context of what Battlefront has set out to archive. But what you want is a feature added on top of that, a feature that will give you a bit of information that you feel is lacking. And which should be easy to implemented. Right? Perhaps your vision is so revolutionary that we have not yet understood the greatness of it (and I am not being sarcastic here). Perhaps that is the case but you should know that the direction of the discussion on spotting mechanics has for years been moving, at times violently, away from seeing too much towards seeing, at a unit level, only that which could realistically be seen. I too put down area fire on "unspotted" enemies (there usually is a bit of active rationalization going on though) but that is done in a matter of seconds (unselect all -> Tab in on target-> Zoom in close-> select firing units floating icon -> press T, left click and Bob´s you uncle). The fact that you, in this context, grossly over state the magnitude of the problem caused by the lack of your feature (that in it self goes against the spirit of the what has been aggressively demanded for years - i.e. real relative spotting) definitely fuels this debate but it doesn't give your opinion any more merit. M.

Isn´t that George MC. It certainly takes place on his Huzzar! map. M.

It has arrived. 50% cost added for tax and customs, no problem. However all the clasps (the little things that keep the box locked) on both the boxes that I ordered were broken, thus they do not stay closed. They look absolutely miniscule by the way, no surprise they break during transport when the package itself offers pretty much zero protection. I don´t mind horribly but it looks like there is room for improvement. Very nice manual by the way! M.

In my experience (one year of conscription + half a life time of interest) the NOT seeing who is shooting is the rule, not the exception. It´s one of the hall marks of a veteran unit to be able to stay calm and actually properly observe under difficult circumstances, and not get shot in the process. So far it seems Battlefront has been able to find a very playable level of abstraction, if anything you might even see too much of the enemy. In the end, isn´t the lack of certainty one of the most important aspects of an enjoyable wargame M.

The StuH 42 is in the game already. Do you know for sure that the other types were actually present in the US sectors of Normandy in the June to august time frame (which is what CM:BN covers)? M.