Pak40

Well, crud! My assumption was based on logic since even OMG really bleeds into the "Island" actions in October 44. The end of October seemed the obvious stopping point for the CMBN family. But once again BF has defied logic

Well, I'm assuming that the OMG module really covers the western front in September-October 1944, therefore any prominent fighting vehicles that were used at that time should be included in the module. My guess is M-18 based on profile. M36 should be included in the games as well IMO but I wont hold me breath.

I've already used Print to PDF to to convert most of the posts. The imagery comes in fine. It's not too hard to do but I still need export the first two and 15-18.

When I read that post last year I knew it was a bit ambitious. As anyone familiar with software development can tell you, things rarely go as planned or scheduled. I've been playing computer games since the early 80s and almost every game that I have eagerly waited for has been delayed to some degree or another. Fortress Italy was announced just before that post by Moon, I think. Obviously they have changed from their original plans a bit to focus on Italy and it's subsequent modules. *EDIT* Also, after JonS's posts about scenario design, I can fully understand why OMG and other modules takes so long to develop. First, BF has to design, code and test the new features for OMG, then the scenario and campaign designers can actually start building their works of art which are probably more time consuming to develop and test - especially the campaigns.

I just think it's funny that every now and then, some guy comes on the forums and thinks they know a better business model than the companies that are already quite successful are currently using. How can you possibly say they don't have good ideas??? Every module released so far has been well worth the money - new units, new OOBs, new scenarios, new campaigns and even some improvements. You do understand that all of this takes development time and that's what you're really paying for? Are you serious? No pressure from the community??? This has to be one of the most eagerly awaited modules since CMBN was released. It's an extremely popular operation. And how can you say anything about the eastern front Combat Mission when you don't know a damn thing about them? It's complete conjecture. OK, that quote right there tells me two things: 1) you only consider units and map features as "good ideas" 2) you have no idea what goes into developing each module. You've just basically insulted every scenario and campaign designer that put in countless hours of development, every person that's worked on improving the code, every person that's put in countless hours doing historical and OOB research.

perhaps a bug? Need more testing and a quick alert to BF so they can fix it in time for MG

I really don't see how this is any different from major game publishers that are going for max audiences. Example, Civilization franchise: With every new version they have at least two add-on expansions both costing $35. This is no different than CMBN. Almost every popular game that is mass marketed now has expansions/modules or whatever you want to call it. I remember the last tactical level wargame that covered the entire Eastern Front": Close Combat III. It was a fragmented mess of a campaign and made little sense. It would have been a much more cohesive product if they focused on a major battle or time period. Instead they tried to cram everything into one product and ended up pleasing very few of their customers after the very popular CCII:ABtF I'm not sure which Matrix Games you're talking about. The one that has grown in size every year and keeps adding many high quality games (and customers) every time I go to their site? And do you really think that eliminating the moduled approach is going to suddenly make them aware of games like CMBN?

oh I think you nailed it

good question. It seems like a patchy fog effect to me. Some of the bridge was clear of the fog but other areas covered by it.

Yea, nice little teaser trailer. They are such teases.

Yes, but not too bad once you're used to the mechanics and know the wind for the particular battle you're playing. Using the face command the turn before you pop the smoke will ensure that it goes the correct direction. You might even be able to do it in the same turn but I seem to have had bad luck with this method.

Smoke can be very effective if you know which way the wind blows and how hard it's blowing. However, you have be realistic about it's limits. If you are trying to move many units across a broad front, a few smoke grenades or a tank with only 3 or 4 rounds of smoke is not likely to make an effective screen(use a mortar or 105 smoke barrage instead). However, if you want to cross a unit or two across an urban or village street then you should be able to use a single grenade effectively. Timing is key in WEGO play. Make sure you consult the weather info to see wind direction and strength.

Well, we know from previous module releases that there are no new features in a module release. Generally the only things new in a module release are units, battles, and campaigns, and bug fixes or minor tweaks in some programming behavior. However, the little that has been said about OMG by Steve and JonS is that there will be some new map features that will reflect the Holland landscape. There will be some new large bridges and flavor objects such as windmills. I'm not sure about anything else.

I agree. I suggest using an Advanced Search in the thread for Steve or other official BFC forum user names. This will filter out the nonsense.

There's a sticky: The Start of Actual News which outlines some details.

you could have backed up your saved games before reinstalling. They are files on your hard drive like anything else.

Jorgen, I have to say that your dedication is admirable but for me playing like this would drive me nuts. It would take forever and it's very tedious to track and check all of the things that need to be checked in order to adhere to this. This reminds me of the unofficial hardcore rules that were implemented back in the CMx1 days: You had to stay at view level 1 and had to be "locked" onto a unit(via tab key). You could rotate your view around the unit but could not raise the camera. To switch between units you had to use the + and - keys in order to maintain the lock on the units.

Obviously many things contributed to the Germans losing this operation but don't forget that the main thrust was on the norther shoulder where the few available routes had to cross rivers set in deep gorge like valleys. Once the bridges were blown or held on these points the advances, which were almost at a snail's pace to begin with, grinded to a halt. Even if Bastogne had fallen the Germans had nothing to sustain a deeper push. Knocked out tanks need to be replaced after all. The allies had the replacements but the Germans did not.

The very first scenario I ever tried to make was was loosely based on the final battle from the movie A Walk in the Sun. A U.S. platoon assaulting a fortified rural house held by a German squad with a couple of MGs. I only made a couple of AI plans for both sides but nothing seemed to work well. I didn't really know much about AI plans back then but I have a little more experience with them now. I should try to make it again.

Hmm, I think we should ask for a whole new line of target commands: Target Once in a blue moon Target Rarely Target Once in a while Target More often than not Target Like you mean it Target Like a mo' fo'

I agree with others. If you're mortar team is the only unit engaging on that hedgerow, then it will receive ALL of the return fire. Placing at least two other engaging units on that hedgerow helping to suppress enemy fire and absorb the fire that does come in.

In-game, of course.

Well, since foxholes are typically dead giveaways as to where the enemy is, the number of foxholes should be increased to at least twice the number of action spots required for the unit. ie, a German squad might get 4 foxholes and an American squad 6 foxholes. This would also allow for fall back positions to be fortified as well.

Ditto. This is the real issue here. Of course, Siffro's tests are further invalidated because he doesn't order his units to Hide after the first minute of of a 10-15 minute bombardment, which any sane player would do. The TacAI actually does a good job of having units go prone for a few seconds when under bombardment, so the real fault here is that the commander(player) doesn't issue a HIDE order after the first minute (in real time he could do it immediately). I'm actually under the opinion now that the TacAI shouldn't order units to HIDE - it should be left up to the player because there will be cases where the player will take that chance of having his units exposed so that they can spot and return fire. If the TacAI starts issuing HIDE orders then where does it draw the line between who should and shouldn't be forced to hide? Does a unit that is 50m away from an exploding shell get forced into a HIDE order? And for how long? I can foresee many complaints that many units will HIDE too easily and for too long, especially at the end of a barrage when the impending enemy infantry attack will come.

Click the following link: look familiar? https://maps.google.com/maps?q=utah+beach,+normandy,+france&hl=en&ll=49.400906,-1.169089&spn=0.00597,0.016512&sll=30.032996,-89.882563&sspn=0.508257,1.056747&hnear=Utah+Beach,+50480+Sainte-Marie-du-Mont,+Manche,+Basse-Normandie,+France&t=h&z=17