Pak40

Yea, I don't understand why they haven't changed the arcs and the setup zones. There have been lots of complaints and desire to see improvements. It's not like either one is a hard thing to do, it's just a simple graphical change.

Sounds like it's time for Georgie to get a new computer

True, paved surface will make it real easy to push a vehicle or gun. I saw an old clip in a documentary of a crew unhitch a 57mm wheel it about 10 yards from the truck and fire 3 quick rounds. The whole process was amazingly fast, more than I anticipated. Something like 15 seconds. This was on an hard or concrete surface.

My point is the loader typically is not able to view anything, certainly not anything forward facing. With regards to the gray/blue target lines, they must have coded tank crews only for the crew that actually do the spotting, not the entire crew. Otherwise you'd never get a blue target line.

I doubt this is the case with tank crews. The loader for sure can't see a damn thing.

Uh oh, he's on to me.

Don't worry, I was watching my flank the whole time.

Well, I wouldn't hold your breath. Pre-orders for Gustov Line just started yet the game wont be out for 4-6 weeks. The official announcement for Market Garden hasn't even happened let alone the pre-orders.

Sounds realistic to me. Mortars are certainly quieter than your normal howitzers or cannon artillery, but when a battlefield is quiet I'd bet that the mortar tubes can be heard across several hundred meters of ground.

I think it would be a whole lot simpler to lobby BF for an inbuilt copy/paste tool. We already have lobbied for improvements to the editor and at least 3 of them were added to the 2.0 upgrade (map overlay, AI plan copy/paste, and a two-click wall & road placement). My biggest issue with maps at the moment is the inability of battle damage to carry over during a campaign. With the Market Garden module coming up, campaign designers will have to make their own battle damage. I'm not sure how well received this is going to be with all of the static battlegrounds in the MG campaign.

I wouldn't bother with the older games. The newer games are better in every respect and there is a learning curve so I would spend the time learning the new system, unless you just have lots of free time to learn both games. And yes, buy the upgrade to 2.0 - it's worth it and most multiplayers will be using it anyway. I don't think there are any more printed manuals, it's only on PDF from now on. The "Physical Copy" does not include the manual, just a disc and a box. Advice: take time to read the manual & play the tutorial scenarios while reading the Walk-Thru in the manual. This will save you a lot of headaches. Print out the manuals if you think it will help - there is a 'printer friendly version' that will look better on paper. After playing the tutorials, play a couple of battles to get more familiar with the game. Then you'll be ready for a campaign - I suggest Road to Montbourg. It's a huge campaign and is challenging but not overly hard. You will still have questions as you learn. Search the forums first because usually common questions have been answered a million times on the board. For Mods, I recommend JuJu's UI - Desktop General Edition 2.0 mod for the user interface. It overhauls all graphics, buttons on the user interface. The stock sounds aren't very good so get a sound mod such as RealGunsofWar2.0 There are also lots of game graphic mods for the terrain and buildings. Most terrain mods tend to desaturate the vegetation and most building mods offer better looking and more detailed buildings.

It would be great if someone would make a building matrix showing all buildings and their facades.

Do you guys have the latest patches? If so you might want to report this as a possible bug. Panicked units can't move as far as I can tell, either by your orders or by TacAI orders. And just for future reference, HTs do not provide sufficient cover from MGs and rifle fire, especially from the side.

I don't understand your point. I'm not suggesting going to 'another mode'. I'm saying estimate the time yourself like any real soldier IRL would do. You will learn in time like all of us CMBN veterans. It's not that hard. I've now played enough to know how long it takes a squad to cross a 100m field at Quick movement order. Sometimes dead right but sometimes I'm off, that's why it's called an estimate. For one, I think it's a terrible waste of programming resources. I'd rather they develop the game than implement an "estimate time of arrival" that doesn't really tell you much more than what you can estimate yourself. Second, it something that will hog resources. The computer would have to keep estimates on every moving unit CONSTANTLY. Any time a unit comes under fire, the estimates would be thrown out the window and recomputed. Third, CMBN is a game know for it's historical accuracy and it's non-gameyness. Other than the ability to view the entire battlefield, you don't really have anything extra that the real life soldiers had. So why give the computer player something that is "gamey" and that the real life soldiers didn't have?

The HEAT round of the 105mm gun could penetrate about 4.5 inches of armor (114mm), at any range. So on paper it sounds good but the HEAT rounds are slow and not flat trajectory like the AP rounds. Consequently it's harder to hit a target at a distance, especially if it's moving.

And why can't you just estimate this yourself like most of us already do? You already have more information that soldiers IRL would have, for example, the exact distance to the waypoint. Once you've played CMBN enough estimation becomes second nature.

Assuming the above conditions are true and that your troops have good cover and concealment, give them no orders whatsoever. The TacAI will typically shoot at the best available target and do a good job. If your units have yet to be discovered it may be worthwhile setting the majority of your units to HIDE, with rear units as the spotters (not hidden but with short covered arcs so they don't give a way their positions). This can be tricky to pull off, especially in WEGO because the enemy will typically spot several of your 'hidden' units and start firing before the end of a turn - at this point you've lost the element of surprise and have to wait to the end of the turn before giving your units the unhide command.

LOL! ah, that joke never gets old.

Technically you could just loop back to a previous battle but then you'd be fighting with the exact same forces (minus casualties and plus replacements). The battles will get quite repetitive. However, instead of looping, the campaign designer could take the time to copy/paste the battle and create many slightly alternate versions with "reinforcements" - i.e. the core units would be the same but you might get a support platoon in the second version, then a attached tank platoon in the third version etc...

I have to agree with FMB. Although I've never tried to coordinate any scenario or campaign designs, it would be hard for me to let someone else design parts of my scenarios. However, there are certainly areas where talents and resources of others might benefit a typical scenario designer. For example, my Photoshop/GIMP skills are rusty so someone with graphical talents would help me big time. Play testing is another obvious area where others can contribute. The only other area that would be comfortable with someone helping me is with historical research - especially if they can contribute historical materials.

Hmm. It seems the general convention is that the Germans has superior optics. I *think* that I remember reading a post from a long time ago regarding CMx1 giving a slight edge to the Germans because of the optics. I'm not sure if this refers to just spotting in general or gunner accuracy, or both. Anyway, according to what you're saying is that spotting(or at least the time it takes the gunner to find the target) should be quicker for the Shermans. I wonder how CMBN handles this? Is spotting handled by actual crew members, relayed to the gunner, and then the gunner has to actually located the target himself before firing? Anyone cares to chime in?

Who on earth said there are only two choices? I'm not playing forum games. I'm trying to make a serious point. Why on earth do you and Jon both think there's only two choices here? Even Phil thinks it's a bug that needs looking at. I've never suggested to get rid of the accuracy penalty for moving vehicles. It's absurd that you or anyone else for that matter, would think that's the only other option.

OK, Jon. Let's cut all the BS that you and I are going through and get straight to the point of the thread: Do you believe, that there is currently a bug in CMBN that seriously lowers the accuracy of an armored vehicle when a pause order is issued to it? A simple yes or no will do.

Certainly, I agree. Really? In what world? Certainly not in reality or CMBN. Oh, my bad. I guess that's why the put the Pause order on the movement tab. No, the best option is to fix the bug that causes B. No, I was being facetious, in case you couldn't tell. No, not sort of. It IS the modifier. Well, some people seem to think the argument is about pausing in the middle of a move, so I had to set them straight.

Really, you're suggesting that CM should model the crew's nervousness and pressures of combat? Isn't that already handled by experience level of the crew? I.e, a conscript crew will tend to rush that shot but a veteran or crack crew will be well oiled and calmer under pressure. Besides, you're totally missing the point. I'm not even talking about pausing in the middle of movement orders. I'm talking about a tank sitting there for a long period of time, let's say 5 minutes. According to Vanir's tests he'll have about 95% accuracy at 300m. On the sixth minute the tank is given a 30 second pause followed by a move order and all the sudden his accuracy goes down to 33%??? Obviously this is an unintended design and therefore a bug.