sage2

Jeez. Sounds like a dream job. I wonder if they actually get paid. Sage

I didn't have any problems at all.

My bad -- I didn't search the tech forum. Not happy about seeing this pushed back an additional 2 months, but at least it's an answer. Sage

I work in software as a program manager. When there has been a 50% overrun on schedule (as there has been here), I'm used to getting spanked for it. Rightfully so. That being said, I understand the innaccuracy of ETA estimation. But as a project progresses, you can get more and more accurate in your estimates. BTS has not posted additional time estimates. What I'm asking for (as a customer who spend money on this product) is a revised estimate of when the product will be finished. As are very late on delivering this, I'm asking for a revised ETA. Thanks, Sage

... when? It has been 3 months since this game shipped. TCP/IP network play was going to take about a month; then 2 months... It's now been 3 months. I really dislike how the PBEM gameflow works -- it's waaaay too time consuming to make me happy. BTS: any ideas of when we might see TCP/IP? Sage

This thread should be closed. It is waaaay off topic.

I actually kinda like Jarmo's suggestion. My problem with operations is that the phase-lines seem to have very little to do with the tactical reality of the game. I understand some of the difficulties of drawing more dynmic lines, but I think this would be a huge improvement over how it works (barely works) currently. In general, there needs to be more feedback on operations. Some sort of "overview" map, and perhaps "expected reinforcements" (which may be very inaccurate. I'd also love to see fatigue carry over from one battle to the next. Sage

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Elvis: There is NO feature that is more important to me than TCP/IP. To me PBEM loses the immersion of the game. It is difficult to get back "into" a game after not seeing it for a day or two. I tend to lose the flow of the game. Nothing is more important to me than getting TCP/IP. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> I agree completely. I want TCP/IP VERY badly. My housemate is waiting until it is implemented before he buys the game. Sage

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Jarmo: He actually hit them? All I've managed, has been buttoning up. What distance? Maybe I have been using them wrongly. From about 300m, from a tall building.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You have to remember that buttoning probably indicates a dead TC and a shocked crew. Sage

I'm in Bellevue. Ordered in May of 2000. Received it... last Tuesday. Got lucky or something. A friend of mine has also received. Sage

Perhaps some kind of user-definable flag that can be set on a per-tank basis which significantly increases the stickiness for Armor targets for this tank. In otherwords, user clicks box, hits key combo. Doing this turns the flag on and off. When the flag is on, it means that stickiness for armor targets is very, very much so increased. The tank will not rotate to target infantry targets (either at all, or unless they are extremely close/threatening). I believe this would actually be realistic because I believe a lot of tanks in WW2 were created/divided in terms of "Infantry Support/Break Through" and "Anti-Tank". The tank would not provide much infantry support (other than an occasional burst of MG fire), but would stay focused on armored targets. I think this would solve part of this gripe. Sage

Thank god you have CM. Now we can get some peace and quiet around here. Sage

TCP/IP = LAN. TCP/IP is just a network protocol that happens to work over the internet ('cause that's what the interenet is based off of).

This is exactly the problem I had, except the other way around. There's a thread open -- "BTS -- help etc...". I think there's something wacky going on with how the AI decides victory conditions. At very least, this criteria is not well communicated. Sage

Hello -- I just had a very frustrating experience with my first attempt at playing an operation. I am perplexed. Here is what happened: I decided to play the DeSorby operation (defend a town in the Ardennes). The operation ended at the end of the first game?!?! Huh? I was playing allied, but it awarded a total victory to the axis side. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Casualties were as follows: AXIS 145 infantry 22 vechicles Allies 89 infantry 1 mortar 18 vehicles By the end of the game, I had pushed the front line FORWARD a good 5-700 meters, and held it with five healthy infantry platoons. I had significant reserves still in the town. The enemy was no where near the town. Not even vaguely close. This was extremely agravating, to say the least, especially since CM gives no indication of WHY the operation ended. Lame, lame, lame. One thing I did was give the Axis a +25% bonus. Did this make the operation unwinable? Was this tested? Thanks, Sage

It's actually a "Quick View" which is more like a mini-review that precedes that actual review by a week or two. Sage

Someone has been playing TOAW...

I am bummed that the quick battle limit both the total points AND the size of the battle field to well under what is possible in the engine. Was there a game-play reason for this? I would really like to see quick-battles on much larger maps AND support many more points per-side -- perhaps just limit it to 9999. If I want to do some stupid "50 Jagdtigers Vs. 100 guys with pistols" it should be possible (or whatever is possible in the engine). Mostly, I would like this feature to support larger battles so that I can quick-generate battalion level conflicts. I believe this feature may have been requested previously. I would like to add my voice, if that is the case. Thanks, Sage

Seattle, WA... and still waiting. Sage

I can't seem to find my order confirmation, and am worried it may go to an address where I am no longer located. Thanks, Sage

A desk. If it had to be a combat-related position, then probably heavy mortars -- light enough to move, far enough back that you wouldn't get shot at too much. Sage

What do these mean, anyway? They are some arbitrary measurement, i.e. "Combat +2", but what does that mean in game terms? Harder to supress? Shoot more accurately? More often? Waste less ammo? What percentage better than normal? Is it on a curve? Is it a small bonus or a hugely significant bonus? What does a "stealth" bonus do? And so forth... Sage

duh

It's a fine battle, but after playing it a zillion times... Playing as the Germans, I bumped them up by 25% -- but retreated the panther off the board as soon as it came in. It meant that I had to defend with infantry vs. the Sherman reinforcements, as I didn't have anything left (my Inf gun and 75mm had killed and disabled to the 2 105 Shermans, but been destroyed in the process). A pure infantry defence made for a much more interesting battle. Just a thought -- some people might like to do this to freshen things up a bit. Sage

Steve -- One possibility might be to tweak "sneak." Perhaps if there is a target within, say 5 to 20m (depending on the terrain type?), then your guys will open fire. This would allow sneak to be used to sneak up on a target? I don't know enough about the game to know what that might do, though. It also may be that I don't understand the logic behind sneak vs. move. If sneak is just move without shooting, then we probably don't need this. OTOH, if sneak also reduces spot chances, at cost of even slower movement, I think it would be valuable to do this. Sage