ASL Veteran

What James has discovered is that AFVs within one action spot of infantry can be attacked by grenades and he is angry about losing his tank. The fact that bocage is involved is functionally irrelevant because in no case do the infantry in game physically climb upon the vehicle in order to attack it, therefore the implication that the vehicle should not be attacked because the infantry can't climb on the vehicle is meaningless since the infantry do not climb on the vehicle in game under any circumstances as it is now. Perhaps James would prefer to return to the days when infantry were not allowed to attack vehicles with grenades from within buildings the next time an enemy tank parks next to his troops who are inside one?

Message to Doug Williams from Darth Vader http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=11Ee02WLxGk

As interesting as the idea of user sold content would be, there is no way for the creator to prevent one player from downloading your work for $1.00 and then giving it to everyone he or she knows for free. The only reason that scenarios specific to a module or pack can't be freely transferred is because those scenarios and maps contain content that is specific to the module or pack. So unless your work is included on the game DVD there is nothing to force anyone to buy what you make. It's logistically impossible.

Just ask Steve or Moon. I'm sure they would be happy to oblige.

You are thinking of CMFI

Could the presence of the gun in the middle of the forward plate weaken the plate as compared to the Panther tank's front plate? :confused:

I'm only quoting you because you mention Paper Tiger, but my response isn't necessarily directed at you specifically. Paper Tiger has his own theory about experience and morale levels and within the context of what he does it works. He has a lot of fans who enjoy playing like that and his stuff will play a certain way because of that. He also has preferences as far as scenario time as well that some like and some don't like. The thing about this is that it's all subjective and each designer has to come up with some means of assigning experience and morale levels within their scenario. BFC provides the designer with several experience and morale ratings to choose from and designers are free to choose from that menu however they prefer to choose. What works for some may not work for others and I think that most designers will have their own 'stamp' as to how their stuff plays out. Because experience and morale are a subjective assignment there is no demonstrably 'correct' or 'incorrect' rating that can be assigned to a particular unit unless there is some sort of a detailed historical yardstick that can be applied and even that is still subjective. I think the best thing to do is just mention the specific scenario or contact the author, indicate your displeasure, and then move on. Many designers don't get enough feedback when they post stuff on the repository so they may welcome some comments from a player. Most of the stuff that comes with the DVD has been play tested, in some cases extensively, so if it's on the DVD and the scenario looks a certain way then the playtesters were generally fine with it in the form that you see it in. If the author continues to make stuff that you don't like then I think deleting them or not downloading their stuff is the way to go.

This really depends upon what is meant by 'update' the scenario. The only thing that can be altered in a scenario would be AI plans, maybe individual units might be added or deleted, maybe a building moved or something like that. These things are all independent of any engine improvements and the only way they might be altered is if the scenario designer went in and basically remade the scenario. As far as game engine improvements go - well those apply to the scenarios just as they would to any other method of playing the game. Since the engine alterations don't have a direct impact on the AI plans etc, then I'm not really sure what the scenario designer is supposed to alter. The fact is that what is a difficult scenario to play for one person is a piece of cake for another person. There is no perfect scenario that is just right for everyone who plays the game, so if a game engine adjustment is made in a patch and the scenario plays out a little differently than it did before that might not have much of an effect for some players and a dramatic effect for others.

Not enough information here to make a judgement. Are you playing a historical scenario or a fictional scenario? If you are playing a fictional scenario then it really doesn't matter what experience ratings a unit has because it is fictional. If the scenario is historical, then the scenario author has to attempt to factor in numerous sources of information and make a determination as far as what experience levels to assign. If the author has information about the battle that is detailed enough then the author should be able to make a determination as to whether the battle plays out in an appropriate manner or not. If you are playing a scenario without fully understanding the historical context and just making a snap judgement that "Elite and Crack are bad" then perhaps your judgement is the one that is faulty and not the scenario designer's judgement. Your perception of what Crack and Elite mean might be different to that of the designer's as well. Maybe you think that the only troops that rate as Elite is modern Delta Force soldiers but maybe the author did a detailed study of the battle and determined that, for that particular engagement, that particular force on that particular day fought as effectively as a Crack or an Elite force might and the scenario outcome matched the historical result. Aside from that - you are also discounting the morale effects. The morale rating of a squad has more of an impact on a unit's staying power than the experience level. Maybe all those Crack and Elite troops have low morale?

My mistake. Immobile units do not follow the AI plan to completion - that's true. There are no 'null' AI groups. If an AI group hasn't been assigned then the default is group A1. I'm not exactly sure what happens with AT gun crews, but they function differently than tank crews because guns are considered heavy weapons. If the gun is considered immobile, then my guess would be that a bailed gun crew is also considered to be immobile by the game for AI purposes. However, there is no way to get around the fact that tank crews will continue to follow the AI plan without one of the programmers making some sort of an adjustment to the game code as currently written.

All units eventually follow the AI plan to completion. That includes broken units. Panicked units will continue to follow the AI plan as soon as they are no longer panicked. There is currently no way around it because the AI plan groups are permanently assigned to units in the editor when the scenario is made.

AI crews are still associated with the AI plan and all crews will go where the tanks would go if the crews were still inside the tanks. At present, the AI crews are not separated from the AI plan so that's what you are seeing. The crews just keep following the AI plan to conclusion.

Don't be too hard on those of us who beta test. Although it may seem to some players as though there is a solid phalanx of supporters for all things BFC, the internal discussions are just as vigorous and multi sided within the beta tester group as it is on the public forums. The difference is that you can't see the internal discussions. Most beta testers will also refrain from arguing amongst each other on a public forum because we already have discussions internally and it's just bad form to take disagreements externally if something has already been discussed internally.

You are making a few assumptions here 1. The tank crew will be armed when bailing out of a burning tank. From my extensive reading, tank crews tended not to wear stuff while in a tank that could slow down their ability to quickly exit from the tank if it was hit. Sidearms could get caught on internal equipment and prevent a crewman from exiting as quickly as he wanted to in case of an emergency. Seconds count when flaming death is involved. There are one or two instances where I've read of tank crewmen who bailed out armed, but that tends to be the exception rather than the rule. In one instance during Operation Goodwood a King Tiger was rammed by a British Sherman and both vehicles were knocked out. I believe that is a rather famous incident. A personal account of that famous incident from the German side mentions that two opposing crewmen ended up right next to each other after bailing out. They both grabbed for their pistols, but neither was armed. After staring at each other for a short time, they both decided to leave each other alone and go their own separate ways. 2. The force of the detonations of the stricken tank will have more of an effect on the troops outside of the tank than inside of the tank. That just doesn't pass the sniff test does it? In fact, it's probably unlikely that the crew would have survived the first secondary explosion at all since it is apparently ammo cook off while they were inside the vehicle. Explosive force is multiplied substantially when it happens in an enclosed space. In this instance, why wouldn't the force of the blast have more of an effect on the tank crew than it would on the infantry nearby? 3. The tank crew has enough situational awareness to be able to successfully engage nearby infantrymen immediately following a near death experience. From my reading, most WW2 tank crews, upon bailing out of their vehicles, try to run for friendly lines as quickly as possible. Frequently they have no idea as to either the whereabouts or fate of their fellow crew members until they have had some time to get their wits about them. I think you can describe the state of mind of a bailing crew member as shock and disorientation. In one of my references, I have seen a before and after photo of a Churchill tank crew. The before photo they all look proud and confident. The after photo as prisoners they look shocked, disoriented, dirty, grimey, and although you can tell that they are the same men you can definitely tell that they have been through an awful lot. Is it possible that a tank crew could immediately bail out of a destroyed tank and take nearby infantry under fire and kill them all? I can't say that it is impossible. Is it probable? No, I would have to say that it would fall under the category of being improbable.

The other bridges are not diagonal and I suspect that the behavior is mostly due to the diagonal nature of that particular bridge. I can't guarantee that you will have no trouble at the other bridges, but I can say that I didn't have any trouble with the other bridges. The patch should be out fairly soon anyway so hopefully you will be installing the patch by the time you make it to the next bridge. Like I said though, I don't anticipate you having any trouble with the other bridges.

I was just reading about a battalion sized raid that was conducted by the 29th infantry division along the German border. They captured the town by surprise, engineers destroyed the buildings of the town with demolition charges, the Germans counterattacked and the battalion withdrew as planned before the counterattack could hit them to full effect. In approximately 4 hours of combat, the 325 men of 1st bn 115th Infantry Regiment suffered 16 MIA, 5 KIA, 48 WIA, along with 1 engineer KIA, 1 engineer WIA, and 3 engineers MIA. The objective of the attack was to capture the town and to level the town with demolition charges, then withdraw back to friendly lines. Two days earlier an entire company consisting of about 85 men with 3 M5 tanks in support captured the same town and the entire company was killed or captured and the supporting armor was all destroyed.

I don't think you would get a lot of disagreement from anyone about that situation. My expectation would be that the tank crew would surrender upon exiting the tank. I would also say that (based upon extensive reading) it would be more likely for tank crewmen to bail out unarmed than for them to be packing heat. Unless they were already wearing a pistol while in the tank they aren't going to be spending a lot of precious seconds looking around for their sidearms before getting out of a flaming metal coffin.

Hmm, that's really strange. It's possible that an adjustment to the bridge pathing routines was added after the time period that I was testing the scenario and so that behavior popped in after I was done testing it. A patch should be coming out pretty soon though so hopefully that will fix the issue. In the mean time though you should be able to get across the bridge with a few pauses. Your columns will get fairly stretched out, but your ... ahem ... supporting forces will probably take long enough to reach where you are going such that it shouldn't be too much of an issue for you overall. Frustrating? Perhaps, but it shouldn't be a game breaker for you and cause you to end the battle. Possible Spoiler*** Just so you know - there is also a known issue with one of your 'support' vehicles about reloading. It's my understanding that the vehicle will fire but then gets stuck during the reloading routine unless the crew is exposed. I haven't confirmed that myself, but I've read that from others. Once again though, it is a known item and should be fixed when the patch comes out ... hopefully very soon.

In testing that scenario I never had any trouble crossing that bridge .... I think you are describing the bridge near the set up zone that crosses the marshy terrain? The AI uses the bridge with no trouble at all and when testing it I was able to place a waypoint from the vehicles all the way up at the first bend in the road and the vehicles would cross the bridge with no trouble at all. I know that other players have described on these forums that they were playing that scenario and none of them indicated any bridge crossing issues that I'm aware of. I also didn't have any trouble with the bridges across the Dommel so I'm not sure what to tell you. You don't have the ATI click compatibility thing going on do you? Edited to add that you should make sure that you give the vehicles some separation before they cross the bridge. Give following vehicles a few seconds delay so they don't all bunch up on the bridge. You should have plenty of time to get where you need to go so there is no need to rush.

Obviously that sort of data is probably impossible to obtain. However, the good thing is that since the developers are using the same unreliable data set as the players, there is no basis for an argument that the developer's opinion on this topic is any less valid than that of anyone else. What you fail to understand is that the burden of proof isn't on the developer to meet some mythical standard, but rather for the player to show that the developer is wrong and that a change or adjustment needs to be made. The game has the information modelled in the game now and thus is the current default behavior. Unless someone can prove otherwise that default behavior isn't going to change. Why? Because that behavior is already in the game and your desired behavior isn't. Before you make attempts at being a clever disruptor fighting the good fight on behalf of those pining for the days of CMx1 redux you have to understand what the score is, what pieces are on the board, and how to play the game.

Something that you might not be accounting for is the fact that some 'fixes' and 'adjustments' only work within the version 2.0 code universe and so can't be back dated to the 1.0 code version. The game code has moved on from 1.0 so all the new 'features' that are in the 2.0 code were made for the 2.0 code. You aren't being forced to pay for patches, you are simply playing a different and outdated game. While you may disagree, MG behavior wasn't broken or bugged in version 1.0 in terms of game crashes, lock ups, freezes, etc. MG behavior was just 'different' than it is under version 2.0.

I think you might be confusing a garden hedge with a Normandy Hedgerow / Bocage. A Normandy hedgerow has a very large earth embankment topped by dense foliage that usually requires demolition charges to breach.

I'm not trying to attack anyone. I'm trying to understand a point of view that the only thing that adds value to a CM product is additional features. Features as defined as engine improvements. I'm sure that just about everyone who reads these forums gets just as excited about engine / game feature improvements as GSX does. I certainly like game improvements. I even like editor improvements which many probably don't really care about. However, the other stuff adds value as well. Some don't seem to view things in that same way and it confuses me. We don't all play the game the same way, so my intent is to find out if there is anything in common among those who value game features to the exclusion of everything else. The fact is that everything else still has to be made. There can't be a game that is just 'features'. A player doesn't just play 'features'. The player has to interact with the game in some way and the vehicle by which the player uses / plays the game is through the use of Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns. You have to have soldier and vehicle models and TO&E in order to use the various forces within the context of Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns. They don't exist independent of each other. All are necessary in order for the game to be played by the end user. You can't just play with a 'feature'. The features are the set of rules by which the computer tells the various soldier and vehicle models interact with each other within the context of the game. The TO&E provides the structure by which the soldier models are organized within the game. Quick Battles, Scenarios, and Campaigns are the means by which the player uses the TO&E and the soldier models within the game environment. Features are great, but features by themselves do not make a game. Everyone can use their own judgement as to how they evaluate whether they want to purchase something or not. If someone wants to base their purchase decision on features alone - that's their choice. However, without all the other stuff there is no game to play. I suppose that the individuals who discount all the non feature portions of the game are simply assuming their presence and discounting it because of that or perhaps they don't use all the other stuff. That's the only thing I can think of. Certainly I almost never use the QB portion of the game so if BFC didn't make it I wouldn't miss it. However, BFC has to make all of it in order to make a game ... so while the buyer is free to discount anything other than features they should also understand that all the other stuff still has to be made and still has to be accounted for by BFC when making the game. I hope that made sense ...? :confused:

You did say this didn't you? That seems pretty clear that you don't really care about new TO&E or terrain or did I misunderstand? Soviets, Heer, SS, Fallschirmjager, American, British, Italian ..... they are all basically the same thing. A hill is just a hill and a tree is just a tree. I suppose you could, but then I never made any indication one way or another as to what I consider value did I? I'm also not the one taking a position in this thread about what I consider worthy of a purchase - you are the one doing that. Okay, so you consider 'features' to be integral to the way infantry carry out their business - so what. That doesn't contradict anything that either you or I posted. If the CMBN base game was the perfect infantry simulator in every concievable way and that was your sole source of value for the product then why would you need to purchase any other module, pack, or base game? Wow, that's a pretty broad definition for eye candy. So as far as you are concerned new TO&E, scenarios, campaigns, terrain, nations, weather conditions, etc .... basically everything that isn't a core engine improvement ... is classified as 'eye candy'. That's a very interesting perspective you have there. So if I'm understanding you correctly then, everything that is in the game that has nothing to do with the game's actual mechanics is all just a bunch of eye candy. Scenarios are eye candy. Campaigns are eye candy. TO&E is eye candy. Terrain is eye candy. I can see where someone would have that viewpoint. I don't know how you play and enjoy the game, but I guess if you played nothing but Quick Battles and you had already figured out to the last point what your perfect Quick Battle force was and you selected the same force every time you play then yeah, nothing but features would matter to a player like that.