Kanonier Reichmann

I'm waiting for the usual suspects to respond with... guns don't kill, people kill! No..... people armed with guns kill! Regards KR

Beautiful response Magpie. Well said. Regards KR

Does that mean the patch included farm animals? Do we finally get some cowbell? Regards KR

Yes, it's hard to maintain the suspension of disbelief over the suspension of AFV's the way they're modelled at the moment! Regards KR

Yes, and what JonS's linked story showed was the quality of the stories that are run by Fox in relation to the scandal. i.e. one where a commentator deliberately tries to misdirect the audience into thinking that News of the World was the victim of hacking whereas it was the actual perpetrator. Seems relevant to me since your initial point was the stats might show the quantity of stories each media outlet runs but you intimated that the quality was the important part. Regards KR

Couldn't agree more with your final paragraph BD6. Great post all round! Regards KR

Except it didn't with CMx1. If you set a tank to hunt with an armour covered arc it would only halt when an enemy unit that was a realistic threat to it appeared. Therefore, the appearance of a non gun toting halftrack allowed the tank to continue with its hunt order. This was a very acceptable solution to the problem of having AFV's halt when they spotted even the most minor of 'threats' such as unarmed crews etc. I don't see it as being a kludge at all but a very elegant solution to the problem we're all being frustrated by at the moment with CM:BN. I'm guessing that if a vote was taken of the former CMx1 players on what they perceived as the best solution to the problem it would be very substantially in favour of having access to the old orders that existed in the previous game's iteration (i.e. 'Old' style Hunt & Covered Armour Arc's). Regards KR

That's some of the funniest sh!t I've seen on the net for some time. Brilliant! Regards KR

Very pithy! Regards KR

Borg spotting verses Borg ID'ing. Regards KR

Ahhh, interesting explanation. I never fired the rifle squad in question as it was so low in ammo I feared that any return fire would cause their morale to break seing as they would have nothing left to throw back at the enemy. If I had known that nearby units share their ammo without explicitly showing this on the respective ammo levels then I certainly would have fired them. Is it a definite confirmation that only units within the same platoon can share ammo with their fellow squads and not ones outside their immediate command structure? Regards KR

I had a situation the other night where onee of my infantry squads was dangerously low in M2 rifle ammo. I looked around and saw that a nearby Browning 1917 HMG team with accompanying ammo bearer team had oodles of M2 ammo so I moved up the ammo bearers to a position right alongside the squad hoping they would share their ammo with them. Didn't happen for at least 5 turns or so and then the battle ended. The questions I have are, isn't the 30 cal. ammo the 1917 HMG uses exactly the same as the ammo a Garand uses and if so, why couldn't the ammo be shared? The only thing that I think may have been a factor is that the HMG team was attached to the 2nd platoon HQ while the rifle squad was from the 1st platoon. However, surely in the dire situation where an entire squad has virtually no ammo (down to 25 rounds in total), shouldn't it be able to share ammo from other platoons? Was the paperwork with everything in triplicate too much hassle back in the day? Regards KR

There's something not quite right the way 57mm AT guns are portrayed if you ask me. I've often seen it used like a large sniper rifle against infantry seeing as it's only armed with AP shells. What's more, the AP hits seem deadly against any groups of infantry as I witnessed when one shot from my AT gun managed to incapacitate 3 individual enemy soldiers. One could argue that perhaps all 3 men were lined up perfectly for the one shot to intersect all 3 bodies but the movie I saw had the AP shell hit the ground in front of the gaggle with 3 of them collapsing immediately from the explosion. If 57mm solid shot shells are this deadly against infantry I hate to think what 76mm HE shells are going to do... destroy an entire squad with its first shot? Regards KR

All I'd say for screenshot #3 is... watch your spacing! Regards KR

How about slightly deployed? Or really, really close to deployed? Anyone for could be if I can be arsed to do so deployed? Regards KR

Perhaps the problem seen by the OP has more to do with the way the game models high explosive and its effects when impacting on an 8m x 8m action square. From my understanding the lethality of HE is abstractly reduced due to the way the game forces relatively high densities of troops within the 8m x 8m grid. perhaps when a relatively accurate gun such as the 57mm uses its AP rounds it can fire them at quite highly compacted soft targets within the confines of an 8 x 8 grid and almost not miss? In other words, there's no way to abstractly reduce the effectivenes of a solid shot not killing a person should it hit and the chances to hit are probably too high due to the way the game design forces a large number of troops to be constricted to an 8 x 8 grid. Regards KR

++++ from me as well. A covered armour arc combined with a genuine hunt command (not move to contact as it is at the moment) would solve many issues I have with giving appropriate orders. Unfortunately, it seems that this may be asking for the world. Regards KR

This is a sorely missed option that we enjoyed from an earlier iteration of Combat Mission designed over 10 years ago! I cannot see why the original CMx1 Hunt functionality was not included with Cmx2 along with covered armour arcs. They were both so useful and commonly used and seems like a no brainer to me, especially since basic covered arcs already exist and the programing to halt a unit when it spots a threat is also there as well. Regards KR

Anybody remember the film Thunderbolt & Lightfoot with Clint Eastwood and Jeff Bridges? A nice bit of weaponry was used in that one to shoot into a bank vault. Regards KR

I couldn't agree more. CMx1 had it better represented in this regard with on map mortars commencing their firing pretty much within about 10 seconds or so when firing indirectly using an HQ as its spotter. Perhaps 10 seconds was a bit quick but it's certainly more realistic than 4 minutes when all the spotter has to do is simply shout back and signal his instructions to the nearby mortar team. Regards KR

Am currently fighting a massive recreation of a portion of the Stalingrad battlefield in CMBB at the moment. If it weren't for the availability of sewer movement my forces would have no chance of being able to succesfully assault structures such as the Southern Manufacturing Hall seeing as its surrounded by minefields and a continuous line of wire. I for one am very glad you took the time to include this feature. Regards KR

Except the name, the period of war being simulated, the weaponry, the combatants etc, etc- which creates certain expectations as a result. Regards KR

No, no! Given that my eyes started glazing over after the word "Greetings" from Nabla due to all the gobbledegook about random string theory, voyeristic models and procreation of the score I think Nabla with some blah included is perfect as it is. Regards KR

What blows me away is that the German population are expected and DO work hard until 65 when they finally reach retirement age and can enjoy some return on all the taxes they've paid while the Greek equivalent insist it's their right to still retire at 55 and get bailed out by the EU (read Germany mainly) to maintain the privilege. How does that work? Regards KR

Your suggestion here appears to be the 'perfect' solution in my eyes. It's a pity there wont be any changes to the UI for at least the next couple of years (based on how long it appears it will take to release a new game- not module- in the CMx2 series). Regards KR