Sitting Duck

Ah...so a modder could make some changes that would make the different terrain types more easily distinguished? How far could that be taken? For instance - could a modder simply add a bit of color to bocage (high and low) to make them easier to distinguish? What about substituting images of rubber ducks (low bocage) and rubber swans (high bocage)? The other thing that is sometimes difficult to spot are gaps in bocage. I seem to remember reading that Steve puts "dirt" tiles at the gaps to make them more readily visible to players.

To anyone...For the old noob's here...where did you download this and how would I make it available in my Windows/Mac installation? TIA!

Where would these go (Mac OS)?

Actually, I was just looking for a screen shot, not a movie. I was under the impression that taking a screen shot did not require installation of any software - but that might depend on your OS. Are you using Windows?

I guess everyone has a different "style" of response, yes? One person's "rude attitude" is another's "refreshing." As long as everyone abides by the forum rules, then the only thing left is to not participate. @LemoN - can you take a screen shot showing your plotted movement and where the actual movement is going wrong? That would clear up any misconceptions and might move the conversation forward.

+1 Or "Follow Him..."

+1 for UI change, but please do not use only button color. Different button shape/position would be good, different sound queues...all together best.

+1 BTW - Is there a list of what could be sacrificed? Without a list all we can do is discuss on a forum and hopefully get the agreement of the community - and then the product team. I'm voting for cooperative multi-player. You know, where each leader/team can be controlled by a different human player. What can we sacrifice for THAT?!

I feel your pain. I'm relatively new to Mac systems and ran into some issues as well. The "data folder" that is described in the hotfix is actually part of the application file. So, when you look for it, you need to looking "within" the application file itself. To do this, do the following: 1. Open Finder 2. Highlight the application file, the one with the application icon ("CM Battle for Normandy") 3. Right-click 4. Choose "Show Package Contents" This will open a new Finder window with a folder called "Contents" and within that folder is another called "Resources" and within that are the "Data" and "Game Files" folders. Kind of like this... Finder ->CM Battle for Normandy -->Show Package contents --->New Finder Window ---->Contents ----->Resources ------>Data ------>Game Files I hope that helps. Once you implement the hotfix, restart the application, input your serial # and then quit the application. Then restart the application and everything should be good.

I rarely play large scenarios.

When I play a scenario, I like to spend a little time planning my attack/defense. Part of that includes pre-planned barrages. My preference is to be able to plan the entire barrage for some of my off-map assets on multiple targets. That does not seem possible in the current interface. The best I can do is 1 pre-planned barrage for each asset... Of course, I could use all an asset's ammo on one fire mission. Example of what I want to do Turn 1: use 105mm gun battery to lay down smoke on a linear path 400 yards ahead of my advance. Turn 10: use (same) 105mm gun battery to lay down area fire on a point that I suspect will contain lots of defenders. I expect my ground troops to arrive in that area on Turn 12 to mop up. As it stands now, I can choose either of the pre-planned barrages in my example (Turn 1 or Turn 10) for the 105mm gunner battery, but not both. Or am I missing it? Was this kind of pre-planned barrage not done (historically)? It seems reasonable, but if not, then no worries.

I agree with this +1

Total US Victory on the tutorial. Now on to the other 2 battles. Can't wait for the full release. Game plays very well on my MBP - beautiful. *** Tutorial Spoiler *** I ran the bulk of my forces up to the hedgerow on the left of the main road. Deployed the MG and mortars, then settled in for a bit to see what we could see and wait for the reinforcements to arrive. Used mortars and MG to wreak havoc as the Germans showed themselves. Took the farmhouse with no issue. Most of my casualties came as a result of the German mortars. UGH! I did have problems up the main road to the right side. Those darn hedgerows were just too thick and too close together. Lost 1 tank and decided to camp out on the right side while my main force worked forward on the left of the main road to the cross road objective.

So are you saying that for a US$80 game you had to pay ~US$60 duty? :confused:

Day is not over, yet.

Everyone, please try to restrict your comments in this thread to errata only. :-)

Noticed a number of suggestions/error corrections for the CM:BN v1.00 manual in this thread. I thought it might be good of the community to collect this material in one thread to help with future versions of the manual. Here is the thread I started: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96078

I noticed a number of error corrections/suggestions for v1.00 of the CM:BN manual popping up in this thread. See, e.g., here, here, here, here and here. I thought it might be a good of the community to use a single thread to post any corrections or suggestions they might have with the CM:BN Manual, Print Version, v1.00. :-)

I already have a preemptive script ready...just in case.

How about just the part in/around Berlin? Turn Patton loose, I say.

How about an "August 1945" module where the US and USSR decide Europe isn't going to be big enough for the both of them? Now that would be a fun "what if" module.

Only one way to be sure...

Or Beavis & Butthead...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fd7l36md-uU

Maybe you're missing something...or not. I'm not sure if it's the game engine so much as the era of the battle - more specifically the command and control being modeled. Remember, the CM2 engine you are playing now (CM:SF) is set in more modern times than the upcoming release (CM:BN). It's my understanding that modern command delays - especially for US forces - is comparatively smaller in modern battle scenarios than in previous eras. Assuming that's correct, the command delay for "deleting and creating new waypoints" in a modern setting (for US forces) would likely be less than in a WWII setting. As I understand it, CM:BN will be the first time that the CM2 engine will be played in the WWII era. My expectation is that command delays for "deleting and creating new waypoints" will likely be significant - longer than in CM:SF. The attraction for the ability to simply moving existing waypoints was reduced command delay. Perhaps a beta tester can tell us one way or the other w/o violating the NDA. If there is no significant command delay for "deleting and creating new waypoints" in CM:BN then the issue is one of convenience only. That's not to say it's irrelevant for usability, but shouldn't have too much impact on battle outcomes.