Claymore

Question: Regarding the standoff problems that may/may not exist with the Ka52M + LMUR. Does Brimstone have an anti-helicopter capability? Ground launched it would seem to have the range and it's "wack anything in this area" millimeter radar FAF targeting mode might be of some use. As a prerequisite, you'd need the intel to identify an Alligator at bearing/distance, but the optics provided on the Brads (and others) might do that.

Not quite sure what to say about this.....

I've been trying to get into the Tanknet forums for the last 2 weeks but unfortunately they appear down. A login screen appears and all my attempts to login go for naught. Anyone know what's going on? I know it's a bit of a cross-post from the General Topics Forum but I've received no replies there. I wanted to get some ask some questions at TankNet about the ETO. Cheers MRD

46 or so views and nobody's got an answer....Beuller....Beuller...

I've been trying to get into the Tanknet forums for the last week but unfortunately they appear down. A login screen appears and all my attempts to login go for naught. Anyone know what's going on?

The first thing I'd like to do is thank Battlefront for their effort at bringing us this new game. According to Battlefront, and it looks true, every bullet and shell is tracked exactly through space to its eventual destination. That destination is no longer the CMx1 abstracted group of troopers but an exact representation of every soldier, nut, and sprocket. This exact modelling was the predominant reason the the CMx2 build was carried out. I'm enjoying the game, and isn't that the test for a successful game? At least at the beginning, before the niggling details move from distractions to frustrations. That's the big thing to avoid. Frustration. I think it is arguable that games (or any product really) who fail do so because of they caused some kind of frustration. In its most extreme, the worst case would be a non functioning product which would cause the most frustration of all. Very good products can however be extremely frustrating and that's what CMx2 has been for me. Very good and very frustrating. I'd be curious to know from Battlefront what was more successful? CMx1 or CMSF? At least from my observations from long distance, CMx1 had a much more enthusiastic following than CMSF. At this point in my gameplay I believe that Battlefront can be rightly proud that they have created an immersive environment for grogs. The current CMx2 CMBN engine applied to the WWII time-frame where the weapons platforms were much less lethal and one-shot kills were not the rule looks like an excellent beginning. I enjoy tracking individuals through the battlescape (ha! tube-guy!) which gives an almost roleplaying experience in some cases. We did that in CMx1 after all when we examined each unit at the end of combat to see who scored the most kills. In fact, the CMBN pre-release chatter requested that Battlefront include the same information CMx1 presented (kills, hit locations). The only place I don't see kill information presented right now is for off-board artillery (or am I wrong). I hope that some of the criticisms that will follow can be addressed in patches, but I believe that most will be impossible to address and will rely upon yet another engine re-write. Unfortunately I think that the ultimate CMBN build, when reached, will still contain a higher level of frustration with the mechanics than I would wish. I hope that Battlefront proves me wrong. I guess most of my disappointment comes from the inability of the player to use the CMx2 as its rules implicitly are devised. Remember, since the projectile tracking is a completely faithful model of the real world environment it is axiomatic that unit position and facing are also needed to be precisely defined. That last point is the crux of the entire CMx2 raison d'etre. An engine that's entire premise for existence is built on modelling a projectile's exact trajectory information. Unfortunately though, the player cannot position his pieces in anything that resembles a similar level of precision. For armour v armour battles this is not entirely unsatisfactory. After all some level of imprecision is expected when commanding a vehicle to "go over there and stop". So for vehicle vs. vehicle battles the CMx2 engine works quite well and its limitations seem to be acceptable. I imagine that any quirky behaviour can likely be tempered in patches. Now however insert troopers into the battlescape. Whether you consider infantry vs infantry or infantry vs armour, the inability to locate units is an extremely frustrating element of gameplay. After all the reality of infantry warfare was that units were positioned to take best advantage of precise fields of fire. However, it is impossible to locate crew service weapons in anything approaching realism or even acceptable. For example, it is nigh impossible to "keyhole" units (AT guns, HMGs, etc...). You drop a ATG on an action square and the CMx2 engine defines exactly where it's going to be within that 8x8 square. A lot of very important things can happen in an 8x8 square. If you're at one side, maybe that opening in the bocage is within LOS, while if you're where the CMx2 engine forces you, you cannot. CMx1 with all of its abstractions had much better placement abilities. In the Bocage scenario I've been completely frustrated by being unable to place my MGs and AT guns properly. I can't emplace just over the reverse slope of a crest or at a particular break in the bocage during the setup phase. I'm frustrated in the extreme. Frustrated almost to the point of not wanting to play with infantry at all. Can we "nudge" the positions in the EDITOR? Can we nudge them in the SETUP? I don't know since the EDITOR doesn't include UNITS for experimenting with placements. So that's my first impressions after playing the DEMO. Maybe these same sentiments about the engine's limitations have been voiced earlier during CMSF. If so, how did Battlefront respond? I realize that shrinking the action square dimensions will balloon the required processor cycles, but hopefully something can be done to ameliorate the situation. Cheers all.

The first thing I'd like to do is thank Battlefront for their effort at bringing us this new game. According to Battlefront, and it looks true, every bullet and shell is tracked exactly through space to its eventual destination. That destination is no longer the CMx1 abstracted group of troopers but an exact representation of every soldier, nut, and sprocket. This exact modelling was the predominant reason the the CMx2 build was carried out. I'm enjoying the game, and isn't that the test for a successful game? At least at the beginning, before the niggling details move from distractions to frustrations. That's the big thing to avoid. Frustration. I think it is arguable that games (or any product really) who fail do so because of they caused some kind of frustration. In its most extreme, the worst case would be a non functioning product which would cause the most frustration of all. Very good products can however be extremely frustrating and that's what CMx2 has been for me. Very good and very frustrating. I'd be curious to know from Battlefront what was more successful? CMx1 or CMSF? At least from my observations from long distance, CMx1 had a much more enthusiastic following than CMSF. At this point in my gameplay I believe that Battlefront can be rightly proud that they have created an immersive environment for grogs. The current CMx2 CMBN engine applied to the WWII time-frame where the weapons platforms were much less lethal and one-shot kills were not the rule looks like an excellent beginning. I enjoy tracking individuals through the battlescape (ha! tube-guy!) which gives an almost roleplaying experience in some cases. We did that in CMx1 after all when we examined each unit at the end of combat to see who scored the most kills. In fact, the CMBN pre-release chatter requested that Battlefront include the same information CMx1 presented (kills, hit locations). The only place I don't see kill information presented right now is for off-board artillery (or am I wrong). I hope that some of the criticisms that will follow can be addressed in patches, but I believe that most will be impossible to address and will rely upon yet another engine re-write. Unfortunately I think that the ultimate CMBN build, when reached, will still contain a higher level of frustration with the mechanics than I would wish. I hope that Battlefront proves me wrong. I guess most of my disappointment comes from the inability of the player to use the CMx2 as its rules implicitly are devised. Remember, since the projectile tracking is a completely faithful model of the real world environment it is axiomatic that unit position and facing are also needed to be precisely defined. That last point is the crux of the entire CMx2 raison d'etre. An engine that's entire premise for existence is built on modelling a projectile's exact trajectory information. Unfortunately though, the player cannot position his pieces in anything that resembles a similar level of precision. For armour v armour battles this is not entirely unsatisfactory. After all some level of imprecision is expected when commanding a vehicle to "go over there and stop". So for vehicle vs. vehicle battles the CMx2 engine works quite well and its limitations seem to be acceptable. I imagine that any quirky behaviour can likely be tempered in patches. Now however insert troopers into the battlescape. Whether you consider infantry vs infantry or infantry vs armour, the inability to locate units is an extremely frustrating element of gameplay. After all the reality of infantry warfare was that units were positioned to take best advantage of precise fields of fire. However, it is impossible to locate crew service weapons in anything approaching realism or even acceptable. For example, it is nigh impossible to "keyhole" units (AT guns, HMGs, etc...). You drop a ATG on an action square and the CMx2 engine defines exactly where it's going to be within that 8x8 square. A lot of very important things can happen in an 8x8 square. If you're at one side, maybe that opening in the bocage is within LOS, while if you're where the CMx2 engine forces you, you cannot. CMx1 with all of its abstractions had much better placement abilities. In the Bocage scenario I've been completely frustrated by being unable to place my MGs and AT guns properly. I can't emplace just over the reverse slope of a crest or at a particular break in the bocage during the setup phase. I'm frustrated in the extreme. Frustrated almost to the point of not wanting to play with infantry at all. Can we "nudge" the positions in the EDITOR? Can we nudge them in the SETUP? I don't know since the EDITOR doesn't include UNITS for experimenting with placements. So that's my first impressions after playing the DEMO. Maybe these same sentiments about the engine's limitations have been voiced earlier during CMSF. If so, how did Battlefront respond? I realize that shrinking the action square dimensions will balloon the required processor cycles, but hopefully something can be done to ameliorate the situation. Cheers all.

Ok. But how do I get an arbitrary angle facing on the trench (again thinking of trench setups in CMx1). I note that in the Bocage tutorial there are trenches at what looks like 45 deg angles over on the far right. Shouldn't I be able to orient a trench at any desired arbitrary angle?

Just a quick question:How do I change the facing of trenches during the setup phase? (Bocage Tutuorial) I can move them with the (N) command, but no rotation (a la the old (O) command from CMx1)

How do I change the facing of trenches during the setup phase? I can move them with the (N) command, but no rotation (a la the old (O) command from CMx1)

ObersturmHamsterführer Rosenfeld was also in the game Unfortunately no Puma's in CMBN Sidenote: These images took some real effort. First I had to dig out my old laptop (c. 1999 Gateway Solo) and jimmy up a new power supply. After finally getting the old girl to boot up Win98 in lovely 800x600 goodness, she just refused to see any type of mouse or pointer. Finally after solving all those issues the screenshots had to be taken via an external camera. Cheers MRD

Do we use tanks? Well let me tell ya fella this ain't no hamster wheel I'm sitting on! This is 30 tons of Sturmbannhamsterfuher kick'n goodness Cheers MRD

Bump...before it slides into the nether reaches of 4th page oblivion

An anecdote... On to Victory: The Canadian Liberation of the Netherlands “Acting Sergeant Ardagh Cadieu was killed when he accidentally tripped a wire connected to a booby-trapped Panzerfaust" Cheers MRD

The directed portion of the blast is the collapsing wavefront that "squeezes" the liner material into a hypersonic jet. The off-axis explosion is no different to a nearby observer than if a cylindrical charge was detonated.