Sirocco

I think that's probably the most often seen problem with the TacAI in CM. Your squad or team is almost on top of solid cover, about to break LOS with the threat, and they turn 180 degrees back into the withering fire they want to escape from. Not having seen the code I can't of course know for sure, but adjusting the code to handle the above situation should be possible in a patch. The cover at the destination, and the distance to it, has to be factored more heavily into the TacAI's relevant calculations. Edited to add: I'd like to see panicked and routed units stay put more often. When a unit is in good cover, for example a foxhole, I'd expect fire that wasn't causing casualties to pin them in place, even surrender, rather than have them jump up and sprint back across open ground. [ October 28, 2002, 06:55 AM: Message edited by: Sirocco ]

Call me a conservative, but I prefer playing a game as it is. I hate it when people try to talk me down by underlining the "negative impact" the gamey move has on their force. I don't care whether the foxholes work as road ditches or not, use 'em for what they were meant to be used! It's a matter of taste, and I find this serving bitter.</font>

The reverse of that is that you now know he has fewer fallback positions available. You can also deduce his defensive intentions from their position, as you would if he'd placed a roadblock or wire, so as a tactic it has it's own negatives.

When you look at it from the point of view of the commander on the ground, it makes perfect sense to use all of the tactics mentioned above. I could certainly imagine a situation where it made more sense to "foul up" the road somehow than dig fallback positions. And I certainly see nothing wrong with bulldozing a built-up area prior to an advance, or lighting it up, depending on the circumstances. If you don't agree with that I'd be interested to hear your reasons.

I had a PzKpfw IV use canister in a July 41 game. I hadn't even thought about canister rounds until I saw the bee swarm emerge from it's gun.

I think you're confusing him with an Allied staff officer.

I thought it must have been Fedex myself, but it was definetely Canada Post.

I ordered a copy of CMBB around October 2nd, it arrived in Vancouver on the 10th - I assume it was shipped on the 4th - and I received it in the UK this morning. As the Canadian postal system's reputation seems to have taken some knocks here, I thought I should share my experience to redress the balance a little, and reassure potential Canadian customers. Go Canada! Now, another attempt to reach those damn flags...

Well, that depends on the terrain, and as I understand it CMBB doesn't take that into account when assigning each side points, though perhaps it should.

With CMBO the basis to success was avoiding real-world tactics, while with CMBB it seems the opposite is true. I do recall some very useful CMBO tutorials, and I think we need more for CMBB. Detailed explanations with illustrations to give a clear perspective on what's required when attacking, and so help people move from the CMBO model to CMBB.

The speakers use analogue, so digital will only produce white noise.

Looks good.

I'm sure it's been discussed before, but it would be a nice touch to be able to re-crew and gun, or vehicle, with a crew that's regained it's composure, as long as there were enough crew members to operate it, of course. That would also give more incentive to make sure the gun or vehicle is fully knocked out before continuing.

They alluded that this might happen in this thread: How has BTS made life easier for modders and benefactors? Posted by Battlefront.Com: " Having a unique turret side texture, for example, doesn't add too much to the VRAM load. Currently CM's engine can't handle overlays as such, but I am sure the new engine will be able to do this"</font>

In the engine re-write I'd like to see these details added to vehicles to make each one unique. Vehicle numbers on tank turrets, for example, would be a nice touch.

I ordered the PC version at the start of the month - I'm assuming it was shipped on the 4th - and it was delivered in Vancouver on the 10th.

I have the Creative GeForce 4 TI4600. I always find it hard to make comparisons between these things, but the smoke and general effects in MoH with it are breathtaking. I'd go for an Intel processor, simply because money isn't an issue.

I'd take 1Gb RAM and a SoundBlaster Audigy card, possibly the bundle with Inspire speakers. I bought that and I'm very happy with it.

You're starting to worry me. I have a copy on it's way to a friend in Vancouver from the fresh batch issued on the 4th. I'm just hoping all those "gifts" haven't started to arouse the suspicions of Canadian Customs.

That's 100% correct. A lot of people make that same mistake. Those email addresses should also be removed from the first post, just in case an email harvester finds this page.

I never realised it was so important to get it into retail. You'd never have thought it from the manifesto. Whatever happened to the wargaming revolution? It seems that for European customers at least, it only lasted for one game.</font>

Probably because it was the only option available to get it into retail. The only problem I have with that is the contract clause that forbids BFC from shipping to Western Europe. Now we're left with the charade where we buy the game, have it shipped to Canada, whereupon it's shipped to us.

I have to agree. I haven't been able to get used to it with the demo so far. It just seems the wrong way around.

It often makes more sense to establish ambush positions overlooking the flags when you're up against an aggressive opponent. Let him win the flags, while you win the game.

I'd be interested, too, but I understand there are duplication problems at the moment, which would cause a delay?