WineCape

Keep the scenario a 'secret' for now, if you want to use it in RoW. We surely need your skills in designing some diabolical battles as per previous incarnations. Welcome back Spoon!

Driving backwards w/ Rhino tanks and ploughing in this way through bocage is a known bug. It was picked up during earlier Beta testing, was apparently fixed, but somehow reared its head [buttocks] again during release. AFAIK, Battlefront is aware of this as it has been reported on the relevant beta forums.

The official word is that Battlefront will have a re-look at the possibility of Armor Arcs at the next "major release, and not until then." That is when Battlefront will also have major changes in store for the User Interface (UI), i.e. to show (& have) more commands available with the redesigning of the game's UI. [The next major release = Battle of the Bulge family of games.] Reason = Armor Arcs have a major impact on the TacAi and it is not just a simple issue of plugging it into CMBN without other possible issues being tested together with this.

Welcome back Spoon!

We have reported the issue via a test scenario and it is with the programming jar (Charles) up for consideration. Infantry troops (not hiding/no arcs) have a tendency to fire at unbuttoned enemy Tank Commanders at certain ranges all the way up to 250m and beyond.

George's map design and attention to detail therein = A1. The hallmark/base of all great scenarios. This particular scenario is a good example of Micro/Macro battles within a greater Normandy Cosmos.

Good thoughts LemuelG, Can you send me a saved movie file of the above issue so I can have look at it (a FRAPS ingame snapshot = added bonus) as well as what system + video card + drivers you run CMBN on. I assume it's PC and not Mac? My email/PM details are in my profile.

An offer has been made by Steve. Interesting if the OP will take it up, or not, despite some helpful posts here, buried among this "rage-titled" thread of the OP.

Yeah, Normal Dude test Abnormal Dudes. Sigline gold.

Be reminded there's no added free Westvleteren 12 if you're to be BFC's PR man. Or Achel, Chimay, Orval, Rochefort and Westmalle for that matter. Or free coasters!

That's the one.

I prefer, after 11+ years on this forum, and seeing the extreme likes of Gaylord, Lewis et al, all the way to the not-so-wild-extremes.... Steve's way. At least he is consistent, even with our Beta testers, in that regard. My take on (extreme) Diplomacy? It's a manner of (extreme) rudeness -- heh, some British can excel in this manner to a high degree, sometimes

The reasonable reasoning man. Love that concept. Poster 1: "I have a complaint. It's legitimate. I say so, so it must be so." Reasonable Deduction 1: Maybe you have, maybe you don't. Who's to know, especially since no proof/evidence is forthcoming, only opinion, your observation, your conclusion. The issue might well be game breaking, annoying to various degrees, or plainly moot. Furthermore, it may/may not be an statistical outlier, and/or, the same method/goal can be reached via an alternate offered method XYZ in the mean time, on absence of providing some evidence/proof and only your conclusions/observations. Human response: possibly unreasonable complaint Poster 2: "I have a complaint. It's legitimate. Here some proof ..." Reasonable Deduction 2: Ahhh, yeah, given your evidence, not just your observation/conclusion, we might agree, or the parameters should change to reflect it clearer for us. Maybe there's no solution yet, and/or the suggested alternative might not be ideal, but it's offered and here it is. Human response: possibly reasonable complaint The Reasonable Man Concept will dictate thus: actively help Poster 2 given time allowance. Poster 1, on the other hand, will in all likelihood get a "combative, standoff" reply/counter point - not unreasonable to believe so. Poster 2 might, as a bonus, even get a future invite from BFC to be a Beta tester -- he seems a reasonable reasoning man! Poster 1.... ehhh....not so reasonable.

Not if Lt Bull, when.

I found BFC response to the OP's so called 'deductive reasoning' appropriate. Combative? And? Certainly no flame, rudeness or downright ad hominem attack was seen. Just because you find, imaginative or real, certain x feature/Method frustrating makes certainly not the 'logical' observation/deduction they should have done away with the theatre altogether. Thank God such reasoning is not prevalent among BFC testers/makers, as no game would have seen the light of day. Ever.

Me wants this, badly.

Out with your klaxon again Lanzie and ring it 'til Charles' jar rattles. Yeah, also thought this bug was fixed. It seems resilient. Officially now called bacteria.

Taki, there may well be a problem with the shooting on the move at certain distances and/or reaction time of gunners, given the small sample and what has been reported so far. BFC/Testers will look at this issue, and try to get 'some meaningful sample' from a specially created scenario, to come to some observation/comparison/conclusion versus stationery shooting. It may well be these two hit% categories (mobile/stationery) are just too close to one another in results, given certain specific parameter conditions, and Charles will then decide what to do with the issue. This all takes time, and we thank you (and others) for bringing this under BFC's attention. However, if only a very small % of players report this issue, it might also be an statistical outlier result, and BFC might not be inclined to look at it for now, given other pressing matters, time and priorities. PS: Note that a minority of players, reporting a specific issue, will also not be ignored out of hand.

ABOVE_SHOULD_BE_FRAMED_AND_HANDED_OUT_AT_PICKETS. ---> With this on the reverse side of the placate: We're is not saying people are wrong. We're saying they don't have the evidence to make a claim that we're wrong.

Ahhh, I remember this one. Very well indeed.

You have my support on this.

Indeed, the Allied AI does not follow always the same attacking path. Played tested it 5 times as Axis, on Iron/Elite. In not one instance did our intrepid Barkmann scored less then 14 AFV's taken out, even running out of ammo on 3 occasions. A turkey shoot par excellence. A brilliant scenario to get you that uber feeling, until the next scenario.... I tip my hat to Jaws.

Bump, as it seems we have some old vets awaking from their slumber. Arise sleeping beauties.

Well Lanzfeld, time again to do a test scenario and give your observations to the jar.

Indeed some were. Though this is not the real issue here. Charles decided, among a list of thousands of possible features, if not more, that this is they way it will be, given his programming time, his priorities, the law of diminishing returns if he spends too much time programming X feature to a further degree, at the expense of features ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ, given the fact that other features also need to be addressed and simulated/abstracted to a certain extent. So he does the best he can do, he programs some limited re-crewing in certain specific instances. The point is, if he programmed all the "design decisions" everybody wants and needs, we still be awaiting CMBO. It's a financial decision, made by Charles/Steve. And since it's financial, I doubt Battlefront would be hemorrhaging monies if a specific issue/feature is not to (some) people's X-degree of simulation and/or liking.