dieseltaylor

Perhaps the interesting gambit was to for the Germans to have gone halfway in simply taking its half of Poland following the vicious attack on its border and then retreated apart from a change with Danzig. Or even give up Danzig for peace with France and the UK. This leaves Russia out on a big limb which possible stories of brutal murders etc scare the free world. : ) Oh yes much more fun. Germany reverts to a butter economy but maintains trade with its Russian ally/former ally. If Russian realises it has been left on th limb does it get stroppy and go for all of Poland, free Germany, retreat itself. Oh yes all good fun. And started by the Poles to creat problems. Wily them Poles.

I have to fall into the faintly unhappy camp currently. But before I explain why lets look at Emrys analogy. CMBO was a blockbuster and way way ahead of anything. However it soon became apparent [and if you play lots that is quite quickly] that infantry and HMG's were a problem. CMBB arrived and had noticeable flaws with bogging, scaredy cat tanks, attack/defence points problem, and and the overdone Russians are rubbish rule. However it did offer huge range of terrain and lots of tank country. CMAK was the pinnacle of the series and the flaws of CMBB were history. Not perfect but extremely playable from small scenarios like "By Tank Into Normandy- Gheel" to giants like "Tiger Vally" and "Botrytis II". The very large area available made tanks and light vehicles of value and also allowed timing of movement and ruses to become factors. Unfortunately I suspect a lot of people play on smaller maps where such refinementss never occur. In anyevent it added another level of play to the game. So to come to CMBN. I had assumed it was a game system that had been refined by 4 years of CMSF tweaking and believing the guys knowledgeable about WW2 I expected a more polished product in terms of realism. Tanks I regard as a very fundamental part of WW2 and they had not been sorted in several respects in Version 1. Also the interface clunky, no command lines ,etc etc . So a loss of goodwill and lets hope V1.01 has nailed most of the bugs. There does remain a concern over how some of the design decisions have panned out like viewing from any part of the map by driving your vehicle by magical powers and then seeing what you should not be able to see. The invisible walls whereby your fleeing routed troops , and your soft skin vehicles bounce back into artillery barrages. For realism I am afraid it is a big fat MINUS. I am not sure players find this very believable. Has BF compromised in some ways to include mucho small unit training, too much RT, to much solo and the AI, or has WEGO been the pain. Is there an argument that splitting might allow for a couple of products that work very well for their own markets. Only they know and it may never have become an item of serious discussion. Of course I am going to play as I invariably play humans [ or people claiming to be human] and the game engines faults and virtues apply to us both. PS. For those who are finding it tricky to play their is a 160 minute tutorial on YouTube - hit the Wiki link in my sig.

However James is right it does have extreme gamey potential AND is the reverse of the reasoning in CMx1. I think I mentioned in CMx1 the gaminess of the automatic laser rangefinder - which now apparently has an independent working function. Fotunately range break points are not relevant with the weapons. Stikkypixie - reason a] is that the total good point? As it stands then I can plot my move all over the board and check where I will get views. I do get the feeling that BF in trying to cater for RT , solo players, and for PBEM may have introduced compromises that have strange outcomes. So can someone help me with why you should be able to astrally project your body to check viewpoints? And does it have different effects in the different play modes?

Well there you go. And given we are 5 minutes past the end of the game .... And I cannot do it either so it looks like turn 131 needs to be the saved file in the new version.!

I hear its next week.

Well that is downright bizarre not to change it. Perhaps some one could confirm it is deliberate or an oversight.

Not quite GAJ. I have not had the file returned from my oppo yet! I will update both threads later today when I have a reply.

I have taken screen shots and posted them using Irfanview. It does allow you to cut the piece of screen you require which is very useful.

Womble I would be very surprised to find any tank that went faster backwards than forwards - excepting the Archer of course : ) As for tanks seeming a bit fast - thats an interesting question. My first port of call would be the accelaration to the speed registered. Anotherwords the speed reached my be correct it is simply being reached too quickly. However I have no data and no information on how long vehicles took to reach a reasonable speed. Thsi si the kind of info that may be obtainable from museums with active tanks and re-enactors. I have seen tanks moving at Bovington but as the arena there is quite small I doubt that high speeds are reached by the WW2 vehicles. But believe me it seems fast enough when you are seeing them at a range of ten metres to 200 metres. I think that they may flatter to decieve as they will not be fully equipped as they will be light normally some crew, the shells , and most of the fuel. I suspect it is possible to measure the speed in game and extrapolate the figures if top speed is a concern. And on that basis an idea of acceleration can be obtained. However with V1.01 coming I have not the heart to get excited on testing. The reversing though is a problem.

Irfanview is the way to go. : ) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IrfanView According to CNet it has been downloaded 58million times - I assume from their site.

What!!!!! I have been misinformed then. I understood that BF had realised it was only the smaller bocage, and obviously hedges that could be driven through, And for bocage you needed the plough, The high bocage I thought represented bigger banks and trees that were plough-proof. BF fix or something ... along with reversing through bocage. Sheesh.

I was idly testing a scenario and noticed that the StugIII seemed to reverse very quickly. I only having to hand reversing speeds for a Tiger but I did have a Panther G and a Panther A on the field. I was surprised to find that the A is marginally faster in reverse than the G on fast forward. I checked the tracks and they are equally damaged. So I added the MkIII and the results show that the Stug was marginally slower in reverse than the Panther A in fast forward - 3 seconds over 100 metres. The Panther G was several more seconds slower in reverse. I have tried it again in this field so there is stopping involved. Going fast forward G =37 seconds for approx 100metres III fast forwad = 26 seconds A in reverse = 35 seconds I would like to quote reverse speeds for the test tanks but only have to hand "Tiger Tanks" which says the Tiger I with 4 reverse gears tops out at 5.6mph and of course would need to work through all four of those gears to reach that speed. It would seem to me that there is a bug regarding reverse in the game.

Lemuel - I am not sure anyone ever claimed it never happened just that it was so unlikely that it was never ever going to be worth putting into the game. Your quote of a recovery bolsters the case as obviously dragging the tank [stuart? Sherman?] away was to enable repairs to be done in safety. I am quite happy fror players to have the option to buy a T2 in the game. I doubt any would though. Incidentally the opposition sounds a bit lightweight doesn't it! - in the example. However there are more important things by far to be sorted first.

Are you absolutely sure you have a Rhino fitted tank. The little jagged icon under the vehicle can confuse. Secondly you can only do the small bocage not the big stuff. If you have turned off trees that might explain something alos!! Best of luck.

I cannot think of a bigger waste of effort - truly. But then perhaps because I loathe playing the AI and cannot see why any human would wish to play the Japanese. However for people who play the AI I can see they might find it fun to plough an island with shellfire and then beat up what is left. I do think the desert gets a lot of bad Press particularly when you consider that Tiger Valley was the greatest scenario to come out of CMAK. Whatever you may think now I suspect that 6 months down the road tanks will be recognised as the fun units to play with.

BBC. Interesting.

So whats all this attention on tanks? What about immobilised trucks and halftracks? Sheesh its downright discrimination. Marshall - I suspect that the likelihood of any relevant WW2 battle experience in the beta-group would be slight and research is your friend. Any modern tankers views I suspect are coloured by their experience of the infinitely superior models they used. I sometimes wonder if re-enactment groups would be prepared to carry out some tests to clarify areas of doubt but my sneaky feeling is they probably would not wish to ram various bocage hedges to find out how realistic a size should be rammed. Firing and hitting on the move might be doable subject to the right clearances! Probably not totally necessary to do that test. : )

You are of course jesting, 3-4 tanks as any grog kno. : ) It may even be the big recovery tractors but I cannot see anyone using thos in a hostile area even if they had bought them.

Ah yes! the suspension.

This is a corker of a blog piece from DCVelocity - the well known journal for the Distributuion Centre industry http://blogs.dcvelocity.com/communications/2011/07/goodbye-rebekah.html

Recommended

The live feed from the BBC sems to be proving that James Murdoch is not that smart and one feels he might have achieved what he has through nepotism. No, seriously.!

Very nice inded. The fences would be interesting and perhaps it would help to see what was actually commong in 1944 Europe

It would seem to me very difficult to diplomatically try to police the risk to your child from friends parents. As a general rule making the parents culpable for the homicide would be a good start. However I notice a recent case where the murder weapon was "found" outside the home by the child. There are practical difficulties but certainly an arduous register of guns would help tie weapons to people.

Version 0.6 does offer the time since last turn - ideal for seeing if someone has forgotten to reply.