Windopaene

I thought I had gotten another one there Bruno, perhaps you're right. Hard to remember sometimes who has killed what... Not hard to remember that 'Shreck though :mad:

Well I've got a Stuart in a PBEM who has racked up 2 Marder II 1 251/9 HT 1 Stu42 I was pretty proud of him, till he overlooked the 'Shreck hiding in the woods.... Posthumus Promotion I guess...

And will rubbing my Panther's belly when he knocks out a Sherman make him more likely to do that in the future?

Well my Damn Tungsten's not working :mad: Playing a RD ladder game of Hamminkeln and I've got a 50mm AT gun set up nice in the woods. Panther comes rolling up. Ammo readout shows two "t" rounds. So far I have bounced five shots off various parts of the beast. I'm screaming at the computer as I watch the movie, "FIRE TUNGSTEN DAMNIT". Panther is at about 40 meters or less and it's just one AP round after another plinging off and bouncing around the battlefield...

Interesting thread, especially as I see a couple of opponents who have beaten me! In my last loss to Panzer Leader, I was the defender. One flag on the left, city on hill in the middle, all the other flags in hilly terrain on the right. Seemed a great defensive setup... Placed minefields in key spots, one platoon to the left with an AT gun and some MG and zooks. Put a bunch of MG's in the town, in all the good sight spots, all of the rest of my inf and mg's by the flags. Result, complete and total destruction. He avoided the minefields and my TRP. My zooks and AT gun on the left never had anything to shoot at, the MGs in the city got off most of their ammo before being overrun, (I didn't expect much from them though), and with three or four flags on the right, there wasn't much room for falling back. It was a head scratcher, as I thought I had done all the right things. Back to the drawing board I guess. But on the other hand, I played a Probe against another poster on this thread, who pretty much wiped out my attacking Brits. An excellent defensive position on the top of a hill, but with an AT pillbox taking out my Stuarts, and a Panther to deal with my Churchill, I was unable to make much headway with my infantry, getting close to two of the flags, but not nearly close enough. He had a reserve I'd guess, though I never really was able to force him to use any defensive tactics, as I don't think he ever had to fall back. His forces did execute a nice infantry counterattack on some squads I got to a building on the top of the hill. Not really sure what I did wrong in either of these situations, although sometimes I suppose even the best plans fail. Guess we've just got to keep playing them, and try to learn from our mistakes.

Hi Mom!

Well, as I have a similar thread going, I'll add my two cents here as well. I think the things you describe, (with the possible exception of the HE vs. Halftracks issue), are very non-trivial, and I doubt we'll see them dealt with until the engine rewrite. As for BTS turning a profit. Are you kidding? Three, (or more), sellouts, no middleman to take a cut, high price...I think they've made some money. I think that they will make even more when the sell the CM2 "add-on". You make a good point about "add-ons" being the way "traditional" software companies have operated. Hadn't ever thought about that really. Perhaps not a good trend? Will I buy the "add-on"? If I think my PC can handle it, you bet. Not everyone will, as we've seen in other threads, some people, (who are clearly insane ), aren't interested in the Eastern Front. Shouldn't BTS go the extra mile to keep those folks happy and singing their praises until CMII? I'd guess CMII is going to take a hell of a lot longer to ship than CM2. There will probably be some good games coming out between now and CMII. They will be knock-offs of CM, but that's business. OK, enough of this

Well tom, I purposefully avoided the MG issue, as there is still some debate about that. I avoided the halftracks vs. inf issue, again, as there is, (was), debate about that. I guess I did forget the HE vs. unarmoured targets bug. The turret rotation command is not a bug but an enhancement, so I skipped that as well. I only put in things that are broken. Wasn't it you who stated that you'd be setting up your tanks to shoot through buildings until it was fixed? Guess I won't be playing you So there are several bugs that exist. Are they serious? Depends on your point of view I guess. Are players exploiting them? Apparently some are. How tough would they be to fix? hard to say without looking at the code, but I'd bet the PBEM change could be put in in one morning's work. The shooting through buildings might take a while to find the source of, but as it only appears in certain conditions, and can be reproduced, I'd bet Steve could find the "sweet spot" condition he described and code that bugger out. As for the smoke issue, well that's a TacAI issue, and might be the toughest of the lot, as I would guess the TacAI is some pretty gnarly code. Ditto for the HE vs. Unarmored vehicles issue. And yes, I'd pay for the PBEM fix alone...

Michael... The "w" I was referring to is lowercase! And while one of these is an "enhancement", (fixing security up a bit), the others are bugs. I too wonder if they will ever get fixed, as once CM2 is out work will begin on CMII, and then the codebase will have moved past CMBO, and no one wants to go back and debug/patch the "old stuff", so it will never happen. Hell, truth be told, I don't really care much about the tanks/buildings bug nor the smoke bug, I really want the security fix though, (just threw in the bugs because that would lend credibility to the "need" for another patch).

Whoohoo a supporter! :eek: and there's no "w" in Windopaene

Good point :mad:

It's a dirty job, but someone had to do it... Well with all of the pissing and moaning recently in the smoke thread and the MG thread, (which I didn't touch with a 10 foot pole), and whether or not Tournament House is gamey, I would have expected some support... However, let me say this. I too am looking forward to CM2. Of course, given that I have an 11 meg on board video setup which may or may not be replacable with a more capable video card, I may or may not even be able to run CM2. And given the fact that both of these "bugs" are capable of changing the outcome of a battle, I think they deserve attention. And as for the PBEM thing, computer chooses forces is currently broken, for competitive play. Whoever sets it up can cheat. End of story. While I'm not that paranoid, as long as "the system" exists for Germans, it will be used, and the only way to ensure the elimination of the system for a quick game is to have a secure "computer chooses" option. OK, back to the "are you crazy" posts...

Well sure you want to ban some of those words. Then your opponents couldn't complain when you send your Gerbiltruppen on the attack with a Panther for support. Cause we all know that a Panther would never have been used with mountain troops!

OK, so I'll face the ire of the board, BTW, etc. and boldly go where no ne has gone before... There is one definate bug, one possible bug, and one improvement needed to 1.12 that should be dealt with. 1. Acknowledged bug - Tanks that can target and shoot through buildings. Even Steve agreed that there was something wrong going on here. Don't have the link, but Do A Search™ and you'll see that one. 2. Possible Bug - Smoke rounds. 3. Improvement - Additional PBEM "segment" to allow for the use of "Computer Chooses" QBs without the possibility that the opponent is cheating by checking out your forces before sending it. That is all, let the hostilities and angry denials begin...

Because after you've been playing for a while, you'll use the keyboard shortcuts far more than the orders menu, and you'll realize what a minor, inconsequential nit it is...

Netscape user here... Painfully slow.

Well I hate to burst your bubble, but I've got a halftrack with crew of 2 | 1 Which buttoned up last turn after taking some infantry fire, and as I was plotting my last set of orders, I WAS able to unbutton it. Thanks for the other info though...

As the title says. Can allied halftracks fire thier MGs when buttoned? I think not from watching a couple of movies, but wanted a definative answer. It does appear that the crew of halftracks are more versitile than that of AFVs as I have one that just lost a crew member, yet I was still able to Open Up. Just need to know if I have to open up to fire the MG.

Well, to an extent I think you're right, and I too held this opinion at one time, however, I'm starting to think a bit differently. If you have the only tank left on turn 12 of 30, AND you have a lot of HE ammo left, then things are likely to get ugly for your opponent. If you have the last tank left on turn 23 of 30, and/or it's out of HE and/or MG ammo, then it's not going to help much. I'm currently playing a few games where I expect both sides will have armor left at the end, so that's not always going to be a hard and fast rule. As for making the last tank standing one of yours, try keeping them out of the sights of the enemy!

I played "Drop To Destiny" and was shocked to see that the Dynamic Flags were visible to the ATTACKER ! I was sure it was going to be for the defender. And I think it would make a lot more sense for the defender, as well as helping out defense, which seems much more difficult than attacking.

Si Senor Biggles...

Runs fine for me on ME

No problem at all Abbott. But the fact remains that with a few programming tweaks, which may or may not be difficult for BTS to do, the inherent problems in the PBEM Auto-picking problem could be eliminated. As a programmer I know that a "few programming tweaks" can end up being a lot more work than it appears on first glance, but still, I think they should do it...

Well I think one "solution" really needs to come from BTS. Two changes that would solve a lot of these problems. 1) Include the setup parameters as part of the encrypted game file that gets sent at the start of the game, and display it to the "player 2" who gets the file. 2) Come up with some way of preventing the "player 1" from cheating with a computer buy situation by looking at the map/opponents forces before sending it. I would think this would require the "player 2"'s computer to actually generate the map and his picks, or at least not show player 2 what the map is, nor what forces he will get, but just to enter a password. After this gets sent back to player 1 then the map gets generated, along with both sides units...

Are there assualt boats in it? The AI can't play with them so it might disallow scenarios with them in it...