sfhand

This right here... I just discovered a game (different genre) with graphics directly ported from consoles (inferior IMHO) but with stellar game play. I'll take stellar game play every time over graphics, which means, e.g., I'll take beta flame throwers over no flame throwers, I'll take above ground foxholes over FOW destroying fox holes or no fox holes at all, and I'll take infrastructure improvements that allow our great modding community greater flexibility over BF having to do all the art all the time. Maybe I should look into graphical mods for the effects and environment, right now I'm stock. For a while I was using Rambler's tree and bocage mod in CMBN but I never put it back after installing a patch/upgrade. But the bottom line for me is I'm very pleased with the game as it came out of the box. My personal preference for actual graphical changes would be to allow different color tracers (one of those infrastructure changes I think). By this point it should be clear that I'm a function over form guy (which is one reason I think decals are an excellent improvement). So thanks BF, in my eyes we all win!

Unless they're dead?

As one who basically plays pbem exclusively I'd like to add to this discussion. I am not advocating sp players drop sp gaming. One of the main advantages of playing against another person is I don't get to quit the battle and start over when things start going pear shaped. I really believe this has helped me become a better player. I recently played a major battle and was ready to quit multiple times yet I wound up with a victory. Also, playing against really good players gives me the opportunity to learn by example (and most of my opponents are really good players) Another advantage is I've met some cool people from this forum and am always open to meeting more (gotta be a cool person though ). The biggest advantage, for me, has been learning about grace in defeat and in victory. Then there is what I consider the flexibility of it. The people I play with understand I'm doing my best and I understand they are doing theirs to keep the game going and yet still have a life. I play multiple games at a time. So, if I have 4 games and spend 15 minutes per turn I've just spent an hour playing the game. If, by chance, one of my partners is free I have found another turn waiting in H2HH for my attention. There have been many times where I've spent a couple hours, when I had the time and when a gaming partner had the time, playing the game (or even multiple games when the stars are so aligned). If I am challenged for time those same 4 turns could be a 20 minute investment. So, I urge you to at least give mp a shot.

I find it kind of amazing that many of the people who want the game to do more expect it to happen on antiquated tech. I am very pleased to hear Windows 64 bit support is being considered and I hope it arrives in the near future. I would wager that most 64 bit Windows platforms can hold at least 8GB of RAM. I know my 6 year old laptop *which I consider to be antiquated in its own right* can. I am not surprised the 4GB limit is being run into as the game continues to evolve.

Elvis... I just want to be clear, I wasn't taking any shots at your performance in that AAR. I've posted one AAR here and it wasn't my finest hour, so the last thing I would do is take you to task for that game; just having the stones to post an AAR, against Bil and his reputation to boot, wins you lots of street cred in my book. Plus, that Bois scenario is brutal. As a BoB fan I remember Lt. Dykes master plan at Foy (per the miniseries, I don't recall if it was outlined that way in the book), that memory is the basis for my comment about taking your plans seriously - not your performance. About hiding infantry... I have a very vivid memory of leaving my troops hidden one turn too long and having c3k's boys gun them down where they lay, target arcs be damned.

Thanks once again for the magnificent effort, Bil. Are you guys upgrading on the fly or playing the game out with a set version?

Elvis, thanks for doing another AAR. As one who remembers how you got your sig line I wish you well in this endeavor. I must say, though, that the sig line makes any plan you put forward immediately suspect . Good hunting! edit: Hmmm... immediately after posting this the sig line disappeared

If tcp/ip wego was the only improvement, or one of just a few, I would be disappointed because I will probably never use that feature. However, I am pleased to report that I continue to be amazed at the number of new features being introduced in v3 and I can't help but think there is something for just about everyone in it (with most of us being ecstatic about 99% of it).

Bil... I know I keep bugging you about this , but wouldn't a player usually perform a battlefield analysis prior to selecting their force? Is there any chance of you posting a fly-over video of the battlefield? If you could provide analysis commentary as well it would be a plus... I know it is a lot to ask. The thing of it is, the more opportunities we have to see your analysis in action the more opportunities we will have to learn, which is why I keep bugging you about it.

Oh my God! That is one impressive list of new features... I am in awe. And I am drooling thinking of those features being added to the existing games along with packs to take advantage of the fire breathers

It is hard to believe you are just now coming to that conclusion...

Bil, thank you so much! This is exactly what I was hoping for when I made the request. I am fine with being called sf, but you good sir, can call me anything you want. If you keep this up you may even find me openly rooting for you in your next AAR against c3k

If history is a guide, there will be an eastern front forum prior to any AAR's... then again, who's to say history is a guide?

Bil, thanks for yet another excellent AAR (and for your Battle Drill blog). Is there any chance you can delve into a terrain assessment of this map? I know you're a busy guy and so I was/am somewhat reluctant to ask, perhaps you could comment on terrain features using your deployment images rather than new content (I'm hoping there is a way you can do this that wouldn't require a ton of effort on your part). Or maybe there are specific things an attacker or defender looks for that are unique to bocage? Regardless of where you come down on this request thank you for your seemingly tireless efforts to help us all better understand the complexities of the game.

You don't have to play the campaign again to get to it... look for: CMBN_Scen_Organiser_v0.22 (I don't know if there is an updated version but this will work with the campaigns shipped with the base game at least, I suspect it will work with later campaigns but I haven't tried) in the Repository. Again, kudos and thanks to Mad Mike for this little beauty edit: I guess I should have read the entire thread prior to posting... good call mjkerner

If one were to propose an option for linear area fire I would not be against it. Once it is no longer an option I find myself opposed to it.

This... and even with the simplest of orders they will be ineffective.

When I play I play in iron mode. I don't have units area fire known enemy positions without contact icons. I use area fire on suspected enemy positions on occasion (by suspected I mean there has been no enemy contact). If I am advancing to a position, with or without contact icon, I will use target light on that position regardless of contact icons. No one else has to play the way I do, which is a very good thing, and which is why I am against the idea of hard-coding additional targeting restrictions. I am also very much against command delays. I, too, played and loved CMx1. Having been tasked to defend with conscript Italians I feel command delays are very unnecessary when using lesser quality troops. If you have CMFI you can download this scenario and try it for yourself (my game was h2h). http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=2768 If they were any less capable there would be no point in having them modeled in game, IMHO.

After having recently tried to hold off British para's (I don't know their ratings but am guessing veteran at minimum) with conscript Italian troops in fortified positions I feel the idea of command delays to reflect the units' deficiencies is totally unnecessary...

circa 1550 http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/gift

I would be remiss if I didn't start by saying thanks for the bones. There is a lot to be excited about in them bones. As far as 64 bit goes... I'd hate to see a situation where Mac players can play on larger maps while the rest are denied by being OOM. I'm sure you guys are not going to let that happen, or if it does you will reconsider 64 bit support across all OS platforms. Thanks again for the great bone!

This would be a more "reasonable" argument if the Germans stopped equipping panthers with the chin-less mantlet; apparently they did not.

It is not that I don't appreciate your efforts, VaB, and not just in this instance. Your testing has uncovered a lot and I believe important changes have resulted, at least in part, because of it. So kudos to you there. Earlier you replied to me: "... Second, while it would be fair to say there is no proof that a change would be more realistic, to claim there is no evidence to that effect is not. Unless you don't consider two US tests that produced shot trap ricochets to be evidence?" I consider those tests as valid as I consider pistol shooting range results when it comes to dismounted tank crew pistol performance. In the discussions about dismounted tank crews and their pistols of death almost everyone said that in a combat situation excellent pistol range results don't matter. Were I sitting in a Sherman, or any other tank that couldn't normally penetrate a panther, facing down a panther frontally I would give my eye teeth to have everyone get out of the tanks and have a shoot out with our pistols. The thought that I, on my very best day, might get a lucky shot after 8 because the best guy on a test range did would be bad news because that test range tank wasn't moving to save its skin after each shot nor was it subject to return fire. Or should the pistols, which I believe have recently been made less accurate, be made more accurate because of range results?

Haven't you already said no one knows how rare it was? If no one knows how rare it was how do you know CMx1 got it right? AFAIK, CMx1 didn't use a physics engine to model the shot trap and CMx2 does. This is leading back to the "design for effect" vs "design by what ever the physics engine model is called" discussion. For me, your tests have shown the shot trap hit is possible, which we know matches reality. What we don't know is the probability of a shot trap hit which is what you seem to want to change. In essence, you seem to be advocating for a change to the game without providing any evidence that the change would make the situation more realistic. Compare this to the CMFI Italian MG's where someone presented videos of the guns firing and reloading, after which the firing and reloading characteristics of those MG's were changed.

In line with Rokko's post: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105637