sfhand

Man oh man, gotta love the tone in this thread... It is showing me that I'm turning into an old curmudgeon... I don't like the tone of a few posters on all sides in this one, but I also understand that my tastes and preferences aren't universal truths and most likely there are those who don't like my tone as well. So, I'm not complaining about it - just stating what I consider to be obvious. I have one helpful suggestion, if you are having technical problems with the game look for a thread in the game's technical support sub-forum on the topic and if you can't find one start one rather than going off-topic in other threads which can be interpreted as being self-centered (you won't annoy anyone that way and people interested in helping you will find you more quickly - that is one bit of good news about this forum: there are many people interested in helping others). As far as the state of the game goes, everyone here, including BF, will quickly admit it is not perfect. I am amazed that anyone, excluding betas and devs, thinks they know what is in store for us with MG since so little has been revealed. Okay, I'm not really amazed, people are like that all the effin time (and since I'm a person too I have and will fall into the category sooner or later... and it is a good thing too, one of the strengths of humanity actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuristic but it is not a strength when the person doesn't/can't admit when it has led them astray, it then becomes a crippling liability). Yippeeee! (I feel like Steve Martin in the Jerk "the new phone book is here! the new phone book is here!)

Wow... just wow... I guess the game is fatally flawed... and to think I've been playing and enjoying it the whole time... I must be a total loser to enjoy such a fatally flawed game. I am such a loser it never occurred to me to add another layer of micromanagement to the game. The lack of ability to micromanage what each soldier is doing during "buddy aid" is such a glaring omission of an obviously crucial component it boggles my mind that I could have overlooked the additional hours of excitement each scenario would afford me were such attention to detail a part of the development of the game. Also, it is really shocking how BF hasn't paid any attention to its customer base... I guess that explains the lack of MG bones.

That would be at the top of my list...

I used to think it would be great if there was only one game and everything else was modules (including theaters) because I'd like to be able to play "what if" scenarios. I wasn't looking at this as a way of cutting my costs, but rather as a way of achieving maximum usage of the content. I am still hoping BF offers a glue it all together title so we can play "what if" scenarios, but right now there is so much content I haven't gotten to, including CMSF and all its modules - all of which I've owned from day one, that if BF never made another game I'd still have several years of game playing before I ran out of stuff to play (I am pretty much a pbem only player). I'd like to believe the current strategy is a very nice blend of engine development and new content. I wonder if at some point in the future it would be less work to have a unified engine than making upgrades for each title as the engine develops and the number of titles increases.

Interesting read... I'm with Baneman (I think), I would remove the 2 southern most German objectives (keeping them as allied objectives) and leave the setup zone the same. I would make all objectives the same value (per side - since fewer objectives on Axis side they would be more valuable compared h2h with Allied objectives) except White Manor. This way, as Baneman pointed out, the defender can set up to slow the attacker. I thought, because of all the trps, that this was a main defensive effort so I was surprised the effort didn't have any rolling stock. But, I am not a military historian... Most of my defensive effort was up front... Ken's break through was the majority of the battle, after that there wasn't a lot of interesting combat which is, I think, part of the reason he ended his AAR the way he did. I'm not sure adding one at gun balances the scenario. In many ways 'schrecks are superior IMHO, I personally think replacing the at gun with one stug vs a platoon of Stuarts would not be over kill for the Germans. It would add a lot of flexibility while still keeping some limitations. It would probably also force the Allied player to split his forces.

Ken established fire superiority very quickly in every encounter. Most of the time my guys couldn't see what was shooting at them until it was too late (this really surprised me, btw). I had no luck in lining up a high probability shot with the schrecks I had, mostly due to them being gunned down by infantry. Thanks for pointing out my error re: half track schreck resupply; it was a bad assumption on my part. But like I said, it wouldn't have affected the outcome of this battle.

This has been an awesome AAR! WE WANT MOAR!!! Once again you have shown a great ability to quickly recognize a situation and quickly exploit the opportunities the situation presents (plus you write a great AAR). I don't think you prevailed due to my oversight however, I think you won because you played really well. The beauty of playing pbems with very good players is it, hopefully, allows me to become a better player myself, so, thanks for the lessons Ken, they are much appreciated. (and even though you don't know it yet, you have had some nice luck in our current game...) As I recall Macisle wanted some feedback on the scenario, so I'm going to offer this. As the German player I found myself overly reliant on the placement of trp's. I will be the first to admit I am pretty clueless when it comes to deciphering the puzzle presented by many maps, so for a player of my caliber (that would be spitwad), having one or two stugs and 2-4 trp's instead of ~10 trp's and one atg would allow the defender hope of recovery should the defensive plan be exploited. I am pretty disillusioned with the current implementation of redeploying atgs, and on a map like this one, with multiple avenues of approach, having just one top notch at asset which is unreliable in redeployment as well as extremely vulnerable once its position has been given away seems a difficult challenge to overcome given the platoon of tanks the Allies have. Another minor niggle would be the Axis player should have a half track or two for schreck resupply.

Hmmm... apparently this thread could have just as easily been named " The end of actual news".

My "forgetting" the FOW limitations is proof of concept. I have only just now finished up my latest CMBN pbems and am now beginning to play GL pbems. The FOW limitations are indeed a welcome feature.

A good decision assuming you realize you will need to buy the 2.0 upgrade to come as close as you can to the CMFI experience - there is a bundle with CW too. I would look at the patch page prior to installation... http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_versions&Itemid=317#Combat

Not identical, as pointed out above... I own both and am currently only starting CMFI/GL battles because there are some fixes in it that I deem important, e.g., tank targeting accuracy not negatively affected by the pause command (thanks for discovering this vanir). Prior to this I was only playing CMBN because of the MG fix. So... the benefits of owning both is one always has access to the most updated version of the engine (outside of the development versions). If I didn't own both I would wait until MG and buy a bundle.

You are lucky you still have activations left, it is a longer wait to get new ones added. I think I understand why they don't make the "cleaner" utility widely available; one careless mistake with it and you've nuked an activation which would make the wait for new activations even longer under the current system. I was one who spoke out against the finite activation type of DRM vs the elicense type. It may or may not be less hassle for battlefront, we don't know, but it removes a large degree of freedom from the end user. This isn't to say I haven't had hardware/software failures that made it necessary to get a new elicense activation from customer support, because I have, but failures are different than planned system upgrades or OS updates/upgrades. This is the only game for which I put up with this type of DRM. I have found the support people to be top notch regardless of the DRM.

It looks great Marco, a quick question, what does the gray oval in the compass represent?

While I may have started the battle feeling this way: it didn't last

I'm not sure I think a further recounting of my forces getting ground to fine dust is all that entertaining. At this point in the game I believed I was toast and my best efforts would only provide a speed bump, if that, to c3k's inspired attack. So, for that reason I am thinking I should wrap this thread up and wait until after c3k is done with his excellent AAR to discuss what I thought of the scenario. Of course if c3k or Macisle want more I will continue, otherwise this is it. Thanks for checking it out!

The question and its implications don't seem desirable to me. I take them to mean there will be no 'fix' for specifically for the M20, but rather all vehicles. Personally, I prefer to determine when my vehicles unbutton. I'd be pretty annoyed if I started losing commanders because my tanks were firing their main guns.

I wasn't taking shots at you womble...

I am very interested in how much a ramdisk install speeds up load times of pbem files compared to an ssd...

The concern for me is setting off the DRM, I haven't had very good luck with it and I am completely out of activations.

A quick note on my gamey tank/truck pic... I didn't set up that way, I had the truck ~75 meters away and backed it into position when I saw the armor activities on my left flank. Not knowing anything about the size of the enemy force I was reluctant to move the gun as an initial reaction to the left flank situation. As I said earlier, as the defender on this map it seems very clear to me I was going to need success with my artillery to win or draw.

I had a real bad experience with gamersgate, they locked me out from software I purchased because "moneybookers" said I might be committing fraud. The only way "moneybookers" would accept that I wasn't committing fraud was for me to reveal personal information that I am not comfortable with. My credit card representative opened up a conference call with "moneybookers" and assured them I was not fraudulently using my credit card and they still insisted I send them the personal information. Through all of this gamersgate said it was their policy to keep me locked out of the other software I purchased from them using paypal. My credit card representative asked me if I wanted a refund; there is an account paypal has that credit card companies can access. When I asked her what the grounds were for the refund she said fraud, i.e., I purchased something they were not delivering per the purchase agreement. I thought that was an interesting twist and took advantage of the offer... Needless to say, after all the hassle with gamersgate "customer service" I will never do business with them again. Sorry for the off topic rant...

Many thanks for the link

I'm looking for the updated version and found, via the search function, two links in the repository, both from 2011. Where should I be looking for the GL version?

Meanwhile, on the other side of the map I am having a problem that I haven't mentioned yet. I had the same issue in the map center; the troops I wanted to pull back were frequently pinned. I got the center elements out but I don't think these guys are going to make it... I'm so gamey... I've got the truck ready to take this gun away to my left flank (where c3k is) once I am sure he's not sending any armor up the middle. Part of my reluctance to relocate has to do with my impression of current 'flaws' in atg setup behaviors, i.e., once I move it I may never be able to use it. This gun, even if positioned on my left flank would not have made up for my glaring oversight in setting up my defense. Here I am setting up a defensive line for what I think is a collapsing left flank... if only! I am taking the situation on my left very seriously. I am not reluctant to pull one of my two MG teams over in support. They started running the wrong way because the only path to their new assignment was indirect. If they knew what was good for themselves they would have kept running this way. And finally, my last for the day, my MG team eagerly rushing to their demise...

The arrival (this all happened in a matter of seconds) Taking a knee Target sighted Shot fired A little luck goes a long way After our last battle, wherein I caused major mayhem with schrcks and fausts, I hoped this would slow c3k down just a bit... I should have known better!