sfhand

Well, since you're both here now, GAJ, Bil, thanks for the time and effort you put into your AAR's, it was much appreciated.

As is stated in Bil's thread, it sure would be nice if the highly detailed enemy unit information wasn't available, at least in elite and iron modes. The generic icon is a step in the right direction, maybe it is possible to have the information panel empty until the generic icon switches to a unit icon. I always look at my own units info panel which seems to make it reflexive to look at the enemy's panel as well even though I'd rather not.

Short answer: Yes.

Given the fact that you are showcasing an upcoming product release, I think it is entirely appropriate to allow people to ask you questions about that product. I don't think it is the right place for people to engage you with serious questions or comments about your strategy and tactics until after the battle is resolved.

FWIW, you aren't the only person whose posts have leaked a little, at least in my opinion. I really like the idea and implementation of the peanut gallery thread.

Personally, I'm opposed to youth in Asia...

I didn't write what I was getting at very eloquently... what I was trying to say is even though it is 5 vs 2, not all the tanks are of similar ability. And then there is the question of whether GaJ's infantry have any 'at' capabilities (something you have quite a reputation for, so I'm surprised you didn't answer the question about schrecks ) edit: not that I think 3 Shermans vs 2 Pz4's is a position I'd like to be in... but one doesn't go to war with the army one wants... oh, wait

It looks to me like GaJ is looking for Bil where he is (infantry on reverse slope "stronghold") while Bil is looking for GaJ where he isn't (interior valleys)... as Ken predicts > potential advantage goes GaJ in the opening fight should this trend continue. The armor disparity isn't as bad as it seems because I don't think the Stuarts pose a big risk to the Pz4's (just my hunch). GaJ will no doubt try to use terrain to keep armor engagements 1:1 (as may Bil until he understands he has more tanks). Do the FJ's come with schrecks?

Everything the same in the setup except a fast move order is added to the pause. This is definitely problematic, in terms of spotting, shot frequency - gunner takes longer to aim, and keeping a firing solution that works (shots miss after hits).

Okay, same everything except a hunt order was added to the Shermans with an indefinite pause. 22 misses in total before every shot is a hit, the big difference seems to me to be in spotting rather than accuracy. I'm going to try with a fast move order next (since hunt cancels the move order once the enemy is spotted).

Ah... back to it then.

Play on iron level...

The results of my testing... 10 firing lanes each with an M4 Sherman shooting at a Tiger from 1000m. First round, no pause, 18 misses and 17 hits. Second round, no misses, all hits. Third round (add indefinite pause) no misses, all hits. 2nd test, same conditions except I start all Shermans with indefinite pause. First round, 19 misses and 11 hits. Second round, didn't happen because of the pattern observed. The pattern observed is that once the Shermans acquired a firing solution they didn't miss regardless of pause. The difference in the number of hits in the first round of each test is the result of the time each tank took to acquire its target and get its first shot off, once they acquired their target they took nearly the same amount of ranging shots to acquire a firing solution (18 vs 19). My testing does not reveal a problem or a need for me to test further.

When I say well known I guess I mean well discussed... but then I've been on the board for a long time. Anyway, here's something Steve said about it a while back: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1122492&highlight=action+spot#post1122492 There's some interesting discussion if you are interested.

This looks to me to be a well known limitation of the AS system, which has been well discussed in the CMSF forum. As I understand it, the tank isn't able to target the building because it doesn't have LOS to the center of the AS from the more oblique angle due to the other buildings. So, I don't think it is a bug as much as an engine limitation. As I recall this is an area fire limitation, if there were units visible in the building the tank would engage them. Of course, I could have this all wrong too...

I'm seriously bummed by some of the heartless reactions in this thread...

To play a lan game the person hosting gives the other player the address. You can test this by starting a lan game as though you were the host, you will get the information before the scenario starts.

Weighing in a bit late on this one... the first part of this thread highlights the necessity of discussing the parameters of h2h games with a perspective opponent if one wishes a mutually satisfying outcome. Not to deride anyone's preferred playing style, and completely leaving out any insights into the motivation of others, there is just no way I would be happy playing an opponent who thinks dropping arty on an opponent's setup zone in any engagement other than, as has been mentioned, an attack or assault/defend situation wherein the attacker uses pre-planned strikes (personally, I think pre-planned strikes are oob for all situations except that one). My main wish for a QB selection feature is the ability to mix forces (like one can do in the editor to create scenarios). Obviously, it would fit in well with the MG module. edit: a side note, I think dropping arty in a setup zone is acceptable if I have been able to move a spotter into a position to have eyes on the setup zone and can call in a strike the conventional way. I have been on the receiving end of this and had no problem with it. (in that case the strike was off target and landed deeper in my setup zone than intended and caused a lot of havoc within my own mortar deployment; further proof of the fickleness of the Gods of War)

I decided to move CMSF to My Documents which meant I had to uninstall it, which I did. I was able to unlicense everything except the base game and Nato. When I reinstalled I followed the Helpdesk instructions, licensing the base game with the Marines license. Interestingly enough, the Nato module didn't ask to be licensed yet I have full access to it.

I have recently lowered my graphical settings to speed up frame rates and loading times (this is with a very capable computer setup). Were development time to be spent on improving the graphic engine I would like to see it spent, as has been with v2.0, further optimizing performance while still making things look "prettier".

It has been brought up before... status: doubtful

Huzzar also has a tank passage issue with regard to at least one gap in bocage...

and the default state for your rolling units is buttoned... which I think is a change from before - at least it seems that way to me, I don't remember having to unbutton all units at the start of a game.

display size.txt is in the root game directory hotkeys.txt and alternative hotkeys.txt are in the Data directory

I don't want modifying CMx1 games taking development time from CMx2 games; I have moved on. Had this thread been posted in the CMx1 forums I wouldn't have shared an opinion on it (where it belongs? I mean, really, there is a whole forum devoted to CMx1 games, why post this here? Because more people read this forum? Well, that should be a clue about which of their games the vast majority of people want to see BF develop further.). So, a resounding 'no' to using any resources to continue development of a ~12 year old game instead of using those hours developing CMx2.