sfhand

I'll try again, my experience with CMx1 is that tanks directly targeting field guns that aren't dug in frequently were knocked out - to the point that I am loathe to use tanks against field guns until I've suppressed their crews. Given that area fire is less accurate than direct fire, and given that any tanks I use will never be without proper infantry support(unless the scenario designer says there is no inf, in which case I'll probably pass on the scenario unless it's armor only) and given that dug-in guns should get addtional protection from being dug in already, and given that the player's godlike ability can be seen as an abstraction of grunts communicating with tankers (both realisticly and not) I see no reason to limit area fire lethality other than making it less accurate (I'm not even sure how realistic that is). I'll go further and say that when I'm the defender, in CMx1, I drool over the thought of an opponent leading with their tanks as in Steve's example. In fact, I would be glad that they can pull forward and apply area fire on the location of the pak... And to answer your question directly, no, I don't think it would improve realism if it adversely affects damage from recon by fire.

I keep thinking of Band of Brothers, both the book and mini-series, and the multi-national combined arms Operation Market Garden incident where the US grunts warn the Brit tanker about the Tiger on the other side of the church. My point is, the way I play CM there is no way that Steve's scenario would unfold in the first place. I use tanks for overwatch and infantry for recon. So, when a field gun fires on a tank many people should have eyes on it. I don't want BF to fix this in a way that would interfere with my "realistic" approach... There is no way for the game to model those Ami grunts to warn the Brit tanker in this game as it is now. They didn't send the info up the chain of command as I recall. Maybe BF could instutite a fix that doesn't allow recon by fire that does property damage for the brits...

Then again, in Steve's scenario the player, as a godlike entity, knows the location and type of weapon that killed his Sherman. If none of his other units spotted the pak taking out the Sherman it, wouldn't it be gamey to take any action against it? Who among us would advocate this? Don't we send recon squads ahead to find the enemy, and if and when those squads get killed we usually know where they were and what killed them, when in reality we might not? Does this not boil down to the fact that we're playing a game which means the entire premise is "gamey"? edit: god, did I really take that long to type this???

As one who is not a grog and who hasn't read all the combat AAR's from ww2, I've got to ask, in a combined arms operation is a frontal attack by tanks the most realistic way of taking out field guns? This player favors throwing HE at them via on map mortars prior to taking any action to knock them out. Frequently the mortar fire has been sufficient on it's own. The amount of tanks I lost early in my CMBO experience using direct fire against field guns prompted me to look for other, less "expensive" solutions. Those tank losses, coupled with the notion that area fire is less accurate than direct fire, are partly the reason I question the need for a fix... And then there is my belief that a defender can easily set up a situation in such a way as to penalize the player who tries to use Steve's example... edit: additionally, using Steve's example, were I to use my preferred tactic of throwing HE at the pak with mortars and then having tanks 2 and 3 move into LOS with a pre-targeted area fire attack seems like a "non-gamey" solution to that particular field gun problem. Sure one could argue that the actual mechanic are gamey, but I would argue the mechanics were allowing a realistic action the game is incapable of providing, i.e. telling the tanks to move into los of the clump of trees the mortars are firing at and throw some HE at them.

I'm making a major effort to understand C2 and the markers so any additional info on this will be most welcome. I'll say this, I pre-ordered the game and have really not been able to get into it until 1.11. I'm not laying all the blame on the game though, chances are I just wasn't ready for the departure from CMx1 - read WWII - yet I find myself doing something I didn't really do in CMx1. I'm actually playing single player and enjoying it as much as pbem. I never thought I'd see the day when that would be, so congratulations to BF for that... My biggest problem with singleplayer is that I have no honor and rationalize that it is okay to revert to saved games because I don't really understand the equipment and game system. A campaign with no saves allowed except one between battles would be most welcome (doing for me what I can't do for myself...)

I guess our visualizations of your example are somewhat different. In my view, while playing wego, the tanks are entering into the pak's LOS sequentially. (I'm also guessing that your focus is on the exploit, whereas I am focused on the movement order and how it may/may not evolve into an exploit) In my imagining of your scenario the sequence isn't measured in minutes but in seconds, e.g. 20-30. The only way it can be exploited by the wego player is if the lead tank is taken out at the end of a turn prior to the other tanks entering the pak's LOS - a relatively small envelope of opportunity in my imagining of your scenario. The rt player can use the exploit every time - hence my reference to rt micromanagement. While I don't know the %'s, I think it is safe to assume the opportunity to use this exploit in wego is much less than in rt due to the above mentioned envelope of opportunity. In my opinion, the %'s that need to be considered are how often a player would send a sacrificial unit forward in order to take advantage of this specific exploit (maybe this is what you were attempting to describe in your scenario - I thought you were describing an ordinary movement order) vs how often a player would want to conduct recon by fire on highly suspicious locations. As one who is not a grog, or an expert of any kind, thanks for taking the time to read and reply to my thoughts on this.

Steve, Please don't change anything... or, if you do, please make it a RT fix only... here's why: As a wego player the only time your example comes into play is near the end of a turn. In wego, giving movement orders to armor without overwatch usually results in many knocked out tanks... so one could argue that the other tanks, while not actually seeing the pak, would know in what general direction to look and would, no doubt, proceed to throw HE in the general area of any smoke clouds they spot, which is what they'll probably be looking for. But wait, there's more: Having been granted godlike powers by the game mechanics (and its developers - Thanks for that!), isn't it ultimately up to the player to decide how to use them? As you said earlier, you don't want to try to fix "gamey features" by adding more "gamey features" and I agree with you. That is why I'm trying to talk you off this ledge before you jump... If I'm playing against a human and they start taking advantage of "gamey features" the chances are pretty high that I won't be playing many more games with them. What about a situation where there is a clump of trees just out of LOS that I'm convinced has a threat in it. Shouldn't a player be able to order a unit to move forward until it has LOS and then immediately engage the clump of trees? But if you must make a global fix, please consider having it take the form of a new level of play - might I suggest "RTmicromangementfix".

Hunter, thank you, and all those who contributed, very much for your efforts.

The reason I want an LOS tool for the unit is pretty simple - it would enable me to keep it hull down while also giving me certainty that the unit has LOS to the area I want to keep an eye on.

+1 ^^^ A LOS tool from the recon equipment would certainly make them more effective to use...

I like the elicense solution if one must use copy protection. However, I'm a firm believer in fair use and elicense can potentially interfere with that. Elicense won't stop me buying more of your products in the future (both for myself and as gifts for my friends as in the past). I have passed on titles because of their DRM solutions in the past and will most likely continue to pass on many in the future.

As I said before, sort of, I think it is entirely reasonable to have trenches considered pre-discovered - especially for Normandy. I'm glad to see BF continuing to consider ways to save FOW for foxholes and I am now wondering if curved 3d lids (slightly curved to allow for LOS from within the foxhole) that can be completely destroyed by one bullet might not be easier than fudging 2d foxholes... I understand how lidded trenches could produce pathing problems, but I don't really see that problem extending to foxholes - if their use is limited, which it sounds like it will be.

Okay, you didn't want me to send you the file, so I did what you suggest here. The result: a bunch of dead infantry. I can send you this file as well...

Adam, if you're interested, I can send you a v. 1.11 pbem turn in which an M1A1 fires what I assume to be an AP round through a couple of buildings, occupied by my Syrian forces, after which it hits the ground with a small blast - a blast that kills 2 US soldiers and causes 2 more to hit the dirt.

Steve, Forgive me if this has been submitted before. In all likelyhood it's not a practicable solution to the foxhole/fow discussion, but I've got to throw it out there none the less. I know you are against foxholes as 2d objects as they were in CMx1 (as am I). My question is whether or not a destructable 2d object - a texture tile? - could be used to conceal the 3d foxhole?

Normally I wouldn't bring this up here, but since we're already talking about it, here goes. I just unlicensed CMSF:Marines and I am now unable to launch "vanilla" CMSF. What am I missing? And, were I to uninstall CMSF and then re-install it without the Marines module, would I use the key I just used to unlicense CMSF:Marines?

That is perfect! Thanks

Would BF consider adding a field to a user's account information database allowing users to input their key?

When will those of us who pre-ordered or otherwise purchased prior to 10/01/2007 be able to access our account information online?

While I don't draw the same conclusions from the screenshot that GSX has I am curious about the follow up questions GSX put forward. Any information concerning features and release time frame BFC might put out there would, I'm sure, be welcome by all. While I'm no grog, CM of all stripes has brought me a lot of entertainment and enjoyment for the last 10 years. Thanks BFC for great ride.

Schrullenhaft, Thanks for the hotfix link, it appears to have solved my recent graphics related crashes. So far I haven't had to revert to an earlier driver set for the 8800 gtx.

Rik, running both CM:SF and my email client as Administrator has allowed this vista user to use the default incoming and outgoing directories. The easiest solution for me is to use the quick launch bar with shortcuts that are pre-enabled to run as Administrator. This solution adds a popup when the program is selected, but I find that less annoying than being forced to use non-intuitive directories. And before you invest too much mirth in blaming vista, I would suggest that BF could fix the issue, yet I won't advocate for that because 1) I'd rather they fix/add to other aspects of the game and 2) the solution I've mentioned works seemlessly - even though running ones email client as Administrator could lead to disaster if one isn't careful about how one handles email content...

I must be especially dense, but I can't find your email address... I have a 1.11 saved game I can send you which has a javelin that skips off a building and detonates after it lands lands ~430 meters away. Please let me know if this has already been discussed and/or is normal behavior.

Never fear, in addition to giving you "infractions" for rules that they don't bother to post, battlefront can hook you up with your elicense number. Good luck in the coming New Year!

Great work! The whole CMSF experience seems much smoother now (yeah, I'm a wego player) and looks much better too. Thanks and Happy Holidays