sfhand

After extracting the scenario from the campaign, the only way I was able to get a pak 40 into the scenario was to delete the one currently assigned and add a different one. Once the different Pak40 was added it had to be deployed unattached to the halftrack. I could then attach it in the setup phase. I don't know enough about how campaigns are made to make a fix for this but I am willing to look into it.

Both of my machines are Win 7 ultimate x64 intel (different generation) and nvidia (different generation) powered machines. Both have this issue. After seeing this situation on my desktop, prior to upgrading the laptop, I checked the 2.12 install on the laptop to verify the gun was present - it was. Both CMBN installs are unmodded.

Well stated, my thoughts as well.

As one who has repeatedly pointed out that I am not a grog but rather a computer gamer who discovered this great game, allow me to chime in. As one who has avidly played computer games since Gato (1983) I am very happy to pay for CM engine upgrades, here's why. Almost all of the games I have loved over the years are now "obsolete". Many won't even run on modern computers. If I could have paid a small price to upgrade them I most certainly would have. I want to see native 64 bit Windows CM, I'm sure it will happen at some point in the future, and when it does I want my "CM library" to be upgraded to 64 bit as well. For this I expect to pay, and as one who appreciates the value and advantages of 64 bit computing I will pay happily. When multi-core support is strategically incorporated I want my earlier titles to enjoy the advantages of these changes as well and I will happily pay for any upgrade offered. The model for the Battlefield series, the Call of Duty series, the Medal of Honor series, the Dark Souls series, the Grand Theft Auto series, the Max Payne series, the Hitman series, the Elder Scrolls series, the Fallout series, the Madden Football series, the NBA 2K series, I could give many more examples, is to not provide engine upgrades but rather bring to market upgrades and content as a new title. When they do this they leave the old title behind. With the upgrade system no title is left behind! For me, the absence of tank riding is more worthy of discussion than complaints about paying for an upgrade. Taking into consideration the additional amount of work involved in retrofitting tank riding (AIUI, new models at a minimum) I would have been happy to have paid more for the upgrade if it included this feature. I have a hard time imagining a special "tank riding upgrade" in the future and I know better than to expect new features in a patch, so I have basically given up hope of seeing tank riding in Normandy or Italy. One question I have is if a pack is created with tanks will those tanks be able to have riders? If not isn't the upgrade's feature set incomplete? I ask those questions as one who is happy to have received the upgrade, btw.

My assumption is BF has predicted the forum reaction to the tank rider issue. I'm glad they got out in front of it. While I would have liked the feature in CMBN and CMFI there is still plenty in the upgrade to make it worthwhile. One feature in CMRT that I thought would be personally unimportant has actually turned into a great benefit for me: command lines. The rest of you probably don't remember me posting about them in older threads but I do. In those posts I was wrong; they streamline gameplay (less unit clicking) which, for me, makes for a more enjoyable experience. Faster loading larger maps is also going to be welcome. Any feature that streamlines gameplay (without sacrificing depth) is a huge plus IMHO.

Page 23 of this pdf has some interesting information: http://mr-home.staff.shef.ac.uk/hobbies/ww2eff2.pdf including: "the average firer has a higher overall chance of hitting an enemy at 200 yards with a Sten than with a rifle." and An extra trial to confirm the lethality of Sten bullets at 300 yards was performed with ¾" deal targets covered in two thicknesses of webbing. All hits were "throughs".

CMRT Manual lists the following effective ranges for smgs: PPSh 250m PPS 42 200m Mp40 100m while all rifles are listed with effective ranges of 500m (iron sights) and 800m (optics). I don't see an argument saying rifles should outclass smgs @ 150m as one BF will or should take seriously until one has soundly demonstrated the game is using the wrong effective ranges for smgs.

(emphasis mine) This is incredibly bad stuff, I actually feel bad that you took the time to think that up and write it...

Thanks womble, that's what I was trying to convey. While I was thinking in terms of the Germans there are scenarios in GL where the axis player has control of 2 nationalities.I haven't played any MG but I suspect there are scenarios with US and Brit forces operating together. In CW there is one scenario with Poles and US operating together (separate C2 in that as I recall). None of this can be done in QB and Steve has written that it is a coding issue... we've seen those overcome in the past.

I would like them to solve whatever it is that limits each side in a QB to one force entity. (clumsily stated, I know)

Heh... not sure how I missed this 'til now, but thanks for the info!

There are also situations where there are only 1-2 people in an AS, that would seem to suffer as well. I also don't automatically buy into the idea of there being a problem.

Heh... this sounds like something some of my pbem opponents do when I send them an email inviting them to choose our next battle

If you log into Battlefront.com you can select "My Account". From there you will see a list of every purchase you have made which, when selected, shows the product and license key. So, no need to search old emails...

With the addition of "deadstock" I think we should now petition for crop circles and ground-etched occult symbols...

Welcome! A little reality check... be prepared to buy everything once you get bitten by the bug! With that in mind, I recommend starting with the free demo(s) (check out the demos for CMFI and CMRT as well as the CMSF demos). Play the Hell out of them in an attempt to familiarize yourself with the features and limitations of the game engine (you can also see the evolution of the game engine from title to title). Stop by the various forums here and read some AAR's and other musings about gameplay. Since the cash outlay is comparatively steep (I've been buying non-CM titles only when on sale) take advantage of the demos and the experiences of others. It shouldn't take too long to realize the CM experience is without equal.

Well... considering who is executing the fire mission, I consider it proof positive that this is a gamey tactic...

Squallion, I've read your posts about h2h play and I think I understand where you are coming from. My recommendation is to find several h2h oppo's who don't mind playing at a relaxed pace. This serves a couple of purposes, but mainly it means when real life demands your attention you don't need to worry about not sending someone a turn. It also means that when you are able to play you will usually have a turn to play because you are playing against more than one oppo (who in turn might have real life knocking at his/her door). You probably won't get many hours long sessions this way, but depending on time zones you might be surprised at how quickly the turns can come in. I haven't played any of the single player RT stuff (and hardly any single player in both BN and FI); I worship at the church of pbem! I am also living proof that you don't have to be a good player to appreciate and enjoy h2h. I am currently playing Baranovichi h2h,a CMFI QB, CMFI Fight at Vallebruca, and a CMBN game. If you are interested in starting a laid back game with a laid back oppo (there are plenty of players like this, btw) send me a pm.

That was a great day! One thing is certain, my admiration for you and Phil has only grown since then and I was very impressed then (and thanks again for taking the time to do that). Your twitchtv stuff reminds me of that day in some ways which makes me happy you are where you are.

I agree wholeheartedly with this sentiment. I also think it is worth mentioning the forumites that have responded to this new level of access in mature and thoughtful ways. I seem to recall earlier days when people weren't quite as appreciative of new developments in these parts. It looks like a solid win for everyone to me, so, again, thanks to ChrisND and BF for letting us take a peek inside the development process at the works in progress.

Ian, I really appreciate the thoughtful response. Thanks!

Thanks for digging into this, which brings up the question, if I set up each game in WTII with two directories, e.g., /forian and /forsfhand, would I then be able to play on 2 different machines without confusing WTII?

Thanks for your hard work Ian. I am not a programmer, but I have to wonder if it is possible for a turn tracking utility to write files to either the incoming or outgoing email directories depending on whether the file number is even or odd and only notifying the user of a new turn when the incoming is the highest numbered turn of those copied. It seems like an if/then loop to me... but like I wrote at the top, I am not a programmer. Thanks again! edit: also if you put up a paypal link on your site I'd send you a little love to express my gratitude for your efforts...

That you write this is actually pretty amusing when I stop to consider how many pixeltruppen I buried (buddy aid when on the attack) on those forested hills in Bois de Baugin... thanks for a great scenario btw!

Keep this in mind: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1238948&postcount=128