c3k

Hmmm, just a thought. If I give a face command at a point, then I move the waypoint (in a future game which allows movable waypoints), should the face command stay? Should it drop? If it stays, should it stay with same angular setting? Or, should it stay pointing at the same distant point? Add the same questions for any of the other combat commands allowed at a waypoint.

One is a .bts, the other a .ema.

I'm pretty sure this is correct.

Yes, too much information passes on too quickly.

But what about Butch? Where did he go next? Damn those fanatics!

I understand what you're trying to do, but I don't understand why you're trying to do it. The tank platoon is under your orders. You're the player. Would a tank platoon, attached to a rifle company, behave differently when you're playing than a tank platoon subordinated to a rifle company would? You are the command structure. That leaves communications. IRL the tank/infantry communications problems were vast, manifold, and never reliably solved. Do you want something that didn't exist? Am I missing some aspect of this problem, gameplay wise?

What a great idea!

George MC expresses my thoughts, as well. These shouldn't be tank ammo vehicles.

Yeah, what he said. I enjoy WeGo. The argument against WeGo, that it caters to "control freaks", is counterfactual. In WeGo, once I press the "go" button, I am powerless to do anything. I am out of control and must watch what unfolds. RT allows total control. The pause function allows me to micromanage every single unit at every second of battle. "Target there", "Reverse out of danger, now!", "Pop smoke to help your buddy", etc. (RT multiplayer avoids that.) I'm glad both styles are included. Play what you like and let the others do the same.

Jentz put in some cutaway drawings. Some of them show the TzF12 and TzF12a. They use very long tubes between the lenses. These must be the "telescopes". A long cylinder with glass lenses at either end used to look through and magnify the subject.

The game: does optics refer SOLELY to the gun optics, or to every vision block and periscope on the tank, as well?

Jentz, Panther, p138 states that the TzF12 (binocular) sight has significant survivability issues in combat. The protective lenses get destroyed at a high rate of usage (numbers not given), and the tubes get crushed. That AAR could've been the impetus behind the redesign of the mount in the middle of series D production.

Are you the German? These are sIG 15cm? On map or off?

There are two issues that need to be resolved for auto maps to work. These have only been touched on so far. How the map looks and works is important. Who wants a village on a cliff or train tracks under water? This is far beyond whether or not the correct deciduous trees are correctly spaced on an orchard area. The second issue is more intractable; AI planning. Each QB map released by BF.C has AI plans for each of the battle types; probes, meeting engagement, attack, assault - for EACH side. These plans are needed for your computer opponent to have any play value. Therefore, in order to make random (or modular built) QB maps, BF.C needs to have the programming in place to create AI plans on the fly after your map is created. A compromise solution would be the modular map making ability (randomly or semi-randomly selected pre-made blocks put together for a map), and have that only work for human vs. human play. That would enable random-ish maps and skirt the AI issue.

HEAT warheads have penetration which roughly correlates with the diameter of the warhead. (Yeah, modern developments have skewed that somewhat, but it's held true from WWII through the '80s into the '90s.)

Back on topic: Jentz, Panther, lists the production modifications for the D, A, and G models both while in series production, and between models. The D gained a stronger gunsight mount. The A, while using the original TzF12, had a modified mount. (He doesn't state what was modified.) Later the A swapped over to the TzF12a (monocular sight vs. the TzF12's binocular); that introduced a new mount as well.

Yeah, I'm frustrated on this one. In a campaign's first battle I've managed to have all 4 of my platoon HQ's wiped out. 2 were destroyed by a single artillery impact. (One was sheltered behind bocage, the other was FASTing past them to gain shelter about 40 meters away. The shell hit right as they were adjacent. Great timing.) The next battle is going to be very ugly for me. I need some NCO's to be put in command. Hey, how about that XO? Grrr. This one's personal.

It's a known issue.

What was the battle with the bunker problem? (And which bunker?) If you still have the savegame, let me know. Thanks, Ken

I'm wondering if this is a video memory issue rather than a RAM issue? sburke has a 1GB card; would the map crash occur differently for a 2GB video card? I've got an old 8800GTX with 786MB of Ram (Or a number close to that.) I'm also running an H6870 w/1GB in another machine. Those are close enough that any rendering differences aren't noticeable to me. Does anyone have a 2GB card AND a 1GB card? And is willing to test to see when they each crash? (Note: my understanding of crossfire/SLI is that the video memory is not additive. Using 2 1GB cards in xfire/SLI does NOT equate to using a single 2GB card. The xfire/SLI usage duplicates the information written to each set of VRAM.)

Catapultam is quite obviously plural. "I have catapults. Give me all your money, or I'll use your big head as a throwing stone."

Has there been any official announcement regarding the content of the module, or is the talk about content pure speculation?

This is a phenomenal accomplishment. Stunning. Thank you for doing this and for sharing it.

When mine do it, I order them back through the gap they just reversed through. Time to face the enemy like a man. This issue is known to BF.C.

Let me know if you solve this one. I just had a small battle where a bunch of my guys went through a minefield. I then drove a tank through it. I haven't dared try to find out if the infantry could walk in the tank tracks. I wish they could... Ken