c3k

Their +1 experience told them that they'd got shot by the Germans if they hesitated. If you REALLY don't want them to fire, a tight cover arc would be the tool. Even then, it's up to them. A technique may be to set up the .30 cal. team away from the window (with a tight cover arc towards the interior of the building). Then, once the mg is setup, see if you can give them a tight covered arc towards the window. (Some MGs can move without dismantling, but only a short distance. 1 or 2 AS?) I'm not positive it'll work like that. Once they've initiated fire and started taking hits, it's kind of hard to get them to hush up and stay still. A FAST downstairs, finishing with a FACE away, would be better once the ambush is blown.

Edited to amend my previous (between the ***s) and strike through it, since it was wrong. The game uses that "pip" on the collar to substitute for the small shoulder patch "star" which would ordinarily be used. If you look further, the bmps you skipped in your post would show the real pip. It has a slight underline on the collar tab. So, the right rank is used, in the right order. The graphic shows the pip-like device to substitute for the sleeve device. Still, a good catch, but not a "bug". More of a graphic/design choice. See the attached jpg. It shows how the game delineates the two different ranks. Compare that with the wiki page I linked, below (between the ***s). I hope that explains it. Ken ******************************************************** Well, using this https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ranks_and_insignia_of_the_Waffen-SS , shows that anything with a pip in it outranks anything without a pip. So, the 02 bmp is a "higher" rank than the 03 and 04 bmps. (Of course, I can't see any difference between 00 and 01 bmps: both seem to be bare black fields.) The game manual seems to have it wrong, as well. Cripes. Nice catch. ********************************************************

Thanks!

However, leaving the ropes compromises inserts. See Operation Red Wings/"The Sole Survivor". The chopper did some fake inserts before and after dropping the SEALs, but at the actual site, following training habit patters, as soon as the last SEAL hit the ground, the helo crew released the ropes, leaving solid evidence for later foot patrols. (Probably a moot point, what with the shepherds and all...) The actual inserts are highly risky and need overwatch in case there is any ground fire. Fast roping has a place, as does landing and getting more guys out the doors faster.

The F22 can "control" the fight. The F35 has more advanced designs/sensors than the F22, but is not optimized for the air-to-air fight. (Not saying it is bad at it, just that it is not an optimized for air-to-air.) Comms (without losing stealth) with earlier generation aircraft is the biggest bugaboo. The F35 really is a game changer...as is/was the F22. (The minor gun issue: probably solvable with a software fix to use automatic flight control inputs to counter the asymmetric drag. Testing yet to be done. Door commanded to open? Rudder input counters it. Recoil would be the next issue. ) The relative lack of internal stowage is the biggest limit. The back-of-the-envelope solution is to us "missile trucks" in comms with the F35/F22. They can be loitering UAVs or earlier generation fighters. That creates two issues: missile range/engagement energy, and comms to coordinate/target the missiles against the enemy. Solid rocket boosters strapped to the ass-end of the missiles solves the range/energy issue. Comms (stealthy) is the biggest hurdle. The F22 is more limited in this regard. The internal stowage limitation is most critical when the stealth level is a requirement. If/when air superiority is achieved, external stowage can be used. (Not sure how realistic that assumption is. E.g., when does the warfighter decide it's okay to go less stealthy.) Wingtip ordnance vibration is, as far as I know, limited to the F35C (carrier version with the big wing with folding tips). It -may- be present on the A and B, but I haven't heard of it yet. Structural beefing up is needed. That's an "oops", but it can be readily implemented in production once the design is finalized. These aircraft are VERY good at what they do.

Each of these ideas certainly seem like they'd be an improvement. The only issue is HOW will BFC implement these (assuming they comport with BFCs business model), without losing something else which they value more highly?

The basic concept seems to be that increasing exposure will lead to increased sales. That increased sales will lead to increased revenues. Increased revenues will lead to better download/purchase experiences and better oppo/map/battle matching/download experiences. Or, that last part goes first and leads to the rest. I'm not sure that any of the above statements are factually correct. Nor do I know if BFC has the resources to test the hypotheses and, if any of them are wrong, still survive. I do know that BFC has repeatedly discussed how Steam (which would open up a huge potential market) has onerous requirements which BFC finds to be a dealbreaker. (Note that the big "if" is whether a potential market leads to actual increased sales, enough to offset the expenses/burdens that come with a Steam agreement.) Any of the above takes resources. (Time, money, effort, energy, creativity: if they're being used for marketing, downloading, server upgrades, vetting battles/maps, etc., they're not being used for the game engine.) None of us know how much surplus resources BFC has, other than by extrapolating that we can assume Steve and Charles, et alia, would like to live like billionaires using $100s to light their cigars. In their judgment, they should not expend resources towards the points rooibos has made. (Sure, their judgment may wrong, but that judgment has been shown to be correct when looked at in light of their longevity.) I'd love to see 400,000 viewers on the forum as a daily count. (No, JK, posting 400,000 times from 1 person is NOT the same as 1 post times 400,000 people. ) So, if BFC cannot/won't increase exposure, who will? Have you contacted your favorite game blogger/magazine/forum?

Re: Granularity and the ability to rewind and watch from other perspectives. I was testing a battle before CMBN was released. My Americans were pressing some Germans in a dense forest. I split my platoon and had one part pushing forward while the other squad flanked Huns. With WeGo, I could NOT intervene while the turn unfolded. My frontal guys area fired, then advanced. They saw two Germans who knelt and surrendered. The flanking squad did not see the Germans, just a "?" spot. They fired...and killed the surrendering Germans. It had an amazing emotional impact on me for a game. The ability to rewind and watch it from the perspective of the different squads was great. I would've missed it in RT... It also points up how fun it is to lose control over your units for the turn. In RT you can always stop time and adjust. In WeGo, if you give bad orders (like running across a street which you thought was clear), your men suffer and you cannot change a thing...until the turn ends. Good stuff.

I gotta say that I think I understand where rooibos is coming from. I'd love for there to be an auto update function which downloads new maps, battles, and campaigns (all vetted and tested by BFC). The same for opponents. (Well, except the vetting part. Hmmm...maybe that's a good idea.) Better/more press would also be good. Meantime, I can't argue with BFC's approach: they're still in business and still creating more games, while many others have gone under.

Especially true with larger battles. You're over "here" watching when all of a sudden a tank explodes over "there". It's great to rewind the turn and watch how "that" side of the action developed during the turn.

Game will run fine even if you have a VM. I have not tried it IN a VM, but I'm pretty sure that BFC has explicitly stated that none of the CM games will run in a VM environment due to limitations inherent in the DRM software. Tearing: I've never seen it. Note that the CM games use an engine unique to them. The CM games do not necessarily respond the way other games do vis a vis specific hardware. Look at the various Nvidia/AMD "improve my graphics" threads floating around. There are some simple setting changes which can make significant improvements. Complexity: the game controls are simple...once you've passed the learning curve. Again, like graphics, the CM control scheme is not like others. There is a good reason for that. I STRONGLY suggest playing WeGo (or Realtime with unlimited pauses). (I prefer WeGo.) It's best to try the demos. Remember, the demos are generally a generation or more behind the current version. So, you'll see some bug fixes and other improvements with the current version which may not be present in the demos. Good luck! Ken Edited to add: My advice to newbs is to play the smallest battle first. You'll be frustrated at your incompetence. Then, try it again. Sure, you'll have lost the element of surprise (since there is a limited variability to the enemy forces and plans), but it's not about winning, it's about learning, at this stage. Then, play it again, and again. When you win that first battle with ZERO casualties, you'll have figured out enough of the interface and tactics to progress onwards and upwards. Don't "waste" a good battle if you're not ready for it. It's a lot more pleasurable when you have an idea of how to lead your forces. (Imagine a newly minted 2nd lieutenant being put in charge of a regiment at the breakthrough location for a new offensive. He will fail. Better to start him with a simple multi-squad patrol (not even a whole platoon) and have him learn how to use the squads before giving him more responsibilities. Similarly, you should meter your own expectations. Use that first (smallest) battle as the learning tool. Repetition is your ally.)

Agreed: the tartness and crispness of a fresh McIntosh cannot be beat. The only difference between the games is localized artwork. The graphics engine is the same for all games.

Mark_McLeod, A few points of forum etiquette: First, you must recognize that sburke is never right. Except this time. CMBN is probably your best bet. You'll get hooked, and then you'll buy the rest. Second, refer to the above. Welcome aboard.

That which burns bright, burns quickly.

Another vote for KG von Schroif.

Great link. Thanks!

The turbulent layers in that image are between the car and road and behind the car. Put a mast on the roof of the car. It wouldn't take much height to get it into the freestream airflow. A tank moves much more slowly than a car. Car manufacturers try to get laminar flow (reduce the turbulence), especially behind a car, in order to reduce drag and to improve fuel economy. (High performance cars also try to control downforce and eliminate body lift.) Car designers are very concerned with the colored areas in that image. Tank ballistic computers couldn't car less about what's happening under or behind the tank.

Thanks for sharing. Agreed: it seems like a Soviet style uniform of some sort. (I'm not groggy enough to know the wide variety of belt, tunic, pants, boots and how they were issued or who used them. I've got a vague memory that a lot more than just the military were given uniforms.)

The wind sensor picks up atmospheric pressure. That gives density information. The density is critical to the drag profile. As to winds being inaccurate while moving, that may not be true. If I have a wind sensor and a GPS, I can take the raw relative wind, subtract out the GPS movement, and come up with actual wind. Quite trivial. I have NO idea if that's how it's done in tanks.

Woot!

axxe, nicely done! The hunt vs. move stats you produced were very counter-intuitive to me. I thought that hunt would (should?) create a slower move with more awareness of the surroundings.

What's that? 1st Squad of 1/6? Why, I've run into those shirkers before. This behavior doesn't surprise me ONE bit!

I feel as if you've been secretly watching how I play...

Ahh. Thanks. That must explain why so many combatants stopped using their 149mm field pieces.

Yes, but I forget which caliber is effective. There's a threshold, caliber-wise, which is needed to cross.