Blackcat

Beautifully written! I have had a few similar experiences in CMSF but not, yet, in CMBN. I once had a Javelin team standing in the middle of a squad. The squad had a clear, bright blue line to an enemy tank 200 yards away, but not the weapons to engage it. The Javelin Team, who could destroy it easily, had a clear blue line to the very spot the tank was on but couldn't actually see the damn thing. For five minutes I tried everything I could think of, but the team never did see the tank (I took it out with a 155mm artillery strike in the end - then they could see the burning wreck). I hate calling "bug", but sometimes I wonder if there is not some deep issue with realtive spotting that in some rare circumstances manifests itself and results in what you experienced. Do you have a saved game that you could send in?

"Until a major developer decides to create a computer based version of Advanced Squad Leader, then this is probably around best we'll get for now." Do you want to reflect on that comment, Mr. Canuck? I mean really think about what you said.

I agree the manual is very good. It is just too short. There is a lot of information missing. I can understand why this is so, printed manuals are expensive and their printing takes time. However, it really is a tad frustrating to find that there is no source to find out, for example, how command, control and communication actually works for artillery support or what the "Rattled" state means. As an overview of the game for someone new to the series I think the manual does a very good job. As an authoritative source for how to do things, once one has got over the basics, it is sadly lacking.

Hafer, How about an auto pause every 60 seconds? Seriously have you tried playing turn based? It eliminates all the problems you mention plus you get to replay and enjoy all the action from as many different viewpoints and as many times as you want. What is more it is available now, and, if you want, you can consider it real tme with an auto pause every 60 seconds. Of course it does have two drawbacks. You can't pause within the 60 second time frame, so if you have made a bad decision you just have to live with it. Secondly, you can't play it against another human except by email.

"In a semi-related matter, I have 3 mortar teams on this map. Two are part of my infantry company and one is an attached team. The attached team is available for fire missions via radio, while the other two teams are "out of contact", despite all of my efforts to put them right on top of the same HQ unit (who has a radio) as the available team. I haven't had a problem with this before, is it a glitch, or am I missing something?" This problem might be related to which HQ you are using as the "mortar fire controller" and which HQ you are using as the spotter and the realtionship between them. I think requests for fire can go up the chain (platoon to company HQ), sideways (platoon HQ to platoon HQ) but not up and back down. There was a very good post by a chap the other day which detailed what relationships work, but I can't find it just now. You might also want to check the relationship between the two out of contact mortars and the HQ under whom you are trying to put them. I am sorry I can't be more helpful but I haven't really got my head around this chain of command lark (it is not terribly well explained in the manual) but I have had similar experiences to the one you describe and did get over them by switching the HQs around.

Steve said, "As I've said, we plan a major overhaul of the UI for the next major release of CM." I expect two threads to appear within 24 hours of the demo's release. The first will complain about the new UI and how features that were so useful CMBN have been taken out and the game has been ruined/made much harder. The second will complain that the game is ruined/made much harder because the UI isn't good enough and why don't BF use an "industry standard" set of commands just like the posters' favourite games from another genre. Anyone want to bet I am wrong? Frankly, I don't mind much what BF do as long as I am not expected to learn to use hot keys (sorry, Other Means). I can't be doing with that sort of thing at my time of life and the mouse works perfectly well for me (I have never had anyone bail out by mistake for a start).

I am not sure about face being a move command. I move to a point and then set the unit to face the way I want, do something and then move on. I am not sure, given the current limitations, that having face as a move command would allow me to do what I can now, which work pretty well as far as I am concerned. Mr. Hoolman mentioned wanting the ability to have the hull face one way and the turret another. Isn't this already possible - I seem to manage it by using covered arc, the tank continues to face the way it was going but the turret turns to face the designated arc (though I think this lowers the spotting ability as fewer eyes are looking in each direction, not sure what impact this actually has though).

I should have thought that if the spotting rounds were not landing in the target area the observer would not call FFE until they were. The weakness in the game seems to be that after n spotting rounds FFE is called regardless of where those rounds land. I would also question the apparent underlying assumption that map predictive fire in 1944 was so bad that an artillery unit that knew where it was could not put down a round within a few metres of where it was required. Getting rounds accurately on target without spotting rounds was an essential feature of the creeping barrage and that had been pretty much perfected by the autumn of 1916. The effectiveness of artillery has been scaled back in the interests of game[lay, which is fair enough but soemtimes I think BF have gone too far.

Yup, I agree with every word and such limited knowledge that I have acquired I am more than happy to share. I have already started on a couple of articles for the S & T forum, assuming it gets off the ground. What gets my goat is when people want answers to game mechanics stuff but are not prepared to look at the CMSF forum, where they can find the information they seek, because they didn't buy that game.

I'd bet you wouldn't because I think you like to play your own games and, therefore, for your own satisfaction and enjoyment you will always make the best game you can.

Fair enough, Steve, it is a minor bug/exploit as things go and it doesn't crop up that frequentlly. Thanks for letting us know the position.

In similar circumstances I ordered my Rhino to reverse through the gap he had already made. He didn't though he tried to back through another section of high bocage. He almost made it, got half way through then became immobilised and then dead from a 'shreck. Stuff happens, but this being able to create a gap going backwards does seem to be a little bug that I hope will be fixed in due course.

Agreed, old porpoise. However, I have just refeshed the forum page and couldn't see anything for you establishing at S & T thread, let alone one with the first useful article from you. Have I missed it?

I also answered afirmatively. What do you think one should do in the meantime? Go in ignorance, demand that other people give up their time to answer questions or, quelle horreur, spend ones own time finding the information in a forum that contains other data that isn't relevent? Doing a shoot and scoot in CMSF is no much diffeent in its mechanics to pulling off the same tactic in CMBN. If, as per GaJ, you can't stand to look at a screen shot showing you how because it has a modern tank as the exemplar you are free to wait until someone gets around to spending their valuable time posting a CMBN equivalent.

Go ahead, use your knowledge of the game and its mechanics and start generating articles for the CMBN S & T forum. Someone has to do it, why not you?

"No, I'm not going to look in the CMSF forums." Not even if they contained the information that you wanted? Where and in what format would you like information to be presented to you? Who do you think should be providing said information?

"Cover Arcs ... and I don't think it's been conclusively demonstrated that they have any beneficial effect on spotting." Womble, That is news to me. I had taken it as true that cover arcs increase the chance of seeing an enemy within the arc and, correspondingly, lower the chance of spotting one outside. Aside from the restrictions of shooting when trying to keep units concealed, I always assumed that the purpose of a covered arc was to focus a unit's attention (witness the "old sweats" posting about setting a covered arc before ordering a shoot and scoot). However, now that you force me to think of it, I can't point to an authoritative resource that supports my point of view and it does make a nonsense of the new fangled 360 degree arcs. Can any one help out here?

More to the point, I am sure that he and the rest of us knew what you meant. "... now it is spelled right." Yes, but.... no.... no... must resist... I make too many silly errors myself... musn't point out that there should be a comma before the word, "My"... must resist.....

"Would be good if this limitation was fixed." Yes it would, but how often does this situation occur? How many times do you actually need a 360 arc of fire? of those how many times does not being able to order a face command in the same turn cause a problem? Given that a 360 degree arc of fire would actually mean on the ground having a least one member of the unit scanning for each arc within the circle, I am not sure that the two orders are actually compatible. I suppose with an HMG unit you could say that you want the MG to face in one direction whilst the rest of the team keep watch in the others but that is to mistake the role of the team and to really get down to obscure and rare situations.

I'd say the anonymous poster on some other site has played the game for a short period of time. He or she has a point about foxholes and trenches but tries to make too much of it, but much of it is complete tosh. Cargol is correct though, play the game fr yourself and make up you own mind. Oh, I did like this line, "You can often win any CMx2 scenario by concentrating all your forces and overwhelming anything they come across with small arms fire." I'd like to meet him in a PBEM, or rather my mortar crews and other HE chuckers would.

P.S. For Betamasta, I think I should have written "Devils' Descent.

I think Betamasta, was refering to the punctuation you used, Mord, an apostrophe (and an "e" ) when one wasn't required and absent a comma where one was. Let it pass - spelling and punctuation are often a bit off on forums and nobody should worry as long as the meaning is, more or less, clear. You and Mr. Carlos are quite right about the game and CMSF, though and about BF. OK, the game is not perfect and there are omissions and maybe one or two things that do need fixing, but overall it is first class. I played for nine and a half hours solid yesterday (the Devils Descent Campaign). I didn't stop for lunch or even to make myself a cup of tea. It has been a long time since a game has hooked me that much. So, I'll add my voice to a chorus of thanks to the NF people and the Beta Testers. A great job guys and even when I am dripping about some particular point (e.g. HMGs) you can know that I really appreciate your efforts.

At I guess I would say your pixleltruppen were scared sh1tless and decided to ignore your orders. It has always been a feature of the CM series, dating back to CMBO where it got a specific mention in the manual, that sometimes troops, espcially when not under command, will refuse to obey orders that will get themsleves killed. Being out in the open facing three tanks head on with, in those circumstances, a one shot weapon is about as suicidal as you can get. Of course your chaps died anyway, but thats war for you.

I'd like to add my thanks to the good Field Marshall for giving us a most absorbing and fun campaign. Top quality stuff. Like some others here I found myself worrying about ammo at times. By the time I had taken the Town I had a couple of HQ type units completely out and a couple of squads were getting dangerously low. The resupply, when it came was a welcome relief. My only niggle was that the final battle was a bit too easy, more of a turkey shoot than a fight. Perhaps I just got llucky, but it didn't give me the anticipation and excitment of the earlier fights. I mustn't make too much of this, though, all in all it was a brilliant campaign and I would thoroughly recommend it.

Creating a forum is quick and easy, filling it with useful information takes time and effort.