Jon L

I think it depends on how the campaign maker has set it up. They can configure options in the campaign script for the likelihood of destroyed units being replaced or damaged vehicles being repaired. I haven't messed with this recently, but my experience from a couple years ago playing a campaign with very low replace/repair percentages was that immobilized vehicles were gone for good. If the campaign you're playing now is more forgiving you might have a better chance to see those units again.

The command delay system isn't returning in CM:BN. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1222552&postcount=16

I imagine that two of the goals for CM are to be an accurate simulator of tactical warfare, and to be an enjoyable game. Sometimes those goals coincide and sometimes they don't. You ask "why simulate everything?" I would say that if you compare the CMx2 engine to CMx1 it's clear that BFC cares about improving the quality of the simulation if it doesn't negatively impact the game. So, does the current system accurately simulate the morale effect that a squad should feel if they see another squad get torn apart? In my opinion no, the simulation could be improved. Would that change make for a better game? There I don't know. I'm sure there are players out there who would prefer anything from no morale or suppression model at all, to what we have now, to some theoretical system that's even harsher. BFC gets to decide where on that continuum is best for CM. I don't think making this change would significantly marginalize the player any more than the current morale system. We already accept loss of control over units if they're treated harshly. Is that removing the player from the game to an unacceptable degree?

The CMx2 engine already tracks whether friendly units are aware of each other so you may be able to leverage that.

To be fair to JasonC, I think in his latest post he finally proposed a mechanic which fits at the tactical level and could feasibly be implemented in CM. Instead of morale penalties being limited only to the squad or team that's directly suffering, have them be propagated in some manner to related or nearby units. If a platoon is maneuvering together and one squad suddenly gets shredded, I can understand it being more difficult to get the remaining squads to continue. Currently that's not really represented in CM besides maybe some temporary suppression if they're too close to the gunfire. It's much less draconian than ending the game after a casualty limit. Really you're just adding more bite to the current morale system.

I'm not sure that's the case. I just tried a quick test with a Stryker engineer platoon (because they don't have HE weapons). One squad was placed in a small building and the rest of the platoon + vehicles were given area fire orders from a hundred meters away. After a couple minutes the lone squad had suffered no ill effects and their suppression meter hadn't budged.

I've only tried this with the MGS, but if you leave the area fire target active for a number of minutes the main gun eventually starts firing at high ROF. It sounds like that might not be intended?

With the MGS I've noticed a weird firing pattern for the main cannon. The first round is instant, but then it waits a couple minutes before going to sustained fire. I guess the wait is when they reload the autoloader? However it seems like the firing pattern is repeated for each new target. I would think that once the autoloader was primed switching targets wouldn't require a new reloading period. I'm also surprised that the vehicle operates with only one round ready to fire. I haven't had to engage armor with an MGS yet, but I'm a little scared that it will stop after only one round. Has anybody else seen this behavior?

Ace Pilot, I sent you a couple emails late tonight. Could you let me know if they got through? Thanks, Jon

I think everybody in section 6 is outside enjoying the summer. So far I've received only two files, both from the same opponent.

Eric I believe he's talking about the AP penetration at 0 and 30 degrees. With that said I don't have an explanation, as you would think 500-1000 meters is well beyond the shatter gap threshold.

Kingfish I just sent Xmas and Hosszupalyi again, hopefully they'll get there this time.

Yes Frunze, it looks like the fight for our section went right down to the wire. I thought I might've closed the gap when your score for Xmas came in, but being 9 points under median for Beast hurt me a lot more than I was expecting. You deserve the title for your solid play in all five scenarios though, and I knew I'd have to play catch up with big wins in Xmas, Rearguard, and Hoss. I got the wins, but ended up just short in the standings. Maybe I'll begin campaigning for adding a wildcard spot in RoW IV.

Right... I've avoided coming in here for the last couple years, but MrSpkr you've left me no other choice. Send the bloody setup for Sector 43 already, and don't whine that it's too complicated or requires any great leaps of intellect. Just line up the KV's and send them clanking for the far end of the map, like you Orange types always do. It shouldn't take a week for you to figure that much out.

John, There's no way I'm letting a little computer trouble keep me from my matchup with the fabled John Kettler. I anticipate actually understanding what you're talking about in your cryptic reports. I believe mine is the fifth setup. I sent it a few weeks ago, but it will be on its way to you in a few minutes. Jon_L EDIT: Actually, it looks like I did that setup on a different computer that I can't access right now. Let me know if my email didn't get to you and I'll redo it. [ January 31, 2003, 04:47 PM: Message edited by: Staneth ]