metalbrew

The 12.7mm on the Strykers can kill BRDM-2s. The 40mm grenade launcher can also kill BRDM-2s. I also believe the infantry can acquire more AT4s from their Strykers as well as small arms ammo.

Pasted from a different thread. Rune's Scenario Design Manual

Could we please get a link to Rune's scenario manual stickied on this subforum?

Large munitions leave big holes in the ground. VBIEDs leave swimming pools in the ground and sometimes fling the detonating vehicle 500m away. The main gun rounds from tanks leave pockmarks on the ground, but aren't big enough for a unit to get into. ATGMs, especially TOWs and Javelins leave big holes in the ground - smaller than the holes from VBIEDs but still big enough for a 3 man team.

Troops can reenter vehicles. I've done this many times. Occasionally I've seen troops from the wrong unit (i.e. someone from 1st platoon entering a Stryker from 2nd platoon) not be able to 'acquire' items from vehicles. I feel this is a bug but for now there's larger problems I'd lean on BTS to fix first. The small movement order (it's not always a 'slow' command) when you hit stop is the unit aligning itself with the center of the closest "square" that makes up the ground behind the scenes. It has occasionally really hurt me because troops pause briefly at every waypoint. If you're trying to get your guys out of a crossfire and they pause in the open... well it might've been better to let them continue on their original path.

As far as I know, the "8800 problem" is slow gameplay. I have an 8800GTS and I'm able to play the game at frame rates of ~10 fps. Not great, but playable for WeGo (which is what I prefer to play). If you're just having miserable performance I would look into the multicore CPU workarounds. If you've done all you can and it still isn't remotely playable, well you're experiencing something most 8800 card owners are not.

Er, the MS Patch is a downloadable .EXE. The part about the registry is an optional step. Try the .EXE.

Excellent. There are specks of gold under all of that mud.

This thread is much better than I thought it would be.

First, my take on realtime vs. WeGo is completely based on what I think of multiplayer battles. In mutiplayer battles you don't have the pause ability like you do against AI so it definitely changes the nature of realtime. I don't view realtime or WeGo as one being more realistic than the other. They are both artificial in the omniscient nature of viewing the battle and giving orders. Realtime offers the stress of time pressure and WeGo is stressful because of the exactness in planning and execution. There are a lot of other things at play too but I feel those 2 differences define the difference between realtime and WeGo for multiplayer. As a general note to the forum denizens, if you disagree with me - fine but let's not start a debate in a new player's thread. Please. I've been a long time CM player and I like the WeGo action. I like reviewing the battle and being able to take kill-shot screen captures. If the game can firm up and shake out some of the AI bugs WeGo gameplay will improve too. For now, it can be frustrating when you issue orders and bad pathfinding takes hold and you're powerless to stop units from detouring through enemy trenches for 60 seconds. Or when a weapon decides to not fire at enemies in the open. As far as Stryker infantry and RPGs are concerned, well that's the whole challenge of the game. Smoke is useful but it can hurt you as much as it helps you. You can area fire on buildings, this often makes units hiding inside 'unhide' before you're within their lethal envelope. Moving your vehicles slowly helps too, they spot better, return fire more accurately, and they usually don't get themselves so deeply into an ambush that you no longer have the option of retreat.

I've always assumed that once the bugs are worked out many of the UI enhancements will begin to show up. Tooltips would be a great way to relay weapon and armor information.

There's no single thread.

The teleporting units bug is tied to the multicore CPUs. I haven't had a teleporting unit event happen since I began using the single CPU affinity advice from Battlefront.

konstantine, I see this every time I create a PBEM QB. Basically, QBs are broken. For that matter, many PBEM games with mounted infantry are broken too. The embarked troops can't disembark and eventually all units stop responding to orders. I believe BTS is aware of all of these complaints. The PBEM infantry bug has been specifically covered by Steve @ BTS as part of the v1.03 effort. I haven't seen a response on the broken QBs so I don't have any idea when the fix will come.

You know what you don't see around here? The 'lol' posts. Of course, now that I've said it they'll be at least 2 replies with just 'lol'.

Yep, convoluted.

metalbrew - you only used the BTR's! Was this on your first play of the scenario? I used my infantry to flush out the enemy, but took a fair amout of casualties in the process. I agree it was an excellent scenario. </font>

Ah ha! So you admit we're the core customers? I'll have to tuck this token away for a Bren tripod debate.

I thought about that briefly too, but there's only 2 memorable ground battles in the story. The amphib assault on Iceland and the "powerline hailmary" that cut off the Russian salient. Maybe you could include the prepared tank fighting position and fallback narrative too. Most of the book is Naval and Air Force with a heavy sprinkling of Intel. But if we get the equipment to model early 80's I'll do a uniform mod and make a fat little Tom Clancy with some yappy voice mods and the US and Russians can both fire HE at him for 10 minutes before they clash. I like to pretend "Red Storm Rising" wasn't written by Clancy, because by-and-large he's military history's version of the used car salesman.

Your analogy reminded me of: "Mr. Madison, what you have just said, is the most insanely idiotic thing I have ever heard. At no point, in your rambling incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul." I know what you're getting at though. The fact is, there's not a copy protection on the market that's effective. Huge gaming companies spend hundreds of thousands of dollars trying to prevent casual software pirates from "picking low hanging fruit" but regardless of how diligent BTS would've/could've/should've been piracy would still happen. Honest paying customers usually pay the price for copy protection measures by getting locked out of the game they paid to enjoy. So did piracy hurt BTS? I can't say. I know that it is unavoidable though.

It would certainly be cool to have hardware to model an early 80's cold war flashpoint... but... If I had those units I would be the first guy to create a "Red Dawn" scenario. Wolverines!

Going with the Bradley example, does the location of the imager, vision block, binocs, etc... matter? I mean, is the "Bradley" just a single point in space or do the locations of the sensors matter? In the Bradley vs. RPG situation, the imager was above the roof of the building and the turret could have rotated and fired at the RPG team (the RPG team was on the roof of a 2 story building) but didn't. Judging by dead reckoning the Brad should've been able to fire at the RPG team. It got me wondering about whether the location of the vehicle's eyes matters in the equation. Other angles

Well, if it is direct attack, it still misses a lot so maybe it does need a bug report.

This is the answer to what you're asking. "Burning" is one of the vehicle status' that is selectable.

I think this will work for you.