Fetchez la Vache

I wouldn't even think once!

Feels good and more realistic. Tanks have to be very careful about urban environments. I like it very much. Thanks BFC!

It would be nice if the 'hide' command caused the soldiers to use the ditch for cover.

Re: Steve's reply. Personally I'd be completely happy with an abstracted set of 'wheels' that turn off when not in use. To me this is still primarily a strategy games first and eye-candy is simply a nice plus. :-) As to different 'bottoms' (fnar), can't they somehow be treated as AT guns are now? Have a simple set of wheel animations for when they are moving and then get them to simply disappear when unlimbered? It's not as if the graphics for hand-moved AT guns are completely realistic anyway and it doesn't have to be perfect (I know that Steve's answer was quick and different 'bottoms' may not be a real issue - but I just wanted to point out that I don't personally get hung up on such graphical fine details.) But for the record. Fire & flamethrowers >> moving AA guns. ;-)

You called?

Yes, I've had poor experience of Gamersgate too. I avoid them now.

I have a Mac. :-) I can understand wanting to have control over patches and not having to run it in the background. That annoys me as well. But for me it's still better than nothing... and I don't sense waves of evil emanating from the Steam logo. Yet.

Why F$^k Steam? Ruddy useful for people like me with little/no local games distribution network... Pity my crappy bandwidth doesn't live up to it's advertising. I'm guessing two points about Steam: - You're not allowed to talk about contract details on pain of lawyer. :-p - Steam get to decide on the price the game is sold at? If so then 'premium' games with some sort of established gamer-base are going to have weigh up the potential gain in punters against the potential drop in price. If I'm right, then I understand why BF/Slitherine wouldn't be interested. I wouldn't either.

Hmmm. I read this as "We price our niche games at a premium and thus won't do well when punters can easily compare our prices with other games". Yes/no? If so, then it's an argument I have some sympathy with. However I would have thought the opportunity to showcase the product to a potentially wider audience would always be nice? No such thing as bad press and all that... The other argument I think I see them putting forward is that Steam might curtail the development cycle. Without fully understanding the exact contract mechanics behind Steam's business model, I frankly don't see how this holds water. There are quite a few Indie games on Steam that are still early on their development cycles and people will still buy into them. Heck, I think even Minecraft is still being "developed" per se? All in all I don't think Slitherine have set out an convincing argument on why they don't use Steam. I suspect there's another motive behind this. Maybe for a very good reason that simply can't be aired in public without running the risk of lawyers being involved. Personally I think CM would benefit from being on Steam in order to maximise the potential market. Am I missing something?

I still secretly wish for the old "giant" toggle to increase the visual size of the units - Crtl-C or something? Had it's uses...

Feature C? ;-)

My wife and I made a New Year's Resolution to stop using Amazon, primarily for it's abusive tax avoidance. As it's such avoidance that lets Amazon keep it's shipping costs down, amongst other things. So ultimately you could argue it's the taxpayers stumping up for your cheap shipping which I personally think is grossly unfair. Anyway we are happily finding plenty of options away from Amazon for our books and videos. And I hate Starbucks coffee as well. So double plus. ;-)

I did find $27 a wee bit excessive, if the truth be known. I was going to pre-order myself but decided not to bother when I saw that charge. So download it is. First time for everything. Well since my new iMac doesn't have an in-built DVD player anyway, I probably just need to get over my old predilection for 'hardware'. Heavens, a child of Sinclair finding himself out-dated. I feel like an old dog all of a sudden...

What-ho! Just been replaying the CW campaign "The Scottish Corridor" with my newly upgraded V2.01. Nice. I am finding that the 'scout' universal bren carriers you are given are very potent weapons against the AI infantry for the following three reasons: 1) V2.01 upgraded MG's (I assume bren's were included?); 2) Passengers can supplement the carrier's fire with their own weapons (although not PIAT's I think?); 3) AI infantry doesn't seem to give a high priority to targeting the carriers, or their occupants, with small arms. I am happy with points 1) and 2) - no problems there. :thumbsup: However, with point 3) I feel that the bren carriers and their occupants have much greater battlefield survivability than should really be the case historically. The enemy infantry seem disinclined to fire small arms, and even HMG's, at the carriers until they are very close (10-20m?). This is despite the passengers sitting up with their upper 1/3 exposed or even kneeling up when firing. PF's and PS's certainly are fired at carriers if they are in range but I would have thought small arms would still be effective - if only to suppress? Well, in any case, I have found "The Scottish Corridor" to be pretty straight-forward when using the bren carriers effectively as mobile MG pillboxes. With their large supply of ammo, I can happily keep them pushed quite far forward and area-targeting at any likely spot without much fear of them being knocked out by infantry as long as they keep +100m away. The passengers have pretty good vis and seem able to pick targets almost as well as grounded infantry. I certainly have seen the passengers taking hits and becoming casualties. The MMG carriers seem vulnerable to this and appear to attract infantry small arms fire as you would expect. However I am pretty sure that for bren carriers casualties only occur at very close range or from AFV MG fire. Are they treated differently in the code I wonder? In any case I fear I am being rather gamey and ahistorical with the aggressive way I am using the bren carriers. :confused: Any thoughts? (Note: since I have small children and a modelling hobby to support I don't spend time running tests or suchlike. I'm just giving my RT in-game impressions which may be skewed or incorrect. I stand happy to be corrected!) Toodle pip and all that, FLV

⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r ⌘r

Immediately... Followed by a minor accident.

Thanks. Been something I've been meaning to ask for ages. Still I would have thought a bloody great *bang* would at cause the buggers to snatch a peek to see where it landed. If nothing more than stopping the next one ranging in on themselves... :-)

Does 'hiding' the FO retard his ability to direct fire? It's just I noticed that when I've 'hidden' the FO can can sometimes (i.e. I don't watch him the whole time) see that the Observer is "Spotting" rather than "Hiding". Or do I just drink too much?

Interesting video that makes you think. The presenter is excellent, albeit LOUD. Also is that a military regulation comb over? Snigger. Sorry, can't help myself. I'm childish. Anyway... So shouldn't CM allow you split German squads with a specific option for "MG Team", consisting of a gunner and his assistant, and leaving the rest of the rifle squad intact? At the point the Admin options don't easily allow you to do this. CM is already reflecting doctrine to some extent, for example by not allowing Italian squads to be further broken down, so why not add some Nation-specific Admin options? Even better, allow us an option to exactly pick 'n' choose who is in each team? Might be open to 'gamey' abuse though...

Swept through with the German armour (which you would apparently lose anyway) plus lots of light/harass arty fire. Result = enough suppression to allow my light tanks to surge up the road and create a MG screen for the trucks. Got everyone off map before the end, minus a couple of trucks with holes in their engine blocks. Honourable mention goes to the MkIV who pushed up the left flank, around the walled fields and rushed straight into a field of mortars. +40 enemy kills to that one tank alone... My problem is with the next mission. My computer can't handle all those buildings. Chug chug chug. So unfortunately have given up the campaign for now which is a shame.

Coca Cola and McDonalds didn't sponsor that one then?

I stuck the Tiger crew in a truck and raced them up the dirt track. I also covered the track and Tiger with smoke which must have helped. Maybe I lucked out?

Re-release CMBO, CMBB and CMAF for OSX please. :'-(

PF team in the top level of the house on the left...

A dozen Marders parked in a field? Are you holding one of those car-club-rally things where everyone brings their overly-loved MG/Jag/Mini/etc and then sit around all day sitting on camping chairs, eating cucumber sandwiches and discussing the weather? 75mm guns and strafing sounds like a good addition. Maybe it because the AI 'knows' that MG's can't knock out an AFV - and isn't taking into account exposed crew?