Adam Arabian

I may have been supposed to get this out of the earlier message, but in the above scenario, what if a Panzerschreck was NOT focused on the target square? Will the infantry units still open up on the Sherman since that is their 'Orders', even though it might not be a terribly good idea? On the flip side, what if the same units are assigned to teh ambush point (i.e. the AT weaponry) and no tank hoves into view? Will the AT shot still be taken although its really just a waste of ammo? I know this should be resolved by better recon by the ambushing side, but accidents do happen (to me especially) and I'm wondering how the units will react to the orders?

Oooh ooh - Trivia - I know this one! The only case in which the electoral college vote resulted in a different presidential selection was 1888, Benjiman Harrison beating Grover Cleveland, in spite of a 100,000 vote margin in favor of Pres. Cleveland's re-election. Course, as I recall, Harrison died shortly thereafter of pneumonia since he gave a 3 hour speech in the rain, but thats neither here nor there. The reason we have it is a bit more sordid - Apparently Alexander Hamilton really didn't think that the 'masses' would be educated enough to elect properly, so the middlemen were established (EC) to be the 'voice of reason'. There is also the notable case of FDR's election in (er, 44? 40?) which was the only case of an electoral college member NOT voting with his state - apparently FDR won in such a landslide that his opponent didnt get a single EC vote - the EC member felt that George Washinton should be the only one ever elected unanimously, and hence voted against FDR on that basis. Its a stupid system, but until there is a case of the president being elected differently than the popular vote, it'll probably last. Wow. This is so unrelated to CM....

Carrying on the off topic discussion, I'm somewhat curious as to what has happend to Atomic. When CC1 came out, (which at the time I thought was the greatest thing since sliced bread and resulted in a great deal of wasted time in which I should have been improving my thermo grades) I remember emailing Atomic with thoughts and suggestions for CC2 about gameplay, realism, etc. I frequently (though not always) got responses, and they were always cordial, addressed the point, and gave views as to why they would or would not show up in CC2. So what changed? Is it the 'evil' microsoft influence (well, more a change to a marketing driven rather than a 'good game' driven company) or what? Any comments from the gaming industry folks who've been 'behind the lines'?

Fionn, Well said - guilty as charged on the 'triggers'. Not that I'll change my ways, but... Will you be notifying us of the sure to follow responses by the CC development team? (I know it wasn't your goal to necessarily harp on them SPECIFICALLY, but they tend to be a bit, er, well, sensitive these days I think) I'd be curious to see what the retort is.

Ahh, does this ever bring back memories. I recall when CC2 and CC3 were in development there were numerous uselessnet posts r.e. this request (manning captured equipment). The general consensus was this: 1. Units using captured equipment were typically special forces/infiltration and weren't modeled in the game. 2. Use of anything but small arms generally requires some degree of training on teh specifics of that weapon (reffing arty and AT guns mostly - tanks are obvious) to make them even remotely useful, and 3. Reliance on auditory cues for friend or foe ID was heavy, and so soldiers were reluctant to use anything with a distinctively 'german' sound (Naw, I'm pretty sure thats OUR mg42...) I've read a lot of WWII history and taken some courses, but I'm not nearly as expert in history as a lot of folks around here (Just a lowly engineer) so I could have missed some 'classic' examples of these not being the case - anyone have any good examples of use of opposing forces equipment other than infiltration units?

Ok, flogging a dead horse here greatly, but just when I thought I understood your LOS calcs, you post the comment: --- A reminder about tree graphics -> they are visual only and have no bearing on gameplay. In fact, you can toggle all trees off, yet the game will play EXACTLY the same way. So if it is on the woods "floor" texture, and the display says "woods", that's what terrain it is on. Which confuses me when compared to the comments in the LOS page stating: So if your LOS is blocked by a solid object, you will not be able to see any further. When you look at the picture above, take a look at the little wooden house. Areas directly behind the house are not visible, yet the eas to the immediate (we are talking 1 pixel here!) left and right are. So are the trees considered solid objects, or what am I missing here? I know this has been covered ad infinitum, but I got thrown for a loop by that statement. Additional question: I presume as you move the camera around you will be able to see all enemy units that ANY of your forces can see. Will there be a way of telling which of your units are actually in LOS of a particular enemy unit, or is it sort of a dead reckoning thing? Regardless of this or any other posts, BTS looks to be doing an amazing job. Guess I gotta go install that 3D accelerator card sometime before this summer... Thanks for carrying the torch for us who grew up on AH and cardboard counters and have been waiting for what looks to be the next big step.