Sivodsi

Do you mind just clarifying this point? - we know that destroyed vehicles don't block LOS, but you are saying here that they "do not block LOF"? You mean "Line of Fire"? So you are saying that the Abrams could shoot the T72s behind the destroyed T72s? That is, they shot through the destroyed T72s and killed the T72s behind? Or are you saying that the Abrams did not attempt to fire the main gun on the live T72s behind the destroyed ones, even though they could see them? :confused::confused::confused:

A question for the Capt: Is there any reason why you turned around your sherman rather than simply reversing him out of there? As I recall in CMX1 I'd always reverse because it was fast and you kept your thickest armor to the enemy. I once tried it with a Jackel in CMSF and was shocked at how slowly it reversed. Result: one dead canine. So, how does reverse compare with fast forward in CMBN?

I think this is the exact opposite of the problem that noob described. He said So, it appears you guys are playing a different set of scenarios? Perhaps if you each make a list of scenarios that you think are unbalanced in the way you say they are it would be helpful for all players, not just this discussion - without posting spoilers, natch. Wouldn't it be amusing if the same scenarios appeared on both your lists...?

I read reviews about this game on the internet, extolling its realism, fun and destructible terrain. This was after CMBB came out because I bought double pack with CMBO, so must have been what, late 2002. It was an ideal game because my job at that time was editing and making test items, which was often a hard slog in front of a computer screen. Me and a buddy could surreptitiously flip PBEM files for those ever so important 'refresh' breaks. Been hooked ever since.

I don't 100% agree with you. There were some beautiful screenshots in the DAR - the one with the panzerfaust and sherman through the battlefield haze sticks out. But I have to say that this one is a classic: (though yeah, the clipping of the wheel of the PAK does distract)

Actually, this is one of the things I've wondered about. The tank pops smoke, but the player (and the soldier) knows that the tank is there, and that it couldn't have moved much. If I was in a PIV, you bet I would put my last AP round into the last known area, and maybe even guestimate where the sherman would be if it started reversing. However, CM only allows you to area fire to where you have LOS, so it is not possible to shoot 'thru' the smoke, and besides you can only area fire HE so it would be less likely to have an effect on a tank. But surely something could be done in such situations? Or is this not allowed because it would lead to 'gamey' play? Also, I assume that in CMBN you have the same ability in CMSF to command an area fire onto an area: you fast up the rise of the hill and at the top waypoint command your tank to area fire onto a spot for 10 seconds, then plot the reverse point - you can still do this in CMBN, right? In these situations, even if you are aiming at a spot where you know an enemy tank is, the AI will only use HE, you cannot select AP. Again, my question is whether this is done deliberately to reduce gamey behavior? Because normally such precision would only be possible with the player's god like perspective, and even less precision in WW2 than with modern communications systems represented in CMSF.

Sounds like the waste of a perfectly good T34. Is it really supposed to be a stug? Looks more like its leaning in the jagdpanther direction.

Absolutely! You use the half-arc to centre your turret on the direction of the perceived threat - that's why one of my long held but unexpressed gripes (IIRC!) with CMSF was the decision to ditch the automatic semi circle from CMX1. Introducing the 'full circle' was one of those 'improvements' that really didn't improve things much at all. As an option the full circle is nice, but the semi-circle is more useful. Hey, long time no play, stikky, still regret somehow not being able to finish that urban nightmare scenario... lets get a PBEM rumbling when this thing comes out, eh?

Okay, that chimes with what I thought. However, I dispute that it necessarily allows you to engage much quicker. What you say in 2) above is only true if the enemy has a wide target arc that is not centred on your tank. In fact you have just presented an argument against setting narrow target arcs, since if your enemy in 2) had set a narrow target arc that was not centered on your tank, it would not fire at all since you would be outside its target arc, giving you a free shot. So the situation is this: if you set a narrow target arc your only advantage comes with your opponents carelessness, and you risk not being able to react to threats outside the target arc. If you set a wide target arc (centered on the perceived threat) then you not only cover the threat from the direction you expect, but can cover threats that may appear from unexpected directions. So, in nearly all cases* it is better to set a wide target arc centred on the area from where the perceived threat comes. This is a lesson I have learnt from experience! The danger of the wide target arc is that you will shoot at things that are not a threat to you, and thereby give away your position. Err, was it established whether CMBN reintroduced the separate 'armored covered arc' and 'infantry covered arc'? Really hope so. *Naturally, I say 'nearly all cases' because sometimes the enemies LOS to you is 100% blocked from your flank and rear, and in those cases sure, you might as well set a narrow target arc. In your situation, you could almost certainly guarantee that the enemy would appear in your arc, right? But how certain do you need to be? I say, take no chances, give yourself a wide arc!

Thanks for the quick response, Bil, I'm also sure in CMSF that the covered arc does not improve the actual spotting ability by much, if at all. The function was more intended to tell your unit where not to fire. So in CMSF I don't think setting a narrow covered arc would improve spotting vs a wide covered arc. With the slower turret speeds in WW2, I can see that setting a narrower arc could be advantageous. If it is the case that narrow covered arcs improve spotting over wide covered arcs, then BFT have tweaked the system for CMBN. Great!

Bil, one thing I notice is the restrictive covered arcs that you are using. One of the things I've learnt from CMSF is that you are asking for trouble from anything that pops up outside of that arc. If you had a panther with a narrow arc set, and a sherman pops up to the side outside of the arc in full LOS, would the panther react at all? In CMSF, if the panther was an Abrams, I don't think it would (at least in an earlier build it would not, as I only play PBEMs I haven't been brave enough to test). This is why I always use half circles when I want to orient the turret a particular way, when in the situation shown in the your screenshot. So, my question is, in CMBN, if a sherman popped up out of the covered arc of the PIV, plainly in LOS, would the PIV take any action?

Beaut - ful!

Yeah, in Sth Korea we only get the froggie, but if I right click on it (in firefox) and select 'view image' it rather annoyingly opens up the image only in my screen. But if I then backspace, the image shows up in text as it should. This only works if I'm signed into imageshack, mind. Unfortunately I have to repeat this procedure for every picture on the page. So yeah, I too would appreciate an alternative to the once oh-so-favored imageshack.

In CMSF users can either make maps or go the full whack and make a scenario. In either case the user clearly states in the description whether it has an AI plan or not, or if the plan is only for one side. If it doesn't have a plan, the understanding is that it will be used for H2H play, or for others to turn into a scenario. If you want to play QBs solo, then indeed, the AI side of the map MUST have a plan, or they will simply just stay where they are. Hope I haven't missed anything out or misrepresented.

Heaven forbid that they start mentioning military members.

hey Steve, how do you think 'The book depository' manages to do free international shipping? Their books are just a bit more expensive than Amazon's, but certainly not enough to make up the difference... (no I'm not working for them, just curious as to how it works)

Oh damnit, just pre-ordered anyway $16 - $20 for most places outside America David

Exciting to have a release date at last! Could someone give an estimate of how much it costs to ship the steel box pre-order to various places around the world? For example, Korea/Japan, Europe, Australia, NZ?

Yeah, I'd definitely up for a PBEM of something of this nature. Beautiful map! The beeb has this to say about the weapons systems. Quite a bit of it is available from CMSF.

So we're on to TV? One documentary that stands out amongst quite a few that I've seen was D-day to Berlin, which gives insights into the infighting amongst the Allied generals. The 'Lost Evidence' episode on D-Day was very good too.

No problems with it being almost totally ineffective - I'm sure BFT would throw in that 1 in a 1000 chance of it doing something ... that would probably happen to me in 1 in 10 cases :mad: But yeah, it would be cool just to see a few guys start gunning off into the sky at aircraft passing overhead and perhaps giving their positions away or something... its the effect that is important here.

I thought that target arc only tells units where they can shoot, without actually improving their spotting ability...

Enemy troops that get overrun seem to take a pretty devastating hit to their morale, especially if they don't have very effective weapons. No guarantee that one of them won't fire off an RPG that hits a vital part of your tank, of course.

Is the guy in Picture 5 using a borrowed American helmet? I would have thought that this would be a particularly dangerous habit, so I'm guessing it is a bug...

You don't mean picture 14, right? That's another PIV, judging from the tracks and exhaust visible on the back... Which picture has the tiger then? Edit to add: Ah! I see it.