MAsta_KFC

Before we get way off topic, I too, have noticed crackling and hssing at the end of the Aussie voices, not all, but one or two of them. REALLY detracts from gameplay and immersion, I must admit.

I guess you cold always mortar your own AT guns to make the crew abandon them Mortars seem to take them out even from a non-direct hit and usually doesn't cause grevious casualties. Seriously though, i do hope that 'Abandon Gun' command will be in CMx2

Yes, it bugs me that the sharpshooter doesn't get credited for the kills. You know, credit where credit is due. On a side note, you can use performance to evaluate the optimal range and positioning a sharpshooter in a scenario/map.

In CMBB and CMAK, the full list of casualties that were recorded for that unit in game terms are revealed. This was especially useful when you wanted to see the 'true' performance of that unit. However, in line of defence (and not just that scenario), I've noticed that when my crack sharpshooter takes down a TC, it is never recorded at the end of the scenario as a casualty caused. I'm 100% per cent sure that my sharpshooter sniped the TC's and just to make sure, I gave the Allies 200%+ units. It usually starts with the 'bang' noise as the sharpshooter fires, the subsequent 'I'm hit!' or 'Arrgh!' and then the tank stalls for a few seconds, obviously the crew is shocked. Yet, why still no record at the end of the scenario? Has this happened to anyone before aswell?

And thats what exactly was modeled in the previous two CM. Firing a schreck or faust in a building immediately put the squad/team on 'pinned' status (and the blast made them subsequently easier to spot). The squad/team needed at least a round to fully recover from the effects of the shot. On occassion, it would even set the light buildings on fire.This effectively made them one shot armor ambush weapons if they were in street fighting. However, like I said, in CMAK, they can churn out the shots without regard of backblast. To be honest, i think BFC forgot the code for the AT backblast, it doesn't seem to be implemented whatsoever.

Just got my copy in the post today. Excellent stuff, and two thumbs up for BFC on their marvelous work. However, I have noticed that, like the demo, units can fire Schrecks, Bazookas and Faust inside a building with impunity, disregarding the consequences of blackbast. You could not do this in CMBB/CMBO and the blackbast was one of the features that made CM series so fun, the attention to detail. This also affected strategy and tactics significantly. There was a thread a while ago regarding this and we were waiting on Charle's reply (ie official word). I'm just wondering now, will there be plans to fix this? Can we have an official word now?

Any Aussies get their CMAK yet? :confused: [ December 05, 2003, 07:25 PM: Message edited by: MAsta_KFC ]

I reckon JasonC should write a strat guide!! A must buy!

Does that mean you were born in 1947? Letme guess, your name is Lee.

I wish there was a printed manual for either of the versions. Something to put under the pillow at night, or to take with me for some toilet reading...

Is the panzershreck fire-in-building bug in the full version?

So do the Allies use the old CMBO pics?

Hmm, why is it that CDV can release now yet pre-orders don't get shipped till Dec 5? Why not ship now? Obviously the game is finished already.

Probably the same reaction they had to the mutliple patches for CMBB I suppose. As CMBB-CMAK is a smaller jump than CMBO-CMBB, I'd expect less patches though, probably just one to fix stuff missed in beta testing. </font>

*BUMP* Hey this issue is important to me!! Any feedback?

That's because your TC's are getting picked off by the crack sniper hiding somewhere. There was something mentioned earlier about keeping your tanks buttoned.

I think the fact that it's missing entirely is the critical point: I wouldn't have any trouble believing that BO/BB overmodeled the suppressing effect of firing a zook/schrek in a bldg, as suppression seemed to be automatic in that situation, no matter what kind of bldg you were in. On the other hand, everything that I've read suggests that it was problematic firing these weapons from inside buildings, so there should be at least some chance of something bad happening whenever you fire. But as no one seems to have seen this ever happen, it looks like a bug. </font>

Yay, Gordon's back!! Love ya work, mate

I'm not terribly knowledgeable with the African front, but does that mean that these unit WON'T be in CMAK?? *sobs* The King Tiger is my fav unit.

Yes please make up your mind and as long as its the shoulder view then that will be ok. </font>

I, too have noticed the lack of black-bast effects in CMAK. It seems in the italian scenario (my favourite of teh two), the shrecks can fire at the shermans with impunity, once they are close enough. I was wondering what is BTS's official word on this? If it IS a bug, it could mean quite large strategic implications.

I noticed that in the CMAK demo, the portraits for the US troops look reminiscent of the CMBO portraits, just added shadows. However, the axis troops have that 'shoulder and rank' view, where half the face is obscured, but you can see his 'credentials. My question is, in the full version, will we expect this difference? To be honest, I preferred the CMBB style portraits, they looked more 'professional'.

As we all know, BFC have a tendancy to add subtle but enjoyable changes in their games which they don't specifically tell. From the CMAK demo that I have played atm, I have noticed gameplay changes. I invite you all to add any tweaks, real or imagined, so the rest of us can go hunting One of the changes noticed, and mentioned in the other thread, is that troops seem to surrender more readily. Unlike the 'fight to the death' mentality of the dirty bolshiveks (and axis), troops who are broken I find either do one of two things. Run like hell and either make it to safety, or get mowed down. The other is that they surrender. I've had almost full squads surrender and from what I have observed, their behaviour seems to be dictated by the squad's morale, global morale, leadership presence and proximity of enemy. *SPOILER* In the italian scenario, after defeating all the US tanks with my tiger and a significant number of infantry, there were a few remaining elements that needed mopping up. Expecting a grim and potentially weary building to building clearance, I was mildy suprised that my Tiger could almost literally drive through the remaining streets and the squads would put there hands up. For those that didn't, one or two bursts of MG fire changed their mind, regardless of casualties caused. This is most unlike CMBB, where you had to rout the enemy off the map when victory was near, like herding cattle. I find this change actually quite realistic and refreshing, although I did enjoy shooting fleeing squads in the back Tied in to the above, I commend the Ai for handling its captured troops. Whenever it captures a squad, it will pull them out of the front line and off their side of the 'board' thus eliminating a chance for them to be liberated (I recall somewhere that troops can be liberated, please correct me if i'm wrong). Anyways, this additional behaviour, which I didn't notice in CMBB, indicated changes to the Surrendering code are deliberate rather than imagined. Another thing which I noticed is that when tanks lose LOS of enemy armor, it seems to keep its turret trained its last seen location and potential popup spots. This is unless a greater threat presents itself. I was mildy surprised that when my tank was darting in and out of LOS in the italian scenario, the computer tanks continued to take pot shots. I remember in CMBB that whenever a tank lost LOS, it would automatically rotate its turret to the 'neutral' forward position. Maybe it's my imagination, due to my excitement, please correct me if I'm wrong. Lastly, although this seems to be less obvious, I keep imagining that when a tank faces an opponent, it seems to rotate its hull at a slight angle, as if to increase its chances of survival. In CMBB, a tank would face the opponent head on and although this would present the tougher armour, would not maximise the advantage of shot deflection. Anyways, I seem to imagine my tank facing the enemy at slightly off angles, not enough to induce a side penetration but taking advantage of those extra few degrees (about 10 or 15). Again, it could be my imagination. Anyways, I'm off to play the scenarios for the umpteenth time to see if i notice anymore. So what have you guys noticed as changes?

The news is bad for 3.8. Same ol problem with FSAA and unreadable text. ATI is never gonna listen to us

Excellent work, Andrew!! I hope you start a trend, so that even before the demo comes out, we can mod like crazy!!! :eek: