Blah Blah Blah

What a great interface. THANKS!

Sorry to have to bring this up again, but I am hoping that Battlefront can clarify what copy protection they will be using. Simply put, I don't want to spend months anticipating what will be another classic Battlefront war game, only to find out that you are using Starforce as your copy protection, or something simular.

Steiner14, Some excellent ideas. I would like to see and think that having a battle run for as long as it takes with bonus's for completing the task within certain time frames would be a better concept. The problem is that we have minutes, not hours to complete a battle. Not realistic. I feel the scoring system needs to put more emphisis on the objective to make it more worth the loss of points attaining it.

medlink, There are several issues with the Macromedia implementation. Firstly is the continuos sending of data, I am uncomfortable with this. Secondly, you have to be always online. I would have presumed that USB dongles are cheap enough now to be viable. Maybe the technology isn't? All I can say is that when the anti-piracy solution requires hidden system level drivers that monitor your use of your system and stops you from using legal applications and then stops you from making a legal backup copy, then this will always almost only effect the honest punter. Which in the end will either... A. like myself move on - I still hold hope that I do not have to totally move on B. turn to piracy out of anger at having paid good money to have to buy a product to then have to buy another CD/DVD drive to install the product, to then find that the anti-piracy software has cause your system to go belly up or other compatability issues which for the average punter will require technical help from a computer shop, i.e. more money. One guy cannot disable the soundblaster utility 'Cthelper' without getting this Starforce error "Internal error when accessing one of the application's libraries. Contact your Customer Support. Error code: 1450. 3.4.76.0; 300D; DrvReg failed, LE: 1450" Took him three days to sort it out. But what F is starforce got to do with the soundblaster utility?

I have always made each game the maximum of 120 turns before playing so that I am not forced to play 'hamburger hill' style.

There is a lot that can be done to discourage piracy. markl touches most of them in an excellent way. He did fail to mention continued support. At least I think he did, the paragraphing makes for a hard read. Ubisoft has stolen my money. Let me give SHII as an example. A very incomplete and half-assed product when released and it stayed that way as Ubisoft did one patch so that they could sell the companion product Destroyer Command. So here we have a bug ridden incomplete and poor quality product that Ubisoft washes its hands of SHII leaving the paying customer with a dud. So here I am having payed $75 for a game that is not 1/2 of the claimed product. How do I feel, I feel that Ubisoft has stolen my money. How do most people react to being ripped off? They will reciprocate. Two wrongs don’t make a right in this instance, but how wrong is it? Intrusive Anti-Piracy measures such as Starforce and the likes will hurt the industry far more than piracy. Anti-Piracy measures such as Starforce will only have an effect on the small ‘share with a friend’ portion of the pirate market. It will not stop professional pirates. How has my first experience with Starforce affected me, the legitimate customer? I have moved on from any product which uses it. Sadly, I have resigned myself to the fact that I will most likely not be gaming in the years ahead.

What do you mean is working? If you are refering to 'having stopped it from being pirated' you are mistaken regarding SHIII. My cousin has had a pirated copy of this game for a very long time.

Piracy is a serious issue. However anti-piracy software such as Starforce is a guarenteed no sale for me. I have experience with this intrusive product through SHIII, a game I no longer play. My issues were minor compared to other users. Sadly, I feel that I will have to live with old titles and just move onto another hobby.

Will there be a error margin on pre battle intel regarding the exact location of that unit when not in line of site? That is, I see the enemy tank as being over near that clump of trees, where as in reality it is a few hundred metres to the right of the trees?

To Change 1. Orders through units HQ and less specific control of my units I would like to see orders for a unit to move from point A to point B, to target an specific unit/area etc be done through the units HQ. 2. AI Targeting The AI currently often targets useless and non combatant units such as tank crews from a destroyed tank. Or continually changing from target A to B then back to A. 3. Ammo expenditure, ammo amount & resupply The rate of ammo expenditure made when in close resulted in a units being ‘empty’ within 2 minutes. A well dug in defending unit knowing the enemy is coming would where practical have extra ammo. Resupply of attacking defending units. 4. Value of the objective As it stands the objective is rarely worth the loss of points to attain it. So winning often means backing off, while we don’t want a ‘hamburger hill’ situation not attaining the objective needs to cost dearly. 5. A more practical implementation of what the unit can see when I click on a unit I would like a shading of where he can and cannot see. This is not less realistic than the line. I know it said five, but the time the battle takes. I don’t want to have to feel rushed, give me time to manoeuvre and the likes. Not to change 1. PBEM 2. WEGO 3. WWII 4. 1 minute turns 5. PBEM

It might be simular setups to stardocks were games are sent in from players and then they are analysed and the AI code improved.

The flags and even the % indicating win/loss is based upon what you (your men) see of and about the enemy. You may see a flag as nuetral when in reality the enemy has had control of since turn one. Or the opposite, you have known that the enemy had the flag but you may now be unaware that he has lost the flag due to all his men being dead, yet until you know this the flag will be marked as his and the % win/loss will include this for him and against you. However at the end of the battle all is summed up correctly. Hope this helps. Cheers, Blah

I like maps that don't look as if they have had certain terrain put there specifically. I don't want to think that piece of terrain was done for a reason.

Yes Please. It would assist me, and help my friend who is even worse than I. Cheers.

I like the 2000 to 3000 size maps. I also always set my games to 120 minutes so that I can take my time. I like the big maps where I am able to attack in more than one way.

Mord, Thankyou. May a thousand really realy big artillery shells land upon your enemies who dare to challenge you. I am sending you the file. Cheers.

Oh alright, the subject line sucks. There I have admited it! You horrible horrible peoples

@ Soddball, the game I am playing by PBEM already had the units, I had not choice. The infantry have 25 ammo. However, th issue is that the ammo rate at close range is both unrealistic and rediculous. @ Andrew Hedges, the main issue I with the ammo count is the expenditure at close range. I have no long range issues as I already do as you say, let the HMG and half tracks do the long range stuff. The issue is soldiers wasting ammo on tank crews. I had 3 units, yes 3, attack a tank crew. Why should I have to cover arc against that. Cheers

@ Soddball, the game I am playing by PBEM already had the units, I had not choice. The infantry have 25 ammo. However, th issue is that the ammo rate at close range is both unrealistic and rediculous. @ Andrew Hedges, the main issue I with the ammo count is the expenditure at close range. I have no long range issues as I already do as you say, let the HMG and half tracks do the long range stuff. The issue is soldiers wasting ammo on tank crews. I had 3 units, yes 3, attack a tank crew. Why should I have to cover arc against that. Cheers

Oh come on, surely someone out there can do it?

I set up a tank to cover a piece of road for which I am certain a tank will travel along. I did not use a cover arc, and even had I, it is most likley that the enemy unit that caused my grief would have been in it. And by golly by gosh, I should not have too! The said tank does travel down the road and my tank targets the enemy tank. Then! My tank untargets the enemy tank and targets an AT team close by the tank. Shooting at the AT team the enemy tank kills my tank. The same principle goes for targeting of crew members, a waste of ammo.

I have started playing PBEM and we have had a great battle. Would be nice to try the same battle from the opposite side. I was hoping that someone would be able to edit the makup of the units so that we maintained the overall makup of the forces, but so that we would not be 100% on what the other has or when the reserves arrive. [ November 23, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Blah Blah Blah ]

Yes, but then suddenly an enemy unit appears outside the arc and then my men don't react.

Yes, but then suddenly an enemy unit appears outside the arc and then my men don't react.

I presume that my ammo count is still going to go down quicker than a parched lady of the night? A more than annoying event especially as the first rounds don’t count for jack. Whilst this is the best war game, this ammo count issue and the way that the first shots don’t get a result is well, ridiculous. It makes it so that as the Germans I never attempt to close on the enemy. Then there is the added ‘bonus’ of ALL your units firing upon a tank crew, wasting ammo and ignoring legit targets. Signing off, Teddy Bär A very frustrated player.