GreenAsJade

Some details might be amazing, but they are crap: like how tanks rock back and forth for a while after stopping. Look at some tank video. They don't do that. I find this combined with the ridiculous binary braking that the tank drivers use to be one of the big "immersion breakers" GaJ

Yeah - this is an interesting concept, actually: that there should only be so much arty-per-battlefield-area. GaJ

You're right: you need space. I played one game on a tiny map and it was a ridiculous bomb-fest. It just shows that real battlefields don't have tiny walls. GaJ

BTW, this is relevant to the pioint I was making in another thread about realism. It's amazing how we all thought that CMx1 was realistic, yet we conducted pitched infantry battles with comparatively minor artillery influence. People expect that to still work, and say "artillery is too powerful now". But I've become less convinced of this... I think there's every possibiluty that CMBN is right and CMx1 was ... wrong! (And of course usually the truth lies in between ) GaJ (Wodin ^^^^^^^)

LOL - that'd be right

The answer to the question is "keep moving". As the defender in Bocage, "layered defense" really takes it's full meaning. You have to have units ready behind Bocage to spot and shoot at the enemy as they probe, then run away before the fire hits. The same is actually the case in towns too (see the threads about whether houses really provide cover). Your plan has to include a means to subsequently kill the enemy after they move into the position that you ran away from. They face the same problem you do, except worse because in order to attack and win they have to arrive in a certain spot, so you have a guaranteed target zone, if you time it right. I recently heard here in the forum and took successfully to heart some wisdom that works well for me: remember that HE kills, not small arms fire. The only purpose for having infantry is to find the enemy, so you can deliver HE on them, then mop up after. So you don't have to avoid scenarios with artillery: actually, doing that would be "gamey", since artillery was a major factor in real life. Damn, my oppos read this forum, what am I doing?! GaJ

Rarity: there are two costs for everything 1) You have a "point value" budget. You can buy one tank or one platoon. That sort of thing. 2) You have a rarity budget. You can only buy rare stuff up to a limit. Otherwise... it wouldn't be rare would it? GaJ

It might be momentarily annoying, but ultimately it ought to be satisfying. This game models the trajectory of the mortar round. If you fire it from there you will blow your head off on the nearby roof. Cool eh? GaJ (Wodin ^^^^ )

I hope you're looking in Normandy and not California GaJ

It's interesting that now that CM is more realistic in visual representation, we all seem to be (and I certainly am) more interested in exactly what is realistic. For example, when squads and houses were abstract, I never questioned how unrealstic it is that squads took cover in and fire back from houses in CMx1. It just "felt right", and BFC said they researched it, so we all believed it (well, I did). Same with cover in trees, mortar delays and accuracy, tank bailing delay... and really any of these topics. Now I watch vidoes that people post of war footage with much more active interest in what's really going on than ever before... Interesting eh? GaJ

I'm playing one humorous QB map right now where the town looks for all the world like a wild west Cowboy town :) GaJ

Do you mean in-game ones, or real ones? Or both? (genuine question in all cases: I don't know!)

You're kidding! Heavy Buildings in CMx1 are awesome cover. I think you'll find this is why they are used so much in maps I agree that light buildings are not much use in CMx1. They are more like all the buildings I've played with in CMBN Except that in CMx1 even light buildings provide some noticeable cover. In CMBN, it actually seems to be worse inside them! (Probably imagination, but it does seem this way!) GaJ

Ooo - I wanna play you :) GaJ

Something I haven't been able to figure: when it all boils down to it, are your troops better off inside a house than out in the open, or possibly are they worse off? It seems to me, based on loose impression only, that they are worse off. They can't see much, but they get shot up easily. Compared to outside, where they lie down, the bullets wizz over their heads for a while, and they can actually see where they are coming from. Does anyone have an hard data on this? Is this realistic: is it actually the case that you'd rather be out than in, if stuck in such a situation? I find it un-intuitive, but I'm setting up defenses with the men outside the buildings. Usually behind them. Intuition isn't always right... so I wonder what you all know about this? GaJ (note, I'm talking about general houses here, not special buildings such as churches etc)

I have a tiny wish. I wish that when you click on a fortification and hit "tab" it would take you to the fortification, just like it does with a unit. GaJ

I think this is a misleading rule of thumb. It's not the person with "the most", it is the person with exclusivity. AFAIK if there is _any_ oppo fighting capacity in the VL, then you don't get awarded it. The funny screenies earlier in the thread show this. GaJ

When people say "I have a right to ... " anything from BFC, it sounds like trolling. When you buy something from a company, the only thing you have a right to is receiving the goods in a decent state. Seriously: do you go to Microsoft and say "I have a right to know when Windows 8 is coming out"? There are some things that we might expect. We might expect a games company to support the community around their game and foster enthusiasm for the game. But even this is just our expectation, it is not a right. Unfortunately, "BFC baiting", with comments that just make them mad, like "I have a right to know your schedules" doesn't solve anything. In fact, what I've seen is that it causes Steve to spend what little time he does have for the forum in correcting people with wrong expectations, instead of answering questions we'd dearly like answered... GaJ

I'm slightly different. I'm starting to love it, rather than "still love it". It was a long learning curve... but it's been worth it the whole time, due to all the good stuff in there. I find I need 6 PBEMs going at once to have enough to do anytime I want to play... GaJ

Yeah. Kinda funny that that thread went exactly no-where isn't it? I feel this illustrates my point: it's more interesting and illuminating to discuss the shortcomings of the game and how they might be fixed, than to cheer about how good things are... GaJ

I think you misunderstood the context, KR. In the context MeatEtr was using it, its spelled ur. GaJ

Sure. We all like good graphics, it's cool too. It does matter, at some "basic hygiene" level/ Just don't loose sight of the fact that if you want cool graphics there are 100's of 2011 vintage games out there to go play. What makes CMxx different is the functionality. That's what I was saying. GaJ

You're right about one, Mr Deville. Any person considering a new CMBN feature needs to consider how will the TacAI need to be modified to deal with this: to use it and to react to it - before they suggest it as "surely this would be easy and good to add". GaJ

I think you are missing the point Mikey. What matters for a gamer is the function first, form second. It's cool that a fire started. That is quality, just like dudes keep firing after their target disappears (as recently discussed). The fact that the representation (in both cases: fire, and shooting at disappeared opponent) was somewhat caricatured was really neither here nor there, and frankly still isn't. I would far rather BFC put in a cool feature that looks a bit wonky than leave it out, I think. OTOH I _totally_ sympathise with a policy that says they won't put in a feature till it can _work properly_. I would hate to see fire that fails to kill occupants of a foxhole, for example. GaJ