Statisoris

Oops, accidental double post Understood and wanted to say thanks for your work. CM=My only relaxation between work and 2 toddlers

Understood and wanted to say thanks for your work. CM=My only relaxation between work and 2the toddlers

-E, I think you misunderstood me or either... nm. I meant, take 15 mins a week to put up at least one informative response to a good thread. Phil stated he already reads threads, so a nice short response should only take 15 mins or so.

Agreed. I have also seen many threads that did not fall into the "unsubstantiated hyperbole" category. We really could have used a quick developer clarification/comment on these relevant threads. I just don't understand how one could not devote even 15 minutes of their time every week to leaving an informative and helpful comment in a "right sort" and relevant thread.

A highly trained Sturm-Arborist team examines tree bark for signs of die Amis.

I concur, you would expect better behavior from people representing the company. Capt's tone and last statements were uncalled for. Loose the attitude Capt.

Do you not consider PBEM games "multiplayer in WeGo mode"?

ROFL, the Beaver Hunter Squad!, in German/maybe (die BiberJäger Abteilung)

Lol, there is just something funny about having a tank chassis based APC being named after a rather small fuzzy animal. For some reason Kangaroo sorta works, but I would roll on the ground laughing if a someone with British accent yelled at me to (Get in the beaver!)

I don't buy the "they have been so busy that they don't have time to post" things. Almost all software developers are busy busy people and the most outstanding companies always find time to interact with their fan base no matter how busy they are. I can understand a week & a half or so developer absence from the main forum, but not this long. It pains me to see so many very valid game questions go unanswered and fall off the face of the forum board with no real conclusion to them because the developers were too busy to chime in. Flame me if you feel like it, I just feel that customer interaction is part of doing good business. Last CMx2 Post by BF Steve was on (10-07-2011, 12:27 AM) http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1315822#post1315822 Last Post on this Main Forum board was on (09-21-2011, 09:49 PM) almost a month ago http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1312952#post1312952

Correct, Assault consists of leaping fast moves. Assault moves are very tiring for infantry just like fast.

I was playing Drrowley in that PBEM. The number of rounds ~24 and 105mm is correct. Also, I would like to confirm that all four hits were in the exact same place according to the hit text with no penetration/partial penetration or spalling armor.

People would end up gaming the heck out of this by creating "TRP Nets" where all you would have to do is fire off a bunch of quick missions across important areas of the map. The TRPs would then cover enough of the map where missions could always be linked to the TRPs in some fashion. This would end up making artillery pretty insane and very deadly for the defender. It is already a very tough task to be defender and handle artillery strikes, TRPs all over the map would make it pure hell for the defender. Another real life problem would be that the artillery asset that fired off that mission, to create that auto TRP, should only have access to that TRP. Other artillery assets would not have access to all the data created by the "Auto TRP generating" artillery asset. Even if they did have access to these data, each artillery system is mechanically very different and is very likley positioned differently, which would render other asset's firing data useless for creating Target Registration Points.

I also liked the CMx1 way of resolving contacts in steps instead of Unknown/100% detail in CMx2. Since borg spotting was eliminated though, each unit has their own view of the world and their own contacts. How would you handle 3 units thinking a contact was unknown, 3 units misidentifying that contact and an additional 3 units positively identifying the contact? Would everything overlap? I can understand why BF left this one out since there is not a good way to organize that info without massive clutter. However, I would be all for the old style system if there was a good way invented to handle that info. Also, I really hate that organizational info and very specific unit type info is displayed with contacts even in high realism settings. That stuff just should not be there on warrior and higher.

I have stated since CMSF that we need an artillery "box" option, along with linear, circular and point. Rectangles would be so much more useful in many situations. So many rounds are wasted when you have to area fire with a circle when your target would fit a box perfectly. Maybe BF left out box targets because they would take artillery destructiveness to a higher level.

Here are several ways in which alcohol affects my CMBN gaming experience :-) 1) I finish planning turns in 50% of the time it would normally take me. 2) If you knock out one of my tanks I become... agitated. 3) Due to my berserker-like tactics, I end up taking lots of prisoners. 4) Due to my berserker-like tactics, I charge whole platoons into ambushes regularly with bad results, then I become... agitated 5) I tend to use up artillery quickly just because I want to see more explosions and action. 6) I start to believe my wife is actually interested in CMBN and try to get her opinions on tactical planning and infantry tactics.

I dont think you read my entire post, or didn't understand what I meant by "fortification only". I meant the extra points would be agreed upon to be fortification only or they don't get used.

Look at the symbols that are displayed with the QB picture. They will display the default configuration of the map. The symbol that displays who battle direction is pretty self explanatory.

Yeah, if everything remains unchanged, agreed upon force adjustment is one method that can be used to promote use of fortifications. If BF refuses to make Foxholes free, what we really need is a force adjustment option for defender as well as attacker. The amount of points the attacker gets is good, the defender just needs a little more points so they are willing to use fortification. That way the attacker could keep their overall force advantage, but some preplanning between opponents is required. PBEM opponents would have to agree though that the extra 10% or whatever would be fortifications only points. If not, the adjustment will just lead to the attacker buying another infantry squad which wasn't the point of the adjustment.

Having to purchase fortifications in CMBN is not very flexible when you really think about it. At the current/default point ratios for attacker and defender (Attack Mission Type), the defender really hurts themselves by buying fortifications. It is already a very tough task to defend with 38.7% less points than the attacker (Medium Attack). In my PBEM games, none of us has ever won a standard quick battle in defense and that is with no fortifications purchased. Fortifications do not kill them enemy, they only serve to delay the defenders death and most smart commanders would not trade a square of foxholes for a few more soldiers. I support "optional and limited" free foxholes for the defender. By "optional and limited" I mean that the defender has a variable number of foxholes that can be placed, which is based upon the number of soldiers under their command. They do not have to place them if they do not want them, but that number of foxholes is there if they want them. Also, the defender would get extra foxholes if the battle type was "assault". Isn't this how CMx1 handled things?

Good info, thanks all

I am currently playing a PBEM game and noticed something weird with my artillery. I set up a preplanned smoke mission from my 150mm Infantry Gun battery which started with 50 HE and some number of smoke. After firing off all of the batteries smoke, I checked the remaining ammo count on the battery. It now states 40 HE and zero smoke. Anyone have any idea why 10 HE rounds are missing? They were not used for spotting since the mission was preplanned and I know for certain no 150mm HE landed on map because I heard no massive explosions and saw no craters, just smoke. Could anyone explain this or is it a bug? I have screen shots and saved PBEM game files if anyone needs them.

Last post on this side of the forum was still on 09-21-2011, 09:49 PM, almost 15 days ago. Must have something really time consuming going on. I remember once back in the CMSF days BF stopped posting for a really long time with little or no explanation as to what was going on. I guess they don't owe and explanation to anyone, but it sure is inconvenient for those of us who enjoy hearing from the creators of the product for which we gave our hard earned money.

Lol, Womble, you were the source of info. Here is what you posted back in the day ina an old thread. "Thank you Berto. That clears it up nicely. In ME's 60% of the points available will be for destroying enemy units, 40% for terrain objectives. Sides will be built on even points. Probes have a 50-50 split between unit and terrain objectives, down to 25% for units and 75% for terrain in assaults. Oh, hang on... From the manual, p150: Quote: The code automatically adds an enemy-casualty threshold victory goal for each side, which is lowest for meeting engagements, and highest for assaults. This, I think, also means that to get that lower proportion of the VPs, you have to kill progressively more of the enemy..."

Interesting, I will attempt a more detailed search. This should really be in the manual :-/