SlapHappy

I'm having frustration trying to use waypoints with multiple vehicles. Once I have a platoon of tanks together (4-5 or so) I try issuing a multi-move. My thinking is that the waypoint end point should correspond to the position of the tanks prior to orders. However, the tanks seem to want to converge and interfere with each other's movements. Any way around this?

What is with that DynamicPara guy? He seems to be waging a one-man war against the existence of the Stryker. I've seen dozens of his videos.

Yup. And the rarity points value for Tiger I just went to 10,000 points each. Enjoy!

Thanks for clearing that up....it still outsteers my tanks in CMBN.....

Are you talking about what the Tiger does in Kelly's Heroes? 3:25 minute mark: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i-gl2s2dJtw&feature=related

Tank armor diagram for Tiger E: http://www.lonesentry.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/pzkpfw-tiger-armor-arrangement.jpg?dur=315

I'm suspicious that the SPECIFIC location of certain items in the game and the EXACT grouping of squads is not data that is saved within the framework of the mission information. Thus, items are somehow randomized inside each action spot they are assigned to and soldier groupings are as well. Human players can, of course, tweak these in setup, but we have no such recourse with AI placements.

Two things: Could "Upper Front Hull" be a badly worded reference to the TOP of the hull. In other words, a deflection of a round from somewhere else down onto the thin top armor? Just a thought. Secondly, there are two Tigers modelled in the game, the second (late) specifically refers to degraded armor in production, but does not refer to inferior armor at ONE specific location. Have you tried both models of tiger in the test?

The reason why it is important that BFC gets these variations in detail modelled correctly is fairly well illustrated in the above thread. Generally speaking, most agree that good tactics should be rewarded and bad tactics punished in the game system. So if the game can't adequately delineate between the player who strings his spotters halfway across the map, vs. the guy who keeps his C2 and spotting close to the artillery element, then the realistic benefit can't be pulled out of the simulation in actual game play. Let's not forget, the 2nd guy is taking quite the risk by bunching his spotter and firing elements together when they could all be lit up by counter-battery fire. He should receive the benefits and not just the risk of doing so.

These fortification items seem to suffer from the same problem as Flavor Objects - They move around inside the action spots each time you restart the Mission. Didn't this problem with flavor objects exist back in CMSF?

I just wish we had the tools to do our own "excavations" and some loose sandbag and other defensive pieces that could be slapped together however the designer wished. The elevation tool is to blunt to provide this feature. We would need sub-action spot detail level. I'm not really happy with the choices and effectiveness we have now myself.

I just wish we had the tools to do our own "excavations" and some loose sandbag and other defensive pieces that could be slapped together however the designer wished. The elevation tool is to blunt to provide this feature. We would need sub-action spot detail level.

Gamey rushes to get enemy guns to revel themselves?.....doh.......

GAJ In Shock Force it used to be that if you ran infantry into a building they would completely ignore anybody in it and go park themselves at a window spot....and get mowed down. I made a few posts saying that a building attacker ought to have some chance of defeating a building defended enemy even if that enemy is not completely or remotely suppressed. It felt just too chess-like....if you entered an enemy occupied building and they weren't completely suppressed....they mowed your troopers down. So a tweak was made that gave the building attacker the ability spot and engage enemies without the annoying parking behavior from previous CMSF versions. Whether that behavior has not been put into the CMBN version, or it has been toned down a bunch, I cannot say. All I can say is the later CMSF model gave you a good opportunity to take that building in a standup fight.

The 222 Armored Car has proven to be extremely lethal against infantry in my experience in the game so far. The 20mm is accurate and deadly.

Has anyone noticed that the gunners tend to fire very high above the heads of their targets? At 400m or less the bullet trajectory of the 8mm Mauser round was fairly flat, so I don't get this.

I've only played Chance Encounter and Valley of Trouble from the second demo. I kinda wonder how they will play compared to the CM1 engine, and what the differences will be. You've got a lot of green Wehrmacht troops dug-in in Valley of Trouble. Will the trenches and infantry pits give them a decent chance of defense? I guess we'll see soon enough.

First I've heard of any Weight system tracked by the game re: weapon scavenging. Is this officially one of the reasons why a soldier will not recover weapons from a buddy aid recipient? Had not heard that one before.

My concern here is that this really needs to be done as well as possible. The entire German squad concept was based around the MG and the proper modeling of the weapon system is paramount in my mind. Probably more important than having outrageously accurate damage locations for armor or the like (although that's a great feature). I tend to think of this as an infantry simulator first with the armor action thrown in as a cherry on top. I'm sure we've all played those games where infantry modeling was a complete afterthought or games where tanks roamed around an imaginary battlefield with nary a solitary rifleman in sight. And they, well, suck....... MG modeling accuracy was one of my major concerns with this new title as I've followed along with it's development. I'm just hoping BFC will give it the proper scrutiny when it comes time to make the patching decisions.

I'd also like to see a little more ROF from the Garands as well, at least under certain situations....but I guess that's a different thread.

I'm squarely in the "decrease time between bursts and increase morale effects" camp as well. Those seem to be the two most out of the reality loop. Also, let's not forget these lafayette tripods were mounted with a 4 power scope. Somewhere on the internet i saw a graphic of what a six foot human silhouette looks like in the crosshairs at 300 meters of such a tac scope. At those ranges (and maybe slightly beyond) an experienced gunner would most likely be firing burst....dead guy.....burst...dead guy....at least against targets stupid enough to fully expose themselves to the HMG.

Not to worry you guys, but isn't that how long they told Tom Hanks it would take to finish his house in "The Money Pit"?

It literally means "close defense weapon".

I freely admit that I cut and pasted that, uh, word into my message.

It's a tough call...if you "hide in place" you are definitely going to get a lot of "yellow" casualties and a one or two "dead" or "seriously injured". If the stuff is relatively on target and coming fast, best not try and get the guys up and run for it. You probably will lose control of them quickly and not be able to anyway. If the opposing side is tossing rounds sporadically, you might want to make a FAST move for the nearest building or at least partial cover. You just might be able to get most of them out of the kill zone before too many rounds come down.