scottie

Assuming there are no delays. Would be nice to get an update from BF to manage the expectation no matter if there is a delay or not , just let us know is all im saying. Find it hard to believe nobody has a reasonable idea of the amount of work left and the time it will take to complete at this stage in the development cycle. Im not moaning by the way , just an observation from an otherwise happy punter

i believe you there , i mean its not like you to miss an opportunity to post a reply

ah i see. 1133 posts later its good to finally understand what i have been reading

Been meaning to ask , the title of this thread: "A Quick Battle AAR: Shermans vs Pz IVs, Not Your Fathers Combat Mission " What does "not your fathers combat mission" mean to imply ? ... doesn't make much sense to me.

another good call , its works. Selected SLOW in centre of building and face some place other than where i was facing and it worked. Ok so 1) tiny cover arc to hold fire when moving otherwise a spot is a shot and the element of surprise is lost as your ability to craft the perfect shot. 2) using slow command prior to face command to crawl while changing facing. Couple of good tips for CMBN players if your hunting armour with an AT weapon Thanks for the posts. Scott

will give it a go thanks .... wasted thread by the sounds of it sorry

Yip that is a fair point , short cover arc would be a good work around. What about the facing change. Anyway to control the crawl (hard to spot) or run (easier to spot) when a unit changes face in a building ?

1) is it possible to change facing in CMBN without the unit standing up and running ? i.e i think a slow (crawl) facing change option would be helpful. 2) when units use slow to crawl into a building would it be possible to get them to hold fire. Currently can only do this with the hide option which only seems to be deployed while stationary. 3) would it be possible to decouple the hide from a "dont shoot" option. Would be helpful to be able to un-hide to look for target without actually shooting at them and giving position away. All of the above points are obviously linked , just finding it hard to sneak around with an AT weapon to get eyes on and align a perfect shot without stopping the units taking a shot and giving away their position. (red on red scenario, veteran level , CMSF , 3 x RPG 7 teams hunting a single T72 in a small village test ... closest i could get to US inf hunting a Tiger ).

Always wanted to so started watching THE WEST WING having heard so many good things about it but had never seen an episode until now. Onto series 3, its awesome

The break out at Saint Lo springs to mind, i think 600 infantry casualties were taken there where a pre battle aerial bombardment crept in the wrong direction.

Heavy bombers were all pre-planned mind, cannot be described as combat air support.

... i would take the software even if the battle results were a real issue , would be disappointing to see a long delay at this stage. I would guess its just about parameters anyway, little bit of tweaking of values here and there may resolve.

IIRC there was little INF to air comms i.e lack of coordinated CAS in this era , tended to be roaming fighters picking targets of opportunity. So maybe adding in an air asset to a battle acts in the same way it did in cmx1 .... certainly not called in on a precise target like CMSF. I did believe air assets with in though.

you are right there , Mr Emrys is about as opposite as a lurker as its possible to get , in fact do you have the most posts Big welcome to any new posters, hope you find the forum fun. Some incredibly knowledgeable people around here in the area of WW2 and beyond, i have learnt much from them , its not all about the Battlefronts software but history too.

another CMSF on win7 64 no issues here.

"you gotta roll with , you gotta take your time ...." i think Liam may have been a CM fan

Awesome, even better news. Its definitely a gap in the environment v realism but not a show stopper.

Well thats good news. CMBN threads didnt differentiate between craters and trenches so it did sound like no deform rule was the same for all. I got a large crater from a standard rpg hit into the rear of a T72 last night , it went up in flames so maybe it was secondary rather than the rpg ordnance. Created a senarios to test 3 x RPG teams (RED on RED) running around a village trying to take out a single armour unit , really great fun. Can see RELATIVE SPOTTING is going to be great fun as opposed to BLUE C2 in the year 2000 +. Armour unit is so much more difficult to track !!! makes me miss sound contacts though, its a tad unrealistic from that point of view.

Not sure , but is a worry. I understand the need for FOW to apply to trenches and foxholes but the way other threads talked about terrain deformation slowing down frame rate suggested to me it was no longer done , which would be a real shame. Some clarification would be good , any beta testers of preview users should be able to answer quickly.

I would like to see a CRATER in CMBN , if the terrain is no longer deforming like CMSF what is it going to look like ? the old crater tile with no depth like cmx1 ? that would be sad.

my word , the screenshots are beautiful ! really gets the creative juices flowing , cannot wait to get into the editor.

Ah sorry its was the crew that spotted them , sorry , understood, that sounds much more likely. Thanks for the reply.

200M ! crawling slowly ! , in a heavy wood ! Really surprised the Pz IV spotted them.

CMSF plays so well now i'm starting to worry CMBN will be a disappointment ... and this is coming from someone who gave up on CMSF a week after its first release. Currently playing the UK module crucible battle , lovely green map , plenty of space, nice counter attacking from the AI , good armour / inf mix , cannot imagine CMBN being any better than it !

I know we as a community have gone over this subject so many times before , would it be possible to clarify what you mean by this above ? Sorry to bring it up again , thought I understood BFs position on the Strategic Layer (i.e you would never consider it due to development v return cost) but this statement appears to contradict previous. When you say it wouldn't go below Company-ish level, do you mean a Stategic Layer with a minimum Company level BUT you would still be able to use that Company at a Tactical Level ? (i.e use that company in CMX2). Totally understand nothing like this is currently being considered. Thanks Scott