throwdjohn

I was just going to suggest using foxholes when I noticed the above post. Sandbags are terrain tiles, and can be seen by both sides at the beginning of the game. For this reason, not to mention the relative ease, modded foxholes would probably work better. I'm totally ignorant to the modding scene tho.

Well, I am no expert on Aussie history, but didn't the British government stop convict shipments to Australia within 10-20 years after they began?

I swear I have heard Americans say "boo ya!" when they hit a tank. Also, while on the subject of language, why must the American and Canadian troops have same WAVs? I know the accent is almost identical, expecially to anyone not blessed enough to live in them, but it gets a tad annoying. I don't like playing as Canucks and hearing them spout phrases in the most backwoods Souteren accents. I'd like to hear some "aboot" and stuff like that for Canucks.

Culprit is me. I was referring to small maps and battles, and that was just my limited in game experience. I have just never had too much luck with my at close with my advancing infantry.

As I have stated before, the AI is the master with tanks. It seems to me (probably untrue) that tanks are much more accurate when Ai controlled.

If tanks is your bag, go with CMBB. Epic tank battles are fun.

A sorta complicated PBEM question. Don't as me how, but my internet computer is different from my CM computer. Internet is on a Mac, CM on a PC. If I had an iPod, would I be able to dl the PBEM files to it, then upload to the PC? Then I could take them from Pc to mac and then send em on their merry ways.

Falcon, I have noticed there is an upswing in young persons such as you or I playing these games. Was the CM series your first wargame? It was mine.

I played a Westwall scenario as the Americans against AI. The briefing told me to expect plenty of bunkers and pillboxes. By the time i finish however, the AI had set up a "fort" using about 2-3 bunkers and 2-3 pillboxes. It would've been a beast to tackle, except all the boxes faced the same way. Dumb Ai.

Hoola, you're readin; my mind. I love small actions too, and they are a tad unrealistic. One problem I have is the morale drop for half squads.

Oh my Jrcar! You don't suggest that you steal from Americans? Good god, don't let Dubya find out. He loves invading countries. Get the kangaroos and boomerangs ready, here comes some Abrams!

Engineers are great to a point. I was playing the CMAK scenario "A mountain retreat" with a co. of canuck infantry with a plt. of engineers. I made a fient towards one flag with the engineers, hoping to blast my way thru the town with satchel charges, the blast the objective building (it was a church) and get snug in there until help showed up. Well two satchel charges destroyed one tall light building on the way, and it took 4 more to take out the church. Kind of a waste eh?

No problem. Also, in BB and AK the bridges can be destroyed. I once made a little scenario with a bunch of t34s crossing a long long bridge with 15 TRPS on it, and 4 or 5 105mm spotters. When you destroy a bridge with stuff on it, the stuff is GONE! It makes sense of course, but its FUN to watch.

I think squads should be able to move thru walls. IRL they were able to blow holes in walls, why can they not do it in-game?

Why is the Allied advantage in artillery so undermodelled by scenario designers?

jcosta, I know these things, really I do. I usually get bored and antsy, then use my tanks rashly.

Also, most people who play the games prefer large, tank battles. WWII was the last large scale tank war, and even pacific lacked them. I think that is why BFS has made no pacific games. Why does BFS not want to open source code? I understand for now, but when the new game comes out, wouldn't it make sense to open the old codes? Maybe I'm missing something, but opening source code and the great mods that would result from it would keep me and many others interested in the originals, as well as the new one.

Are you looking for a way to make it LOOK like a destroyed bridge, or are you trying to simulate a destroyed bridge so it cannot be crossed. One option would be just leaving some bridge tiles out.

That's my thoughts too. In the next game recon should be a changeable factor. What I mean is, in some scenarios you might have to conduct your own recon, but in some, you might know exactly where the enemy is. The landmarks system isn't used this way often, and I find that when it is, it clutters the screen so much I turn the landmarks off.

This topic has quicly turned into grogville.

I think I'm more of a tactics person. I am pretty good with company sized infantry attacks, ok with small infantry-tank teams, but battalions begin to stretch my capabilities. It is possibly due to my youth, I might grow into the larger scenarios, who knows. However, it is a good example of why 18 year olds never get to command people...we're bad at it!

On the subject of FOW, if I am playing a game vs. AI, and have FOW off, can the AI see all my units like I can see his?

That, sirs, is why scenarios are at the best when they say "tiny", "small", or sometimes "medium" next to the title.

Is the game sent from Battlefront updated with all current patches? My monitor is a little screwy, so I cannot see what version I have. Any clues, tell-tale signs of a particular version? Also, can I install 1.03 directly, or do i need to install them in order?

Im going to agree with Kit. If it ain't broke, don't fix it, as we say in Tejas. Id like to see more detail and a more immersive experience with CMx2, but not because of complicated graphics, etc. I'd like a more extensive campaign type mode, improved AI, and greater scope in terms of times/theaters