Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Days Won


womble last won the day on September 30 2015

womble had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About womble

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 01/06/1967

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling


  • Location
    Leicester, UK
  • Occupation
    IS Manager

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. I was hoping to touch base with you about a project, but I see you're absent.

    Be safe.

  2. Hi womble,

    I notice that you haven't shown up on the BFC board for over three months now. I hope all is well and you will begin posting again soon.


  3. It won't be a "Battle Pack". No new models or TO&E in battlepacks. It doesn't fit as a vehicle pack, either, since the TO&E changes would be significant, even going back into Tunisia. So at the very least it would be a Module, and probably a whole new Family, given the additional "local colour" that would need to be incorporated. I think it's most likely to come out in CMx3, if the architecture choices they make in that putative future product allow for more flexible developments (like having forces separate from terrains).
  4. If you consider North Africa relative to FI in the same sense as Kursk will be relative to RT (which I get the feeling is how BFC would see it), you're right, nothing's going to show up soon. But then Kursk isn't going to be anytime soon, given that there's the RT and FB modules-to-end-of-war, and the BS module(s) already in the "To Do" list ahead of it, and Kursk is, I get the impression, going to be ahead of any putative NA family. But maybe by then CMx3 will have been brought to reality and the whole paradigm of product development will have shifted...
  5. Vehicle packs for the early war would require a metric buttload of new models. So they'd be a lot more incremental work, in that regard, than a module stepping back a year. Getting things historically correct is a big motivator for BFC's personnel, I sense. Since that would require things like TO&E changes, I'd imagine they're reluctant to do that until the "scheduled" sequence of game progression comes and they can do the whole thing "proper, like". The BN vehicle pack just added things from the same period as the existing TO&Es and added just the very few elements that the vehic
  6. BFC don't, as a rule, announce release dates. Because nobody ever released anything on time, and in spite of that, the clartstorm when release dates are missed is terribly demoralising for a small outfit.
  7. Steve has said in the past that expanding on the combat engineering game is something he'd like to try and do. Hopefully that will extend to fortifications (as in "preparation for combat engineering).
  8. Wasn't there a StuG version with a "remotely operated" (where "remote" means via a periscope and controls inside the tank), too?
  9. The StuG might also not be firing its MG because the tree to the right of the line is in the way of LOF from the MG, though not from the 75.
  10. Chained sub-minute area fire with small arms might not be as desirable as you think. Dividing the suppression from one HMG, say, or a single LMG team amongst multiple targets risks diluting its effect to the point that your assaulting troops would be under greater threat of return fire than you'd like. It's a different matter with a tank, say, firing HE, where 15-20s fire from the main gun and the two or more MGs is probably enough to get the defenders' heads down in one AS, but that's already manageble if you can stomach the micro. Personally, I'd be loath to send my Assault teams across if I
  11. I don't think halfie gunners ever button due to incoming fire, so "buttoning faster" isn't relevant. The change with halftrack gunners on the advent of FB is that they default to buttoned, and won't fire unless "opened up". Given the rate at which they die, they'd have to button really quickly for it to make much difference
  12. IIRC, whether immobilised vehicles have a chance of returning between two given battles is a setting in the campaign file. So sometimes you'll see it, sometimes you won't.
  13. Aye. HQs shouldn't be Hiding. I give mine "self defense" TAs, so they can fire back if something unexpected pops up. Also, if they're backing up a rush to a new position, they'll have the same coverage everyone else has, just a bit further back than the first line to hit the new cover. It's rare that I need them to have a really tight TA, because they're not often going to be within a few 10s of metre of enemy, and if they are, then their firepower might be helpful...
  14. The manipulation of Target Arcs is an important part of scouting, I think. At least in terms of "trying to see things without being seen (or at least shot too much) yourself." Quick, Hunt and Slow all have their place in movement, and Pauses at waypoints. Target Arcs are important because the most visible thing any element does, pretty much, is firing, so you don't want your "trying to escape notice" elements to be shooting at anything unless it's absolutely necessary. So scouts, in my SOP, get a circular "self-defense" Target Arc. In the open, that tends to be about 100m, but as the
  15. [shrug] It ain't perfect. But the odd round spent chasing fleeing individuals is tolerable, even in a low-ammo situation. Just got myself handed a Minor Defeat. Didn't get any overtime, but that would probably have made little difference, since I don't think I was going to spot the one unit in town that hadn't drawn my ire, and therefore gotten the lead broom treatment. 35 casualties (11 dead, 25 wounded, plus a *lot* of yellow silhouettes) and the aforementioned accidental tank loss to arty. Nearly lost the tank Coy HQ to a shreck team in an ill-advised charge to the flank... Several sho
  • Create New...