womble

Just because something has been introduced in one module doesn't mean it can't be repeated in a subsequent one. For MG to work, you'd need lots of 'Commonwealth' assets that would be mandatory for the 'Commonwealth' module. If you don't need the 'Commonwealth' module to use the MG module, then, unless none of the relevant units/equipment/TOEs etc had no significant overlap with 'what went before', there will have to be some overlap in material provided. Which is just fine with me.

I think Steve knows by now that that's a Quixotic endeavour. They're special Normandine Lavender Poppies. Still mauve because they have yet to be watered with the blood of conflict.

From what I've seen of CMBN, the '?' icons are only there in the higher levels of FOW. You can have it set so that you can always see the unit type icon once it's been spotted. I don't see the value in having a '?' that you can click on; if you can click it to find something out, it's much more convenient to be able to see it right off the bat. The '?' are unidentified. They can move around. It doesn't make any sense to me that you can be certain that the "?" you're clicking on is the exact same contact, even. The AT team that the "?" was last time you had it positively IDed may have bellied away and been replaced with a sniper, or vice versa. Information on stuff you can't see should be imprecise. That's the whole point of FOW.

Might that perhaps have been because of the hard work done to make sure that nothing awful would happen. I know I spent a lot of time checking that nothing critical was going to be affected on our systems. Didn't have to do a lot of mitigation, but had to check.

It always seemed to me that the Allies would be best off with Stuarts/M5 since the 37mm could kill the IV just as well as 75mm (at least when I was on the receiving end...), and fared no worse against Vs and VIs (spang!), and nothing short of a Churchill could hope to stand against the standard german AT weapons.

"When it's done," I believe would be a realistic assessment. Hell, the base game's not even released yet and you want estimates on when a module will be finished?

Nope. m = metre. M = Mega (10e6). I've paintballed and airsofted, and I'd choose airsoft every time. Except for the tank paintball. That was a blast. Of compressed air

The QB can be selected to be 30 minutes to 2 hours long, if I correctly recall the several other threads where this question has already been answered.

Seems to me that we might be able to get more detailed building collapses at about the same time we get different vehicle damage graphics. Vehicle damage is already tracked precisely: add some of those classes to buildings and have them drive appearance modification...

With only 38 ever built, I think this one might just be a bit too rare... And only carrying 3 rounds for its gun might make it a bit... limited for use in a DF role. I expect they were usually batteried well out of harms way, with ammo tenders nearby for reloads. So it's probably in-game as one of the varieties of 155 you call in from off-board

No one said there's been no casualties due to WP usage. Of course WP produces some horrific injuries. The globalsecurity article refers to the lack of reported casualties from the smoke. Chemical burns are incredibly painful. Phosphorus burns of that severity would make it almost impossible to continue fighting, I'd think. Quite. Not the smoke.

WW2 arty smoke was all Willy Pete? Edit: Ooo, maybe they are. It's the "casualties from just being in it" that surprised me: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm Says: "...Most smokes are not hazardous in concentrations which are useful for obscuring purposes. However, any smoke can be hazardous to health if the concentration is sufficient or if the exposure is long enough...Casualties from WP smoke have not occurred in combat operations..." It does go on to list the ways in which they could cause combat casualties, but that's extraneous. Is the casualty from smoke thing just a game fudge, like the HE effect nerf?

In CMSF, the casualty is only listed bottom-left until they've been buddy-aided or otherwise cleared from the battlefield. Is it different in CMBN?

I think it would (like lots of UI things - tooltips etc) be of most use to people coming to something for the first time. Once you've got your head around how a given army is organised, it's easy to see where casualties are, but as a newcomer, it can be confusing. And there are a lot of different T.s of O. in Normandy, let alone Commonwealth and later, to get used to.

Having dusted off the CMSF demo in anticipation of CMBN, and only being able to play it sporadically, I would certainly, as a newcomer to the envrionment, like to be able to see the status of squad members in the squad's interface: Wounded, dead, still on-map, weapon retrieved etc. It would help get a handle on how many troops I've lost. The casualty report bottom left does have some of this info, but it'd be nice to have it combined with the 'central' panel.

Main Supply Route and Auxiliary Supply Route. That's my guess, anyway. Fancy-schmancy terms for "Road" and "Track" respectively

There was a video of how American smallarms performed, posted here a few weeks ago. It was propaganda, but no one claimed the terminal effects were faked. Garand ammo was apparently entirely capable of going right through a brick wall, and with "armour piercing" ammunition (though how common that actually was, on issue to line troops, I couldn't even begin to comment) seemed to be able to chew holes in concrete.

And of a much shorter scenario... Was it really 90 minutes? Kudos on making a watch-through eat time as effortlessly as actually playing most games do. When am going to get any sleep once this comes out?

Somebody posted links to (some of) the images off that site a few days back, and a puntadelanza admin popped to ask them to desist... I guess linking us to their site can't attract any complaint.

Or perhaps we'll have to wait until Ostfront, when the Siberian Hamster will make an appearance.

I think soldiers love a general in whom they have the confidence that they won't be uselessly wasted. Inspiring that confidence can come from previous success, as well as being seen as caring for the more parochial, non-combat welfare of the troops at the pointy end, and being seen to be willing to get the shiny general's boots down in the muck.

I was wondering whether (and by what) that clogging debris pile would be navigable. Looks like infantry could scurry across pretty unhindered, but it's pretty lumpy, so vehicles might fail... Is the lumpiness the only factor, or is it marked 'impassable'? If it is 'attemptabel', does the nature of the ground (loosely heaped rubble) make it more likely that vehicles will bog/slide off into the water? [runs round in circles, too excited to type more]

It's not the doing, where we have the superior development. It's the capacity to draw the distinction. We, as a species are each capable of making the choice between 'good' and 'evil'. The definitions of both may vary, but animals are not so capable. They may do things that seem like 'good' or 'evil', but I haven't seen any evidence that they're disposed to consider the difference, or make choices based on such abstracts.

Bah. I'm disgusted that I missed this the first time round, but that 'tagline' certainly deserves the 'innuendo of the week' award.

Are you counting the Gurkhas in there somewhere?