sburke

And it was nice while it lasted. Now who f**ked up and and left a trail of breadcrumbs for you to find your way home? Let us know when you and Emrys are back from chatting up the inflatable dolls. Actually no, don't let us know, the stench will be enough. Hey I think Emrys made the news. http://www.newser.com/story/224552/villagers-thought-angel-fell-from-sky-it-was-a-sex-toy.html

"See that piece of shrubbery to the left- that only grows on the grounds of Luhansk airport and dies immediately upon being moved . Shrubberies are my trade. I am a shrubber. My name is Roger the Shrubber. I arrange, design, and sell shrubberies."

Dude it was a joke. I think I kind of knew it wasn't a tank. (Fair use) everybody thinks they have a sense of humor even if they don't.

Armata goes into service but crew unable to enter tank....... is this what we can expect? http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-putin-autos-idUSKCN0Y328W

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/marines-investigating-claim-men-iwo-jima-photo-214925961.html In 2014, Krelle had told the newspaper, "People can hold onto what they have always known in the past. But to me, the photos are the truth." Discrepancies identified by Krelle and Foley included: — Bradley wore uncuffed pants in the famous photo but other pictures shot that day shows in him tightly cuffed pants. — The bill of a cap is visible beneath the helmet in the flag-raising picture but not in other images of Bradley made that day. — The man identified as Bradley is wearing a cartridge belt with ammunition pouches, and a pair of wire cutters hangs off the belt. But as a Navy corpsman, Bradley would typically be armed with a sidearm, not an M-1 rifle, and he'd have no need for wire cutters. Other photos that day show him wearing what appears to be a pistol belt with no ammo pouches. Bradley's son, James Bradley, wrote a best-selling book about the flag raisers, "Flags of Our Fathers," which was later made into a movie directed by Clint Eastwood. Bradley told the AP he was shocked to hear the Marines were investigating the identity of the men. "This is unbelievable," said Bradley, who interviewed the surviving Marines and Rosenthal before writing his book. "I'm interested in facts and truths, so that's fine, but I don't know what's happening," he added. The Marines didn't give a timeline for its investigation.

wow. Now that is a war story. Thanks for sharing.

Hell I didn't even get advance warning. Seems the game decided to break out itself

Nice

LOL not mine! When I boot into a game and check my troops status - the icon for eyesight has a set of coke bottom glasses. I think it is a bug.

lol the last mile is rarely the bottleneck. That is the problem with promises form your provider. I "think" the source is Amazon cloud, but am not positive. I would have thought they would have better speed, but it could be anywhere in between that is your bottleneck. I rarely get more than 2mb DL at home for anything even though I am rated higher.

Captain Black -couple items to your questions as you look to be new and there are things that one won't know immediately upon finding this forum CMSF was the first Combat Mission game with the new CMx2 engine. Personally I love the game, but it does not have all the features that show up with the later games - CMBN, CMFI, CMRT, Black Sea and the soon to be released CMFB or Bulge game. All those titles will be maintained through patches to a certain standard and unified feature set. So yes Black Sea will continue to maintain it's engine status as current. CMSF does have a ton of user created content though. Also periodically BF will update the installer. So for example let's say you buy (well you did buy - good show! You'd have been waiting a looooonnng time for a sale) the base game. Next year they release the module. They will rebuild the installer so that it includes the module for everyone. You only gain access to the module however if you are licensed through purchase - so you DL the new installer, delete your old. You now have the base game and module in one installer patched to the current level. You would not have to purchase the new module to have access to the installer, but your license would be limited to the base game. That base game however would be at the current patch level. If you later decide to purchase the module you would not have to DL, you would just apply the new license. I make it a habit of replacing my installer with every release and keep a copy on a cloud drive. As you noted the server download which is not run by BF can be slow. In terms of additional content, Black Sea will get at least one additional module and I would not be surprised at all to see more. The community wants basically every European force represented as well as the full gamut of US and Russian Marines, unconventional forces and anything else they can stuff in there. As long as BF thinks it is financially viable I think they will try to meet some of those expectations. In addition there will be lots of user content and the editor will basically insure you never run out of stuff to try. Welcome to the world of Combat Mission- your life as you knew it is over.

hey tankgeezer- don't have an answer, but wanted to at least reply that the question has been asked.

Taste's great! Less filling! Taste's great! Less filling! Taste's great! Less filling!

not sure who if anyone you are directing the question at. I honestly have no idea. I am exactly the wrong person to answer that question (and if it were me shooting he'd be safer than the folks next to me most likely - oh I am Dick Cheney in case you didn't know) - however at 100 meters dead on forward facing that gun shield looks to be pretty good protection... in a single iteration test

Is it just me or is just every time someone says you need to prove through testing, it is ignored. chappy all kidding aside I don't get paid either. I buy every single release just like everyone else. I have tested though scenarios and battles probably as much as you have, but at least in a close margin proportionally. I don't see the issue, so now what do we do - observation vs observation without supporting data. It is apparent you are unwilling to move this past "my experience in CM" to "if you look at this test you can see". YOU seem to think something is wrong - so prove it. As to German Panzergrenadiers - my personal suspicion is you guys are confusing tactical with operational roles. WTF would be the point of using your limited PzGr force to take the initial line of defenses. Who was supposed to be the breakthrough force then - you just spent your primary striking force. The tracks were to get the troops safely through the initial defense zone and into the enemy rear safely and at a pace they could keep up with the Panzers. I could be totally off base, but that is my own personal hit on their use based on what I have read and the fact that I can't cite a single historical example of them being used in the manner you guys are suggesting in 1944 on the Western front. Wasting your track trying to grind down infantry in a trench and fighting from the vehicle to boot just seems, well stupid. You want to clear a trench- you dismount and you go into the darn thing. But again that should be the follow on foot sloggers- the mounted troops should be heading into the rear to hit the artillery, supply and C&C units. Honestly I think this whole discussion is getting way too out of hand and personal and most definitely not moving things forward the way any of us would like to see it go. The behavior will not change if we can't convince BF there is reason to change. The ONLY data for the use of Tracks in combat has been to cite training manuals and a reference that I do love but definitely suffers from too broad statements when it comes to actual practice. The US German tactics manual- please answer me this - if you nor I nor anyone else here can cite a single example of PzGR going into the attack mounted against the Western allies in 1944/1945 and most definitely not successfully- why is that in the manual? It isn't like we lack sources, we have far more information at our beck and call than those guys did.

Well I for one would never claimed it demolished the supposed behavior. I said it was a one off test and the response I got was just more resistance. Funny that you didn't feel you needed to qualify Ken's response with what went on between. See that is called bias and context. I appreciate what Ken is trying to say in that the stupid simple one off test demonstrated a completely different result than what folks are stating. What he is expressing is frustration. ALL we are asking is you demonstrate this purported issue in action. My stupid little test indicated it might not be as simple as you guys claim and your particular claim of some magic bullet vehicle thing in particular is highly suspect. You guys want to keep arguing fine, but if you aren't willing to run some tests then I am outta here. I have not suffered from this purported behavior, my quick sanity check shows that to me that gun shield works as intended. I have nothing to indicate there is an issue so I am moving on. If you can demonstrate through testing I am wrong I will be more than happy to take that data and open a ticket on your behalf. I do that not because I am getting paid (... wait I am supposed to be getting paid?) but because I want this game to be as good as it can be. If there is something to these arguments and it can be demonstrated then I would absolutely assist, but c'mon guys, give me something to work with. Despite your claim that the MG gunner stance was not changed without testing - you have no way to know that. There is a ton of discussion and testing by beta testers on issues behind the scenes. JoMc67 you seem to have the penchant for making major unsupported claims- it doesn't help your cause. @chappycanuck- yes I have that book as well, but it is a broad brush claim. C'mon man it really is a better use of time to run a test than to quote books. I'll ask you again- can you cite even one example of that behavior in successful action on the Western front? I can't. I can not and will not try and create a ticket on that. Charles would likely just fart in his bowl (.. or is that laughter... or maybe a belch. It is so hard when you just see bubbles to know... ) and close it. You also need to define what it is that is being proposed as I think I see about 4 distinctly separate issues 1 Vulnerability of sdkfz MG gunner 2 Vulnerability of sdfkz passengers 3 A request for AI behavior in firing from a track (honestly I see this getting the least traction simply because doing that animation and AI work work is likely a b**ch) 4 some magic bullet thing where small arms fire will continue at a track even after there are no passengers visible. Good luck and be sure to include variations in testing- mine was on level flat ground, I suspect if the GI were elevated and could fire down into the track I'd see totally different behavior - which I should.

Heh I don't think you'll find anything new there. The numbers of participants in success always seems disproportionately large when compared to how few seem to be responsible for failure.

while I love map making and have contributed at least one map near that scale, I agree with Zverboy1. Doing a single map limits the exposure you'll get for a couple reasons - 1 it means people on older machines may not be able to load it. 2 trying to fit that much of a battle in one space is a further hit and players who don't have the time can't commit to a single large engagement 3 it makes it much harder to do AI plans You are much better off making a campaign and linking the individual battles. Now on the other hand having a single master map you can cut up makes that easier.

fine make a claim that you have hundred of hours of observation, but don't run a single test. I run a single stupid test that really proves nothing but is a factual point of data for BF to observe. My simple stupid test will carry more weight. If you want to change the behavior you need to demonstrate data. That simple fact has been stated innumerable times on this forum. Chappy I really have a lot of respect for you and I love the stuff you have done on the campaign AARs and I don't doubt your experience, but if you aren't going to make the effort to get it changed, it won't change. I don't know what else to tell you. Stated observations without data will not get BF to look at this- simple fact. Data backed observations will get their attention. They have a million things going on all the time, they won't push this up their priority list without a reason to do so. Give them a reason.

okay so let's get back to reality here. I positioned an sdkfz 251 with an FO team on board approx 96 meters from a US infantry man with a rifle behind a wall. I gave the FO team and the track a restricted arc and let the American have at it. He ID'd the FO team in the track. He did not fire at all and I let it run several turns. I then gave the track only an unbutton command. The gunner took position behind the guns shield while one of the FO team stood up to return fire. (That was a bit odd, will file that away.) The FO guy got off one shot and got hit (his position standing to the side of the gun shield left him really exposed. A side angle option might have altered this, but the test was to validate the gun shield and the magic bullet vehicle thingy claim.). The MG gunner stayed behind the gun shield. The GI emptied his rifle some 75 rounds and somehow proceeded to collect ammo from the jeep. (file that away ....) After expending over a 100 rounds at less than 100 meters I then had the track button up. The GI still ID'd the FO in the track that was still sitting. He stopped firing. I saw no evidence of this magic bullet magnet thing. So can we now do some testing?. I by no means state this is conclusive but the one and only test that has been run invalidated every claim on this thread. Edit- as an additional test I had the track turn around so the gun shield was no longer blocking any view of the passenger - magic bullet thingy still not happening and the GI isn't even trying to shoot through the track. The GI is clearly spotting the passenger.

@iluvmy88. Heh that is a really easy handle to remember. the subject of how soldiers position themselves in buildings is kind of a long standing item that I expect has a lot of issues to alter. Interiors are abstracted to begin with. Take a building, knock out two sides and then check los through it. Yeah a bummer. One of the reasons we can't really do factories. Anyway yeah I agree it has particular significance for snipers and I generally avoid building positions for snipers if I am not going to just use them for spotting. The one exception is when I have a nice keyhole or long street where there is little cover for my opponent. As to the frustration of arguing, well that is kind of the point. Would you prefer folks just saying yeah that sucks and not offering anything in terms of alternatives or suggestions? My reply is pretty much that - yes it sucks. I don't however have an alternative and the issues of buildings is larger than just sniper related. Not sure it is doing you any good. The one thing I guess I could suggest is, my understanding is sniper doctrine doesn't advocate remaining in one position. Once you fire, the best option is likely to slow move out of sight and reposition. That entails planning in advance alternative locations.

Could be, then again we have seen that armor fires center of mass, I honestly don't know what to expect as results of above tests. Which makes it all the more interesting as an idea.

fair enough, but we are still asking for a potentially substantial change involving AI behavior and animations. Unreasonable is kind of an open question in that is it dependent on a bit of information we lack- what would it take to do this? At least that is true for one of the streams in this thread. I still think we need to go back to Ken's suggestion and start there.

not true. Don't take opinions voiced by myself or others as representing BF. They take a lot of pride in what they have produced and are as much a stickler for correctly representing stuff as anyone here. There are however standards we need to meet to get changes done and constraints with the game we may not be aware of or appreciate the effort. I would suggest starting with the tests Ken has proposed. Prove with data what it is that is not being simulated correctly. Other pieces like a potential cowering animation can be suggested based on that data, but I have no idea what kind of traction we would get on that. Only BF can speak to the effort that would take. Lastly is the actual tactical usage. If all of this effort is to be able to do ahistorical usage it definitely lowers the chance of any effort being taken. Actual examples in combat would have to be cited to even kick that off. I apologize if in any way voicing my own opinion has given any impression of Battlefront's. I most definitely can not speak for them and unlike Ken. I don't get paid. I am still not sure what he gets paid, but hey his intern probably negotiates better.

hmm, i'd go to the helpdesk. It is probably something simple, but they will get you there faster.