sburke

I don't drive my tracks at the enemy unless they are severely suppressed - if they are I'll roll right up to them. Again it depends on the circumstances, but unless I am facing a time constraint in a battle or I know I have the enemy cowering and speed is essential to take advantage of it, I dismount with the track out of LOF. The use cases where I don't tend to be more a result of the nature of CM time compression in battle and a disregard we have for casualties. If we want to cite historical examples, the US has also driven tracks right into battle when deemed necessary - as an example Creighton Abrams push through Assenois to Bastogne. Despite that you won't find me attempting that in CM. Look at it this way- I try not to drive loaded Bradleys and BMPs into an engagement with an unsuppressed foe. Granted they face different AT capabilities, but even a rifle grenade can ruin your day and those are real AFVs. To assume because the sides of a track could stop rifle fire means I can just roll on up is simply not facing the fact that even WW 2 infantry had enough weapons to make life suck. Grenades, Bazookas, heavy MGs. I do read a lot - I don't think I have read of a single successful engagement by German troops going into battle on the western front in tracks. The one that comes to mind is the ill fated attempt to cross the Arnhem bridge. I can't even recall hearing that either Peiper's column nor the units of 12th SS attacking the twin villages doing so with track mounted infantry. Perhaps I am remiss and someone can cite an example where they were successfully used in that manner. I do know of some instances on the East Front, but those that I actually know of that got as close as we would tend to do are few and far between. So if you are interested in trying to change my opinion you could start by citing some actual examples. Now keep in mind even if you do so, it doesn't mean squat for convincing BF, but consider it a practice run.

Because I frankly don't even believe US training manuals of the period and I use some basic sense when I read something - so if it says they need to support infantry in a built up area I know it is an absolute joke to assume a halftrack is a good fighting vehicle in a town. If you can't understand why someone would not take a training manual as proof of how something is used in combat then maybe you need to speak to some of the vets on this forum. They can give you a MUCH better perspective than I can. That however is a separate subject. As I said above I agree in principle the positioning and the animation could be better. What I don't agree with is the effect on the players as being simply a result of that but primarily because players use their tracks wrong. The problems with the positioning wouldn't show up if you dismounted when you should which is probably why BF isn't really reacting to this particular request. I've put out there what I think you'll need to do to convince BF, You are totally free to disregard that advice. Beyond that I don't think I can contribute anymore to this discussion. It will just go in circles and folks will get more frustrated and well you know how those threads kind of go. I am not the one you need to convince, my opinion carries no weight.

LOL okay I understand your point - you think the guys should crouch. I get that, I don't disagree on a theoretical basis - but what you are asking for is BF to go back and create an animation and an AI routine to allow for a bit of behavior that frankly is once again a player doing something tactically wrong. 1-Player puts Hannomag regularly in a position that was not a normal practice (no matter what some ubermencsh propaganda piece says) 2-The mechanics for CM - in this case positioning in a track and not reacting - have the infantry exposing themselves more than they should 3-The players troops suffer more casualties- whether they might of might not have suffered those in RL is debatable 4- The player requests BF correct the positioning in the Hannomag to facilitate ahistorical behavior. I am all in favor of more and better animations- I would love soldiers to react differently to incoming fire whether that be in a foxhole, jeep, truck, halftrack or as a tank rider. I don't however ask BF to make changes to accommodate me doing stuff that creates a problem. Instead I alter my behavior. That doesn't stop me from wanting them to do stuff, but it does offer a different rationale. Your request while specifically about a Hannomag isn't limited to it - what you want (and honestly I'd want) is soldiers in a vehicle to react and not just sit there like mannequins and die. In the case of the Hannomag the best option MIGHT be to crouch lower. It also might be to bail. If you are going to request a change in behavior it should be a consistent request, not a request for one specific vehicle type especially if they are already going to have to do animations and AI behavior. Personally I think you'd have a better shot at getting a change.

Yeah really, seriously funny! I think panzeralphabetsoupname finally met his match.

Bozowan, your sources are a mix of things that don't really prove much. Descriptions in manuals and propaganda pieces about how a particular bit of equipment works are rarely true - hell check out the field training videos the US army put out in WW 2 on their MGs and the "ineffectiveness of the German MGS. they are laughable other than telling people the exactly wrong info. The Hannomag is not an IFV, it is a more mobile armored truck. Being able to survive a rifle round isn't claiming much. In terms of the tactical use This - "Unless otherwise ordered, the attack will be carried out on vehicles. Dismounting takes place when no further advance is possible." Does not translate to this - According to this, you should NOT dismount unless you absolutely have to. When no further advance is possible could simply mean unsuppressed enemy that are gonna hurt your Hannomags. You should have understood this in the above quote by Guderian "Important combat lessons from the Spanish Civil War showed, among other things, that in many cases tanks in restricted areas - towns, mountain passes, woods, etc - were vulnerable to enemy anti-tank weapons. In such circumstances, infantry support and protection were badly needed. Guderian submitted proposals to develop a specific vehicle designed to carry supporting infantry into action, allowing them to fight from the vehicle on the move if necessary, or to dismount and engage the enemy on foot."- Really? So Guderian would from that seem to be saying fight from a Hannomag in a built up area? Somehow I think Guderian would have taken exception to that. if tanks have a hard time fighting in a town, what do you think is gonna happen to a Hannomag?

well if the player follows the same tactical advice the SS frequently took, the in game effect is gonna be yeah they will take more casualties. So in that sense CM is dead on. You drive forward in a car and yeah my guys are gonna kill you. You drive a hannomag near enough to my unsuppressed infantry and yeah my guys are gonna kill you. My experience in CM is - if the enemy isn't suppressed, then I am dismounting. If the enemy is suppressed then I may consider other options. I have often used them to drive forward and drop off teams at a hedgerow once I know whatever is behind that hedgerow is already cowering. If they aren't a lucky grenade or zook is gonna deal me a whole lot of hurt. (hmm seems I recall certain truck in Bois de Baugin many years ago Jon.....yeah like that.) If someone is contending here that the Germans willy nilly drove into the assault on halftracks as a regular practice, I'd need some actual evidence as I don't have much recollection of that. There were a couple incidents on the Eastern front, but those were few and far between. On the western front, there'd be so many flaming wrecks and it wouldn't be coming from aircraft. A 57mm eats halftracks for appetizers. I could as easily point to the US push to the Rhine where they just hopped onto trucks and blew through the German lines and say- Hey US soldiers should be able to ride into battle on a deuce and a half...I know how that would end. If you want BF to change this you'll need to convince Steve that - 1 it was German practice and 2 that they were able to do so without sustaining significant casualties. But you need to do more than say troops in a hannomag should duck and that the SS were stupid though individually both of those might be true.

Here is a list of all the BRZ files you should have if you have everything. Normandy v100A Normandy v100B Normandy v100E Normandy v101 Normandy v110 Commonwealth Normandy v110 Normandy v111 Normandy v200 Commonwealth Normandy v200 Normandy v201 normandy v210 market garden a normandy v210 market garden b Normandy v210 Normandy v211 Normandy v212 Normandy v220 normandy v310 vehicle pack Normandy v310 Normandy v311 Normandy v312

Funny enough I met some anarchist types once in W Phila squatting in an abandoned house. This one woman actually slept in a coffin and kept pet rats...I was looking for the door pretty darn quick.

Exactly- a screenshot of the data directory however could answer this and provide a faster solution. If it were me though, I'd want the full installer anyway.

I have Windows 10 and have had for a year. It sounds like you might be missing one of the brz files. As long as your opening screen shows 3.12 you have the right exe file, that only leaves missing brz files which could create havoc. Can you post the files you have in the data directory. It is likely you have something missing. Installing in the wrong order would only result in your exe being wrong, you'd still have all the brz files. That could end up with problems, but you wouldn't see 3.12 as the version.

if all that were true 1 why is the OSCE still being blocked from monitoring effectively in the occupied zone or the border 2 why is Russia totally uninterested in a monitored election process or for an international force inserted into the conflict zone 3 since when do Ukrainians enjoy a total lack of judicial process cause there is none under the so called separatists. 4 there is plenty of footage and OSCE reports of "separatists" basing artillery in civilian areas essentially using them as a human shield and I am looking forward to the war crimes trials The problem with espousing those views here is none of us buy into this crap. We ask questions and if the answers smell then in all likelihood they are BS. Considering the things we know that are true have continued to be denied by you up until a couple posts above, your reliability as a source is discredited. And incidentally, Russian sources themselves have complained about the lack of support they are receiving. Better get straight which story you are repeating as they seem to conflict with what is coming out of the Russian side.

"Life is like a box of chocolates...." - Forrest Gump

very cool, thanks Heirloom!

what I'd almost like to see and it may have been you who said this once on this forum - Ukraine just say screw it, the ceasefire line is now the intl boundary, everything on the other side is Russia. Congratulations Putin, the mess you created is now yours, have a nice day. Yeah I know they won't but I'd pay a lot to see Putin's face if they did it.

But Dbaltseve was an offensive, not a defensive operation and launched in the midst of an accord to try and find an end to the conflict.... that seems to put you in an awkward position.... you wouldn't happen to spend much time with Chris Christie do ya? Never mind- it's an American thing.

and possibly a great user created campaign at some point!

I'd have to go through, but the issue seems to be that it isn't uniform. For example if you create a map today it'd be no problem. It seems only in released scenarios/Qbs and maybe not even all of those. My guess is at some point in the beta process it got borked, some maps were created and those maps once that passed that point would have the issue. It can be fixed by going into the map, deleting the building and re adding it. I can't say how much effort that is worth as honestly I went looking for some samples and as is usual when you do that I had trouble locating them. Honestly now that I know about it I may go back and fix my own because, yeah that does kind of bug me (no pun intended) and if I do so I will submit those to BF to be included as part of later updates. Whether there is an organized process to fixing those I can't say.

To clarify, I suspect it isn't that it chooses what to load, but rather it overwrites as it loads. So in your BRZ you have a file for a camo outfit, and in your data directory you have a folder steve's mods and there is a file for that same camo outfit and finally you have a z folder with another file for that same camo outfit. I assume it loads the brz then the steve's folder and then the z folder overwriting each time and leaving at the end the camo outfit as the one from the z folder. I honestly don't know which it prefers data z over mod z, but if they were identically named I'd guess the mod z folder would load last. It's be easy enough to test that. Now why have two folders to load from? Granted it was caused by Microsoft, but there is an upside. This is one I really like about the new structure. If you do multiple installs they will have separate data folders, but all use the same mod folder. So if you always want a particular sound mod or always have tank's a lot buildings, you have one place where all the CMBN installs would grab it from. At the same time in the data folder you could have unit specific stuff so your PBEMS for battle A where your guys are 1st Infantry Division has the unit markings appropriate and all your preferred sound and terrain mods while a pbem from another install would have 2nd ID and still have the same terrain and sound mods without having to use additional drive space. Pretty cool actually. Another aspect is despite it having a default documents folder I can still put all my mods in the Data folder if I want. My games are installed in a separate SSD than my OS. I can manage my drive space by moving my mods if I needed to.

correct, it has always been in, but seeing examples as clear as the one you did is a bit rare. You really have to be paying attention. I think it occurs more often with arty strikes, but again you have to actually pay attention really closely and yeah it is pretty cool. What I have still to get a good perspective is how much buddy aid actually keeps WIA guys from being KIA. I still spend a lot of effort on it, but I can't really say I know how much I am impacting my casualty figures.

Before he bothers, would you even accept there was one Russian Battalion tactical group? If not, it probably isn't worth his effort as you'd likely dismiss it anyway.

@Kinophile from a purely military perspective - which is kind of hard to do for this battle, but still.... there is a comparable situation and a plug for CMFB no less! St Vith - the defense by 7th armored and it's eventual withdrawal is a textbook study in the US military. Yes the Germans took St Vith and the US had to retreat. Yes men were lost etc, however the US military has always looked at this as an unmitigated victory. It managed to totally disrupt the advance of the German Army and render it's further plans moot and then managed to withdrawal largely intact allowing the unit to be resupplied and recommitted to battle - On January 23rd 1945, the 7th Armored Division retook St Vith. http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a952910.pdf Retreating does not necessarily mean losing.

A comparable event in some ways would be the korsun pocket - though thoroughly savaged, the Germans did prevent the entire force from having to surrender, or Hube's pocket where the German force was able to breakout. The point is a victory isn't solely judged by territorial objectives but rather the political and military objectives of both sides. For UKR what was important was first to expose Russian involvement and secondly to get the forces out of the pocket. For Russia the goal was to create a resounding defeat to demoralize UKR forces and set a better condition on the Minsk accords. Ukr met it's objrectives while Russia did not, ergo it is Ukrainian victory. That isn't just Steve's assessment. You can see Clark repeatedly arguing the same point. I think your assessment of what the west was willing to say and he held accountable to changed because of the tenacity of the UKR defense. They saw at last a situation where Ukraine was strong enough to make sanctions actually work. In other words, Ukraine was not going to just fold and collapse. That actually was a huge deal. Between that and the airport defense it became clear that Russia could not win on the cheap and the west reaction made it clear that a more committed effort by Russia was not an option. Putin had just run out of runway and was now stuck with a conflict that would drain Russia more than it could hope to gain. Putin had overplayed his hand. Strategically yeah I'd say the battle was a major UKR win and the lack of a current strategy by Putin to get what he wants is the proof. As another example you could look at the Vietnam war. The US never was able to manage the political versus military aspect. We could win the battles, but we couldn't win the war. Granted that conflict is a little more complicated, but there are similarities. The political forces Russia is reputedly supporting are a thoroughly criminal bunch of thugs not too much different than many of the south Vietnamese regimes. They are totally dependent on continued Russian military commitment and they have no real international support. Ukraine meanwhile has full international recognition of it's sovereign rights and clearly understands this isn't a military conflict, but rather a political one and has kept that focus. Dbaltseve demonstrated the maturity and clarity of Ukraine's leadership. They knew what was at stake and what they needed to accomplish. They set achievable goals and despite the obstacles, they didn't panic. Putin meanwhile, simply failed. Dbaltseve was a hollow victory in that militarily ALL he got was the physical ground and in doing so he failed in all his political objectives.

What you're an aussie?

more like a blizzard sundae.

BF "We are working on a new store as managing the old one just takes too much effort. That is our first priority and when it is done we will release CMFB in the new store" Community "When is CMFB coming out?" BF "The store is proving to be a bit difficult but we are working on it" Community "why no new word on CMFB you said soon in January" BF "you can load the BP now, it isn't the way we wanted to release and we went as a sort of stealth mode as we really weren't sure how it would work" Community "how dare you release something like this when we thought we would get nothing until the store was done. How could you? When is CMFB coming out?" BF "what the f**k is wrong with you people, we tell you one thing, you don't accept it, we then try to appease you with a minor release that we kludge into the train wreck of a current store and now you hate us for that."* *Okay BF never said that, but if I were an employee I'd sure as hell be saying it. Damned if you do, damned if you don't - no wonder they never want to talk schedules with us.