sburke

c'mon man, what is wrong with the out of the box stuff? Granted it isn't Normandy, this is just what I happen to be playing right now. Damn it looks good.

What they are just lazy? Have coke bottom glasses and can't see the textures anyway? Are just lousy artists? Even the modders have said BF does good work, but the modders have more time on their own schedule to do the way they personally like (which not everyone agrees is better - even Aris work is too degraded in some folks view from the state of vehicles as they appear in period pics). For a guy who produces pretty much nothing but complaints, you have a lot of opinions about how poor the work is of others. In my company we'd be quietly escorting you out the door without a golden parachute.

In fairness JTS has done updates and every game gets them via free patches. For what it is, they are a decent deal. Regarding the modders, they only work on a small subset and at their own pace. Ideas that are floated like this generally ignore both those factors which in the end sink the idea. BF texture guys could do far better on their own if they weren't on a schedule. Fortunately for us they are AND the textures are able to be modded. Best of both worlds.

While looking at a book review on 7th panzers leadership procedures in the battle for France and the first few weeks of Barbarossa I found the document is actually on the Internet archive. While looking for it I found 3 other interesting reads Go to Internet archive and search on Richard H. S. Stolfi. You should find 22 items among them are the following The paper on 7th panzer A paper on German disruption of Soviet C2 in the opening stages of Barabarossa A paper on Manstein's Backblow and the implications for doing more with less in a strategic perspective A very interesting bit of research on a mutiny aboard a Soviet Krivak class vessel and an attempt to seek asylum in Sweden in 1975.

If you really want to know the answer to your question I would suggest contacting BF directly. This is an extremely sensitive topic and they may not even comment on the public forum.

Here is info on logging in. It is accessible right from the battlefront main page. http://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/help/article/128510

no

I never claimed to have explained it well.

Naaah Dalem is a King of Bali from the 14th to the 17th Century. Fricken Neederlanders trying to get attention again. The real Dalem, not the freekin Neederlander wannabe Dalem

see post # 30 So again 40m is the absolute most you can do anything. If I were to area fire at a point 10 m in front of your position and was 40 m from that spot you could not return fire, that is how dark your scenario is. If you want to set parameters so extreme as that and play a scenario, have at it. Just please don't start a spotting debate as you are already setting up an extreme condition. No you can not see out to 40 meters, that is not what I said. I said, under the BEST of conditions in your scenario you can see to 40 m. Those best conditions include the unit you are trying to spot firing I can lead ya to water, but I can't make you read. somehow I even garnered a negative point for explaining that. Hmm boy that really encourages me to test for issues like this. I get dinged because the description of the conditions. Perhaps I should just ignore the public forum. Thanks Phantom

Maybe I am missing something, but if you know the turret is not that well protected so a sabot round would pass through cleanly (giving Stagler the benefit of the doubt on whether that would actually occur) and you can get a weapons kill using a non sabot round, why are we assuming the NATO forces would waste a sabot round on a vehicle they can in all likelihood wreck the turret of with less? Kind of like why bother firing sabot at a BMP.

Umm, that is what I have been saying for several posts now. I'm hurt you didn't believe me. Well no not really, but you do now get what I was trying to say, perhaps I just wasn't being clear enough. Ha that is almost a pun.

the vehicle models need hotspots added to allow for tank riding. Unless BF has a major re think it isn't likely they will be seen in CMBN or CMFI. There were very specific reasons for including in CMRT that do not exist to the same degree for the other titles.

woot! It's Christmas!!!

actually other than Steve saying no to date, I don't really know why... Even without naval landings, there was plenty of scope in the pacific. Could be a sales driven perception for all I know.

Damn it, went to give this a 5 star rating and my iPad decided I meant 3. Sorry snake eye. Love the thread topic though and looking forward to seeing this.

Maybe after they do the last east front family in 1941 they will look west again. One can hope.

Part of it is due to the soft factors assigned by folks. I generally think they are too high. Ignore for the moment the naming used and just consider it a numerical scale. Personally I think the scale is weighted too heavily toward the high end. Broadsword and I in our campaign tend to avoid those constantly fit, well equipped Rambo type troops. It is something you can change and makes for a very interestingly different game.

Well I don't count as in the know only BF can definitively answer for you, but so far they have said no to all of the above. Hopefully that is subject to change. Known in the pipeline are 3 more game families to do the east front, the bulge game currently in development and a refresh of CMSF (what form that will take is not known yet). That is all BF has been willing to commit to.

My guess is CMBN would be more active, but that isn't based on any real data. Call it an uneducated guess.

Lol too funny. Regarding the animations, yeah that is one area I'd like to see change and it may simply be skewed impression but CMBS seems to me to look better in that regard. I need to go look more closely and see if that is true or not.

Wiggum15 as I understand it you are assuming that the icon is generated relative to a specific ground tile spot the game selects to represent the assumed location of a contact. I honestly do not know if that is truly how it works or not. Could be, however very often those icons are off, in fact in my experience they are rarely exact so in effect the proposal is that the AI start area firing on a contact that has a high likelihood of being actually nothing and that is assuming it even has LOS. As a human player I monitor the sound contacts for possible enemy locations and probable movement. The actual selection of locations for area fire is based on figuring out from the lay of the land where the actual source of the sound contact is most probably located. This is not something the AI can manage.

A dot com I worked for years back had a proposed corporate motto of "we suck less".

Exactly. It is dark with mist which seems to be forgotten in this tirade about BF being in denial. If anyone wants to put this directly to BF then open a trouble ticket. I won't because I know from prior experience what BF requires for hard info that something is wrong versus perception. I am also with Baneman that I am not convinced it is wrong based on playing around a lot with LOS in fog conditions etc. I had posted a while back for CMFI on what extreme visibility conditions did for both actual gameplay and the disconnect for the player in order to allow them to still plot movement orders. I don't see this having changed and the implementation as it is is required to allow us to even play the game. I also am not interested in being part of one individuals ongoing axe grind with BF that causes them to be banned repeatedly and to keep reappearing under new names. (That is not the OP just to be clear)

And besides that it was just cruel, not fun. Aarrgghhhh