sburke

you can't fool me, those are Russian regulars under those balaklavas. I am calling the OSCE.

LOL pfft screw that, yes it may have been asked a thousand times prior- but not by the OP. He is obviously learning the game and is new to the community. Welcome aboard Col Rosenberger. Ask away. However the answers may not always be so cut and dried. Identifying something as broken isn't always simply a case of looking at something and saying- well that's stupid. An alternative option would be we have no acquire option at all, that would suck. Yes I would like to be able to un-acquire a weapon. Example, I grab the Javelin. Find a nice overwatch position, fire off all 3 rounds, return to Stryker and now have to lug around an empty launcher till the scenario is over. Ohh yeah I would definitely like to see an option to dump it. Perhaps a future option. Right now there just isn't that degree of granularity and the trade off in time that it might take to configure the option is just not at the top of the features list. Take a look at the posted list of stuff that has been added from CMSF to CMBS. It isn't like they haven't done anything new. http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=338&Itemid=583

Interestingly I just ran a test utilizing modular buildings and cranked up my paras to elite fanatic. They did not leave the buildings at all. I'll try lowering those settings and see where the break point is, assuming there is one. Figures. Now that don't seem to want to leave at all even with reduced settings. Not sure if something got tweaked along the way or what.

Steve has said previously he'd like to redo the UI, but that he doesn't want to do it incrementally. I suspect he probably is doing some planning in the background but the biggest issue isn't doing it, it is figuring out WHAT to do. There are likely as many preferences as there are players. No matter what BF does someone will be happy and someone else will be posting here that it is the worst UI ever. The unhappy person will then call the happy person a fanboy and life will continue as it always has.

pffft that was a minor new to BF question. You'll need to work harder if you want to submit a giant noob question. CMBS is following the new model so what you have is the master installer. If you DL the game right now it includes the 1.01 patch. When the first module is released assuming you buy it, the download will include the base game and the module and you will apply your license to activate the module.

I am not so sure if it is other games or not, but player expectation seems to be that there should be some means where you can apply a set of tactics that would likely guarantee success. I can't find the specific post but there was one that mentioned having 3-1 odds with a professional force etc etc. MOUT fighting is hard even with overwhelming superiority. The US forces suffered 95 dead and 560 wounded in Fallujah. Those were well trained troops, prepared in advance for a specific fight. There is no magic answer.

US in the green zone, I suspect you never thought about Iraq while you were choosing...bad omen - welcome to Emerald City.

Scroll down a little from your post http://community.battlefront.com/topic/117320-the-cm-theater-is-open-post-cinematic-cmfi-vids-here/

I think we are looking at two different but in this instance related issues. 1 how are buildings viewed in relation to cover - why would your pixeltruppen exit a building under artillery barrage and seek cover in the open? 2 what do they do when panicking. Panicking implies a state of irrationality that I am afraid to even get in to what we can or should expect. This isn't just cowering or being suppressed, this is a reaction that simply says, my life is at risk right now right here, I have to do "something". That something isn't necessarily going to be smart. Regarding buildings, my paras in Frosty Welcome were not in a panic state, they just apparently decided being outside was better than being inside. Consistently.

By definition panicking usually precludes logical rational decision making, however I do agree soldiers tend to not view buildings as good cover. When designing Frosty Welcome for the MG module one of the frustrating things was finding an 81 mm mtr barrage on the schoolhouse would effectively cause all the staunch British paras to run out into the street. That is behavior I would love to see change.

Grab your crashdump file (assuming windows created one) and submit with a ticket. It might help folks figure out why.

It is a tough call. I played Valley of death a few times in testing. The first time I deployed one bradley platoon on the left out of sight behind the forward treeline with a second in overwatch in the treeline behind them. I then moved my jav teams from the 1st platoon up into the first treeline to hit the Russians. I got a few, but the Russians were able to get a force into the low ground in front of me. They then charged. Smashed through the first treeline where they were annihilated by my overwatch Bradley's with TOWS and some M1s I'd positioned there. On the right side I put a couple in ambush positions behind the trees. As the Russians passed their positions they got multiple TOWs in the butt end, In Poking the bear I was able to use TOWs from the Strykers and Hummv as well so overall my experience with TOWs has not been bad. However you have to position them well as that long reach also means they have time to spot and kill you as well. One thing I have noticed about Valley of death is the spotting can be intermittent as the T90s rush forward affecting TOW acquisition. That might be a possible reason why they aren't firing.

hmm with a hot seat game of CM going on projected on a movie screen with surround sound? Okay I might even eat spam for that.

So disagreeing and citing how the game mechanics work immediately qualifies one for being dismissed as a fanboy? Hell in that case going forward maybe we'll all just be silent when you ask for advice as it seems the only option is to hop on your (I mean that in a generic sense, not you specifically) bandwagon and agree. I too prefer the infantry aspect more, heck just look at my AARs. I would however seriously take issue with what you consider as "broken". The game has constraints, they are not based on real world dynamics, they can only approximate them. Within the game constraints that approximation is pretty darn good. Would I like more, hell yes. I'd love to be able to peek around a corner before sending a whole team into an ambush. I'd love a bazooka team be able to lean around a corner and fire. That I can't doesn't mean the game is broken, it just means I can't. This is more the point, understanding that what you want in a game for coding reasons isn't there does not translate to broken. The supposed lack of a decent assault order is another good one. You want the TAC AI to do a very complicated maneuver where you just click assault and objective and the game does it for you. That it does not and instead you have to figure out how to split teams and issue commands to get the job done does not make it broken. It means you have to learn what is possible in the game. That you don't want to is your choice, but the option has been provided. When you guys figure out how to program a better TAC AI, perhaps I'll sit up and take notice and stop being such a fanboy, but as far as I know, the TAC AI in CM is pretty much the best thing out there in any comparable game. Will we keep asking for more, absolutely. Does Steve want to do more, absolutely. Is the TAC AI a veritable sinkhole for resources and change for it going to come pretty slow, absolutely. Learning patience and finding alternatives as the game develops is not the end of the world. Being asked to have that patience and understand what might be possible given the current state of the engine does not entitle one to start flinging what you consider to be derogatory names.

ha is that what you told the boss when they checked your browser history, very creative.

DMS should get bonus points for you delaying the game. Face off in your zone or a 10 AS penalty!

Then you aren't looking close enough. If you are going by that view of the CMSF screenshot only then read my original point and get down to eyeball level with your pixeltruppen more. Seriously, not kidding. If you can't tell the difference in a CMBN/CMFI/CMSF/CMBS map, you don't appreciate enough what's in it. Can I make a map essentially the same in each, yes. Can I create a map to each that is unique, yes. Will it play fundamentally different no, but then you can almost say that to some degree about anything in the game including units (with the exception of CMBS, it really is totally unique). That being said I really wish they were more unique. I'd like more distinctive flavor items and more independent building options etc etc. But to say they are all the same is just not true. Example flat roofs. MG was the first module to feature them since CMSF. CMFI still does not have them. You may not rate it as important, but that is your opinion. The immersion factor is a very very big part of what I am paying for. I'd pay for a pack dedicated for just flavor items and buildings if BF would do it. This is all not real relevant to the discussion though and I don't really have an opinion on map transfers. I look at that as a business decision by BF. So far they have been silent on it. Either they don't care to discuss it or they feel that taking a position is either going to discourage people from going ahead and doing it without express permission or create a situation where they undermine their own legal protection afforded by the EULA. Damned if they do, damned if they don't.

I gotta ask, you've been a forum member for 3 weeks. How do you jump to a conclusion like that in 3 weeks? Personally I consider myself a "Battlefront fan boy" I love the game, I admire the company and generally I think most things in the game work well more often than not. I also feel most of the complaints on the forum come from not being able to work within the constraints of the game using the tools already included. That being said, yes there is always room for improvement and there are some things that just don't work very well within the constraints of the game. So does that make me a negative blight on the forum? I do believe that the nature of the game does make it that "micro managing" your troops makes things work better. If it didn't I could just order my entire force with one command to attack an objective and sit back while the tac ai did all the work (and be bored to friggin tears in the process). There is a reason you can split teams into different structures depending on your current objective and it works pretty darn well besides being hugely satisfactory when you do it right.

Man and I thought we'd actually become friends in a way, then you invite me over to serve spam. Bummer dude.

The odds of the US not being able to dominate the air battle are slim to none. US air assets could preposition a lot quicker than US ground assets and unless Russia really wants to widen the war, they could do so with similar stance as Russian units, i.e. beyond the direct confines of the conflict. Will they then be able to necessarily enforce that ability for close air support is a different question. I expect operating aircraft by either side is going to be fraught with risk. What it really comes down to is what the players select and how it conforms to their perception of the larger air war. If they ignore it and the Russian side calls in lots of air support, the USA player is f**ked barring getting some UKR support. Personally I am tending away from air support as simply a very inaccurate presentation of the likelihood of aircraft being able to function in this high threat environment. Am also largely avoiding UAVs until we have better data on their survivability. Indications in UKR are such that it appears UAVs have a hard time operating. Ukr forces seem to have been fairly successful at downing the UAVs that are being used against them. OSCE UAVs have pretty much been unable to monitor the separatists. UAVs in CM seem to be much less vulnerable than their real life counterparts.

I do a ton of screenshots, but I do not post pics directly into the forum, just links. Works really really well.

I eat scrapple, so much for elitist Spam is just wrong.Coming from a scrapple eater that kind of says it all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scrapple

While we all like to joke about the French, after all they ARE French (I say that tongue in cheek, my heritage is almost half French - my mother even tried to include that heritage in my name, however she managed to spell and pronounce it wrong - stupid Americans.), the French forces actually did fight well given decent circumstances. The ferocity of the fight at Stonne. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Sedan_%281940%29 If I recall correctly, Rommel complemented the resistance he faced at Dinant. In Italy the French forces distinguished themselves despite the inability of Clark to make the best use of those units capabilities. From Wiki: The 4th Tabor of Moroccan Goums fought in the Sicilian Campaign, landing at Licata on July 14, 1943, and was attached to the U.S. Seventh Army.[4][7] The Goumiers of the 4th Tabor were attached to the U.S. 1st Infantry Division on July 27, 1943 and were recorded in the U.S. 26th Infantry Regiment's log files for their courage. Upon their arrival many Italian soldiers surrendered en masse, while the Germans began staging major retreats away from known Goumiers presence.[8] The Italian campaign of World War II is perhaps the most famous and most controversial in the history of the Goumiers. The 4th Group of Moroccan Tabors shipped out for Italy in November 1943, and was followed in January 1944 by the 3rd Group, and reinforced by the 1st Group in April 1944.[4] In Italy, the Allies suffered a long stalemate at the German Gustav Line. In May 1944, three Goumier groupes, under the name Corps de Montagne, were the vanguard of the French Expeditionary Corps attack through the Aurunci Mountains during Operation Diadem, the fourth Battle of Monte Cassino. "Here the Goums more than proved their value as light, highly mobile mountain troops who could penetrate the most vertical terrain in fighting order and with a minimum of logistical requirements. Most military analysts consider the Goumiers' manoeuvre as the critical victory that finally opened the way to Rome."[1] The Allied commander, U.S. General Mark Clark also paid tribute to the Goumiers and the Moroccan regulars of the Tirailleur units: In spite of the stiffening enemy resistance, the 2nd Moroccan Division penetrated the Gustave [sic] Line in less than two day’s fighting. The next 48 hours on the French front were decisive. The knife-wielding Goumiers swarmed over the hills, particularly at night, and General Juin’s entire force showed an aggressiveness hour after hour that the Germans could not withstand. Cerasola, San Giorgio, Mt. D’Oro, Ausonia and Esperia were seized in one of the most brilliant and daring advances of the war in Italy... For this performance, which was to be a key to the success of the entire drive on Rome, I shall always be a grateful admirer of General Juin and his magnificent FEC. During their fighting in the Italian Campaign, the Goumiers suffered 3,000 casualties, of which 600 were killed in action.[9] Leclerc's Destruction of the 112th Pz Bde exacted some revenge for the defeats inflicted on French forces 4 years earlier. His 2nd Armored was a highly regarded unit. Highly regarded for French anyway.

the QBs are stored in the same my docs user folder so a new install in a different location would overwrite the QBs to the v.100 version. Still a good plan I think.

yeah those are really sweet. One of my favorite mods.