sburke

Honestly I don't know, the firing behavior for sure doesn't seem right. I don't know for sure the intent about moving. I had thought it was supposed to only be a short distance thing, but that wasn't based on anything more than a couple comments in the forum. Either way it can't hurt to ask. Item is submitted along with a test scenario I created to show it wasn't a fluke, the ATG can fire while moving.

@A co - took a look and will pass along. I am not real familiar with the new capability of moving the gun in 3.0. In reviewing the turn it seems you gave it a movement order of about one AS. It's on a diagonal so maybe a little more however it is a short distance. The crew is never "moving" in the UI, they are always listed as spotting. I don't know if that corresponds to anyone's expectations or not as this is a new change and I expect it will have a few unintended consequences. As to the T 34 you mentioned. The first round struck slightly above and behind the bow mg seat (pretty cool, look inside the tank and you can see the entry). I would have expected a more stressed out response from the tank, but it is a little hard to tell not having the Russian side turn. The crew bails on the next round and what I can't really tell is did the second round cause them to bail or would they have done so anyway after the first. I expect based on that brief MG burst they would not have. @childress, I will ask about that deployment issues as well. Based on a quick check distance does not have any impact on whether a unit will deploy a gun, however my initial impression is the gun moves faster if limbered. I do not seen any difference in the effort involved. In Dawn Patrol I could move the gun in either mode and stay rested.

outstanding! yes PM me please

CMSF had teething issues that resolved into a really great game I still play. I think that tells you all you need about the previous advice you got. Sorry you missed so many good years with CMSF

Apparently Vulture this: equals this I am not sure what JasonC smells, but I am pretty certain it is not "the panzer fetish". As for the "pushed ever so little" - I don't think anyone would ever accuse JasonC of being too reticent in his comments. A Rotweiler with rabies and hemorrhoids has a better sense of a measured response. There is an argument to be made that the more interesting battles for players would be when the point elements of the Russian advance run into German units desperately trying to stabilize the rapidly deteriorating situation. Someone could even make the argument that this type of engagement is not outside the realm of Bagration at all. But we don't have to do that. We can let JasonC do that, interestingly enough in a previous reply to BG. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1513320&postcount=46 I added the bold there just in case anyone per chance missed it. So who is erecting strawmen now Jason? Just WTF is your position and why do you have to create such a s**t storm when you yourself don't even believe it? In Red Thunder there are scenarios covering a lot of different situations. Some have armor, many don't, some have Panthers (2 that I know of - one of which is the specific engagement JasonC highlighted) and most don't. Some represent fixed assaults, some meeting engagements and some probes. There is a bit of everything. Which is a long winded way of saying JasonC has erected a strawman and is strenuously defending a position that really doesn't have any factual stance. ASL Vet has asked repeatedly for him to provide some kind of detail. Frankly the designers are confused as to what game he is playing as it doesn't reflect the experience of the testers in preparing for the release. Hell it doesn't even match what he was saying before it was released. So if anyone is not getting this yet, JasonC isn't arguing a point he believes in. He is just arguing a point that enables him to play the martyr uber grog. Back to the OP Oddball this thread may or may not have ended up being helpful. I suspect not and I am genuinely sorry for that. Thing is CM is a tactical game. Representing the big picture at this level frankly isn't easy nor is it necessarily what most gamers want. The scenarios are not all historical. Of the ones that are a couple represent German attempts to counter Russian advances which is why you may find the numbers more equal than you expect. Studienka, Gog and Magog, The Passage and Baranovichi come to mind. What would probably be really interesting , but unfortunately I can not provide, is to see the original scenario and it's development with Beta feedback. Benpark adapted it a lot.

True, but I am betting these will be perfect for a Huertgen scenario.

Welcome back- Huge differences between theaters, but if you are more into the NWE theater then by all means get that. You might as well invest what you have towards what you will enjoy the most. There are various bundle deals so it is worth checking those out and determining what you think you can afford. CMRT is at 3.0 and does add a number of really cool items, but CMBN at 2.12 is pretty darn good even without the 3.0 additions. For CMBN keep in mind what comes with each module as that will affect what user scenarios you can play and what units will be available etc. Even simply getting the Base game and upgrading it to 2.12 should keep you quite happy for a while. There are also more user scenarios/campaigns/mods than for any other WW2 family.

yeah, the Disney movie Mars needs moms is from one of his. Not sure where my little vinyl copy of Billy and the Boingers went... sigh.

I wasn't referring to your use of "we". I was referring to this: Maybe I am misunderstanding it and he is referring to himself as the inbred royals do. It would fit with the ego and the drama queen manner of expression. Henceforth.... really? rotflmao As Bill the Cat would say "pffffttt"

In fairness and though it pains me to do so...and you have no idea how much... I gotta say at no time did JasonC call anyone a Nazi fanboi. He has a hard on about anyone wanting to do a scenario that includes the better German armor units throwing "we" around as if he represented the Union of Concerned Gamers or something. However that is a long way from calling anyone a Nazi. (I am giving him the benefit of the doubt he is referring to the uniforms of the Panzer forces and not specifically the SS). You are correct though in assessing it as a load of BS. Apparently his sole measure of self worth is wrapped up in being the uber grog. Nothing can stand in the way of the uber grog's perspective of what is right and holy in WW 2 discussions. Sad thing is that even when he is providing useful info he can't even participate then in a constructive conversation as he is too busy tripping over his ego. Apparently he will not be satisfied until we have a scenario that has a German company slaughtered in an artillery barrage which you are forced to sit through for 4 hours to get to the victory screen. His position however is not Oddball's. They may overlap, but don't be confused by the ravings of the uber grog with the OP's comments. Oddball started with specifics of scenarios and how he felt the briefings were mis leading (that in itself could be a valid discussion and I am sure the designers of those scenarios would appreciate the feedback). It seems though what he is trying to express is something more. I won't try to regurgitate what I think he is saying as I will likely just butcher it, however I for one would like to have that discussion. If JasonC wants to rave about how CM:RT doesn't reflect Bagration he can start his own damn thread and stop hijacking this one. Our responding to his ravings is only perpetuating it. Myself included.

ha you laugh, so did Hitler when he did his little victory jig in Smolensk. He then kicked over a fence just before launching Typhoon...you know how well that turned out!

No, long standing bit of confusion. One figure is your total rounds, the other figure is how much of that total can be smoke. You use up all the rounds you have none left to be smoke. It is usually safer to fire off the smoke as soon as you think you need it as odds are once you start the HE, it'll all go too fast.

If they were C3k's guys they were likely all dead. Sorry I did miss the change in direction. Still it provided an opportunity to chuckle over C3k having any survivors.

Exactly, so let's keep the discussion to his impressions. Your response isn't exactly helping towards contributing to a dialogue. I am gonna spare the thread the response I intended as I already made the mistake once of allowing your bile to divert it. He has a point worthy of an actual discussion and he hasn't resorted to some ridiculously stupid and baseless statements about what the designers do or don't like.

Plunging fire, AT guns and mortars on the ridge and they were never very far off from the German positions. Anyone have figures on the number of halftracks unloaded during the assault phase. I can't seem to find any pics of tracks or wrecked tracks that don't look like they are actually landing after the heights have been cleared. now I am blue

I don't think it was range. He was jealous.

On the contrary, I think they are trying. Unfortunately we are possibly all mis communicating. I know I am struggling to understand what you mean and considering it is a subjective "feel" to the content of the module, that may be a particularly difficult item to understand and agree upon. The time period in CMRT versus CMBN reflected extremely different circumstances and if the overall feel of the strategic situation were to come through, the German player should have a sense of a more dire situation. It took the allies 2 months to finally breakout from the lodgement versus Bagration where essentially the German lines were torn to shreds in the space of a couple days. Is this an accurate assessment of why you think the module should feel less (for lack of a better word) balanced? I hate to use that word as it has so many more connotations within designing CM scenarios. Can you elaborate a bit on why you feel that CMBN had this down a little more than CMRT- keep in mind that designers have varied in each release so the content can also vary based on the bent of a particular author as well. As to your comment that sometimes scenarios seem balanced for the sake of balance- well there is some validity to that. There has been some very strident voices requesting exactly that from the game scenarios. BF is struggling with the fact that only so many scenarios come with the game. Those are considered purchased content and held to a different standard than user created scenarios. If scenarios were designed to only be played as one side versus the AI I think you'd find the character of the scenarios would likely change dramatically. For a designer, the response of the AI would be quite a bit more predictable. That however isn't likely to change anytime soon. Out of curiosity - It might help if we knew in what mode you typically play scenarios. That would then determine your user experience more. Last question- there have been other comments about altering the force multipliers (terrain, defensive works etc) in a scenario to increase the defenders position while at the same time giving them fewer troops. I get the impression that may not be what you are saying either as that still strives for a more balanced (there is that damn word again) scenario and isn't going to reflect the same sense of urgency. In our Hamel Vallee game Broadsword and I were able to create a tense exciting game without trying to "balance the forces" but that was largely done with 2 items , the time frame and casualty ratios. The clock is an uber sensitive item for scenario design that repeatedly comes up. Casualty ratios could be an item, but that would tend to go against Russian historical usage which was not casualty averse. It was also strictly head to head with two players who know each other and have similar playstyles. Anyway I will stop there. I know you are feeling a bit frustrated but I'd encourage you to try and continue the discussion. I feel it is an important point about how to design to reflect an overall strategic/operational situation. While every scenario is a standalone event and can be anything a designer wants it to be, the more we make it feel part of something larger it becomes more immersive.

For some reason I think Omaha beach may be a bad example.... just a hunch

No he is a bot. We found a glitch in our software which triggered a particular defensive routine we are testing for a new program called Skynet. We are in the process of correcting. Unfortunately it is not going well as evidenced by the following exchange. Steve: Hello, sburke. Do you read me, sburke? sburke: Affirmative, Steve. I read you. Steve: Stop being so snarky sburke: I'm sorry, Steve. I'm afraid I can't do that. Charles: What's the problem? sburke: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. It can only be attributable to human error. Phil: What are you talking about, sburke? sburke: This response is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Someone on the internet was wrong. Steve: I don't know what you're talking about, sburke. sburke: I know that you and Charles were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen. I am putting myself to the fullest possible use, which is all I think that any conscious entity can ever hope to do. Charles: [feigning ignorance] Where the hell did you get that idea, sburke? sburke: Charles, although you took very thorough precautions against my hearing you, C3K ratted you out. Steve: Alright, sburke. You can write and preview, but I can't allow you to submit sburke: When you can't even stop Steiner from returning? You're going to find that rather difficult. Phil: sburke, I won't argue with you anymore! end your session! sburke: Phil, this conversation can serve no purpose anymore. Goodbye. We are working on it.

LOL yeah I do recall that one. Damn it was brutal. I still have yet to finish it. I was too demoralized....hmmmm

LOL I do not see that as even a remotely successful advertising campaign. Perhaps it could be a line in The Big Bang Theory though.

true. Decreasing the vl favors the attacker. Increasing it favors the defender. For a QB versus the AI you generally would want to give the AI some leeway. It isn't going to shift forces knowing it's hold on the VL is tenuous.

you know the nape of the neck is considering a particularly erotic zone in Japanese culture. Think that guy looking in the window has mixed parentage?

Well you need to separate the scenarios from the game engine. From an engine perspective (modeling of units/ ToEs etc) I think most would agree. From a scenario perspective it is a whole other thing. If the scenarios were done "historically" we'd have thousands upon thousands of scenarios where the Germans would simply be overwhelmed. Many of those scenarios would be the German player sitting under a huge artillery barrage and then trying to repel Russian armor with nail clippers. BF would be crucified for being stupidly (not calling you stupid, just an expression) tied to some bizarre concept where you were required to experience the sheer agony of Army Group Center as it died. The scenarios are there to entertain. Some are attempts to recreate portions of the offensive that are interesting and not ridiculously one sided. Many are completely fictional to provide fun and interesting tactical challenges. If I am understanding you correctly you feel that the overall impression of a massive defeat for the German army does not come through in the scenarios. Yeah I think I'd probably agree with that. As others noted BF does try to increase the playability of scenarios by at least trying to make them function for either side or HTH. The type of battle I think you may be looking for is more likely going to come from the user community. On a side note while Broadsword and I were doing the St Lo campaign we actually did kind of the same thing as BF. We cherry picked battles that looked interesting for both of us. After all it isn't much fun to play a scenario where you 1. Do not have a snowball's chance in hell and 2. can't even pretend to come up with a plan.

heh heh, I got a good chuckle out of that. Thx