sburke

it depends I believe on what you ordered. Go to the my accounts page to confirm what you ordered. If it is inadvertently showing the wrong OS I'd open a ticket with BF

and fun info for the next release poll Release dates CM:SF---------Fri 5/27/2007 CM:SF Marines-Fri 9/26/2008 CM:SF/BF------Wed 7/29/2009 CM:SF Nato----Thu 10/21/2010 CM:BN---------Tue 5/17/2011 CM:BN/CW-----Tue 4/17/2012 CM:FI----------Thu 8/02/2012 CMFI/GL--------Mon 5/20/2013 CM:BN/MG------Tue 11/26/2013 CM:RT----------Fri 4/4/2014 BF has definitely gotten to the 2 releases a year threshold and this doesn't include the engine updates to keep the families consistent. What will we see next this year? Funny thing is, their churning out stuff faster seems to have absolutley no impact on our impatience for stuff to be released.

you don't even have to do that, just log in to BF site, select my account. Everything you ordered should be there. Click the item and it will pull it up including the license, hit download.

LOL yeah you know many of us were thinking it.

Give them a wrong address in the states. Better yet, give em Steve's address so he ends up with a pile of discs. Uh oh something tells me I may not get my copy.... umm my name is c3k.....

LOL I hear ya. The only item I could never get into in Japan for breakfast was the cold eggs. Could never understand the attraction. Fortunately it was almost always served with warm rice so I'd just mix it up. The Ryokan I usually stayed at mixed it up a lot though so I could count on having fish most days and the egg just once in a while.

Pfft I played that when it was still only available on an abacus. And we liked it

No that was not "plain" mean. That was viciously cruel mean. Most impressive So what the hell happened with your smg teams in the woods?

You can post all the turns of a game online. Actually did that for the Hamel Vallee AAR. Only problem is they are tied to the version you saved them under and have a limited shelf life. The upside is you see all the action and are not tied to a camera POV.

Alt-t Padding

I can't speak for anyone else,but if you are expecting unlimited timers in scenarios you will find me creating them without AI plans. Why bother if the player doesn't care if there is at all an AI with a fighting chance. I'll just make all static scenarios and give the AI more units. Certainly makes it easier for me.

Do I sense a taunt?

Well the battle menu does a few things the scenario editor 3D mode does not. The battle menu requires calculating LOS and loading all the units so it is needing quite a bit more oomph.

Actually this is a great example and a reason why the timer can play a critical role. In CM you can't blow the Son bridge so the timer reflects exactly the race to seize the bridge before the Germans can blow it in your face exactly as happened in MG. The US airborne was under enormous time pressure all the way until that bridge was blown. In fact that was the case for every single bridge objective in the operation. There are numerous example of units having to seize an objective despite not having all the forces present they needed nor the time to recon the area etc.

We are venturing very close to peng thread territory. Quick someone lock the basement door!

Thanks. To be honest the scenarios that I have done I have tried to make be a little different than simply a fight for an objective. I have only done a handful, but what I have tried to work towards is something a bit more immersive. Interactive if you will. I have yet to mess with AI triggers, but am hopeful they will allow me to explore that more. To be honest I prefer hth play. The AI at the moment simply can not behave like a human player no matter how well the AI plan is put together. The first scenario I tried was platoon size as it gave me far more control. Every team was it's own AI group. Even that was difficult as a.) it was an urban scenario and b.) The AI moves in a funky manner. Units criss cross so what may look like a plan for a platoon to move across an open space entering a couple buildings becomes this converging mob that follows no particular order at the next waypoint. That is only one example of the kind of behavior one has to factor in when assembling the plan. Every time I have worked on a scenario it seems most of my time is spent watching the AI plan over and over again to get a viable movement process . That for me becomes more the timing issue. If the timer is just loosely tied to the AI plan, then there is no real interaction with the player. The player simply waits for the AI to stop moving or run itself right into the players defense and the challenge disappears for the player to act. I think I understand what you are saying, but where do you draw the line between "using the timer to create unnecessary tension" and using the timer to force the player to participate? Obviously there is no set "correct" time for a scenario. What is way more than enough time for one player is a time crunch, last turn rush for another.

No offense, but have you created any scenarios? If so can you post to allow others to look? Just not sure if you are clear on the requirements to configure a decent AI plan or if you have figured out a better way of doing it. For myself, creating a decent AI attack plan has always been a helluva lot more complicated than you seem to feel it should be. Hell it takes multiple orders to get it to perform in a much smaller map than 800x800.

This one is a constant source of debate - fact is a timer may actually be a very realistic aspect. It may reflect other operations that absolutely require you make your objectives in the time alloted. In addition with the AI capabilites in CM 2.x the AI is all time based. Allowing you more time simply means the AI runs out of plans in many cases. If it is a scenario yes you can just go edit the paramaters and make it a 4 hour scenario if you want, but in the process you probably further handicap the AI. Up to you. Ack! Sniped by ASL Veteran

you will be assimilated... There has been an ongoing debate about casualties and what they reflect. I won't pretend to know the corect answer, but there has been an argument that the casualty rates we generally cite are based on all round battle casualties, not just front line combat. Whether the proportional amount of front line casualties should lean to more wounded i can't say. The other issue to keep in mind is our behavior in playing CM is far different than actual combat so the casualty levels we see are never going to be reflective of real life. I have given up on thinking I will ever know the answer and have just gotten used to writing more virtual letters.

Just before he gets plugged :-D

may want to review this thread - more information about what HTHH does/doesn't do and the procdess to remove if necessary. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113730&highlight=hthh

I have no idea what that means, but hey have at it.

Well I hate to break it to you guys but you will likely have to find different answers than standard German tactical plans. I don't think the scenario designers are gonna give you those options all the time. That is part of the challenge for Bil. I wish him the best but if it were me I'd be feeling like that goat tethered by the T Rex cage in Jurassic park.

I think weay have to wait for BF to deal with hand to hand fighting first.

Ha they ought to have it say "bah, not yet you bug ridden refresh monkey. Now go away or I shall taunt you a second time-uh."