sburke

Just to say it, thanks for your continuing support for this product GAJ. Yeah I could play without it, but my work load would likely be at least double what it is now.

With some of the pathing issues that seems to end up happening often enough.

Peregrine is Einstein. He's already put together a pretty intricate set of rules. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1475843&postcount=1

Finally home from the holidays and can download and take for a drive. Thx Umlaut.

My pleasure Great looking map

Hey RepsolCBR Close. There should be several options in the links, one of which is for bulletin board images. If you look at your post you will see what I mean. I replaced the "URL" in the brackets of one of your links with "img" and you can now see the image itself. You can only add 5 images per post, but that should get you going. I usually edit my post in notepad to get all the info I want in around the images and then just copy and post it all. It prevents any goofy stuff happening and you can prepare a bunch of posts and add them all in pretty quickly.

Replace the "URL" in brackets with "img" and you'll be good to go.

Don't upload to forum. Upload it to photobucket/ snapfish etc. then copy the link from there and include in your post. Easier and you won't end up with a pic so small no one can figure out what it is.

Ha bet you never watched Mars Attacks!

Screw that just fire off the claymores and send out the bomb disposal robot. The back door is probably zeroed in by enemy mortars anyway. Besides the back door is on a half AS and exiting there will force you into LOF. Pathing issues can be a b***h.

Lol my letter box has an outside door that drops the mail in a chute reached via an interior door. If I look in my letterbox I see the interior of a chute inside the wall. That will totally screw with my situational awareness.

My admittedly sketchy understanding is a lot of the "loading" time isn't booting the game but rather setting up for the CPU calculations. In other words it isn't reading from the hard drive at that point.

Perhaps. It really isn't for me to say. However I think in the development process the cycle for the user community to expect to provide input that could lead to changes is a bit earlier. The feedback here would more likely show up in next module or patch as it would need first of all to have BF feel that now would be the time to address it/ have a plan on how to address it/ have time to test said plan. That being said as I had noted this isn't the first time we have had this discussion and perhaps BF already has a plan. If so I still wouldn't expect much as they are very tight lipped when it comes to development. Who knows though. Maybe BF will chime in and prove me inordinately stupid. I'd be fine with that.

Nice stuff guys, but you need to wrap it up before the two new game families hit.

Well it isn't like this is a new discussion and there is a version 3.0 of the engine coming. Perhaps it is best to wait and see what changes come in that once BF is prepared to discuss them. Maybe there will be changes we are unaware of, but I expect asking BF to get involved in this right now is simply bad timing. One expects they are quite busy.

Roflmao. I had to look it up as I thought it meant no s**t f**k wad. Heh heh

A bogging test? Eeeewwwwww

My nope wasn't a nope I don't want them or whatever it was you thought I was going off the deep end suggesting. I was simply responding to Kensai's question as to is it possible. On the contrary I would love if they were able to include them. It would also allow for making longer scenarios without worrying about the AI plan being totally out of sync.

Nope, the only thing your pixeltruppen care about is the time. They check their watches, check their orders and then maybe they will do what they were told to do.

It is not, the 2.12 patch is all inclusive and can be applied directly over the 2.0 upgrade.

In general angled directions present patching issues. Buildings, walls and hedges in parallel angles will present a narrower facing that allows infantry and prevents vehicle movement. I expect this issue has a similar relationship. Great for doing narrow urban alleys though.

Hard to say, you could be listening to a sound mod.

This was one of the more potentially embarrassing things about trying my hand at designing scenarios. Did I suck so much at the game that my scenarios would end up being a cake walk for most players. I tended to err towards increasing the difficulty as well for the same reason - replay value only exists if the battle presents a challenge.

Yeah I figured. . It was hard enough waiting to do MG AND having to avoid the St Lo battles involving FJ troops. I think we can be excused this time for using the tools at hand. Besides if it works well we can redo it in a few years with a better handle on handling the C2 aspect. (And maybe utilizing CM version 5.0.) Heh heh.

Broadsword and I have had no shortage of interesting and tense situations in our campaigns all of which have veered from the historical. Witness our current battle for Son where the German defenders have been reinforced with a battalion size kampfgruppe to disrupt the allied timeline. We are quite aware of the actual state of the front at the time of the proposed EF campaign. It isn't like neither of us has read any eastern front history. However rather than be deterred, it seems far more fun to go ahead and take advantage of the Op layer capability now rather than wait for CM EF 1942 which could be several years. Folks really need to stop worrying about whether everything matches up exactly historically. Hell if things are always done that way you'll rarely get any fog of war. HPS has both a Minsk 1944 and Kharkhov 1943 game however the game doesn't have any real C2 component. Hence our preference to use the Panzer Command system.