sburke

select any unit and you can see it's HQ hierarchy in the UI - you can select those HQs from the UI display. I keep forgetting that, but it is really useful for exactly what folks are talking about here.

LOL GAJ this made my morning. My bet is it targets the HQ that didn't say anything. Either their morale is way high or they are simply blind. Either way they deserve the first round.

It isn't that he doesn't like cats. He does like cats, too much and inappropriately.

Not sure I understand this and considering how confusing this thread has gotten I probably don't. I had thought we were discussing all crew served weapons and I was agreeing with Rake specifically about why I would or wouldn't deploy mortars and MGs in response to Jason's questioning why anyone would not deploy. What has that got to do with medium towed guns? Yes I get they have their own deploying/packing up issues but that was not what I was commenting on nor was Rake.

What scale are we discussing here? I have played and worked on several scenarios that are platoon vs platoon. As well I have played full battalion and even regimental size battles. The scale can be pretty far ranging.

Absolutely. Maybe I just run my forces completely wrong (more than likely true ) but I usually do not deploy unless I have a clear LOF/LOS to where I believe I have a target. Usually however if I am below a ridge line I will not deploy. The idea as you have pointed out being to reduce the amount of time it takes to get the unit to the position i want once I have gotten some recon in position to give me an idea of what I need to be doing. Time is critical, deploying without a viable target knowing I will be needing to move seems pretty pointless, detrimental in fact. I think we are up to $0.04

Commander: 'Gunner target ahead' Gunner: 'Can't see it, my views blocked' Commander: 'Driver advance, gunner call out when you see him. Gunner: Wait... wait, got him!' Commander: 'Diver halt' Gunner: 'Firing now' Commander:"oh S**t!!! Driver reverse, reverse!!! AN AT Gun is on our fl...." Tank 3 come in please.. tank 3 what is your situation....

IBTL!!! And the banning! Woohoo!!

Sure, I am curious and if I can't find anything obvious I'll pass it up the line. After of course I submit my in depth report to GaJ. Just call me Mata Burkee.

It doesn't appear that spotting was the issue. He had spotted it, the problem seemed more of the aiming...aiming....aiming.....ouch Variety. It would be nice to get a good look at that save and maybe turn it in for BF to look at. Bil is certainly capable of doing so. Maybe some other bug will be incovered.

I think Bil spotted just fine (he'd commented he had it spotted for a full 30 seconds), it was the shooting aspect that seemed to go awry. Most of the shooting issues that I have been involved in have usually ended up with a valid reason why return fire wasn't an option. I can't see a good reason here but w/o access to the save it is all conjecture.

well partly I think GAJ has a lot more to lose on a trade off. He needs to really be sure he doesn't suffer from the exchange. Trading a Sherman for a Pz IV would put him even more in the hole. He isn't really aware of the size of the force he is facing, but even with what he knows it isn't a good trade.

Depends on the judge

Isn't that the name of Jeff Dunham's dummy... hey wait a minute!!

I actually suspect most designers would prefer to hear that feedback rather than not. It is all a matter of how it is delivered and the depth of detail in the feedback. It is hard to do much with just "too much arty" if you don't understand the style of the player and how that might impact the overall design either.

For me this is one of those "depends on how you play the game". It has never phased me in the least, but I could see where it may bother some others. The problem I think from a technical standpoint is, it gets a deploy order option because it is a crew served weapon. Being a crew served weapon with a deploy order, it now gets a deploy time. So from the way it is coded, I think it would present BF with a quandry. To remove the deploy order means probably losing the deploy time. Is anyone in favor of that?

rotflmao - well said.

LOL you realize of course that day may be years in the future. BF has committed to keeping the games up to date with engine improvements which will all likely include their own patches. I would have to say I think CMBN is more solid than CMSF (and I love CMSF), CMSF will simply not be receiving any more updates.

That leaves me clear, I am far from a yute. Sublime we might have, but LLF has certainly been the main driver for a Pacific game. The one I'd like to see is CM:Vietnam, but then again I really favor infantry engagements.

on the edge of our seats buddy.

I wouldn't write it off. CMFI wasn't exactly expected either. I have no idea what experience or data folks are working with that makes them think it wouldn't do well - if that is even the case, but like you I would love to see that period.

I'd agree with Erwin. I wouldn't look to change too much. The MG effectiveness may alter the battle a bit, but I don't think enough to undermine the scenario. The only issue for me is it is simply a major commitment in time to take on a scenario like this and unless I play it through I lose track of what I was planning... yeah old age. LOL Still it beats having it set up on a gameboard waiting for the cat to pounce.

You should see the casualty crosses, but after that yeah they just vanish into the motor vehicle pool.

factual and well founded? Nah I'd say it was more of the same discredited, abhorrent, reviled and bigoted world view that has already gotten you warned. For your own sake, it's probably better we got back to the original scope of the thread.

Had? There is a Sherman very very nearby that knows he is there..... btw how many guys were in that jeep. Looked like 4 then before the grenade goes off it looks like 2.