sburke

That hasn't been quite my experience and granted I would need to try this under a variety of conditions and multiple times to get some truly valid data, however I am playing Courage and Fortitude on the second attempt to take the bridge etc. My Shermans have advanced up the road to the wire obstacles and just beyond. Enemy MG fire has forced all to button up and the result is they can actually "see" very few of the enemy units to bring them under fire. My pixel truppen are getting quite upset with my pixeltankertruppen and have started abusing them in what I can only assume is foul mouthed hexadecimal code.

Wait..you mean...no malls? You sir are anti american!! Our whole way of life is based on the mall! Maybe we can just turn the malls into giant internet cafes...hmmmm. That could be where all the laid off postal employees will hang out..probably not a very safe place to go.

You mean like this This guy didn't find it very effective.

Yeah I lost that bridge too..with a Sherman on it. About that time it got through my skull that maybe I should go ask my XO for a copy of the briefing again.

More interesting food. Being from Philadelphia originally I can attest to Hoagies, Cheesesteaks, Scrapple (yes I like scrapple, for those of you unfamiliar, it is what isn't good enough to put into sausage ground to a mush, mixed with cornmeal. sliced thinly and pan fried). As it is I can in walking distance eat Thai, Chinese, Salvadoran, Peruvian, Italian, Japanese etc etc. All the rest of the reasoning is just fluff, it's all about the food... and the beer.

A little know friendly fire incident. He leaned over to put paper in the printer and accidentally hit San Jose. Homeland security had to investigate. Those costs were then passed on by charging Australia to import. See it all ties together.

Don't take this the wrong way, I really am not trying to be a sarcastic pain in the a**, but are you expecting everyone will self implement rules of behavior based on how you feel it should be treated once you have a feature you desire included? To ask for a feature that it would seem most of us have rarely if ever run into and not have an answer to an obvious failing of said feature because you say it should only be used in dire circumstances doesn't quite answer the failing of the feature for me. We all have items I am sure we would like to have included or not included based on many things. What we have to ask though before throwing it out there is, would it really work, what are the downsides, what would it take to ameliorate those downsides, just exactly how much coding for these events do we expect of Charles and company and most importantly - what are we willing to give up to have said feature? (okay Charles, maybe the most important question was how much coding would it take, but you can work 24x365 right? We'll give you 24 hours to sleep on leap years. Your welcome.)

His buttocks are not symmetrical which causes an angle of fire.

I would assume that in this instance if the original crew didn't come back the gun would continue to be inoperable as the firing mechanism would now be missing? Is that what we are asking BFC to code now, following the firing mechanism for each gun to insure who has it? Will we then ask that firing mechanisms be scrounged? And then make sure the scrounged firing mechanism be for the appropriate gun type? And then perhaps we can scrounge a damaged gun for a firing mechanism for an abandoned gun? Pandora is laughing her britches off.

Stupid? That it was shown to be historically accurate and it is effective at reducing observation from Tanks (I have both used it and had the AI use it against me effectively) is "realism gymnastics"? There are definitely some nuances in behavior I would like to see modified (like getting an armor covered arc), but eliminating small arms fire against armor isn't one of them.

Assume for a moment that it was easy to add to code and BFC released it in the next patch. In your next PBEM game your American force opponent scrounged every single German MG that he could and soon you were facing Ami platoons with Garands backed up by German MGs. How quickly do you think you would be asking they "fix sumfink" as it was an unfair and ahistorical practice? Instead of it being a solution to a rare need it suddenly became common practice all the time.

LOL man can I ever relate to that, though in my case I'd probably just take up gardening or maybe finish that wooden model of HMS Endeavour.

Not sure what you are getting at. I did use quotes around winnable. Perhaps too subtle? With this game I don't even rate being the victor in any given scenario as necessarily "winning" however campaigns generally require you win to move forward. If the battle is interesting enough it doesn't much matter to me. The point I was responding to was the original OP who was complaining that the game was too difficult to achieve victory in the demo- what most people would I think agree could be considered "winning".

So the ultimate game would be one where I play Franklin Roosevelt, Winston Churchill etc point at Europe and say "conquer that" and then watch as my Generals, Admirals etc etc fight the war? I realize that is an over simplification, but not far off the mark. What I love about CMBN is I plan the tactical level with very little idea of the big picture. I just need to "take that hill". The campaigns add the level of impact and developments on other fronts that could influence my battle, but more than that just gets lost in the clutter as I am sure it would have to the company and battalion COs in 1944.

Little too much of Anthony Wiener there.... Seriously though I agree. Without the challenge, there is no feeling of accomplishment. The game is obviously "winnable" though I can't claim to being one of those who can walk over the AI at Iron mode. However in a certain sense that makes me happy. If I could the ONLY time the game could really give that level of excitement is against another human player. While fun that has it's own limitations on time etc.

Nice and eerily familiar My poor Landser are starting to wonder if it isn't time to "fall back to a better defensive position"...yeah that's it. We MEANT to do that. :-P

Sit down son and let me tell you the tale of Otto the sniper. He would vouch for the use of rifle grenades...if he uh weren't.. well.. dead. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96469&page=23

where you gotta start worrying is when their status turns to tweeting or texting...

Yep if I were female this would definitely get me out here raising my hand......or not.

heh heh, funny, but bound to get somebody's hackles up. "Mr Charles have a da fish. The seabass is a very very nice." "I'd like the lobster." No? No one a fan of the Thin Man movies? Jon's point (and one I humbly agree with) is there are a lot of options in the game. The ability to apply tactics to resolve a situation is what the game encourages. Yeah it can take some time and odds are some helpful suggestions from other folks (thanks Michael, I like that sniper team idea) will help increase one's learning curve. Instead there are innumerable threads to get the AI to take over more and more of those choices. This isn't to say all are bad (I'd love an armored covered arc for my AT assets), but the place to start is to ask what is possible instead of just throwing one's hands in the air and saying, "I know what I want to have happen, why can't the AI do it"? Granted that doesn't help the Computer apply those tactics, but how much programming time are folks expecting BFC to have to develop the AI? I personally do make the effort to force the opposing TCs to button up. I have seen what it does to my own ability to observe and have seen the AI use it to good effect to prevent my Shermans from giving good fire support.

destroying bocage implies removing a lot of packed earth, stumps and roots, not the same as an AP round going through the upper portion.

Those are the guys taking food orders.

If I understand the concept of a ME you do not have the opportunity to set up broadly in advance, you are in the "advance to contact" moment just prior to contact. Larger deployment zones would seem to indicate being past the initial advance to contact and not the intent of the battle designer. Then again, I am probably wrong. I'll just go back to playing and shut my mouth.

I personally agree with the other posts that this just doesn't pass the realism test and feels too much like a "power up" kind of feature. I prefer utilizing my leaders in the current C2 structure to help motivate and influence the rest of my teams or if the leader is of low enough rank and placement in the C2 structure to actually move them to the critical point of combat- lead from the front soldier!

oh geez one of those personal accountability guys. You mean I gotta read??!! I am just a little surpised (okay not really) that just that one feature in a game so rich would mean not buying it. I have gotten my money's worth out of this game already compared to some others I have bought and intend to be playing it for a long time to come.