molo

I think tank crews' equipment varies based on how quickly they have to bail out and how panicked they are.

Apparently it was actually an enlarged air intake (not a radiator) required by the larger engine added to the Char B1bis. Two Pak 35 or 36 knocked out three Char B1bis at Stonne from close range. See this image for a detail of the intake.

CM was turn-based, though.

At the risk of further derailing, wokelly, you should be more careful! You might need a stepladder to get on that horse of yours soon. I think it's pretty cheap to get in jabs at people who pre-ordered the game when the topic wasn't even raised.

Thanks, Madmatt!

This is a good addition, but as I understand it, squads cannot be given waypoints? Adding them is a great first step, but if we can't send a squad somewhere without working through each of ten soldiers it could get awkward. Should we assume that the feature, as planned, is more targeted towards vehicles than infantry?

[EDIT: moved to new thread - delete this!]

It's great to have a status update like this - lots of detail, and it looks like most of the major complaints are being addressed as we speak. Thanks.

Maybe the next patch should disable the encyclopedia's data!

I didn't want to do it over again, 'cause I'd surely wind up losing to the victory conditions a third time. All I'm saying is that depending on the mission (and the gamer, lol ) you can spend well over the time required to fix a track. Moon: I'm not a beta tester, and I don't keep a pad of paper by my system to write down what's wrong with games I play. I'd love to help, but I've decided to not play while I wait for the patch so as to avoid getting aggravated. I'm also not sure how mentioning victory conditions in a thread about "what needs to be fixed" and in relation to fixing tracks is irrelevant, but whatever.

Ok, makes sense. I guess it also explains why St. Lo is a town of 100 villagers!

I try to hide handheld teams in bushes, crouched or prone, but it doesn't always work as they sometimes get lasered. As far as ATGs go, it seems like the AI tanks spot their smoke long before you can hit them about two thirds of the time.

I'm not exaggerating.

Why not?

SoaN, some of these battles take 2 hours to track down the last surviving infantrymen.

It's just being used as an example. After all, in the past Moon has said "we're not going to fix x because almost everybody thinks the game is fine" - which, incidentally, is what I was referring to when I said 'ignoring complaints'. I don't have the thread in front of me, but I've seen it a couple of times. I've seen a couple of CS travesties before (this isn't there, not by a long shot) and I think that you guys are at least on the wrong track. I've not seen any actual status updates, at least not that have been highlighted - the first information here says 'we're fixing the fatal issues first'. There's no indication of what else is on the table, though - and that, I would imagine, is why these guys were being so vocal. If a sticky thread tracking the issues being considered - not even worked on yet, just considered for future fixes - then I'm sure a lot less bitching would be going on.

I gotta say, egging on BillyBob and the others to 'draw out trolls' is a pretty ****ty way to go about community management. Their legitimate complaints agree with the (as pointed out before) approximately 40% of users who think the game needs significant improvements to make it fun/playable/etc. Ignoring your customers' points constantly may not warrant violence, but it certainly does produce animosity. If that was your goal, Mission Accomplished™. Time to go land on a carrier.

If you guys can actually pick out the tanks (not the gas station signs floating over them) in that screenshot, I'd be happy to know where. I think maniac's got a very valid example of a definite problem.

Agreed. Very classy.

I find that with the amount of micro required to manage infantry and dodge laser ATGs, there's actually more clicking than with a lot of 'click-fest' games (if you mean stuff like C&C). I'm not convinced that the difficulty levels pitch the balance of firepower to my side. More often than not, on easy, I find myself getting wildly outgunned by an invisible enemy or inferior equipment.

Whining about BillyBob's (occasionally quite valid) whining only brings you down a notch.

Actually, after the initial slaughterfests on Veteran, I dropped it down to the absolute lowest level and it still happens.

Does that modify the speeds of all units involved, so the tanks don't charge ahead? If so, thanks for the tip!

I think that while comparisons with the Close Combat series are often poorly-applied to TOW, as far as the campaign and victory standards go they're justified. In Close Combat, you can 1) surrender and withdraw, 2) cease fire and continue at a later period, 3) lose, or 4) win. The win/loss conditions depend on combatant strength and morale - if my forces are getting mowed down, and the enemy remains strong, then they're not likely to accept a cease-fire. On the other hand, if the enemy is getting rocked, they may surrender or withdraw due to force strength or morale. As far as I know, I've seen individual TOW units rout (that's the little Running Man icon, right?). If a small enough percentage of the original force remains, or if enough units have routed, shouldn't that satisfy win conditions?

I think part of the problem is that the only AI units seem to exhibit involves their sprint away from the front lines when they rout.