bodkin

Version 3 only changes a few of the sounds they are pretty similar. The difference in sizes is because I deleted some extra sounds that weren't actually being used and just a hangover from testing.

There's plenty of evidence of panzers retreating despite having the superior tank. IIRC it was usually because the german tank crew didn't know exactly what was shooting at them and weren't confident enough to sit around and a find out what it was. There's evidence of panther and tiger crews retreating after bazooka and 57mm/6 pdr AT gun hits that were ineffective as far as the observers could tell but the tank crews weren't keen to hang around and see exactly what was firing at them, so I think BFC got it right when they back up even if they haven't suffered too much damage.

I'm not seeing conclusive proof in this test of side hits causing optics damage or am I missing something? I'm presuming all the Tigers were facing front on to the Shermans. I can sort of live with that as 'optics' might include vision devices in the hull and turret. Maybe a side on test would clarify? Don't know why tracks would be damaged from main gun being hit, unless it's a downward ricochet.

Yeah as soon as I saw the spotting rounds I tried to redeploy the Pak-40 but they were still packing up when the barrage hit. I think next time I'll try to redeploy it earlier as no US tanks came within it's line of sight where it was originally. Thanks for taking the time to make and share this mission.

Veins mod changes most in game sounds, this one only changes infantry weapons so it can be used at the same time if you prefer.

Finished with a tactical defeat. *possible spoilers* I held the WN11a and WN11b objectives and fought hard to try and regain WN11c but it was too heavily defended. Taking back the bocage objectives was an impossible suicide mission, the strength of the US forces was more than enough to stop any of my counter attacks. Looking at the scores at the end even if I regained WN11c I still would have lost, I think their were some destroy unit objectives but I don't know what they were. I found the Pak 40 useless, I don't think it got a shot in all game and ended up being destroyed by artillery. The Marders weren't much more use, their shots bounced harmlessly off the Shermans at long range but they got destroyed in one shot when the Shermans returned fire. If it was my scenario I'd give the Germans some more artillery so they can soften up the us defenders a bit more, I used alot of my arty stopping the US human wave that was sweeping across the battlefield and didn't have enough left to counter attack. A decent anti tank capability would be nice as well, maybe a panther or an 88.

No worries Eddie, thanks.

Eddie, It would be nice if you gave the German player the option to set up their own defence, that way it feels you've got more control of proceedings rather than just being a spectator at the start. Cheers,

The M8 wasn't in reverse slope to the Pumas was it? Sometimes what looks like a perfectly good target can be spotted but is in just enough of a depression in the landscape to prevent the TACAI from firing.

Not in the official missions IIRC. The game allows for battles from June to August at the moment so Cobra is possible. I'm interested to know if the Bulge game will cater for the Lorraine-Alsace campaign.

It's your call how you spend your cash mate, if the game's that broken that it dosen't even 'adequately SIM what it is supposed to' then I suggest you look elsewhere for your gaming needs until everything gets put on hold for this game breaking priority.

I thought you'd gone back to play CMAK because this game is 'pitiful' and 'broken'?

It's actually your call if it's that big a deal for you.

Thanks for all the great work, I'd like to see the 251 series finished as well if you get a chance.

I'm constantly being told 'the cloud' is the future of gaming and that the PC as we know it will be rare in the average family home within the next 10 years. I wonder if BFC have considered the potential of this new development and whether it would be applicable to CM style gaming?

The really annoying thing is when the driver tries to align the hull to the threat constantly throwing out the gunners alignment, I've watched tanks die needlessly because of the continual correction of the gun as the hull spins.

Good idea but I'd tone down the saturation on the colours a bit, make them a fair bit lighter in shade and use black as the central charachter rather than white, they just really glow at night at the moment especially after playing with the mod that makes the icons transparent.

In my experience scenarios with strict casualty limits are the least enjoyable and the most frustrating to play, particularly for WEGO players who have to watch troops run into know minefields or artillery barrages etc. The engine just isn't refined enough nor offer the fidelity of control to have too strict limits, your always going to lose troops e.g. because an action spot put some of your men in less than favourable position or enter a house from the side where the enemy is waiting. I don't want to play scenarios that become a tedious exercise in micro-management of waypoints. Scenarios in CMBN should offer some tactical challenge whilst being flexible enough for the player - using reaonably sound tactics - to be able to get a victory without having to save after every move so they can reload if things go wrong. Having too tight casualty thresholds can easily lead to the later.

There does seem to be a belief that for a scenario to gain peer approval it has to be monitor punchingly difficult. We need to remember this is hobby that we do in our leisure time for enjoyment, sometimes I feel I'm still at work. That said I'm really grateful to anyone who's put their time into making a scenario for this game. Everyone has different tastes but I prefer a scenario where a victory is possible through the use of some tactical thought but if you get it wrong and lose some men you should be able to try a different approach and still get a minor win without having to save and reload constantly.

I had this problem in 'The Monk's Wine' scenario available from the repository. The IG's wouldn't fire on the target until they had LOS even if the FO had a direct LOS to the target.

Nice work I can't believe the modders have left german armour alone for so long.

Did you create the scenario? If so why did you make a setup zone inside the walls and have a vehicle as part of the group that can use that zone?

Does the unit group continue to tire when waiting for the injured member to catch up? If you look at the UI for the unit it will give a lower fatigue status until the straggler catches up which means the whole unit is tiring.

From my understanding there isn't anything wrong or a bug with what's happening, if the code can draw a direct line of sight through tree trunks, foliage, buildings etc, it will see it as direct spotting. The problem is in real life the actual visible area of the target would be a tiny patch of paint visible through a small window in the environment, this is unlikely to happen in real life.

I never noticed this in CMSF but unless the code has changed I see it quite often now with the more densely vegetated landscapes of CMBN. I'm talking about the ability to spot and identify a target through thick forests because the game code can draw a direct line to the target even though the actual visible area is probably only a few pixels. It's like looking through 100 slices of swiss cheese and being able to possitively identify something at the other end through the holes. In the below example my tank is engaging an ATG through thick forest the actual area of the gun that would be visible must be about the size of a football. This is at a range of 250m. I'm not saying it's a game breaker as it doesn't advantage one side or the other but it is pretty unrealistic. It is something that is common in other games like the Arma series where it is more of a problem if playing against the AI because you have to spot and shoot yourself. Maybe it's meant to be like this as it simulates magnification through the optics or something but it seems unlikely and could be something to look at for future editions.