Childress

Afraid not. It's always been the case, afaik. The downside to infantry sheltering closely behind tanks is that if the tank gets brewed up the poor grunts end up in even worse shape. Something to consider if enemy AT is lurking about. At any rate this will cease being a problem when the Intel Core i12s come out.

Dynamic weather: meh.

Your results are skewed You need to manually UNBUTTON your tanks. The other side is already unbuttoned.

Try this and share your results: https://www.dropbox.com/s/gtcmlhd0zz9azut/PZIV%20vs%20T34-85%2C%202000m.btt PIV vs T34/85, 2000m

Better then felling trees would be the treatment of AFVs as solid objects, blocking LOS and LOF. We'd have sheltered infantry following in this lee of tanks during a cross country assault or penetrating built up zones as shown in archival photos. But this may require waiting for more powerful processors.

You're not going 'deep' on us are you, Ales?

You're right, it was very unpopular on the forum. At first. Womble's 260m assault would only advanced a few dozen meters before going to ground under BB constraints. Properly, I submit.

Which do you mean? The Game or the punitive morale system?

BF needs, imo, to revisit morale resiliency and consequent casualty inflation some day. But such an overhaul would likely require wholesale reconfiguration of existing scenarios in all three games. I'm tellin' ya, CMBB had it right.

It certainly does. Were they fanatical Hitlerjugend?

Superb!Soy muy agradicido.

Hehe. Right between the ribs, sburke.

It could be a case of WAD although comments from the developers suggest otherwise. If they determine an ATG can only move x meters while remaining deployed do they make 'x' known? Terrain based? Size of gun? Crew experience?

Create a Z folder and put it inside the User Data folder. Not in the Mods folder.

Nope. March 'em across the map and they remain deployed the whole time. At least a pair of my Soviet 76s did. Note: this was over flat terrain. Never saw them firing while moving, however.

Fuser: these horizons are a significant improvement over stock. Thanks! But the stock ones are slightly blurred to give them a 3D effect. I suggest you apply a 2.0 (+ or -) Gaussian filter to your images using the Photoshop automate/batch option.

Recently, I contacted a guy on another forum. For my first foray into PBEM with CM2. We exchanged some friendly emails. I set up Dropbox. We finally got around to discussing preferred parameters; scenarios, QBs, no first turn bombardments etc. He proposed a Meeting Engagement. I counter-proposed 'anything else'. I never heard from him again.

An 'Meeting Engagement' , given the game's parameters, is a creature as mythical as the Baba Yaga. The collision of precisely even forces never happened on an actual battlefield. On the other hand, MEs are very popular especially among ladder players. They attract some of the best and most cutthroat competitors. My main PBEM partner in the CM1 days would play nothing but. But I drew the line at mirrored maps.

Haha. De nada. This oldie from the 50s will get you in the mood for your first PBEM.

An ME! Why is this not a surprise?

Here's some inspiration for ya, apoll: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fN4SWKZ3hDE ...from the film Bull Durham.

BF installed triggers in the RT QB maps? Doesn't seem possible with the near infinite permutations involved.

LOL, you're a pit bull on this subject, PP. The Assault option was, as others have pointed out, included as a player aid for use in hectic real time battles. Battlefront, in their collective wisdom, has always resisted burdening the player with additional commands or SOPs.

Nevertheless the gun traverse is noticeably quicker and they can now redeploy x number of meters without a penalty. So there has been a change. For the better, one presumes. I think many of the complaints, at least in CMBN, were rooted in the short engagement distances.

There was dissatisfaction expressed in the past over the perceived uselessness of AT guns. Namely on grounds of lethargic barrel rotation, arduous redeployment and ease of spotting. Have they over-corrected in 3.0?