Childress

Isn't that supposed to be impossible- or difficult- with the recent tanks-in-urban-areas tweaks?

Because it's not as simple to code as imagined? A Follow command would be almost mandatory playing a Huge RT battle with lots of vehicles. In WEGO, useful, but not critically important, imo. Particularly for those now playing the MG module with its plethora of infantry scenarios.

It's astonishing that no enterprising lawyer (solicitor?) across the pond hasn't yet initiated a class action suit citing invaders from previous periods; namely the Romans, the Vikings and the Normans. There's surely a pot of gold in there somewhere. The case of the latter may, however, prove arduous; William the Conqueror did actually have a feeble family connection to the recently expired and childless King Edward.

But you said: 'You have okayed the evil of one side because it is the side you side with.' Cognitive dissonance?

Why did the West prevail beside their advantages in technology and numbers? When Europeans came to the New World, they brought with them a silent ally, infectious disease, to which the indigenes, in both Americas, had no immunity. Additionally the tribes were divided and generally hostile to each other. Now and then a charismatic leader like Tecumseh (a great man) arose and was able to assemble a coalition that challenged White encroachments. But this was the exception not the rule. The natives also suffered- and suffer to this day- a susceptiblity to alcoholism, an unknown toxin to them, which caused ravages among their populations. The subject of alcohol and its effects on primitive cultures is a fascinating one. One theory posits that wine, already common in the Middle East, followed the expansion of the Roman Empire north. Over the centuries the occupied territories gradually developed a kind of immunity to the disease. This explains the higher rates of alcoholism in lands never subjugated by the Romans, e.g., Scandinavia, Russia and Ireland. Edit: Yes, indeed.

Films and photos suggest that modern troops spread how a lot more. Due to the fact that they're professional, non-conscripts? Or the assault rifle?

Well you did single out 'Europeans and white Americans (and their descendants!)' as excelling in the murder business. Not a slur? Or it could be my- race based- hair trigger sensitivity acting up. You know how stroppy us white folks can be.

Judging by some of the WW2 photos I've seen they don't seem to bunch up enough. I even question the ability of sub-regular squads to divide up and present a wide frontage.

You're flirting with racism there, Michael. Human nature is universal. Indians*, mired in their Stone Age culture, hadn't got around to inventing the wheel. Do you wish that the United States. never happened? Or Australia? That Europeans hunkered down in their over-populated continent? And sent a regiments of lawyers, diplomats and bankers to bargain with the natives? Please, Noble Savages, let us settle in this tiny corner of Massachusetts! We'll pay rent! With beads! At lest we British colonists behaved better that the Spaniards. And how do you feel about penicillin, the polio vaccine and living past the age of forty? *And they were environmentalist slobs.

The lesson is, that if great numbers of foreigners come to settle in your land, and you can't or won't do anything to stop them, then soon it's not your land any more. It's their land. As an American with Indian ancestry (Algonquin) on my father's side I feel zero guilt. JasonC has a point, it's rather a lose-win situation for the natives. Better living a humdrum middle-class life than inhabiting some wretched reservation passed out in a pool of your own vomit. And what country in history hasn't displaced the original inhabitants? Usually it's for the general good. Like Britain.

While the Indians were living their own way of life, the attitude of Americans to them varied with distance. People who had to actually deal with them, like Kit Carson and the young Theodore Roosevelt, disliked them, describing them as larcenous, treacherous, and cruel. In the East Coast cities far from where the Indians actually were, sentimentality about the Noble Savage was normal, and they were thought of as fierce warriors chocked full with dignity and pride, living a healthy outdoor life and worshiping the spirits of Nature. Once the Indians had been subjugated and were no longer a threat to anyone, the Noble Savage view became universal. Now we're all supposed to feel terrible about having dispossessed them of their land and their happy, healthy, nature-respecting way of life.

Uh, it''s free, Jon.

With the ever encroaching bureaucracy now building in our country the Confederacy's looking better every year. Minus the Slavery detail, bien entendu.

And vice versa. Here's an idea: divide a US squads into its three constituent parts and send them on their way. Voila! You have a Flying Wedge. Use Hunt and they'll spread. Or judicious pauses when Quick moving. My problem with Quick is that after a few dozens meters they the men begin to form a Conga line divided by, in the case of US squads, their three organic teams. They do start out in a usefully ragged manner. This could be improved. The Italians are the worst. Cheers.

This is long. Can you give us the Cliff Notes version? Remember, theories, training manuals, parade grounds and DoW bulletins don't count. Anecdotes, photos and films do. We need flying bullets. Edit: I ran into this useful post from Michael Emrys buried in the thread cited above: Oh, the teamwork was there, but from what I can recall after looking at hundreds of photos over the years of infantrymen in combat is that the formations were pretty amorphous most of the time. That is, men placed themselves wherever there was cover and/or they could get a shot at the enemy, and all that was determined by terrain. An exception being when they were moving through terrain that forced them to move in single file, like when following a jungle trail or confined mountainous terrain. In an open field, they might shake out into a loose skirmish line, but I wouldn't expect them to be evenly spaced or equally advanced. In wooded country, their formations would best be described as "blobs" with each man trying to keep within visual range of at least two or three of his squad mates. In urban fighting, two or three guys were usually very close together, but with spacing between such groups dependent on the tactical situation. All this is for troops with some combat experience. Green troops tended to bunch up more except for stragglers.

Yes. There's no photographic or documentary proof that this happened on the squad level outside training grounds. Perhaps- maybe- Line Abreast (for Vets) but nothing more complex. There's no evidence. Battles are chaotic and frightening, every pair of eyes is searching for cover. You do, however, read of battalions and companies advancing in formation- even the Arrowhead. Please back up your assertions. Preferably with an archival photo- there are thousands of them. This one proved to be bogus: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=108670&page=16&highlight=line+abreast

As infantry really moved? Please furnish an example of a WW2 squad assuming a formation under actual combat conditions. A photo or link will do.

Anyone here know where I can lay my hands on some of this super fine I-Hate-Battlefront loco weed? Crystal meth, 'H', Extasy: b-or-i-n-g... You met your match, losers! I'm thinking distribution. Maybe team up with an investor/partner. How 'bout it, Emrys? We'll go Breaking Bad on this town.

My idea, which is a minor one, aims to enhance the 'feel' of the game, the immersion factor. Desultory, theater wide shelling doesn't account for the discrepancy. Additionally, it was a fact that the number of dead was not known until several hours or days post battle as the severely wounded expired. (this is getting ghoulish )

The battle end screen shows X amount of wounded and Y amount of dead. These numbers, typically high, tend to be a-historically skewed in favor of the dead. Posters point out that very minor wounds and yellow icons are not included in the tally. Okay... You wonder why the game bothers differentiating Wounded and Killed troops during a battle. Why not simply 'Casualties'? A dead trooper and one with a fractured leg are equally hors de combat for game purposes. The game could simply apply a formula that plausibly- and immersively- distributes the dead and wounded (and perhaps surrendered) at battle's conclusion modified by the nature of the engagement. Buddy Aid continues as usual for the retrievable cases.

Assuming you mean British paras (traitor ) the goal seems to be reducing them from afar before closing in. The paras' quality and morale are high and the Germans can't match their devastating close quarters fire power. Stens and what not. But their ammo reserves are not limitless. And help is not on the way.

Yeah, he's a piece of work. With his insidious, 'I really wanted to like this, but...' 5/10 reviews. Maybe Battlefront made a mistake in banning him. On Lyndon Johnson's principle: ' it's better to have 'em inside the tent p*ssing out than outside the tent p*ssing in'.

That group definitely exists.You even run into some of 'em on Amazon. I'm expecting a scathing review of the MG module inside the next HMO newsletter. These range in tone from jilted lover venom to the regretful, damn-it-with-faint-praise approach perfected by you know who- apparently a niche speciality. The closest analogy that comes to mind was, I've heard, the transition from Civ4 to Civ5. The developers eliminated the 'Stack-of-Doom'. Sounds like an upgrade to me but howls of treason arose from the Steam forums. But Sid Meier and the suits from Firaxis maintain a diplomatic absence from the trenches. They operate through surrogates.

Yes, a mystery wrapped in an enigma. You could consider the reaction a 'noumenon', which, unlike a phenomenon, is not directly accessible to observation. At the very least it merits an article in Psychology Today- make that Psychopathology Today. The hilarious aspect is that majority of the most vociferous posters seems to have purchased all the BF products.

Ah, yes, the glories of the CM1 series! They were so good at it! And how could they have dared to leave out **** or ****! A couple of years ago on another forum, after the release of CMBN, I and a couple of other posters defended Battlefront against a horde of angry jihadis. Emotionalism ran high. There was a palpable atmosphere of personal betrayal. It was the strangest damn thing. But amusing in its own way. One of the grievances, among many, was the DRM. A poster listed a number of wildly popular games that employed protection schemes. That elicited a shrug- may as well complain about the weather. But on the part of BFC, unforgivable! Or the premature release of Shock Force 1.0. Which was six years ago and fixed many times over. BF got no credit for that. Or the prickly attitude of some of the moderators. Frankly, if I were Steve , I'd consider hiring Vito to have some of the more obnoxious whiners whacked. (just kidding )