Childress

If some of the revisions Steve has hinted at- enhanced MG power and suppression effects- turn out to be significant they might consider boosting the strength of the attacking side by X% in the stock scenarios. And re-adjusting QB point ratios as well.

A chacun son gout. I play on a Lenovo 15"6 laptop and am more than pleased. A 24" HDMI equipped Dell sits neglected on the desk. I thought I'd miss the bigger screen- but I don't. But, aside from CM, I'm not really a gamer- anymore.

While we're on the subject, is it still possible in 2.0 for Rino(sp?) tanks to reverse through a bocage tile?

Nah, obviously a mercy killing.

Perhaps the barrel is understood to be on the wall and your erratic results reflect the inherent instability.

Frankly, a rather facetious remark, Michael. What about the poor chap who's experiencing disappearing icons (edit: solved) or the intrepid Norton AV users who are slogging on against daunting odds? Those posters, like the wretched troops in the Courland Pocket, left isolated without a functioning shader fix patch? Those premature switchers to Windows 8?* Have you no heart, sir? * er, that's me...

Work?

ETA: two weeks. More fix-it time. Courtesy of the poster who brought up the fortification spotting issues. Thanks, pal! Some of us are reduced to reading the tech support forum for entertainment.

I don't think so. Not the obstreperous type. We did quite a few PBEMs back in the day. But I had another nick.

That rings a bell. Anyone remember a poster named 'Treeburst155'?

Because leadership effects were designed to be nebulous?

Give the scout a short Cover Arc.

Because, given the fuel component, it's heavier?

Good idea. The fixes we're waiting risk altering the game significantly and may even obsolete some existing scenarios. Depending on how far they go. In addition to addressing mechanical glitches Steve mentioned that the upcoming patch will boost suppressive effects.

Why dishonest? It's a public scenario available to all. Unless were speaking of prior agreement NOT to peek.

This guy was beneath the surface for 20 seconds tops. So, obviously holding his breath. Therefore, NOT a bug. More than a minute however is, well, problematic except perhaps for Navy Seals or- in the WW2 era- underwater demolition teams.

Ring, ding, ding, we have a winner! QS, your complaint was the 10,000th gripe post recorded on the forum. You win a, uh... Steve?

Looks atmospheric! One question unrelated to your scenario: What happens to troops that 'cower' in a fordable body of water. Do they drown? Or merely hold their breath?

Buzz, what are you doing in Ghana? Peace Corps?

I believe deploy time was fixed, no?

Real time would be a lot more plausible if BF implements- someday- the 'chess clock' idea. The commander can intervene, but only for a limited number of minutes so he's compelled to budget his spots amidst the chaos. He can't be everywhere at once. And it would be the perfect format for MP.

You Swiss must have oodles of spare time! This is going to be a defensive campaign?

Tanks firing effectively on the move, like excessive barrel elevations and other unrealistic behavior, are in the game to simplify life for the TacAI. BF is aware. The corrections could be easily implemented if the human player had absolute control. Edit: VaB beat me to it.

Most anonymous polls on wargaming forums yield a much higher average age. Closer to 50.

Wikipedia never lies.