Childress

I just noticed that the FO was able to access the guns, like you. I didn't try to lay down a barrage. I was just plinking around with the scenario; it features lot of low walls, which are buggered in 1.00, in key positions so won't get into it until the patch is released. Interesting map, I must say. Somewhat paranoia inducing.

Er, I believe you're wrong about this.

None. It's the fault of Battlefront getting into the simulation business. When you base a game on a vision of reality you're seeking anguish. Problem is, everybody considers himself an expert on reality. One suspects that few complain about the combat modelling in Starcraft. The carping is even more intense- and obnoxious- on the racing and flight sim boards.

Thanks a lot, Rokko. You may have delayed the patch another week.

Gee, this thread is so much more pleasant than that, er, other one.

Forumites may get a jolt of perspective from this amusing column: Ignorance is Bliss, by Tim Stone. http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/20/heavily-engaged-ignorance-is-bliss/#more-62713

So true. Battlefront, Steve and the rest, unlike some of the remote, Olympian gods on other forums (Gary Grigsby?) are not afraid to get down in the mud and debate and enlighten posters, some of whom can be unreasonable and impatient. More power to them! It kind of reminds me of ancient Greece with its tumultuous democracy.

Rocken and Gabby Johnson: separated at birth?

Eloquent post, RH. Totally agree.

By all means. In 1.02. They've got bigger fish to fry for 1.01.

Sort of agree, they do seem to spot somewhat better. I was one of those who lobbied for more differentiation among movement speeds in CMSF. For example, increasing the onset of fatigue- a bit- when using Quick (esp for heavy weapon teams), making that option a logical mid-point between Move and Fast. But the Gods were deaf.

Doesn't the manual say that Moving troops spot better than Quick troops?

Better come up with another name, Steve. It's diverting attention from your scenario.

Seems pretty clear. Accuracy% should decrease with rate of speed modified by speed of the targeted tank. Worst possible scenario: a vehicle on FAST firing at an enemy vehicle on FAST. Keeping in mind, that tanks were expected to fire in motion occasionally. But not, according to another poster, beyond 500m. Question: are Allied gyrostabilizers (sp?) depicted? You read that the crews often disabled them.

Ha ha. Best title ever.

It’s extraordinary how many leaders in history have been cheaters. Bill Clinton is said to have surreptitiously improved his lie in golf and 'enhanced' his score card. The twisted Roman emperor Caligula cheated at Tabula, the Roman pre-cursor to Backgammon. Henry VIII cheated at bowls and tennis. Napoleon cheated merrily at Whist. And Lenin reportedly cheated in chess- which isn't easy to do.

The space shuttle program enjoyed years of successful flights. But some defective o-rings found their way into one of the Challenger's rocket boosters. S&%$ happens.

I dunno. But another oddity that I think remember seeing was that under the Damage tab there was no track damage entry for the HQ tank.

I dabbled in simracing a few years ago and I can assure that those forums make this one look like a Victorian tea party. You hear the same about the flight sim community. (Maybe something about 'sims',?) My theory is that the developers are usually wiser than the fans. If everyone of us who complained or lobbied for a new feature, or a restored feature, got their wish we'd probably end up hating the game by turning it into an overloaded, unplayable kludge. CMBN and its progeny will be great.

Er, Steve, I'm on your side. Agree with your comments. (Ducks)

I have. The bugs illustrated by our valuable testers are conclusive: CMBN isn't quite ready for prime time. But not disappointed, this was to be expected. It's a complex game, the dev team is small and it's early.

Or some code parameters were simply reversed.

It means that if you're ever sentenced to death by firing squad be sure to demand, as your last request, a CM™ wall.

Downloaded your file, sburke. It was kind of a trip. You're a wild and crazy guy. Yes, it appears something is amiss. Or at least, counter-intuitive.

I think this was previously discussed, but does the rear MG on this vehicle actually function? Or is it just a beauty mark?