Lurker765

This has been the case for a long, long time and has been requested for just as long a time. ie: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98775

This all seems very familiar. A review comes out that isn't as favorable as some would like. The reviewer is insulted and then the publication is dismissed. It reminds me of: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=75870 Indie game development is doing great nowadays. You have games like Angry Birds for the masses. Braid for puzzle platformers. Minecraft for builders. Depending on your definition of indie games you have great ones like Mount and Blade, Amnesia, etc. I would imagine those shops started out about as big as BFC a few years ago. You can't charge full game prices and not expect to be compared to other games for the same price. If you want the indie label and the review discount then you price yourself accordingly. If you want to compete at full price then you compete with the big shops. CMx1 got GREAT reviews from the big magazines whether they catered to twitch gamers or not. How many people here are using the standard tabbed UI controls for their games? How many are using the text file that a user made to change the hotkeys? If you are a reviewer you are using the stock game and basing your review on that then IMHO the UI is backwards. If you hit a key and your tank crew bails out rather than prowl forward looking for a target based on which tabbed window is selected then it is probably a bad UI decision.

bumpity, bumpity, bump

Sometimes exceptions are good. Any idea if the mortar/atg ammo sharing is being looked at?

But what about mortar ammo and ATG ammo? No belts or clips there.

Sounds good to me

Does this apply to all units? I have had difficulty getting mortar ammo bearers sharing with mortar crews that are not in their platoon. Ditto ATG ammo bearers.

It is all about how much time you can spend on developing these things. Sometimes kludges that achieve acceptable results are fine. The time required to code something like if your tank should stop based on X targets being around is unacceptable. Getting a CMx1 hunt command with armor cover arcs solves the vast majority of cases.

I used hunt with covered armor arcs quite well in CMx1. My tanks would hunt for armored targets and engage them at a stop and then continue on while ignoring infantry. I had no complaints in this area in CMx1

In CMx1 tanks will fire on the move if you tell them to. You can give them fast or move orders and they will proceed to their target while shooting (inaccurately). Or you can give them a hunt order and they will stop to engage a target and once that target is removed (knocked out or blocked due to visibility changes) the tank will continue moving on its way. I don't think CMx1 has this fundamental problem as you state.

How can you tell when this is going to happen?

How did an elephant get in your pajamas?

I'm sorry, but I don't have the full game (demo only so far) and can't check this scenario out myself. And I wanted to make sure I understand you since it appears English is not your first language (and I probably can't write anything in your native language). Are you saying that the soldiers involved in this particular assault were green Americans running across an open field attacking the enemy in foxholes without any working command chain while having live fire going around them in both directions?

What are you talking about? He posted the video so you can see what is happening EXACTLY. Twelve seconds into the video one of his defending soldiers stands up and shoots at the incoming soldiers (to no effect). All of the incoming soldiers are in the cover arc location. Eventually the incoming soldiers get out of the cover arc, but only after running quite some distance through the cover arc and after taking ineffective fire from the defenders and then they jump in the foxholes with the defenders! From what I can read of the text it appears the defenders are not "nervous". The text looks like it switches from "spotting" and "hiding" and only changes when the shooting starts. And he mentioned that there was no fire coming from outside onto his troops. In fact you can see the last American soldier shooting at another unit to the right of the screen that was ALSO shooting at the attacking uber-soldiers.

How is this possible? He had a cover arc so that his men would open fire on the exact area they would be coming from. The enemy soldiers arrived in that area and even stopped and stood there for 5-10 seconds. Isn't that the purpose of a cover arc? To limit your men to shooting at someone in a specific area and when the enemy goes there they should get shot?

This is my experience as well.

I have found that having units lying on the ground in between the foxholes provides better cover for my men than being IN a foxhole. I have had squads wiped out with the last man almost always being whomever was lying prone behind or between foxholes. So how would everyone recommend doing an ambush in CMBN if you can't use hide and covered arc? If you don't hide then you get spotted. If you do hide then you fire last. I'm also giving up on attack/defense battles until the patch. I'm curious to see the change in protection.

In my case there was no tree between the gun and the targets. The first few turns there might have been, but the armored cars moved up to within 50 m of the gun and it still did the spotting/planning dance

Yes. Into the exact same position that is shown earlier in this thread. This has happened both times I played this scenario from the American side.

same thing for me with an ATG in the same spot. It refuses to fire at armored cars 50m away and the gunner just alternates between "spotting" and "planning" for minutes at a time. He only quit when the armored cars spotted him and killed him.

You are also assuming the interior of the tanks are hollow and the shell didn't hit anything of note inside the tanks (like an engine). The picture on page 2 seems unlikely to have missed some large interior objects.

bumping again. does anyone know the answer to this? I'm still curious about my foxhole question. If a soldier is lying between the four foxholes (not in one) is he protected from bullets that appear to hit the foxhole? Am I worrying and trying face commands every turn just to get a soldier INTO the foxhole when he is fine hiding behind one? Also, since it is a PBEM battle does this have the problem of the randomizing locations? From what I can tell that is not the case since my HMG crew has the two crewmen sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while the rest of the squad are all dead inside the foxholes. These men have not budged from their center location during this battle so it appears they aren't rotating around. It is odd that the last men alive in that HMG squad are the two that are operating the HMG and sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while everyone with a rifle and IN a foxhole are dead.

Great news that a bug was found and squished. Thanks for the update. I'm still curious about my foxhole question. If a soldier is lying between the four foxholes (not in one) is he protected from bullets that appear to hit the foxhole? Am I worrying and trying face commands every turn just to get a soldier INTO the foxhole when he is fine hiding behind one? Also, since it is a PBEM battle does this have the problem of the randomizing locations? From what I can tell that is not the case since my HMG crew has the two crewmen sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while the rest of the squad are all dead inside the foxholes. These men have not budged from their center location during this battle so it appears they aren't rotating around. It is odd that the last men alive in that HMG squad are the two that are operating the HMG and sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while everyone with a rifle and IN a foxhole are dead.

Bump for my foxhole question again. If a soldier is lying between the four foxholes (not in one) is he protected from bullets that appear to hit the foxhole? Am I worrying and trying face commands every turn just to get a soldier INTO the foxhole when he is fine hiding behind one?

it's from the demo game scenario Busting the Bocage. Whatever the Americans have in that scenario is where I noticed that the artillery is absolutely deadly to troops cowering in their trenches. I can't remember what the four soldiers were doing when the one shell wiped them out that turn, but from what I remember there was more cowering than spotting going on while the shells were raining down. I have no problems with someone getting whacked from 100 feet away from a 105mm shell (if that is what it was), but if they are in a trench that seems a bit much. Especially four men at once. That same scenario is where I found the massive difficulties in getting my men to stay in their trenches even if they weren't under fire. They just prefer to go into the bocage, but I wanted them to stay away from it so they could ambush the Americans when the enemy snuggled up to the bocage. But, every turn my men crawled out of the trenches and back to the bocage even if the artillery was landing next to them (unless they were cowering and stayed in the trenches). So, every turn I would send them back to the trenches and this repeated until most of them died. The four casualties in the trench fell victim to a somewhat stray shell and they were in the open away from anything that would tempt them out of their trench. Anyway, do the raised up off the ground foxholes actually provide cover to the men hiding behind (not in) them? WYSIWYG and all that?