Dietrich

Thanks very much, Normal Dude.

What gets me is when one exterior wall of a building (house type) has a door (or at least what looks like a door), yet when you order a unit into the building, the pixeltruppen go around the building (thus exposing themselves to fire) to enter via the front door, even if one adds a just-to-be-sure waypoint right by the door one wants one's pixeltruppen to enter through. I haven't encountered this all that often, but it seem to happen usually when it's important that one's squad enters a house through one door rather than the door on the oppoite side.

Yea verily, any and all dissent is swiftly and ruthlessly quashed... The multiple discussion/argument threads throughout these forums show that this simply isn't the case. Poster A thinks Idea X would be good. Poster B disagrees. Why is Poster B's disagreement wrong? If Poster A went on to disagree with Poster B, would Poster A's disagreement be regarded as not wrong? Besides, womble didn't flame or berate the OP; he merely elucidated the nature of the game in question. And he even offered suggestions as to how the OP could achieve (albeit to a quite limited degree) the effects he was after without waiting for BFC to implement the changes which the OP mentioned.

I don't really know just what I happen to do right (happen to not do incorrectly?), but I generally find the effectiveness of my snipers/scouts/engineers/etc. satisfactory. In my experience it's a matter of how one employs any given unit.

My tanks can fire on the move and hit things in CMBN. Though said firing on the move and hitting things is at Slow and at knife-fight ranges (i.e. cat-and-mouse stuff in Norman villages).

Vielen Dank, Herr Feldmarschall! I very much look forward to playing it.

First there was WoW... then there was WoCW. After seeing that Fox News segment about the percentage of "poor" (quotation marks theirs) households that have certain standard household items, I'd like to see an equivalent listing of percentage of not-"poor" households that have certain luxury items (such as yachts, cars that cost more than $100k each, etc.).

Is the sheer slowness of (limbered, fully crewed) AT guns regardless of terrain, suppression (or rather lack thereof), etc., due to the game engine's limitations? I know these guns are heavy (especially past the 50mm size) and that terrain is often poorly conducive to manhandling, but wouldn't a crew be able to move their AT gun over a short distance (say 20 meters) at least a little bit faster than a CMBN AT gun crew can, albeit thereby growing "Tired" or "Fatigued" rather quickly? Or does my supposition show signs of Hollywood-ization?

Could you cite the ones you consider "plain nonsense", so I know which ones to omit or substitute (hopefully for ones that won't also be considered "plain nonsense") in the v1.1?

I'm fully in favor of folks putting together something for the German side like what Mord has done for the American side (the more voices the better!), and thanks for all the article links in this thread. However, as an expedient, those of you who're interested may want to check out the mod I made a few months ago (Dietrich's CMBN German voice mod v1.0 at GreenAsJade's site), which omits the quiet/muffled/distorted/fake-shouted stock German voice files and replaces them with other, better stock voice files from CMBN as well as some voice files from the German edition of Company of Heroes. I plan to make a v1.1 fairly soon which incorporates voice files from a certain other WW2 game to add more variety and gusto to CMBN's German voice files.

And to top it all off, the pictured journalist's name is actually Sara Snider. /joke

Sounds like a definite challenge, Meach. My own band experience (playing guitar) has been marked by dealing with de facto leaders who expect things to be done as they say/write yet whose playing and/or composition shows that they don't actually know what they're talking about. I agree that it's a bit ridiculous when a bandmate tells you that you're out of key when he himself demonstrates little or no sense of key. What's the style of music the band plays? When you say every chord in a given song is a major chord, are they barre chords or first-position, capo-friendly fingerings? Am I inferring correctly that in your band there's a rhythm player and you're the lead guitarist? Is rhythm guitarist playing whole chords (which I'm inclined to assume he is), including the third (which, as you know, would define whether it's major or minor), or is he playing "power" chords? Are you expected to play definite lead-guitar lines or just melodic stuff which suits the singing (if there is any), or might you be free to play stuff which compliments what the rhythm guy is playing (without being strictly single-note stuff)? Pardon the barrage of questions; I'm just trying to get a better sense of the matter so as to provide the best advice I can. Rather than worry about the fact that the chords in a given song are all the same shape/tonality, I'd look at the root notes of the chords. Can you give an example of one of the band's chord progressions? I'd suggest looking at the roots and determining what tonality (major/minor/Phrygian/etc.) they suggest relative to the key. Or does whoever writes the songs not even know what the root of the song itself is? I recognize that it can be a surprisingly complex matter. I know from experience that when one knows a fair bit about music theory (even if one learned it informally and thus isn't shackled by formulae and such), it can be rather frustrating to try to work with people who know nothing about music theory yet act like you're the weird-minded ignoramus. =P

The hi-res US Army mod you're thinking of is by Ryujin. He's done a lot of great modding work for CM:SF.

My CM music is my pixeltruppen's cries of "Follow me, men!" or "Mir nach, Männer!" :cool: In a similar vein but not quite as openly aggressive: Openly aggressive, yet not confined to pyromania:

"Damn it, Jim—I'm a tank commander, not a doctor!"

FN F2000 (5.56x45mm NATO bullpup assault rifle)

Ah, so you did mean "you" in the specific, second-person sense. Oh well. Having not established myself among the ranks of those who tear every non-Germans-disdaining individual a new one at every opportunity, and having a username which is German (which just happens to be my actual name), I must in fact be a "nazi-fanboi". Guess I should set about submitting a request to have my username changed to Smedley. But now that you bring it up, Mr. Sowden, can you cite even one particular instance (other than my supposedly oh so "nazi-fanboi" initial post in this thread, that is) where I "vociferously spouted nonsense" about Rudel or Wittmann or any German at all? And in case you're wondering: No, my initial post in this thread (or any of the subsequent ones, for that matter) wasn't in any way agreeing with or defending Steiner14. I was simply making an observation relative to the "the very idea of Ernst Barkmann doing what he is said to have done at that particular place and time in Normandy is preposterous" train of discussion in this thread. In fact, I'm perfectly willing to concur with the reckoning that the "Barkmann's Corner" tale is mostly hogwash.

The corrections I see related to my heroes? Or did you simply mean "you" in the generic sense (i.e. "one")?

What with the modern predilection for superciliously asserting that all the German fighter pilots' and tank commanders' claims were vastly overinflated, I wonder what those same asserters would say in response if others asserted that Richard Bong or J.E. Johnson or Pierre Clostermann had in fact scored far fewer victories than they are generally believed to have achieved?

If I were ever actually in a foxhole, I'd want the other person in said foxhole to have weapons that were fully loaded and the knowledge to use said weapons effectively. Doesn't matter if the other person is male or female, has awesome good looks or is downright ugly. Well, she's at least crazy enough to have done something while serving in Iraq with the Royal Anglian Regiment that reportedly earned her some sort of commendation for bravery. Though the sources I looked at didn't specify what the commendation (decoration?) was or say much about the incident itself. *shrug* But speaking of good-looking British gals in a soldierly mode, lad-mag babe extraordinaire Lucy Pinder did a photoshoot in which she wore a camo bikini and some choice articles of "webbing" and wielded an M249 (or should I say an L110A1) with an optic sight. Anyway, woman plus military uniform doesn't (necessarily) equal female soldier.

Anybody here read William Manchester's The Arms of Krupp?

Taking pills (whatever the disorder/disease/symptom) is easier than getting off one's keester and leading a healthfully non-sedentary life. Why go outside (or to the gym) and get all sweaty when one can just take a pill and keep on watching TV?

High ground with concealment and (optimally) also cover. FOs are better suited to calling in mortar/artillery fire. Rule of thumb: a unit with binoculars has greater visibility range than a unit without such. No, but they're quite hard to spot, so long as they're not firing. Hope this helps. =)

*** FILMED IN SPOILER-VISION! *** One word: Bypass. In my experience, moving to engage infantry in close terrain at night is awfully dangerous. However, the infantry in the vicinity of the bridge are few and not heavily armed. You can spray the copses and hedgerows with MG fire to suppress and even drive off the infantry lurking therein. The first several times I played this scenario, I too was baffled at the idea that I was supposed to capture a bridge and hold it against a large tank-supported infantry force when I had no tanks to begin with (I admit, I never played the scenario long enough for any of my own tanks to arrive on-map) and had precious few AT assets and relatively little infantry. The way I found to win the scenario is to (1) pour fire onto any areas from which one receives fire in the vicinity of the bridge and (2) advance quickly (if you're too slow, lurking enemy infantry will immobilize or even knock out your armored cars and halftracks with grenades and bazookas) along the road to the "to Le Dezert" objective. However, if you start advancing too soon or advance too quickly along the road, you'll just run into some of the enemy tanks; but if you time it right, you can send a vanguard along the road and end up bypassing the bulk of the enemy force. Such, AIUI, is the essence of blitzkrieg: advance where the enemy isn't.

Why do I get the feeling that the above-pictured technical's rockets would be more accurate — or, rather, less inaccurate — than those of the Hind gunships which are already in the game? =P