Chris69

He's living up to his name.

Not quite first. US Navy Fighters, 1994 is the earliest one I'm aware of. DCS A10 is great, but a lot of effort and DCS World as a whole seems to be quite the work-in-progress. Good tutorials are available, though, and the in-game ones are good enough to get you started (..quite literally). You can get it on Steam for very little money once it pops up as a deal again, I don't think you'll be disappointed if you're into flight sims.

Consider this: 17 May 2011 CM Battle for Normandy release 20 July 2011 CM Battle for Normandy v1.01 Patch (PC & Mac) 05 March 2012 Commonwealth module release 21 March 2012 CM Battle for Normandy v1.10 Patch (PC & Mac) 02 August 2012 CM Fortress Italy release (engine v2.0) 07 December 2012 CM Battle for Normandy v1.11 Patch (PC & Mac) 11 December 2012 Normandy 2.0 release 15 February 2013 CM Battle for Normandy v2.01 Patch (PC & Mac) Observations: there's a new "baseline" patch for each module released, and one follow-up to fix stuff. For all intents and purposes, the 2.0 upgrade is a new baseline version. The 2.10 patch for CMBN without MG should follow in just a few weeks, apparently. The situation is similar with Fortress Italy. However, note when owners of the 1.xx versions got their last patch. It was my understanding that older engine versions would still be supported for a while following an upgrade, but after almost a year and little word from BFC, who knows if there's anything in the works at all. Being a mean guy, I'm inclined to say that you do have to pay for patches, after all. There was a pretty substantial one that addressed machine gun behavior. Will these changes ever make it to 1.xx? I wonder how this will look like when more game families are released - patches being few and far between already, with 2 game families "active" and a bunch in the works.

Speaking of analyses.. you mentioned in the other AAR you might do a "public" OAKOC analysis of a QB map. Can we expect this to happen here? If not, thanks anyway for doing another AAR.

Doesn't much of this boil down to how the tank crew (gunner and commander) is modeled in-game? I would assume 1-1 representation works that way, especially considering that one incident where some tank crewman wouldn't spot things because he was looking at the turret wall... If it doesn't, disregard the following paragraph. If a tank is pausing, it does not move. Therefore, it is a perfectly stable gun platform for the time being. Whether there is intent to move again in a discrete amount of time or not is irrelevant. What is relevant, or rather should be, is the difficulty the gunner should have in keeping the target in sight, his aim true, his estimation of range etc. correct while on the move, i.e. his spotting/tracking/gunnery abilities as well as situational awareness (which maybe correlates with the commander spotting and assigning targets to the gunner). Whether or not the tank itself has been standing still for 1 second or 60 minutes shouldn't affect that particular equation.

That is not at all what he is arguing. Key word here being an indefinite pause order. Which means that after a few rounds after stopping (if the tank was moving before, in the first place), accuracy should approach the control group's level, because the tank is not moving at all while firing those 100 rounds. He is not simulating shoot'n'scoot.

Is that module icon final?

There was some discussion a while ago as to how this information could be conveyed to the player best. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=101894&page=2 The issue is not whether it is a balanced game to play the scenario H2H or as Axis/Allied, it's just to indicate if it is possible (i.e. AI plans exist for the respective opponent). If it isn't recommended, well, that's something that would fit perfectly in the description. The nuisance of having to double-check every scenario in the editor for AI plans is one that should be avoidable.

It's usually one of two cases: either they just ran a few hundred meters across open terrain, from the point their vehicle was knocked out to whatever waypoint they should have driven it to, or they are somewhere near the KO'd vehicle they recently exited from. And as we all know, there is no better firing position in the world than behind a burning Sherman without wet ammo storage.

The difference lies in the amount of purchase points allocated. The attacker's points are increased and the defender's points decreased, from Probe being the least advantage for the attacker, and Assault the highest.

Map size notwithstanding, if you can buy formations by the bataillon (fire up a Large/Huge QB and marvel at all the goodies you can buy!) it certainly isn't unreasonable to assume that the game can handle one of them + assorted extras. Regarding pathfinding... I wish you'd have a preview function in the game, just so you can see how the plotted movements work out and adapt your plan accordingly. While this doesn't improve pathfinding itself (and would thus be of little to no use to mostly RT guys like me...), it would massively help you maneuver around the shortcomings of the AI in that regard (gee whiz, bad pun).

7-Zip does the trick as well, and it's open source and stuff. For all other cheapskates out there. Thanks very much, the terrain looks terrific.

Not to mention the lack of any sources or the absolutely unnecessary political agenda included in Steiner's post. Schneider even mentions the necessity to have other tanks observe round impacts in "Panzer Tactics" (Defense chapter), because smoke from the discharge could obscure the target for several seconds.

So, I just shamelessly borrowed the player/computer graphics from People's General and made a mock-up of what I posted before would be a nice solution.

While plausible it's certainly the more "backwards" way of approaching it. Like negative control questions in a survey... Anyway, if you want to include symbols, you might as well use a player symbol (like a head f.e.) and a computer symbol instead of "yes" and "no". That way, you also get rid of the H2H component. I'm no use with graphics programs, so you'll get some ASCII examples: o = human, # = computer/AI Axis: o / # Allies : o => H2H or Allies vs AI possible. Axis: o Allies: o => H2H only. Axis: o Allies: # => Axis vs AI only. Axis: o / # Allies: o / # => Anything goes.