A Canadian Cat

Looks like it chewed up the wall and then put a TOW through the opening. Am I reading those screen shots correctly? I have no idea if that's the "thought" process the Tac AI is using there or not. Does that sound like a viable strategy to get the TOW 2B to do damage to a building?

Two pounds? The 2pdr is 40mm diameter - the us 37mm HE rounds in the Stuart are pretty effective. So it sounds like it would be possible. Perhaps they directed their development towards better ammo for the 6pdr instead. Someone has to design this stuff and was their time better spent on designing for the 2pdr or the 6pdr or the... etc.

Yes, that is a great approach. Once someone makes a map for a scenario it will likely make one or even more good QB maps. That is exactly what @MarkEzra does. Master maps (I believe always based on real places) and scenario maps (a lot based on real places) get turned into QB maps as part of Mark's usual process. So, some portion of the QB maps are already based on real places. Dont' get me wrong, people making more is a good idea. Thumbs up. I am not sure I agree with that but I'm probably picking nits . Certainly a lot of H2H play is based on quick battles - it might even be a majority but I personally really like to play scenarios H2H. I prefer it. I don't think I am alone. Even if I am in the minority I don't think it is fair to categorize it as a limited appeal.

Sounds like the beginning of a true Scotsman argument Don't get me wrong I'll play any Eastern front game BFC put out but I have to say I am happier in Italy or France or North Africa - please pretty please.

That is excellent. I like the hunt addition - I will look for opportunities to do that. Many times there is no intervening cover but when their is I like it. The only thing I tend to do is area target the building before / as the assault team enters. If I really do not think it is occupied then I will enter with out firing but if I think it might be then I will be targeting the building before the assault team enters. Ideally that would look like two teams firing one on the lower flow and one on the upper flow. Full target or target briefly commands. I would time it so that the firing on the lower flow stops slightly before the time the team gets to the low wall (in this example) and switch the firing on the upper floor to target light at the same time. You do not want any HE hitting the building while your guys are getting ready. This is so any enemy troops in the upper floors are taking fire the whole time your guys are entering the lower floor and any enemy troops on the lower floor are taking fire as close as is safe before entry.

Yes

That would be awesome.

TMI, TMI

This thread is interesting and fun. Let's all put sonar on our ignore lists and keep this conversation going in a good direction. If we all ignore the "disruptors" we can contine to have a good conversation.

I'm going to guess they would stop

Oh now I am intrigued. They should be the same. Can you give me an example - scenario, location on the map and game time you encountered it - that I can investigate.

Sounds like just speculation to me It can be fun though.

While I clearly cannot speak for Steve I doubt that was directed at you as a put down. We have had this conversation about Eastern Front vs Western Front many many times and there are people that just will not accept the fact that Western Front games outsell Eastern Front games. You can already see it in other people's answers above. Steve has had this argument with people before - he has actual sales date to go by. Some Eastern Front fans just don't accept that there are actual reality facts behind Steve's opinion.

Oh I am pretty sure they will want to stick to the formula of accurate TO&E. When CMBN came out it didn't cover the same units as CMBO and had less of them modelled in the TO&E. Over time I think they have more equipment types in the game after adding the modules and the vehicle pack. I think he just meant that if and when the next engine is developed it the first content will be what makes sense to the game and will also use up to date research so the coverage will not be route from the old one. That's what I think anyway.

Yeah CMSF2 and CMBS are using the same engines with the same performance. I would look at the threads with discussions about nVidia profile settings and try a few out. I run my game on the best level of graphics and only have trouble in really, really big scenarios. If you can get CMSF2 to a place you are happy with then CMBS, with the same profile settings, will perform similarly.

Oh for sure. The game engine was state of the art in 200x and uses OpenGL so yeah it is not up to modern standards. It is what it is. It should be possible to get the camera to pan smoothly in the vast majority of scenarios though. The frame rate is not going to be better - anyone wanting 60 or 90 fps is just setting themselves up for disappointment.

The issue is that there is no such thing as targets in the game. So really those are live opfor forces who are probably programmed to hold fire until the enemy gets close. So, if you stay back they behave a bit like targets but if you move in they will bite.

20 to 35 fps is not unusual. Stuttering on panning is (but no doubt you will hear from some people having that problem). I have only an i5 with a 760 and I do not have stuttering unless I am playing a really big scenario with lots going on and my frame rate drops in the the low teens. At any rate there are several threads on how to set nVidia cards to perform better for CM games. Here is one: There are more in the performance section of this FAQ thread: There might be other tings you want to read in that thread to...

I am not sure exactly how that kind of scenario is being handled. I would expect that you would need to buy the British module separately - seems fair - which would mean having to check the math on what the best choice is. I would send support a line to get official clarification though since I don't represent BFC and the chances that someone who does will see this is nearly zero: https://battlefront.mojohelpdesk.com/

Revamped original ones. I am sure that people will create new scenarios for the game too.

I agree with @domfluff and @Michael Emrys keep them close to the action (not right at the pointy end mind). 60mm, 50mm I like to have right up close so they can be brought forward to target an enemy position directly. This can work with 81mm too but they are bigger and slower so my preference is not have 81mm mortars on the map - keep the off map where they have more ammo.

Yep, they will only share if their immediate HQ is the same. In real life they would probably not be thrown into battle but withdraw to reform at a later time with new guns. So, having a penalty for using them as infantry is a bonus

Roger that. Glad it was an acknowledged.

LOL especially since that likely would lead to the house or building where the game is being played also burning to the ground as well, so - pretty comparable to the real effects on the globe too.

In keeping with what I said above can you be more specific about a spotting bug? Is there a thread were a tester said they reported it? Any other acknowledgement? I just want to get it logged if it really is a problem.