A Canadian Cat

I cannot find a ban anywhere. Google turns up many references to things like "many thing it should banned" or "many think it is banned but it is not". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flamethrower " Flamethrowers have not been in the U.S. arsenal since 1978, when the Department of Defense unilaterally stopped using them. They have been deemed of questionable effectiveness in modern combat and the use of flame weapons is always a public relations issue due to the horrific death they inflict. Despite some assertions, they are not generally banned, but are banned for use against civilians, or against military targets in a concentration of civilians under some circumstances. " Several articles I found talked about the US army's decision to stop using them as one of optics and a feeling that they are not necessary on a modern battles field. But those same articles also talked about the equipment as being explosive and dangerous so big grain of salt there.

Agreed. Lots of thoughts and ideas around to make the TacAI better but making each soldier a perfect uber soldier it not something I would like to see.

That's what I mean that restriction would be news to me. I suppose it could have always been there and I just never noticed.

Slow the F down. Every time I get board because I am not making contact and start moving faster or not being careful about whose over-watching for whom it has ended badly.

I am not sure why @Bulletpoint seems so jaded Those sound like very reasonable ideas... Yeah, that would be nice. As you already said the way "around" this is to move back and forth but the down side, as you already said, is it really only works with vehicles. Yeah, this comes up every now and then. It sucks when your guys are moving through a wheat field and can see the enemy shooting at them and then they all hit the deck and prompt loose sight of the enemy. Doh! No one has really come up with a perfect solution for this. The added micro managing required is not welcome by some players and even if you go with "it would be optional" the Tac AI cannot make use of it so the player gets another advantage. Oh wait I am starting to see why @Bulletpoint might be getting jaded... People have asked for this. The basic message has been that BFC is not very interested in creating a whole medivac aspect to the game. Mainly because they don't think we want it either. Oh man I did it again now I am truly living up to @Bulletpoint's expectations . In my defence I'm just trying to fill you in on the past conversations that have happened and poke a little fun at my self and @Bulletpoint - hopefully he will not be too annoyed cause that's not my goal (and he probably knows I can be damned annoying if I want - trying hard not to be as annoying this week). There actually is a little bit more of an incentive to perform Buddy Aid. At the end of a game there is a calculation made over how many of the wounded soldiers actually end up dying and those that are buddy aided off the battle field are less likely to end up that way plus if they are off the battle field due to buddy aid they cannot be killed by events later in the battle. Yes, guys who are wounded can still get killed - pretty amazing even when you notice it happening actually. Yes, yes and yes that would be great. Sorry @Michael Emrys actual peaking is not in the game (there are a ton of instances where it can appear to be happening just because of the way soldiers are positioned and how the geography works out but it is just luck right now no one is actually peaking around corners). This a much asked for feature. Probably the number one ask from your list. Yeah I see that is already getting a lot of discussion - we have talked about it a lot. Currently the Tac AI does not do any recon by fire or shooting at ? contacts. Several of us have asked to level the playing field and have the Tac AI fire at ? icons on its own. That would be cool. The other thing you can do is check out Bil's Command Friction rules:

Yes, too often some of us forget that. Or probably never knew it since most people don't spend as much time thinking about this as you have. +1

Wait that is still odd. I am not aware of a restriction on which trucks in game can tow a gun. Is that expected behaviour that only assigned trucks can tow AT guns?

+1 to that. Just make sure you start with attitude that the pixel troops are not modelling super humans and not with the attitude "well *I'd* never do that". That makes a big difference.

Yep. Mind you it also feels pretty weird that my son drives and that I am working late tonight and no one is going to be sad that daddy is not home to tuck them in. Heck they'll probably be up when I get home anyway

What you want Christmas in July? Isn't Christmas once a year enough

Not sure what operation you are talking about @JoMc67 but I think @Sublime is talking about the Barbarossa that was launched on June 22, 1941: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa

On a PC they are stored in <mydocuments>\Battlefront\Combat Mission\<gamename>\Game Files\Saved Games. There is also "Incoming Email" and "Outgoing Email" under the "Game Files" directories for when you play by email against a human opponent. For CMBN it is different - the "Game Files" directory is under the program install directory and on the Mac I have no idea where they are so if you need that let people know and someone will fill you in.

That is what that symbol means. To tow the gun there has to be enough available seats for the gun crew as well. What kind of At gun are we talking about here because that matters to. I do not think a jeep or a bren carrier can handle a 76mm AT gun but a 57mm is no problem. You want the towing vehicle to be as close to the AT gun as possible. Gun crews take a long time to move even short distances so once you figure out which vehicle can tow it get that vehicle as close as possible to it.

There is no fire power number. The game is tracking simulated bullets fired by simulated soldiers. I think you should consider tweaking the way you are looking at it. Even though you might be working out the same result in this case the way you are thinking about it will will diverge from the way the game behaves at some point. Said with the utmost respect and civility - you clearly think carefully about the way the game works.

The way @womble and @llCptMillerll are explaining it is much more reflective of how the game works. @shift8, as soon as you start talking about infantry as "just a "block" with xxxx fire, xxxx movement, xxxx cover, xxxx leadership xxxxx etc. " you are drifting away from how the game works. You might think that you end up in the same place but that mental model is not correct and could lead to thinking that a squad with two MG42s and several rifles will always be more powerful than a squad with the same number of guys but only one MG42. This is not the case. If the two squads are positioned in such away that only two guys with rifles can see the enemy then that enemy experience the same incoming fire from each of those two squads. It is *not* fire power xxxx / n it is just two guys with rifles. This is because the game *does* represent infantry on a 1:1 basis. You are quite correct that there is math and abstraction in behind that but the 1:1 is real and there are not blocks of firepower etc.

Yes, quite right. I was referring to the latest version.

LOL yes it can be confusing but the new standard is to list the game version 1.03 in this case and put the engine version underneath which for CMRT is engine version 3. That certainly helps. The only game that does not list the version like that is CMFI on the PC but I am sure that will change once they get around to the next update to CMFI.

Oh yes that can be true depending on the terrain. So Panther drivers want to be higher and at least partial hull down to put some dirt and rocks between your enemy and your more fragile lower front hull armour.

Well you are making me doubt myself but pretty sure I play most games most days and I am pretty sure they all say Engine version 3 (except CMFI but on the PC 1.2 is using engine version 3). Isn't CMRT where engine version 3 was introduced? (that part I am not so sure about).

If that were true when I posted that I would agree with you. This thread has evolved into something that touches the edges of discussing some points that might be worth considering but that was despite the OP not because if it. As you may have noticed I have refrained form further patronizing and sarcastic posts and will continue to do so.

Nice explanation @shift8. Everyone with a Panther will be driving around cocky after that Buuuuuuuut don't forget the relative heights of the vehicles matter in game. Which means that if a Panther is in a slightly higher level than the shooter (which it actually looks like in the screen shot) the Panther is in an even better position in terms of its frontal armour. But if it at a lower level than the shooter the angle will be less and things start to change. The game actually takes into account the path that AP rounds is actually on when it hits.

Ah, CMBF is using engine version 3 just like the others. So, I think the next update for other titles would be a patch - at least until the next engine version comes along.

Good points about smoke - and they have been discussed before for sure. Just FYI you can area fire near the smoke and some of the bullets will keep going and have an effect through the smoke. I realize that is not as good as the real thing just letting you know there is a partial workaround.

Yikes. I'm in the dark. BBT? Googling for that did not turn up anything that made sense other than "Born Before Technology" but I still don't get it. And what is the 17s of unseen footage? Again Google turned up zip. Just not getting it

That would be nice I agree. I personally like the option to go to a 3D preview but other solutions would be fine as well. Hopefully one day.