A Canadian Cat

Right. We launched into a "how the game works" explanation. To be honest there are a few times where the way the game works just does not match up perfectly. Two enemy units soooo close together causes issues. I fully agree it is insane to think that the Panther cannot see the enemy tank. Unless... some of the factors mentioned actually come into play. As @womble said we don't really have the full picture with those tiny screen shots only. All of what @womble and @c3k have said have bearing on this. Including that we do not have enough information yet. But having said that this one sure looks like a case of oops. However I suspect that it falls out side of something that will be adjusted since it happens so rarely - see below for more. For more info: in the past Steve has informed us that to mitigate these kinds of happenings when units are in close proximity the spotting cycle is reduced. It is still a cycle so still not instant. This is important stuff to know. I also believe that smoke is rendered less dense in the game than the visual calculations would suggest. I have seen a few cases of units seeing the enemy behind smoke because of their viewing angle and at the same time those that are "blocked" by the smoke cannot see them but when you get down to unit level and look with your eyes you wonder how they cannot see the enemy. I feel this is down to smoke is actually more dense and we "see" in game. Yep, spot on.

Oh yes please. Sixthed from me. The run away screen happens to me several times per week. Often just as @Michael Emrys describes or when I just am trying to move the pointer out of the way. This is the single most annoying thing in the game right now - not a bad place to be really but it sure would be nice if we could have that removed.

Wow that looks really good. Are you working on another excellent urban map ala Venafro except for CMRT?

I saw your nearly identical advice in the other thread. At first I did a double take - "I thought I wrote that - what - oh that was in another thread" Actually the HT gunners are less of a target with the new tweaks. I used them to good effect in Frosty Welcome recently. I actually ran them dry - no ammo left at all. Used just this way. I lost a few gunners but nothing unreasonable. And you are right, low kills amongst the HTs compared the the squads that did the heavy lifting.

Yeah, I might have been a bit over the top. I'll let you catty remark slide (to be clear that is a joke - cause I might have deserved it). @TimoS. I should have held my tongue and saved it for if you actually did get out of line - which you really didn't. So all you other posters these last few weeks complaining because the game punished your for doing something risky or because you think your favorite equipment is not uber enough in the game I was talking to you - yeah, yeah that's it.

Yep, imagination and the accompanying hyperbole then turned into propaganda is exactly what happened. Well as you know, assuming you read for facts, they are property modeled except for pack up and deploy which is not in the game. That has been excluded because of a combination of: doing the needed work, adding the needed vehicles has not reached the top of the priority, and the CM tactual time scale is not really conducive to creating a new emplacement for these guns. Now you are being silly. People are upset with you because you are being unreasonable and not arguing about facts but instead conjecture. The fact that 88s cannot be moved or fire on their trailer is not a major draw back for the German forces in this game. You sound like someone I used to know - I wonder...

Are you sure that model had fuel tanks on the front. I thing that is bug.

LOL I see that @womble already pointed out what I find funny. I think of @womble as one of the least likely to just spout propaganda in the defense of BFC. I think of him as a person very likely to chime in to the forum with an issue and argue his point of view with skill and conviction. Of course I have trouble understanding the highly defensive tone some people take about their behaviour. I think this is in part due to human nature - it cannot be my fault my armies are being defeated. Well, I regret to inform you that it is your fault The sooner you accept that and start taking lessons away from what happened the better. Here is the thing those of us that have been here a while know that we have found bugs from time to time. If you think you found one start some testing. Respond to the critiques of your testing with more testing. Or do some research and present the evidence you find. Respond to the critique of your research with more research. If you really have found a problem guess what you will win the day. Over the last few years I can recall several topics that resulted in significant changes in the game three examples I can think of off the top of my head: Sherman tanks becoming immobilized to often (turns out some of the early testing was flawed but in the end what was discovered, by a Beta tester, who did a ton of tests there was a problem with road edges that caused an inordainment amount of bogging) MGs were less deadly that they should have been (in the original game you could just rush across an open field towards an MG with a platoon of infantry and they would take out the gun more often than not, try that now and you will be a sad platoon commander) Infantry AT rockets would not fire from inside buildings (this one was argued with research and created quite a few lively discussions before BFC changed things) Regarding your original post there is just so little there. Sorry you are frustrated but your initial post lacked clarity about why HE was being used in the first place, if the crew were unbuttoned or not what you expected to happen and why you think there was a bug - including some kind of repeatable test As you play the game you will see that often HE shells explode and pixel troops die. Very often it will not be the troops you might "expect" who will die. Sometimes a guy really close to the explosion will be fine and someone else 50m away will go down. The vast majority of the time something unexpected happens it is not a bug. It is just something unexpected. And in the absence of a more complete explanation of your original post and some testing I am not even sure if this incident is even unexpected.

All good advice. It also matters how many threats your enemy is facing. If you try to use a single HT to fire on the enemy - even from a long way off - it will attract a lot of attention. But if you have multiple fire teams and men moving around and several HTs the enemy will be focused on the closer threats and the HTs can operate without much hassle.

My gut instinct would be the opposite folders instead of one big file. Sounds like an interesting test. Sadly I don't have time to play mod musical chairs at the moment can you let us know what you find?

Can you be specific about what scenario are you loading? Mods have surprisingly little effect on load times. A couple of years ago several of us did some tests. Check this out: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103468 posts 12 and 19 for sure.

Yes, accidentally giving group orders was a common occurrence when I started. I find them useful but it is easy to forget you have group selected. I do not experience it much any more because I have trained my self to clear the selection as soon as I give the group orders. And I usually check at least a few of the members of the group afterwards - which also encourages me to only have one unit selected. Where I still get burned some times is mechanized troops. Once the troops disembark from their vehicles and start moving out on their own I sometimes for get when I group select the platoon the HTs or trucks in the back field are also selected. That has lead to a few surprises - oops As for tanks bunching up, that is another problem. The AI is not good at avoiding or clearing traffic jams. It is a simple fact that you need to mange that yourself. And I do find tanks doing all kinds of crazy stuff when they get into a jam like that. If it happens the best thing to do is cancel all move orders for those involved. Look at the blob and pick the easiest to move away and give them move orders. Do not even bother giving orders to the others until the first tanks have cleared away. Rinse and repeat until things are clear. A while back I wrote a bit about convoy management in this thread: http://wwww.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1384126#post35 convoy management is not quite what you are doing but the principal of making sure following vehicles have space behind their leaders is similar. In particular I recommend watching these two videos I created. This one is about maintaining spacing in a well managed convoy - they still get bunchy and if you don't solve the bunching every turn it just tends to get worse and worse. This one has a bit of a mess in it that I have to untangle. Neither of these have a huge hair ball that often results in turning around and around and reversing - mostly because I have learned not to let that happen any more. Hopefully it will help.

Glad to hear it. I only changed a couple of icons but it certainly is better to have the right symbol for the flame thrower. I agree.

Thank you and you are welcome. Glad you like them.

This fixes a few issues with the Allied icons and adds a flame thrower icon for the US side. All the icons should be ready when ever they arrive. Allied key: Allied preview: Axis key: Axis preview:

In the BFC repo it is named 1.01 and in CMMod warehouse it does not have version numbers. I just fixed a couple of issues that were pointed out to me.

I have updated my initial release to include flame throwers for the American / Allies and the German side. Should be ready for when they arrive in the game. Western Allies symbol key Preview German symbol key Preview

Now available in the repository: http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=3143

Check out this thread https://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113621 Steve responds to some of these issues in post #4 and #13 The basic issue is we look at a family and think that adding more locations to it would be easier and not as much work as starting a new family but clearly that is not the case. Adding more locations and more ground tiles would also have the effect of making the UI more complex - more choices in the scenario editor - more problems to solve if you start a map in Germany in 1945 and switch it to Italy in 1943 etc, etc. I am confident that they are making the right decision for their code base, resources and even us customers.

Well that certainly precipitated this change but hard coding the game directory to the user's doc folder is not really required - they could let us choose where that folder goes (as long as it is outside the protected directories). I actually logged a bug / feature request to allow that. It gets really bad when patches come out and you have multiple PBEM game going - because now your two installed versions share the same game folders and playing which turn with witch game is a real PITA.

This sounds like a brilliant technique. Making notes...

Mid bridge pile up - hummm. The best thing to do is have a way point on the land at one end and the next one on the land at the other end. Then make sure that there is some space between squads as they take turns crossing. Having said that it sounds like the number one problem you have is crossing under fire. There is a solution for that - don't. Make sure the enemy covering the bridge is suppressed, routed or killed before you cross. Crossing open ground is bad enough but crossing a choke point like a bridge is even worse when the enemy can get guns on you.

No I have not experienced that. Odd.

Oh, excellent story. Thanks for sharing sounds interesting. Like doing reverse forensic work

I took @Der Alte Fritz 's advice and made some changes. Update info can be found in the maps and mods sub forum http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1524163