A Canadian Cat

From the announcement: I have two questions: 1) Can someone specify what the controls will be like in those modes (if that is the right term)? 2) Does that mean I can turn off the "mouse near the edges = camera flies away out of control because I continually forget that is a special control area"? OK three questions: 3) How do you switch between sets of controls?

OK this tagging thing sounds interesting but with some of these specifics coming out I am now scared. Right, for example, now I have all of Aris's vehicle mods and I pretty much want them there all the time. I am OK with scenarios coming with mods that go with them and having them override my choice. That part = cool. But if all the moders start tagging their mods then if I want to use them everywhere I need to a) rename the files to remove the tag so they override the default OR I have to edit each scenario I want to play and add the tag. Not sure if will even work for a QB. This part = scary. Or did I misinterpret what has been shared so far?

Right, got it. That makes sense. When you say "add the tag" where are we talking about? Is this at scenario creation time? Or can it be tweaked mid game?

Oh, a bit of a can of worms eh. I was impressed that the ricochet hits were in so the rest I'll just not worry about. Some of those tanks will look pretty chewed up at the end of a hard battle. Vehicle numbers - that would be cool too.

Cool - who are you playing against this time?

My prediction is between March 11th and March 16th.

LOL sounds like fun actually. I am sure during the normal play I would prefer not to see hot pick hits but in the battle review that would be cool. Question though - why are you using then via the mod tags? What does that get you? I thought those were to run scenario specific mods.

I noticed that too - very very cool.

Pulling your leg

My rule is don't hit the BRB until you are really done. If you save the turn and want to stop the game you can just quite and load the save later. To avoid surprising number jumps I have a habit of adding '_save' after the current number and then when I am ready to really send the turn I delete the '_save 001' off the end of the name so my opponent sees the turn number they were expecting to see. That naming scheme has the added benefit of making it clear in the turn list which ones are just saves from past turns.

I recommend that for sure - since it eliminates selecting maps or time frames that they cannot use etc. However it is still possible for the person with MG to select troops that will cause their opponent to not be able to open the return file. I do not know of an easy way to be sure you select valid forces. If you run into a problem though you do *not* have to start over from nothing. Just select different forces again using the same turn you were last sent by your opponent.

Check out this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=113299 Short answers are: it does work but you have to be careful; yes; probably not.

This is brilliant - thank you. Set expectations - good. Thanks for the details - those are good outcomes. While it is good that we will have the information we need to make the best decisions. Don't forget "**** happens".

Yeah there is debate about that. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons bans all incendiary devices. However it has a limitation on the ban that allows the use of devices that might have secondary incendiary effects for illuminants, tracers, smoke or signalling systems. So, white phosphorus is used in smoke munitions and can therefore be considered to be part of the exception. Many feel that the fact that it sometimes gets used to intentionally set fire to things is not covered by the convention. Mind you there is debate and many disagree with the literal interpretation and think that the purpose of the specific use of the weapon should be taken into account. In other words using white phosphorous for the purpose of creating a smoke screen is OK but using it to burn down a building or burn out the enemy from a forest is not.

I am glad @gdbf01 that your gun is OK. I think it is wrong for an empty bunker to be ignored though. Empty or not the AT gun should shoot at it if it can. Does anyone else think this is incorrect behaviour?

True, my standard are pretty high:) To be frank I would have liked this to be handled seamlessly from a usability point of view but, at this point, spending resources on making this better - no thanks. They have more valuable things to do.

Yeah, that is not a good thing.

Cool, thanks for the info. I am working on a scenario with a portion of your original map so I'll be taking care of that text info already.

LOL I had not thought about this issue much until that recent post on the Blitz and thinking about what you mention above is down right scary. :eek: well maybe if BFC said it but for us users it is just recognizing reality. Look I agree this kind of restricting available units in a QB force picker is the kind of thing that I would have expected to just be there. It already does it for time frame and location so I think it should just be there for modules. But they did not code it and lets face it we know that PBEM and LAN play is a vast minority of their customers. So, the truth is they are not going to spend resources on this kind of thing. Especially when one thing it actually encourages is to have friends get all the modules so this kind of thing does not happen to them.

How much has changed?

For a scenario that will work perfectly. For a Quick Battle, even if the person without the module starts the game the person with the CW module can select unsupported forces and end up having the first person unable to open the turn. There was a post on TheBlitz just a short while ago where this happened. So, just make sure you select only base game forces and it will work.

What those *are* real melons But this is not a real tank. A few friends of my son did this one weekend:

You are thinking like they used the CM1x code as a starting point for the new work on CM2x. The feature was not removed from CM2x games it was never implemented in them. It would be a nice feature and was often fun in CM1 games. I am not really loosing sleep over it not being there though. Yes, and they do bounce around in new new games too. Plus, they are often not very close either.

The way Windows expects things to be I do not think that will happen. I just hope that there is a place in the settings that we can control where the game files go. Heck even an install option would be better than it is now.

I recommend using Google instead of the forum search tool. Simply type "site:battlefront.com" in front of your search terms and it will only look at stuff on the BFC site.