A Canadian Cat

Could very well be. I have only ever tried this once - 2 hour battle on a 2km by 2km map. I suspect it might never come up again. Frankly I'll take whatever tweaking you are comfortable with and move on.

LOL fun video. I would say: for wet / uneven terrain 3-4 times longer or perhaps worse and while under fire: totally not going to happen - keep on driving. One thing I noticed was that one CF member who was not directly part of the team slipped in to stick his boot behind the wheel at one point and at the end to hold onto the front bumper to prevent the jeep from rolling away. Clearly they had practiced this demo on a nice level floor and had not added wheel blocks to the drill.

The way I think of it is that the command icons (voice, visual, distance visual etc.) for a squad will tell you if they will benefit from the guidance and encouragement of a commander (be it their Platoon HQ or their Company HQ). While the chain of command icons indicate if the intelligence flow is interrupted - having it all intact helps with spotting information being passed around. BTW company HQs can offer command support to squads out of touch with their Platoon HQ even if the Platoon HQ is totally OK.

Sounds good. Thanks for looking at this. Hopefully the packup and deploy speeds can make it on your radar too. I get what you are saying about the use of AT guns being hard and that we should be choosing well at the beginning of the game (or more often not even using them). That makes perfect sense. Where this is biting me is when I have a large map and lots going on in the battle, I would like to move the guns to new locations as I take important ground. In this case I am moving them form one Good location to a different good location because I pushed the enemy out of the LOS of the gun and now "own" another good location for them. So changes in this area would be appreciated for those admittedly rare occasions.

I would hesitate to change our tactics very far away from what works in real life. Because: Things are going to be tweaked and then you will be better off doing the RL right thing again. Frankly as stated this problem is on a fairly narrow circumstance. Most of the encounters we have in game are not effected by this. Doing the Right Thing is the best policy. So, don't go teaching your self any bad habits

Quite correct, spot on. The first time I tried using a Co HQ to "replace" a platoon HQ I saw the C2 chain stayed red and I though "hey, this is not working" but then I noticed the voice, sight etc icons. My aha moment.

Yep, I am pretty sure I have read that type of suggestion before. Worth adding to this list though. I agree some way to ask the game to interpret your way point orders would be very valuable. I would probably use it only on a few occasions but those times it would be soooooo useful. Right now it can be hard in certain situation to figure out if your orders can be followed. On those occasions I sometimes spend a lot of time with the way point tool trying to figure out where the vehicle can and cannot go and guesstimate if there is enough room for it to pass. I would rather sit with my arms folded while the game tells me if it is possible even if it took 30s or a minute to do. Because, in those situations, I can spend way longer than that and still not be sure if my plans will work or not.

OK makes sense. Thanks for clarification. Not only is it point specific but observer height specific. Do we know to what target height the target tool is using for reporting hull down status? In other words is it for a solider standing, a short tank, a tall tank etc.? Good. I will continue to just use the target tool knowing that a real TC would be making an educated assessment as well. Thanks for looking into this and providing us with useful feedback. I appreciate it - and so do most others I am sure.

Indeed. Investigation points sound good. With #1 the tank in the open would, at a certain range, have effectively the same number of eyeballs looking for threats that the hull down tank does. That puts them on equal footing in terms of eyes looking for threats. After a certain range. Again sounds good. The only concern I would have then is with how #2 effects things. If we now have only the turret seated crew looking for a hull down tank and the reverse - only the turret seated crew looking for the tank in the open. My expectation would be for the hull down tank to have a significant spotting advantage because it would usually be harder to see. When you say that being hull down is binary rather than granular for CPU load reasons I get that too. When you say larger tanks currently have a harder time meeting this criteria red flags pop up in my head just because I do not consider Shermans or PzIVs as larger tanks. Where do you draw the line here? What I get from your explanation is that it is possible to have a tank in the open and a tank behind some obstruction, but not meeting the game's hull down criteria, and be on equal footing in terms of concealment. I am OK with that as long as we can tell when a tank is hull down and when it is not (yes, to a specific area of the battle field). I have no trouble with a tank in the open and a tank behind a low wall being equal in terms of how easy they are to spot. But at what point do we flip to the hull down concealment advantage? Is it when the blue line says our tank is hull down? Is that message based on infantry looking at our tank? Is that message based on a tank of equal size looking at our tank. I care about this because if we get the hull down position wrong then the spotting it just as if we left the tank parked in the open. So, I want to be able to tell when I get hull down right. I personally never saw anything that made me concerned about that.

There is a problem with an old workaround option in the game that is there for older ATI card drivers but no longer needed for the new ones. Check out this post: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1463852&postcount=14 If that does not help you, one workaround that has served me well is to move the camera up higher and point it straight or nearly straight down. Now selection will work better for units around bridges. But really once I turned off that unneeded option for the old ATI drivers my problems with selection and way points around bridges are gone.

Or a full screen view mode - that would be nice.

Excellent, thanks for looking at this Steve. Glad you guys are so good at trying to improve things when customer's do find odd happenings.

LOL very visual description. LOL even funnier response. Is that you listening to your hip hop music? What apologize for some first hand info and one of the funniest posts on the board? Don't do that.

The issues you mention highlight that this *not* easy peasy. I, personally, would not want them to add Hollond specific terrain, time frames and bridges (to use your example) into the Eastern front game. I would attack it the other way: you can copy anything you want. When you paste anything that is not supported in the current map editor's settings is dropped. That way copy and paste from one map to another in the same game is straight forward and cross games is "clean". Many terrain tiles, trees, roads are common between games and even if lots of specific stuff were dropped it would be very useful. Yes, clearly you could create a section of a map that would almost totally be dropped but you could also create a section of a map that would work in pretty much every game too.

Oh man. No, they have a very long list of features - too many to do all of any time soon. So, every release they have to pick and choose. The good news is that Steve has said in the past that he plans to make sure that each area of the game gets some attention from time to time. Oh man again - it think it is significantly harder than you think. See @sburke's post... Well in order to copy the MG maps *you* would have to own MG - problem solved. I am talking about copy and pasting of map terrain, elevation etc. There is more to a scenario than the map.

Yes you can. I do it fairly regularly. That is good advice. Pretty much every time I have have canceled one of those orders I have regretted it shortly there after. Changing the destination I do regularly though to give them better cover.

Wow, I have not seen that before. I'll keep my eye open for that.

Hopefully that is what it is. Fixes to some bridge pathing issues were defiantly part of 2.12. If I recall correctly upgrading a saved game would not resolve the problem you had to start fresh under 2.12. 2.12 is highly recommended.

Ah that is not panicked. I have several panicked tank crews running around now (Tigers are nasty) and they will not accept any suggestions from me paused or not. What you are talking about are the automatic orders the TacAI gives units under self preservation. Those are just orders - true you cannot cancel them but you can change the way point, type add pauses etc.

That would be awesome. While I can see there being cases where this would be extremely difficult being able to move maps between families would be fantastic and quite useful for transferring things between the various eastern front games and possibly between CMBN and a future Buldge game. Even if copy and paste could be made to work. Select an area of a map in the editor and paste it in another spot on the map or shut down the game and fire up another one and paste that previously selected area into a new map. Anything that could not come across cold be just be dropped.

I have found that in addition to the above you also need to tell Norton not to scan the install directory. I have a BattleFront directory under which I install all the games and I have that in the "do not scan" list.

I believe that would be in violation of the Geneva convention.

This would actually be pretty nice. If the sound was randomly played from even the neighbouring action squares it would make locating the gun much harder. Not quite as good as crickets' defense mechanism but close.

I just experienced this kind of ? being wrong just the other day. I had a Stuart being chased by a Tiger. This was actually against @slysniper. The Tiger got two of his platoon mates but the lead Stuart managed to slip away (by driving right past the Tiger and looping behind it). The Tiger tried to back up to get him. The solid contact changed into a ? and continued to move roughly as the Tiger had been as the Stuart put some trees between them. I had the Stuart do a 360 around the tress etc thinking the Tiger was following to try to get a view of the Stuart running away across the next field. The Stuart came around the corner back to where it started and surprise the ? on the opposite side of the cover disappear and was replaced by the Tiger pretty much were my guys saw it last. Ouch. The ? contact was 20 or 30m off. The Stuart actually managed to get away - thank goodness they are fast.

Yeah I found my self doing that a couple of times. Felt guilty after and now have sworn off doing. I find it easy to *not* do it. Reality is you can get a pretty good idea of what area is safe or under threat by paying attention to where the hits come from. That is good enough for me now. That one is much harder to not pay attention to but I don't go looking for them either.