A Canadian Cat

October is pretty much on schedule: CMBN: Its just a bridge CMFI: Termoli Forumn post for signing up for October Anyone interested head on over. There are no results yet because not all the August are over yet - I know because I am still fighting one.

Oh I understand the supply thing I am just concerned that without a realistic threat of being attached in more then one direction it might change the way the whole battle is fought. Yep, trying it out is exactly what we should do. I'll sign up when ever you get there.

Nope it is not there. There are plenty of people who want to see it back. I am sure they will chime in. But I am first so I get to start by saying - you don't need it. Not really. And the guys on the battle field they don't know all those details either. You will get a feel for which guns are likely to succeed in what situations. Also keep in mind that even fire that is not lethal to the target still has value. Distract the tank while it gets flanked by infantry. Disable the tracks on that SP gun and now it is stuck looking at only part of the battle field. Also sometimes you can force an enemy vehicle to withdraw even though you cannot destroy it: Yes, the aspect ration of that video is messed up. What can I say it was one of the first ones I ever posted - I have improved... at least a little.

In other words to have have a 3:1 force advantage for the attacker really ends up fighting three CM battles and grind the defender down. Or as you pointed out go around the large force and through a hole in the defense. The only problem I see is this: As a defender, I have a battalion force concentrated in one hex. The real life reason that I would be uncomfortable with being by passed is the threat of being attacked from two or more directions at once. Your plan eliminates that threat so I might just go a head and let that enemy force move past me (I realize there will be operational ramifications but on a shorter time frame I know that I cannot be attacked by a battalion from the North and a company from the East and a Company from the West). Because I know this I can face one attack at at time and I am in a much stronger position than I would be if there was a threat of being attacked from three directions at once.

Nice summary @Penry. I think that shows how this scenario is balanced on a razor's edge. Which means it creates that I'm going to win, I'm going to loose back and froth. Which is good. But I also think there is an opportunity for the defenders to push the game over the edge. My opponent, who is bar none the toughest opponent I have played against, read the situation exactly right (like he always does) and hit me hard right from the get go. He brought everything to bear as soon as possible. That allowed him to totally wipe out my initial force. That sets up the battle to basically start over again each time the US reinforcements come in because my first group could not get a toe hold. They come in totally blind and exposed. He was then able to just destroy everything as it arrived. I am not sure if you can tweak that possibility out of the game or not. I have not looked at the Italian side but if they had perhaps just a few things come in slightly later. For me it was the Tankettes that did me in. With the range they were able to stay at bazookas were useless and that gave them free rein.

Well "totally" might sound a bit harsh but - yeah, you are totally wrong. The 2.0 upgrade is a separate install that is needed for MG to work. @Schrullenhaft has written several posts detailing the proper install order. If you look around on this and the support forum for his posts you will find it.

Oh, I do not find that. The US HTs are even more skittish and for good reason. An MG 42 can not only KO the gunner but anyone on board is at risk.

LOL. I think it is unbalanced too but I was totally slaughtered - to a man as the US. Read post 188: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1464819&postcount=188

Ack. Bummer but I understand. And I was so looking forward to watching some revenge I trust you will let us know when you start up the new op.

Ooooh exciting. Good luck. Kick some behind!

Mortars are often given direct fire orders at fairly long ranges and in the current game the other crew members would also fire their rifles at ranges that were pretty ineffective. In other words they would often be firing at ranges that your line infantry would not be (unless you told them too). I see that Steve is indicating that they might not fire at the same ranges as regular line infantry but how big the difference is remains to be seen or discussed. If they hold their fire to under 200m then you will not really suffer because your line infantry should probably not be firing their rifles at ranges much over that anyway. However if the cut off range is 50m they will not be much good fighting along side regular infantry.

The wording was very precise: Organic ammo bearer team Non-organic ammo bearer team Internal ammo This makes no mention of units from other formations. So I am sure the original sharing only withing a platoon still stands. In other words there is nothing in that text or the surrounding paragraphs that revokes the previous - inside the platoon only - sharing rules. Only the order that the HMG / mortar will use ammo has changed.

Yikes, I all for poking fun at pretty much anything but to actually use the puppets that you don't actually own and have a contract forbidding any use without approval. Oops somebody screwed up big - really big.

When I saw the title of this thread my second thought was of the Friendly Giant. For the few that might not know what that is: it is an old children's show and after the intro music the "giant" arranges some chairs for us viewers and then says "Look up - way up" to start the show:

Yep, I have no clue.

Also on PP 60 there is the update on rocket weapons firing from inside buildings. It also says that there is no penalty for firing them from a balcony. PP 62 new stance for the AI "Ambush Armor" very cool.

Almost at the end my self. On PP 60 there is a change to how heavy weapons use ammo - starting from their organic ammo bearer team and then any non organic ammo bearer team and then their own supply. Yay, we can now send the ammo bearers running for more!

I am pretty sure they cannot. Yes, clearly changing this would be work. And given that this is all done out the kindness of his heart expecting that work is not really reasonable. I was thinking more of future work.

I am sure there will be no charge for the 2.1 patch - for those who have 2.0. One target market for your excellent blog will be those who bought the game when it first came out and gave up because they could not quite get a handle on tactics and how to handle their troops. I know this because the friend I mentioned is such a person. Now he is trying again and he put more money in to get to 2.0 but I suspect not all of those people will do that. Nothing about your tutorials really needs 2.1. I realize they will work better with 2.1 but the lessons learned playing in 1.11 or 2.01 would be just as valid while playing those games as they would playing 2.1. Bil, what you have created will be very useful. I am looking forward to trying them out to see if I really do get it or only think I do:-). Only you can decide how you will spend your time and how you will make your project. I was just thinking about a target group that is not being served. Heck none of us can make use of your scenarios at the moment and it could be a few more weeks before anyone can. Then there are those not buying the MG module who will have to wait another month or more.

I am less certain which colour is which but I am certain the passenger seats are on the right and the crew on the left.

Groan. Do you think that is the real reason he prorogued parliament - so he could play the recently released GTA5?

Yikes what are you trying to do kill me If I had that job I would never have any time to play CM.

The carrying capacity is indicated as small grey (for empty seats) and green (for filled seats) under the vehicle's picture at the bottom UI panel on the game screen. You will see similar circles to the left for the crew and the ones for passengers on the right. The game will not let you give a move order into a vehicle for a team that is too big for the available seats. However it will not stop you from giving multiple small teams move orders to mount the vehicle even if their total size will not fit. What will happen is first come first to get seats. The team or teams that arrive late will just not mount the vehicle.

Mounting a vehicle is as simple as giving the foot team an move order and selecting the vehicle. <edit>I should add that you get a little down arrow for the cursor as you place the move order so you can see that they will mount the vehicle. And if the team will not fit in the available seats you will see a red arrow with a ghost buster symbol to indicate that the team will not fit.</edit> A couple of things to note. They will not mount until the vehicle stops moving. So even though you give the guys a 100m quick move order to mount the vehicle if the vehicle has move orders of this own it will complete its move orders before allowing infantry to mount it. So, either leave the vehicle still or give it move orders that bring it closer to the indented passengers.

The change that BFC put in *has* to do with direct fire. Right now if you have a mortar team in a spot with good concealment and you give them a target order beyond the effective rifle range the rifle men in the mortar team will still open fire with their rifles. That action often is what gives the mortar team's location away. With this change, that will happen less often. If you have a mortar team performing indirect fire at some thing that they can actually see - well - stop doing that. I have no idea what this change will do for mortars firing indirectly but I suspect not a whole lot.