A Canadian Cat

The other issue the current LOS tool has that it indicates if your unit can target the ground a the target end. In my video the Stug *cannot* target the ground under that Churchill tank - notice that the wheels are not quite visible. So the LOS tool says that I cannot target that area. Clearly from looking at the game you can see the Churchill just fine from the proposed Stug's position. Being able to determine the visibility of things of various heights would also be welcome. BTW in the game the Churchill tank moved away before the Stug got into position but the infantry it was attacking took care of it with a close assault. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1429847&postcount=289 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1429847&postcount=290

I posted a YouTube video of me doing that recently: My technique to get to the gunner's level is to go to camera position 2 and down two or three stops of the wheel depending on the vehicle. To get the right height I recommend selecting the vehicle and adjusting the height until you are pretty much looking down the barrel.

Yes, please. Add my vote for this one but do not forget toggling of transparent buildings and crosses.

+1 for just they way you thought it up. Two winners sounds fine. Count me in. Yep, full weekend of photography and dance at my daughter`s studio.

Oh I understand that you disagree. You have made that quite clear. And you have valid points too. I can certainly see where you are coming from. Hopefully when Steve et al spend time tweaking this aspect of the game they will bring it closer to what you want to see. Although, given that you want total freedom to fire these weapons where ever and whenever, you probably will not be happy with whatever tweaks they make. I just happen to agree with Steve on this and don't think it is fair to let stand on its own when you are well aware that there are valid points for the other side of this argument as well.

OK, got it thanks for the background. I have played CMBB but only for a short while back in between when CMBN was announced and when it released. I have confidence, given the quality of the modeling in CMBN and FI, that things will be good in the east as well. Ah, understand. Fully tracked vehicles turning in place does seem pretty generic in game right now. Kind of like reverse. Thanks for clarifying.

This has been discussed several times. It is clear, to me, that BFC have done their research and made a good choice backed up by that research. Sure there are things that could be done to make things better, one prime example would be allowing shreks and fausts to be fired from building rubble. And I hope these things are on the list of improvements to be made. In case you missed it here is a recentish thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96073 It is a long one so here are some relevant posts: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1250896#post1250896 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1250956&postcount=52 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1254802&postcount=133 http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1254805&postcount=134 Including this one where Steve says there is improvements that can be made to the game some day to allow it in some conditions: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1250963&postcount=54

Some of the CW trucks have 50mm amo for the British and Canadians (possibly the Polish - not sure). I am not sure where in the TOE they have or do not have mortar amo but I have seen it in a couple of scenarios.

No, please, no. And I don't mean to pick on one person. IMHO we should not be asking BFC to move away from realistic behaviour. It has been established that these AT weapons were *not* *routinely* fired inside. What we should be advocating is BFC tweaking some infantry AI behaviour; shooting around corners, allowing the use of AT weapons from ruined buildings etc. As well as advocating improved urban maps. Lets lend our voices to asking for things that make the game *more* realistic; not less.

Wow that is awesome. Kind of scary, but awesome.

Very interesting. Perhaps the Germans should have side mounted MP40s to their Panzer Shrecks so they can switch to small caliber for the bailing crews. But IMHO there is no such thing as wasting ammo:-) Of course I also say there is "no such thing as too many chocolate chips" in cookies as well.

Interesting. I never would have though of doing that. I will keep and open mind and reserve judgment. Thanks

Wait "switch over". Do you mean it fire either the 37mm or the .50 cals not both at the same time. This is a weapons system I had not seen before. I am going to suggest that a fun QB to play with someone would be a mirror of attacker: infantry only, defender: AA guns only just so both sides can see these things in action.

What you point those things at your friends the Canadians

I am still not 100% sure if you are joking or not. Is this alternate colour rendition a real feature or are you poking fun at a manipulated image in the screen shots. Just curious.

With CMBN those that pre-ordered had a non trivial jump on anyone who wanted to order it on the day. I forget how long the lag time was but I was sad:-( With the following releases it got better but even last time their official policy was there would be 36 hour wait for those of us that did not pre-order. I was sad again :-). In the end it was much shorter than that and I was less sad :-|. For the record; in principal I am OK with people who pre-ordered getting access ahead of everyone else. What makes me sad is that those of us that do *not* want hard good are not allowed be be part of the club. My desire would be for BFC to either: Allow us download only types to pre-order - so we can join the club Stop the advanced access for those that pre-order - so there is no special club that I cannot join

What are you referring to here John? I was not aware that there were any issues with weapons modeling specific to the Russian forces in CMBB. I was not aware that the turret traversal times were not already modeled. It feels like it is to me. I watch my Sherman and Churchill tank turrets turning a different rates and same for PzIVs and Panthers. That would be awesome - I agree. I think changing the gun's facing works reasonably well now. If it could be extended so that moving a short distance would not cost the full packup and setup time that would be very helpful. Clearly moving a gun should not be free and easy but moving slightly should not really involve packing everything up.

Ouch that was a tough break. I think you had your tanks in a good position - well thought out plan for them too. But sometimes a plan does not come together.

Don't let one guy who does not like cats throw you off I thought the arrows aided your explanation. Use em when you need em.

No, mods do not seem to add much to load times. Some of us did some testing on this a while back: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103468

@BLSTK, yes, sigh

In a current scenario some of my men are moving behind the front.

Two GIs making their last stand. They were actually my opponents. My men were closing in on the town square but found their PzIVs could not enter. Since my infantry were in pretty bad shape they needed those tanks for support. The PzIVs pounded the outer buildings on two sides of the square and brought them down until they could bring their guns to bear on the inner buildings. The GIs almost held.

Oh I love having them along with an infantry assault. Any enemy that pops up really gets it when the 105 rolls up. They are my favorite Allied tank. I like to include one or two when I can too.

When I use covered arcs I usually use circular ones. I have had men burned too many times by arcs that were just slightly to narrow and so they did not engage the enemy. I switched to circular arcs and presto I am always happy. Well not always but more often:)