A Canadian Cat

Let us know what happens for you but I have had no luck getting them out when this has happened. Back in 1.0 I had a Sherman do this - I gave a variety of orders to the tank but he never moved again. I have a stuck PzIV in Fortress Italy and so far also stuck and cannot get him out. I even had a pioneer squad blast the front wall of the building - did not help.

But *can* the spotter see where the rounds fell? To make corrections they need to see where the spotting rounds fall. Get down to eye level with the spotter, with the tress on, and see if you can see the spotting rounds. Then test with the targeting tool to see if they can see the place the spotting rounds fell.

I just wanted to clarify a mistake that I have been making. I play on Warrior level and sometimes Iron (I have one opponent who makes me:-) but I am sure this applies to Elite as well. The enemy only sees the lowest level name of a unit "1 Squad", "1 Squad / A Team" or "2nd Medium Tank". Even the HQ units only show their own level "1 Company HQ" or "1 Platoon HQ". So all my machinations to show off H company or 4 platoon don't really work unless your HQ units are spotted. For some reason I had it in my head that the whole unit chain was shown - my bad.

The centre of the 320m x320m map you start with is the centre of the maximum 4000m x4000m map you can make. So if you want room for expansion make sure you plan accordingly. I suspect that you will not always want to expand equally in all directions. Here is an experiment: I started with a new map and made it all sand. Then I expanded it North and East as far as it would go (that gave me a 2160m x 2160m map): I also verified that saving the map and reloading it does not allow you to expand and further in the north and east direction. So this arrangement is not just a "while you are editing limit" but a limitation on the way the map itself is structured. Then I expanded fully in the other directions to get a 4km x 4km map. You cannot see the cursor in this screen shot but I have it positioned in the centre of the sand to show that the centre of the original 320m x 320m map is still the centre of the 4km x 4km map: This is what I would have expected to - surprise. Without cut copy an paste it is difficult to compensate for this after the fact. So, all map makers should plan accordingly.

They just get put in the main forum. It is pretty quite though. A few months ago there were three or four going on at one time. Now there is just (shameless plug - it is a game I am playing): Axis Side - 20 000 point Quick Battle DAR Allies Side - 20 000 point Quick Battle DAR There are others that are completed too.

+1 to that. I love the FoW effects and really enjoy playing scenarios "double blind" as I like to day. Playing them again is cool too but the first time is special.

Totally agree - the screen shot I posted is using Aris's smoke mod.

Not sure what you mean exactly. Check this out: The smoke from that burning Stuart is sure blow'n in the wind.

Which makes it easier for their platoon mate to get a nice shot from the grass. But those damn trees foil his plans. Over on the right flank the armoured car that was subject to grenades last turn is finished off including crew. In the orchard another armoured car creeps up the road (the armoured car in the foreground is already dead and so is the Stuart tank on the bridge). At the same time a scout team tries to sneak up on the orchard too.

And is met with a hail of grenades… And dies just as it gets of a burst from its MG and hits one of my men. Close to the river things are much better. A Panther spots a Stuart trying to flank my position. And takes care of it in one shot. Close to the Panther its infantry support spot a Churchill tank and open up on the tank commander who ducks out of the way.

This is another mad minute. My infantry put up quite a fight against that Stuart and I am sure they will take it out soon but luck is not with them this turn. Here is one squad firing a shrek and a faust round nearly simultaneously. The Stuart is in the trees, you can just see the muzzle flash from its MG. Both rounds hit trees and failed to dispatch the Stuart. Other troops are closing in on the rear of the Stuart but do not get close enough yet. The Stuart makes a mess. It machine guns down a bunch of my men. At the same time one of the scared off Churchill tanks scores a hit on a Panther. Only minor damage was done thankfully. Nearby, my infantry have another problem. This time an armoured car appears from an unexpected direction. This looks scary… But luckily for my men it gets way to close…

Mods do not make a significantly load time difference at all. On my machine it added 4 - 5 seconds on a nearly 2 min load. Check out this thread. Several of us bench marked load times with and without mods: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=103468 The biggest difference for load times was our machine specifications.

There is a workaround: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=107970. He means change the scenario name in the scenario editor not the file name on disk - I made that mistake.

No reason - just lots of cool features they can work on. I would love to see terrain FOW but nothing really bugs me about it now and I don't find trenches and foxholes to be bad.

That looks like lots of fun - looking forward to it. Oh that will generate some wild speculation.

Yes, and while I think it would be great to have things like broken fences and walls and breached bocage get FOW (i.e. remain hidden until your forces see the hedge row) I don't expect that to be very high on the priority list of features and frankly I think that is fine. But I can dream :-) and who knows perhaps some day it will be easier to do or they will run out of other things to do

Nope no import into QB just into scenarios.

This is do not see - can you give an example? Please. Don't get me wrong I rarely play RT and only for very small forces. I find there is plenty of heard pounding excitement watching the WEGO turn play out and seeing all the amazing things happening.

Automated testing is very good at catching crashes and lockups - true. The thing is you have had two instances that I recall that did make it out: 1) the barbed wire crash which took a long time before we saw a fix. 2) the quick battle 5% crash which was just introduced. I am sure that you would rather have not have released those and would like the time and mess they caused back. I cited two examples in your project that were missed during testing that would have been caught by automated testing. You guys are the only ones in a position to weigh the costs of building up an automated testing suite vs the cost to fix things later (both in terms of dev time and customer goodwill). Your, excellent, incremental approach to development can be applied here. Very true - automated testing is no panacea here just one more more useful tool in the tool box. Anyway you guys do have a good track record of servicing your games and we fans do appreciate that - well most of us do. I just saw and opportunity that, from my development experience, has helped us greatly and wanted to share my thoughts.

True, stuff always gets through testing. It is unavoidable - at least if you plan to ship product I do have a suggestion though. This is something that we have been doing a little at a time on the product I work on - automated testing. Our portion of the product is primarily UI so this has been particularly challenging and I am certainly not going to claim perfection but it has helped. In your case you already have an AI capable of fighting against a human. Some tweaks and you could have the AI fight itself. [aside: might even be a useful feature for scenario testing]. Add a command line way to start a new game and you could automate the testing of scenarios. Now you can be sure that scenarios with barbed wire are always going to work. Next, add a way to define a Quick battle start up from the command line. [aside: might be a useful feature for those of us making tools to initiate a battle from an operational layer]. Now you can automate starting and running RT quick battles AI vs AI. Now you can be sure that QBs can be started and run to completion at least for RT play. Next add a way to start a Quick battle .ema file from the command line. [aside: might be a useful feature for those of us making tools to manage turns for PBEM]. Add a way to auto save the new .ema turn file at the end. Then wrap all that with little scripting to start .ema files run a turn and copy files around and start the next turn. Couple that with a modified way to pick QB forces and bingo now you know that customers can start, choose forces and run a PBEM game to completion. Slowly build your set of automated tests when you run into issues. It all helps. None of this replaces any other testing because there is nothing here to be sure that units are behaving as expected, that models look right etc. etc. [aside: yes I know some of the things that you would need to add for automated testing have been asked for by people like oh say me . I am just showing how those thing could be useful to you too]

Odd I still experience jerkiness and unasked for pauses when controlling the camera with the keyboard. It never happens with the mouse. It is true that this has improved in several patches but I still find myself being annoyed with jerky camera motion even in 2.0. I wonder if it is tired to machine specs - my machine is no slouch but it is not top end either.

OK thanks guys I can see that working for most instances. I'll flip a coin if I cannot make the call

+1 absolutely. Some might think it is an exaggeration but it is not! Without WEGO there would be no way I could or would play given my gaming is done is half hour to hour long blocks when I get a free moment. Spot on! My enjoyment of WEGO is much higher due to this. I have tried RT but just do not enjoy it.

LOL - I am sure you are correct. From now on I will stop doing the second battalion trick. It might work on a small battle where you just have 3 Platoon. For all they know you choose all green infantry so you could get a company.

I'm not getting it - sorry. So, if I fight a QB against an opponent and I have a Platoon of tanks and a Company of infantry how do you expect that to get recorded? I have done that many times. Right now I have a battle going where I have a Platoon of infantry and a Platoon of tanks. What will I do with that one?