A Canadian Cat

That was a reference to the way command delays were done in CM1. The more way points you plotted for a unit the longer they took before they did anything at all. So that's all I was referring to there. So, if you had to lay down 4 way points to navigate 100m to a safer location you were punished more than if you could do it in 2 because the third and fourth way point slowed down the overall reaction time more than it should. I kinda like the idea of experimenting with longer turns. My only concern is that the Tac AI is not up to being sensible during that whole time. But then again that might make people way more cautious with their orders and that *is* the desired effect. That would require being around at the same time to resolve the "turn". Obviously totally do able if you have that worked out with your opponent before hand. But it is not easy for everyone or for cross timezone battles.

You are quite right of course. Most people report that whatever tank they have is getting killed left right and centre

No but you can influence things a bit. It is standard protocol - as advised by RL tank commanders. Early in development we were seeing this triggered as tanks were moving - this caused a problem because sometimes the better thing was to complete the move (moving to cover). So, things were changed, this protocol will not be executed if your TC has ordered a Fast move. If your tank is still or moving something other than Fast they will trigger this protocol. Fair warning, the laser warning and the protocol are there for a reason. Finding ways to circumvent it can yield burning wrecks.

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the November scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMFI: TWC Right Hook at Valguarnera CMBN: WT H2H ASL 94 - Hill '112' The form post on theBlitz for sign up is here.

The Blitz is running two scenarios this month. Sign up for the November scenario of the Month has started over at the Blitz. This month the scenarios are: CMFI: TWC Right Hook at Valguarnera CMBN: WT H2H ASL 94 - Hill '112' The form post on theBlitz for sign up is here.

Cigarette grog!

Yeah, from disgruntled people on places like Game Squad (largely quite for the last few months) and Grogheads. I find the discussion on Grogheads quite ironic since there is not a log of grog type discussion on Grogheads that I can see. Discussion of GTA, FPS and fantasy games dominates there. Seems that Grogheads survived as an active site by shifting to talk mostly about non war games or just bear and pretzel games that sorta look like a war game.

Most likely no - in fact start by not doing any installing or uninstalling. Try activating with your keys. There should be an Activate <game name here> launcher for your games. Start by starting that and entering a license key for that game or one of its modules. There will be one for the first version of the base game you bought and one for any modules you bought and one for any upgrade you bought. See below though... You can try my suggestions above but you might want to consult the professionals. This is just a users to user help forum but the official support is much better equipped to help with licensing issues. The advantage support will have is they will be able to see what you purchased and can therefore give you direct step by step instructions on how to get back to working. Battlefront Help desk

Yep, over at TFGM there is a recurring armour only tournament. In that kind of environment you can gain a non trivial advantage by dismounting a few crews so they can carefully get eyes and ears on what the enemy is up to. There is no doubt that WW2 tanks have poor situational awareness and that is modeled in CM.

OK fair enough and that is totally OK. One pattern I have noticed over the years is we have a discussion like this and then a year later someone posts saying OMG why haven't BFC fixed this terrible bug the game is broken meanwhile us testers are like "WTH are you talking about" and it turns out they either read such a statement or they made it and assumed a ) they were totally correct - cause each of us always is right and b ) that BFC should have gone off and started work on this statement right away. Heck it happened to me way back too. It doesn't work like that so I try to be the expectation police - at least a little. I realize that gives me a rep of being a wet blanket but I can live with that So, express your opinion and share your thoughts. This discussion has been really good IMHO. I just want to keep everyone's expectations firmly planted in reality. I am not trying to stop discussion or disagreement - contrary to what some people have said about me in the past. Wait what? You cannot have it both ways man Your description of the MG duel is interesting and I have to say on the face it does not bother me at all. It all sounds fine with me. But those kind of things that bother people can be the start of finding an actual problem. So, getting back to the MG on tripod vs MG on tank issue I would be curious to know what changes if a tank takes one of those positions. Determining what the real differences are will be difficult because tanks typically are higher up which means they probably should do better at aimed fire at prone men. Making that even will require designed terrain to get the tank MG down at the same level as the tripod MG. And you have to run the tank out of HE (and possibly AP) ammo too. Etc. But this discussion is a great example of the difference between "I think X is wrong" and "I have a test that shows something is off with X". The latter is actionable it probably still requires some investigation but if the test is reasonably constructed it would be worth doing. The former is just not something that can drive change. Wet blanket mode off.

LOL - That thought jumped into my head when I saw your move. @markshot The FAQ (http://community.battlefront.com/topic/125783-the-cm2-faq-thread/) has two links to extensive discussions about hull down: One from before the command was added and one that includes both doing it the old way and using the new command

Also there is a lot you could read in the FAQ section: It has a tactical tips section but not a list of learn to play or learn tactics - perhaps I should add that. But scan through it and read things that you are interested in and revisit it after a few weeks - you will probably find more you want to read then

I don't feel that has been established. Also as a side note the issues with level of protection from current fortifications is not in my opinion the whole story. They represent most basic level of fortifications - I do agree that overhead protection and fortifying buildings are just not there and would be nice to have. I guess what I am saying is that I don't think there is anything wrong with the current infantry fortifications they are just a limited sub set of what we would really like to see. That is a possibility I suppose. You run into my usual objection that it interferes with the ability of the TC to make decision on his own. But since what you suggest is limited and has no cumulative effects (my other big objection to command delays) it might be workable. I would not limit this to buttoned tanks though. Understood this way, I'm perfectly fine with time compression. Basically what you're saying is that the time in between the "action" (reorg, take a breath, update status on radio, etc) is compressed. It reduces the opponent's time window to react / shift reinforcements a bit, but that's not really a big problem given the rather small scale of CM battles. Yep. And your quoted story has a great example of this (my bold):

Yep. Excellent, more like real life, example form FPS game you site there too.

LOL - outdoor voice - love the image. How has enemy armour advanced to infantry close assault range? Is the infantry too far forward? Are the anti-tank assets not set up effective? There are plenty of infantry tools (bazooka, PIAT, faust, shreck) capable of dealing with enemy armour- are these weapons effectively distributed or protected until they are needed? I see you did some testing and have reached the conclusion that tanks do have to be careful when getting too close. I just don't run tanks ahead of infantry (and pretty much every time I disregard that rule I'm reminded why I shouldn't do that). I'm OK with them being close at times but only if there are lots of rifles and SMGs around them to keep the enemy infantry at bay. Distraction is a real winner. There is nothing better than getting a tank to turn its turret to the right while the real attack is coming form the left. Love those tense moments as the turret swings back. You can hear the TC in your mind saying - "**** they are on the left, on the left". Yum - thanks. Oh sorry you wanted that back - my bad. This, so this. It is one thing that holds back realism. It is a really big one. @Bil Hardenberger came up with some simple rules to help with some of this. I do like playing with them but I am not sure if it would totally solve the problem. Check it out here That might help - see Hard Cat rules above. Not sure how possible it would be to implement them in the game itself. I'm still not convinced this is such a big issue. If you hide men in foxholes or trenches they are very hard to take out form a distance. Its when the popup that they start to get nailed. Perhaps the real change should be in the Tac AI reaction when in a fox hole Are they though? Did you do some tests (knowing you you probably did) that I missed (knowing me that is entirely possible). And why shouldn't they be? They are on a way more stable platform than any tripod. Not sure this is wrong even if MGs on tanks are more effective. Yep, We get a form of "time compression" because of the inherent ability of the player to coordinate better. It's not true time compression in the sped up sense but more when the lead platoon gets hit the player starts coordinating the other two platoons and the supporting tanks right away. But in reality even with radios that information is going to take a bit to get where it needs to and once the CO gets the information his instructions are going to take a bit to get going. So, in reality minutes elapse before dramatic things change but in the game they can start in the next minute. We get a form of "time compression" because there are pixel troops and not real ones. We frequently leave guys behind because it's just too important to move up. Where as in real life, even with medics, troops don't move on right away. Then frequently need a moment - after they beaten back the enemy or gotten out of the line of fire. That means we have guys moving more and sooner than they probably would in real life. We get a form of "time compression" on top of the above because we don't wait for heavier support. In part because we "know" as the attacker we have the tools to win the scenario. In real life every time something major happens decisions have to be made about if the resistance is stronger than expected, do they have more support than we expected and if so we should pull back and wait half an hour for our artillery to become available to help us out etc. Plus we push far to hard and stick around far too long. This tends to increase casulties for sure. Lots of times if the defenders get in a nice ambush the attack is done for the day but not the way we play. Plus, those times when the attack does not stop the defence pulls back but not the way we play. ? They are? I didn't get that feeling but I have not tested it. Have you? Would that actually be a bad thing?

I have an MSI GL62M notebook that I picked up on sale because it was discontinued (last three in the city). Its specs are: 15.6" FHD (1920x1080), Intel Core i5-7300HQ, 8GB DDR4, 1TB HDD , NVIDIA GeForce GTX1050 2G GDDR5 Except for memory and no SSD drive that is as good or better than my desktop. I feel like my desktop still preforms better but its pretty close. Plugged in it performs very well on battery less so (I have the performance tuned down when on battery). I try to only play CM when plugged in but in a pinch its OK. I am one of the least picky people on here when it comes to performance though - so try to beat those specs The track pad is pretty good my only complaint is that I cannot turn off tap clicking - sigh.

Cool - save it for a few dramatic moments - or just let the explosions from the game emphasis those Oh I understand the reason people do it - it just doesn't add anything for me. You do you though - the AAR really was very good and I agree with several other comments about length and what you included vs not included.

Yeah, well done. I don't think you need the background spooky music - game sounds and your commentary are enough. I am not a fan of the washed out look but I know plenty of people are - so I wouldn't hold it against you I'll keep watching.

You should always have a buddy around. Some one needs to save your ass when you do something stupid

Not sure what's funny. When they gave us some bones this module was not even number three in the list of stuff they were working on. So yeah it's not done yet. There is no surprise there so I'm not sure why you are surprised. Oh wait it's fake surprise just to be a troll. That makes more sense.

Yeah those numbers are curious. There is a 23 towards the top centre and 66 in the lower right. I do not think they have anything to do with height. The 158 and 153 numbers don't seem to match the contour lines on the map but the town and the 142 do seem to be inline. Not sure what to make of it.

Yeah I don't think that is explicitly listed in the manual. It's more a case of experience and taking in the big picture and putting 6 and 6 together to get a dozen. (more work that 2 plus 2 and getting 4)

Well sure but that's not what I'm doing when I watch the replay multiple times. I usually watch once from a high level to see how the overall situation evolved and note where I want to watch closer. Then I watch much closer (camera 2 or 3 scrolled down a little) those areas where stuff happened. Then if some thing really cool happens I'll watch that and marvel at it a few times. I very rarely try to figure out precisely where the surprise came from more likely I wallow in dismay watching it a few times Yep!

Absolutely. Many campaign maps are done that very way. Take you large master map .btt file and plan out how you want to split it. Once you have your plan, pick one small map section you want for your first battle and shrink the map size using the controls along the top towards the right of the editor in such a way that you cut away everything but the part you want for your first map. Then press Save and give the "new" map a different name. Open the original master map again. Pick another section you want to use for your second battle and use the size controls to shrink down to just that part of the map Press Save and give that "new" map a different name. Repeat as necessary. Then you can use those newly created .btt files as your scenarios.

No, it is not possible.