HarryB

There is no need to move it out of the incoming email folder. When you click on 'Saved Game' on the main screen, it will automatically display files in the incoming email folder. I only play HTH PBEM and my saved game folder is empty, but all files from the incoming email folder show up.

No, I have just noticed an inability of Stummels to fire through bocage in previous games; I don't have any in this one. In the game I am playing now, my opponent has a couple of Churchill VIII's that have been firing through bocage at my infantry. What bothers me is the inconsistency of it, as Baneman said earlier; either both of the vehicles should be able to fire through the bocage or neither should.

Sounds like he sent you files from two different games. He is probably playing a game against another opponent and sent you the wrong file by mistake. When the files are named by the program they will keep the name they have with the number being incremented by one. If he chose a 'random meeting engagement', I believe he probably looked in the scenario folder and randomly grabbed a created scenario that has been labeled as a meeting engagement. That is not the same as a Quick Battle. When you get the initial file after he has done his first turn, the only thing you will do is select your password. When you get the next file you will do your purchasing, initial setup and I believe your initial movement ploting as well.

I guess the bottom line is that not all sections of hedgerow are equal in real life, and the game abstracts everything into one (other than tall and short) 'average' hedgerow. It would be nice to have more variety, but I guess you can't have everything. I still don't get the logic of allowing the Churchill to fire through a hedgerow and not allowing a Stummel to do the same though.

I think this points to the need for an extra tile for bocage, one that would allow map designers to insert 'firing holes' in the bocage where tanks and other vehicles could fire through, instead of allowing them to fire through it everywhere. There is also the inconsistency of The Churchill being able to fire through it while the Stummel can't. Really, anything that the Churchill can see through I would think the Stummel also could. Granted, I have never stood in front of actual bocage, so I don't have any first hand knowledge of what it is like to actually look through the stuff; I have only seen it in pictures. Much of it though, I know a tank would not be able to just pull up to it and have a line of fire to the other side; they just wouldn't be able to see anything.

I have no doubt that he did, I would also have no doubt that this was from a prepared position. I would doubt that they just wheeled it up to the bocage, stuck the gun barrel through it and started blasting away.

Well, the way it is now, tanks can shoot through the bocage anywhere, and I really don't think that is realistic. How about adding another type of bocage terrain tile? Kind of a 'shooters hole' that would allow vehicles to shoot through, but still be impassible. It could represent either a place that has been specifically prepared, or where the bocage is naturally thin.

Something that I am having a hard time wrapping my head around is how a tank can pull up next to bocage and fire through it. Even if the gun can stick through it, how can the gunner see anything? The game clearly isn't simulating the tank knocking a hole in the bocage, because if it can knock a hole in it, it should be able to continue driving through. If you drive a Stummel halftrack up to bocage, the game doesn't allow you to see and fire through it. That makes sense to me, because the gun is short and can't stick through the bocage. What doesn't make sense to me is how a Churchill VIII can drive up to bocage and shoot through. Its gun is also short and can't stick through. The only way to get the gun through the bocage is to drive the tank halfway through it, and if it can do that, it should be able to continue on through. The only way I see tanks being able to shoot through the bocage is in prepared positions that have been cleared so that the gunners can see. Am I missing something here, or is the game handling this unrealisticly?

There still are plenty of vehicles that could be added to the selection, so an odds and ends module would be nice; I'm still waiting for my favorite afv, the Brummbar. And yes, flamethrowers would be nice as well.

In the game I'm playing now, a panzerschreck team took out one of my Shermans. Shortly after that they came under fire from another tank and tried to surrender. The tank blasted them anyway and when I zoomed in on the tank commander I could swear I heard him say "Look, I washed for supper".

Sorry for my premature posting, I found the No Music mod.

Most of the time that I am loading these files I may be listening to the radio over the net or just don't want to have to turn down the volume while the file loads. I would like to be able to disable the music if possible. Can it be done?

The problem was that the tank spotted infantry briefly, lost sight of them and then just parked where it was, in a position that was obviously vulnerable if the infantry it spotted had any kind of anti-tank weapons. If the commander was a real human being he would most likely start blasting away with HE where he last saw the threat or back away to a safer distance. He did neither because the AI in the game doesn't recognize anything it has lost sight of as a threat. He just sat there in the danger zone polishing his helmet and waiting to be killed. The reason you want him to continue on is so that he will have a better chance to regain contact with the threat he lost sight of. When you say that I should have used a different command you are absolutely correct given the way the command is currently set up in the game. That is why I am arguing to get it changed back to the way it was in CMx1, so that my tank may continue moving The key here is the AI. If, to the AI, units it lost sight of didn't just cease to exist and it could respond to them appropriately, it wouldn't need such detailed instructions. I am asking the AI to trust my orders rather than just sit there and do nothing.

Well Amizaur, I think you said it pretty well. The differences in spotting between the two games have an effect on the Hunt command whether the unit continues forward after losing sight of the unit that caused it to pause or not. I think that in general, having to choose between the options of continuing forward vs. staying put; more often than not it is better to keep moving along the assigned path than to stop and stay there for the rest of the 60 second turn. Cheers

Well, after all that I still think it would be a good idea to modify the Hunt command to allow units to continue on their path after they have spotted an enemy unit, stopped and then lost sight of that unit. I know I will never get the last word against the man of 8000 posts, so I will just leave it at that unless someone adds something interesting to this discussion that compels me to respond.

Come on, let's not get rediculous here. I don't think anybody is going to say that the people at BFC are not very bright; being bright is kind of a prerequisite for the job they do. Having said that, that doesn't preclude them from making decisions that may be less than optimal. As bright as they are, they are not perfect and I have no doubt that during the design process of CM:BN, there were decisions made that in hindsight they would change if they could, but choose not to based on the difficulty and expense of doing so. There is no need to get so defensive.

As noxnoctum pointed out, once the spotted unit changes from its unit symbol to a question mark there is no question about whether it will be transitory, it is transitory. At that point the tank continues along its assigned path. Yes, I wanted it to halt once it spotted a unit, but I did not want it to stay put after it lost contact, so no, I did not change my mind, and at no time does the AI need to read my mind. I'm not here to debate the soundness of my tactics; it is totally irrelevant to the conversation. I will say though, that there is a definite tone of arrogance and condescension in your writing. It has kind of a "I am the all knowing guru of all things CM, how dare these unwashed heathens question this game. It can never be perfect, but without question all design decisions that were made were correct, so I will defend the current build 'til my last breath" sort of vibe to it.

This is beginning to get amusing. The topic of this thread is very simple: Allow units issued the Hunt command to continue moving forward after they have spotted an enemy and lost sight of said enemy. It is not about adding a hundred new commands to allow players to cover every possible situation, it is not about having the AI read my mind, nor is it about tactics. It is about a command that I and others perceive to have decreased functionality from CMx1. Nowhere in this thread have I heard a good explanation as to why adding this little bit of functionality back into the command would be a bad thing, just a bunch of workarounds and defensiveness. As I have said earlier, if someone from BFC would simply say why that change was made, we would at least know the reason.

The thing is, in the example I gave at the beginning of the thread, my tank was driving around some bocage and spotted enemy infantry I'll guess about 20 meters to its left. It then instantly lost sight of them and came to a complete halt, just sitting there doing nothing. About 30 seconds later he exploded, most likely from a panzerfaust. I knew the enemy was there before the Hunt command was issued, and the path I had set was to enable my tank to get a clear line of sight to them so he could take them out. By stopping, he put himself if much more danger than if he would have continued along his assigned path. If he continued, he would have had a good chance to regain sight of the infantry, but, sitting where he was, his chances were slim. In the post after yours, Amizaur pretty much says what I have been saying. It is true that sometimes continuing along its assigned path will put the tank in greater danger, but most of the time that is preferable to just stopping and sitting where it is the second it sees an enemy.

Good ideas, but they are all workarounds for the decreased functionalily of Hunt command that nobody seems to be able to give a good reason as to why it was changed. The Hunt command used to be very useful in CMx1; in fact, I used it all the time, which is why I miss it's old functionality now. In RT it isn't a big deal, but when you are playing WeGo it is a big deal because you could be sitting there for close to 60 seconds doing nothing before new orders can be issued. The killer is that once a unit loses sight of an enemy, that enemy doesn't exist to it anymore. If you look into the bushes and see a German soldier, even if he ducks out of sight you intuitively know he is still there and still a potential threat, so you can start using area fire immediately to try to take him out. In CMx2, once your unit loses sight of the enemy, not only will it not continue along its assigned path, but it does not perceive the previously spotted enemy to be a threat and will just sit there whistling Dixie whilst holding a sign saying 'I'm oblivious, please shoot me'. I just wish someone at BFC would answer the question as to why the command was changed, that way we would all know.

LOL. Hey man, all I am doing is trying to get my units to do what I want them to do. I don't think giving them a cover arc is ideal because my guys might miss a threat that way; either that or the arc is so huge that it becomes irrelevant. I will try using the 'Slow' command and see how that works. If it doesn't do the job, don't be surprised to hear me bitching again

dumb answers too

I do so love condescension. Without the benefit of your wisdom I never would have figured out that Combat Mission required me to give orders. I just thought I launched the game and it played itself. That must be what I've been doing wrong all this time; no matter how much I yell at the screen my units refuse to move! Thanks buddy, I get it now! From the over 8,000 posts you have made on this board I gather you have it up and running 16 hours a day, and I'm sure it would be 24 if it wasn't for that pesky thing called sleep. As a result, I'm sure you know everything there is to know about all things CM; heck, I bet the guys at BFC even call you when they have a question. From now on I will consider it a privilege to bask in the glow of your vast store of knowledge every time I take a look at this board in the future. I defer to you, oh wise one. I also like sarcasm

You say my example is flawed and yet you don't say how. Why should I have to give my unit a covered arc? I want it to be able to react to any threat that appears. If the arc is too small, he may ignore something that he shouldn't, if it is too big then there isn't any point to setting it in the first place. What I am arguing for is very simple, let a unit issued a Hunt command continue on its path after losing contact with an enemy that caused it to stop. As has been said earlier in this thread, the Hunt command at this point is really just a 'Move to Contact' order.

If that is true I think that was an unfortunate decision. I play pretty much 100% WeGo because I only really enjoy playing against human opponents and PBEM is the way to go for that. I also like playing large battles and if I tried that in RT I wouldn't have a clue as to what is happening on most of the battlefield. I am currently playing the NorMons scenario, which I think is pretty fun btw, and I find that I am watching each turn 5-6 times from different angles because so much is going on.