ClarkWGriswold

One other thing to note is that you really don't know the nature of a penetration. It can range anywhere from a shell going clear through the tank and out the other side, killing or maiming three guys in the process, to just barely penetrating the armor and having no real force left afterwards. So it's possible that the two penetrations on this Panther were more or less out of energy once they made it through the armor and/or in areas that didn't kill crew or severely damage equipment.

But the modules will presumably be Mac/Windows specific. In other words, if I buy CMBN for Mac *and* CMBN for Windows, when Module 1 comes out I'm going to need two copies of that as well (one Mac and one Windows), correct? Or can you buy one copy of the module for use with both Windows and Mac versions?

For what it's worth, I use a Mac at home, but I'm forced to use Windows at work. If a dual license (or maybe even discount license) was available, I'd love to install the game on my Windows machine at work to play during lunch hours and down time. It would be a value add for me. Not having this ability won't prevent me from buying the game (I preordered the Mac version as soon as it was available), but there's no way I'm going to spend another $60 for the Windows version, just so I can play now and then at work. My $0.02. Speaking for myself, Battlefront isn't going to lose any of my money by not offering the ability to run on both platforms using a single license, but they might get more of my money if they at least offered a substantial discount on a second license. Whether or not that would be offset by people abusing the system I do not know.

You definitely cannot use CMBN in a virtual machine environment. Steve has said it multiple times (in the DRM thread, I believe) and I'm pretty sure I read it in the manual as well. The DRM doesn't play nice with virtualized environments.

Is there any way to force a unit to shoot through the smoke? You can't issue a target order for a spot that you cannot see, and shooting at an area target directly in front of the smoke is useless. There's got to be some sort of way to tell your units to fire through smoke, regardless of whether or not they can see a target.

Tomayto, tomahto

Yup! Note the image of Anglen's weapons. The top is a rifle/grenade and the bottom is a bazooka. Note also that he's in the second story of an enclosed building. The caption (in Spanish) reads: "Without a second thought, Anglen fires an antitank grenade from his rifle. The sound is spectacular".

AT rifles work just fine from within buildings. There. Happy now?

I have a MacBook Pro myself, so I understand all about it. I was just posing the question since you can get a lot more for your money if you don't really need the portability.

Errors make it through EVERY product. It's never a surprise, and these types of issues can always be fixed later. My question is, will these issues be fixed later? I mean, should we bother reporting errors or is the manual pretty much done, and any subsequent changes will only be for future modules?

Pg. 31: "The Command and Control (C2) network is a complicated topic that will be left for the manual. You can find more information on C2 later in the manual". This doesn't make sense. "Left for the manual"... aren't we reading the manual right now? I suggest combining these two sentences to make it simpler and more straight-forward: "The Command and Control (C2) network is a complicated topic that will be covered in more detail later in the manual".

That's interesting. That's a different requirement from the PC version, correct?

Multi-cores don't mean anything, since CMx2 can't use more than a single core. So, don't let that put you off. Steve has said outright that he plays on a MacBook Pro, so a brand new one will have no problems at all. Even my 2007 Core 2 Duo model will run CMSF (using BootCamp), so you can guarantee that the new models won't break a sweat. Are you dead set on getting a laptop? If not, the iMac is a lot more machine for the money. Bigger screen, faster video cards, etc. And rumor has it that the iMac line will be refreshed within the next couple of months. Though, waiting that long might be hard if you have the game in your hands.

Pg. 21: "The picture to the right can serve as a guide". The picture is to the left.

Pg. 19: "We will cover important hotkeys are the need arises," should read: "We will cover important hotkeys as the need arises,"

Nobody said anything about driving them downtown. And obviously nobody is going to suggest putting them in a vulnerable position when you know the enemy has guns covering the area. But if there's the possibility of using them with minimal risk, then by all means put those MGs to use!

Uh, no. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llP9Q0e4kU8#t=6m3s http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llP9Q0e4kU8#t=6m31s The vehicles barely move at all when firing. If they did, it would make for an awful unstable gun platform. Not even the large caliber self propelled arty vehicles rock like the ones in CMBN ( ). Steve even said point-blank in another thread that the rocking of the vehicles was exaggerated on purpose (http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1247114&postcount=65).

Everyone knows they are not right, including BFC. But they are as good as they can be. In real life you dig a foxhole/trench down into the ground. They tried that in CMSF but it had the huge drawback of the enemy being able to see where your foxholes/trenches were located, whether they were in line of sight or not. The other choice is the solution they've implemented in CMBN, where the foxholes and trenches are above ground, but unable to be seen until they are in LOS. There's simply no way to put the 3D model above ground and still have it look "real". I think most everyone would much prefer slightly odd looking foxholes to the alternative of not really being able to use nicer looking foxholes since the enemy always sees them.

For AP rounds, perhaps, but HE shells just tend to stick.

There's a Google Translate link on the first page of the thread. Very helpful, though I ended up manually translating a lot of the text in the screenshots.

I don't know how it was done historically, but if I've got a few extra machineguns sitting on the battlefield, I'm damn well going to do what I can to use them!

There's another AAR going on right now. No offense to the guys who've posted AARs and VAARs so far, but I personally think this is the best one yet. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=96031

On Wednesday, 20 April 2011 the main Battlefront.com website posted the update about OSX availability. On that day they said "Combat Mission: Battle for Normandy is scheduled for release within the next 14-21 days". That would put the absolute earliest release as the first week of May. I think you can pretty much forget about April.

Bumping up the release date by two weeks isn't worth much to me. I want to play as badly as anyone else, but it's not like I can't occupy myself for two more weeks.

Two questions raised in the original (Spanish) thread that I would like to repost here, in hopes of getting a response from BFC or the beta testers: 1) There are three pointers on the base circle around a selected unit. The middle one is obviously the facing of the unit. Is there any significance to the other two? 2) A Sherman got bogged/immobile in the scenario. A few questions regarding bogging: Is there any way to tell the ground pressure rating of a vehicle like in CMx1? Is there any way to help prevent bogging, other than staying on roads (ie: moving slower/faster, reversing if a bog happens, etc)? Are you more likely to bog in a plowed field versus a grassy area, for instance? More likely to bog in a low spot than you are on higher ground? Thanks in advance to anyone who can shed some insight.