Cymru

By now I should know better. In a small QB I am given a Xylophone and go ahead and use it. I place a linear barrage along a hedgerow behind where I expect the enemy main defense line to be. The barrage is set to last five minutes and experience has taught me to play it safe and stay put and hidden during the barrage. Hah! Over the course of the next five minutes eight rockets land a full one third of the map away from the target zone: and every one of them lands *directly* on one of my units. I lose a quarter of my force before I have even started and a third of my units are so freaked out that they play no real part in the rest of the QB. When I manage to get close to the enemy I do find that almost all of their artillery and mortars have been knocked, so I suppose my losses were the cost of doing business. Nonetheless, from now on I either aim at the back of the map, or don’t use them at all.

Wait till the Brits arrive with their Flail tanks!

And all AFVs become Tigers

Bob Hope and a USO troop to entertain us

What we need is a "Whack-a-Mole" setting.

It would seem reasonable to me that in real life they would move until they did have a good LOS/LOF, otherwise they might as well go home

Being lazy, I don’t want to download dozens of mods in order to find the few that I really like. Is there a voting/ranking thread where users rate and/or rank the various mods?

My tankers seem to dismount under fire at the first chance they get

My dad said it was him and his mates that won the war. I would hate to think any of you are calling him a liar!

Yeah, I am waiting for Operation Goodwood.

Assuming you own a copy of Windows, then you can run it on the Mac using Boot Camp. That way you can keep playing the version of CM you have

I have found that the increased realism often backfires, and makes me become irked when it fails: soldiers walking through each other, mortar loaders with no shell, first aid with no bandages etc. Ironically, older programs (of all types) had so little realism that I automatically supplied all necessary details in my head. Now I expect everything to me done by the game and it is jarring when this doesn’t happen. I still think this is an outstanding game and I am amazed at the quality: I guess I am hoping for all effects to be of equivalent detail. If we can see a soldier push a clip into a rifle, why don’t we see mortar shells dropping into the tube? I know this is a petty concern and the added programming and CPU time could probably be used on more worthwhile projects, so I won’t keep complaining.

Then its a good thing it isn’t based on a CMx2 QB. They would have 20 Marders and nothing else.

Does the ‘actual ‘ number decrease without being shown? In other words, do you think you still have grenades, when in fact they are all gone?

Notice who created it?

I try to be philosophical about such weird behavior (tank turns flank to enemy tank firing at him from 100 metres to attack panicked single enemy armed with a .45) by telling myself I have never been in a tank under fire, so I don't know how irrational I would be. On the other hand, it would seem that the choice should be obvious. Having said that; I have a glimmer of just how hard programming a good AI response is, so I don't know if a decision tree that realistically covers all situations is ever going to satisfy us all.

I estimate my plays/$ are higher with BF games than any other I have played (with the possible exception of the original Wizardry for my Apple II)

Usually ascribed to Winston Churchill to MP Bessie Braddock Braddock: "Winston, you are drunk, and what's more you are disgustingly drunk." Churchill: "Bessie, my dear, you are ugly, and what's more, you are disgustingly ugly. But tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be disgustingly ugly. Also may be Nancy Astor

Several (all?) tanks incorporated a ‘teamaker’ that would boil water

“You shall not pass” “No, wait ‘Nuts‘ is shorter”

To put a stop to the ever-increasing Emrys signature tying up valuable bandwidth (second now only to Netflix): I suggest the following. *Everyone* post some variant of this "Michael Emrys is utterly and irrefutably correct and his answer so totally covers every aspect of this matter that no further threads on this topic will be allowed" There will be no need for more additions to his sig, and the force will cease being disturbed

I had the same thought a while back: I have no idea how difficult it would be to add ‘random’ modifications to an existing QB map. Leave the basic scenario intact but change elevations, trees, rivers etc. Not all would work but, as Emrys pointed out, in the old system that was one of the enjoyable aspects. Since QB is 90% of my playing, I really miss the old system and would love to see anything that would get closer to it.

Since the Puma could use the backwards-facing radio operator to drive the vehicle backwards, is this modeled? Can the Puma travel backwards as fast as forwards, and can in mimic Hunt in this mode?

I hate to say this: while Mr Emrys may or may not be right, I agree with him I have been assimilated

Don't ask me: I didn't create the poll