LemuelG

Good - relative spotting - 1:1 scale - AI plans in scenarios, limited but mostly effective input from tacAI I Want - this is #1 with a bullet - AI plans with Boolean triggers, ie: give unit an order to attack an objective, but with a condition: if casualties >20% execute Plan B (which might involve withdrawing and trying another approach) etc - dug-out fortifications, the compromises made here are obvious, wouldn't it be nice if we could have our cake and eat it too? - more effective and sophisticated light effects on terrain, just to crank the immersiveness (not a word eh?) over-the-edge.

<achem> Achtung Panzer. Despite having an awful name and being fatally flawed (IMO, the whole thing becomes farcical the moment the opponent AI starts doing it's thing, and there's no MP - but the underlying engine is very sound), it fully deserves comparison with CMBN. Particularly in terms of the lighting and shading deployed, it is far easier in AP to get a feel for the lay of the land. Otherwise there is little to separate them graphically, units in both games are exquisite. Frankly, I think if CM:BN took a few hints from AP it would be a better game, even the best have room to improve.

What on Earth are you on about? -1 It's not about 'posting code', or 'fixing' anything, I don't have the time to pore through line after line of endless code - it's about the logic behind the processes; specifically cover arcs. I am curious as to how they approach these problems, and why very simple decision-making logic is not applicable in this scenario. It's as easy as someone saying.. for example: 'well covered arcs are more of a restriction or focusing of the area within which a unit makes spotting checks, the spotting and targeting-decisions are part of a separate process'. With that done, I (and others who have expressed interest in the matter) have my answer and will rest assured that yes, it is not so easy after all; I honestly don't see any need to upset the apple cart over it; fine - you don't speak Greek and aren't inclined to learn - must you be 'rankled' because others are making an attempt to better understand it?

I can clearly remember playing closing the pocket in the demo as Germans; I spotted a couple of mortars and an HQ in the church courtyard, got a HMG in a flanking position yet it wasn't spotting the enemies behind the low walls, so I ordered the HMG to area-fire a spot some distance down the road directly past the courtyard from the gun, so the fire passed right over the spot I suspected the enemies were. I couldn't see anyone being hit at the time, but I watched the tracers raking the area at about head-height for a few turns, rubbing my hands with demonic glee - sure enough there were 7-8 bodies there when I moved in later on.

It seems a pretty simple problem, and normally I err on the side of appreciation for the complexities of the system in play. As I see it, the logic is basic - you take a normal cover arc order, and include a test on any appearing targets - armour or infantry? If not the object of the arc, then hold fire - else, open fire. Endif. I suspect most people would settle for this, and leave the inevitable desired exceptions of the rule for those times when not covering an ObjectX-only arc. I'm open to any and all enlightenment as to the nature of the game's algorithms for covered arcs

I think that's your/our problem right there. The three guys I lost in one burst will testify to the lethality of it's bullets, there just isn't enough of them being put in the air at any one time.

The info I would most like to see from any testing would be concerning the MG's sustained rate of fire during an encounter, how this is affected by suppression and if it falls in line with Real Life practice; and also whether or not the gunner is firing more sustained bursts when presented with a large number of targets or faces imminent peril.

I remember the briefing saying that if I didn't destroy enough attackers they would have sufficient forces to prevent my platoon from rejoining it's company - I was a little concerned for their fate. (did they get reinforced and are in the next battle? I haven't started it yet) I really liked the battle (Turnbull's); I was agonizing over the decision between withdrawing my guys in time, and hanging on to kill a few more Germans to secure the escape. It turned into a nail-biter with Germans only meters from an objective when my last guys exited. Much tension, good stuff.

Forgive me, but it's just too ironic to let pass by. Glad I wasn't paying to read that post

I played Turnbull's Stand, I thought I did ok - inflicted 70-80 casualties, took out their AFVs, evacuated everyone on time, no Germans made the objectives - yet still got a red cross on my objectives. I still got a tactical victory on casualties, but what more do I need to do achieve the objectives? I'd have backed my guys to stop em cold if I'd had more time

Needs an 'return to menu' button between campaign battles.

Not in my experience, and I watch casualties very closely to see who got hit, always afraid it is the leader or automatic weapon. Sometimes it is, but mostly not.

It ought to be simple, but it seems not to be - I have faith it's not simply an oversight and is actually an intractable coding problem (I guess? Seems a desirable feature they'd have in if they could... maybe I assume too much?). I guess in your case you could just count the corpses lying around in minefields and count em up, consider any inaccuracies as a part of the sim

Well, I figure that if it was an easy thing to do, it would have been done; but it doesn't seem to be too hard a problem. A solution is find total enemy dead, then subtract the total amount of casualties friendly units have inflicted, what remains will have been caused by off-map support; you will also need to exclude other potential causes of casualties like friendly-fire, mines etc - but I ain't gonna go there. It's just a way of saying 'at the end of battle go through your units one by one and add up all their kills, then subtract the total from the total enemy casualties', which is it what OP should do until BF sort it out

Off-map support tally Initialize units of type Unit Initialize Number_of_Friendly_Units = 0 Initialize Number_of_Enemy_Units = 0 While not EOF Units [Friendly_Units].read() Increment Number_of_Friendly_Units Endwhile While not EOF Units [Enemy_Units].read() Increment Number_of_Enemy_Units Endwhile For Count increasing from 1 to Number_of_Enemy_Units Read killed, wounded Let Unit_Casualties_ = killed + wounded Let Total_Enemy_Casualties = Total_Enemy_Casualties + Unit_Casualties Endfor For Count increasing from 1 to Number_of_Friendly_Units Read enemy killed, wounded Let Unit_Casualties_Inflicted = enemy killed + enemy wounded Let Total_Casualties_Inflicted = Total_Casualties_Inflicted + Unit_Casualties_Inflicted Endfor Let Off-Map_support_tally = Total_Enemy_Casualties - Total_ Casualties_Inflicted End I'm learning, ignore me

I experienced this too, I concluded it was an effect of the bunker - it's presence blocks the hole. Not really a glitch, I imagine it would be easily fixed by moving the gap or the bunker. Too late for 1.1?

RT is in many ways preferable over WeGo for me, but without replays you miss a lot of the magic. After spending some weeks and months with the game I'll most probably play mainly RT, but now while I'm learning and experiencing WeGo gives more value.

First mission was sweet, at first I's like: He wants me to move a company across all that open ground against multiple fortified HMGs? Madness! But, after a few nail-biting rounds of fire and maneuver and a satisfyingly precise mortar round, we made it onto the objective with minimal casualties - I swear, those bunkers are damn tough to suppress - I'd have the whole company pouring fire into one and the occupants didn't even have the decency to duck. Great scenario, thoroughly enjoyed it - also learned a lot about the game while playing it - A+ Ecoqueneaville wasn't bad at all, I noticed that nasty looking road (and the sneaky scenario designer's propensity for devilish gun-placements) and blasted my way through the hedges - sure enough enough the road was a death-trap... but I'd already wormed everyone in behind it on both sides and surprised the majority of defenders; most died fleeing across open ground after their flank got turned. Honestly, I expected worse from this Le Hamelet was a pretty tough nut to crack; I think if I had used smoke instead of HE along that first line of hedges I'd have been murdered, as it was the howitzers destroyed a few heavy weapons and forced the infantry lurking there to flee, I was allowed to waltz into town opposed only by some landmines (tell me.. when the first two guys in a squad step on mines and get blown-up, why does the rest of the squad run ten meters past their still-warm bodies before coming to a halt and crying about mines?). Germans never dropped any artillery, I lost a half dozen guys working my way onto the objective in some short and sharp fire-fights between the buildings, otherwise it was cake. Give the Nazis their Nebelwerfers back Currently playing the fourth mission, am suffering a little - I was a bit carefree with my resources earlier.. no demo charges left, or mortar ammo - being forced to do things the old-fashioned way (get funneled into enemy kill-sack, die) - on the upside, the mortar platoon has made a fine recon element and are currently scheming up an off-map mortar strike on a conspicuous Marder (who fortunately just can't manage to get a round through that hedge); oh, and on the downside I lost the entire Company HQ to a bolt-from-the-blue in the form of one of those nasty 150mm howitzers, emplaced in a typically fiendish position Outstanding campaign so far, really making this game sing for me. Definately would like to see a revised version with the Germans given back their rocket-artillery etc p.s. be a pal, throw some extra demo charges into the pioneer trucks! Why not?

I lost all but one of a .50cal team, and he managed to lug it and a few hundred rounds of ammo around for the rest of the battle. Buddy aid works pretty good for me... fond memories of pioneer HQ team with 3 zooks, and a four man german squad armed exclusively with MG42s! Is also pretty ace when you can arm bailed crews with automatic weapons and put em in the line AI will not buddy aid while under fire, that is a good thing.

I played the Huzzar! scenario, and a Panther OHK'd a laterally moving jeep at 1300m (allowances for short term memory fail please), it was a pretty good shot, I didn't feel anything 'wrong' with it. I watched the trajectory of the shell over and over and it was uncanny how little it dipped even at ranges well over 1km, it's no secret the Panther possessed a superior gun - combined with an experienced crew who may have fired it thousands of times it's gonna be devastating. From what I have have observed so far, it seems tank crews are extremely precise when laying their gun - I mean that there is very little inconsistency in the way of under/over rotation of turret traverse and gun elevation, I think this may be what people are referring to when they describe it as robotic? Is human error modeled into the system in that way? I mean, goofing up, that is.. like, an elite crew traverses the turret precisely to the required angle first go, while a green crew needs a couple of cracks at it.. I haven't really had enough experience with the game to be get a sense of it yet.

It's campaigns.. there should be a way to back out after viewing the initial outline, before the ultra-long loading screen for the first battle briefing, basic stuff.

Ideally, I'd like to watch a snappily edited selection of highlights from WeGo replays (<= 10 minutes). No corny music plz.

It definately gives a slightly better appreciation of what it's like for your troops when you order them to crawl underneath incoming grazing MG fire into the teeth of a danger-close artillery barrage

Had my pre-order DL for a short while now, very much enjoying it (CMx1 player, no shock force experience). Played through Task Force Raff campaign and a couple other scenarios, found them all to be very well-concieved and a lot of fun. First impressions: - general presentation much improved - list of scenarios included a little bit anemic (I know.. 'the community will make more', but I can't lie, I was a bit dissapointed), QB system truly excellent - maybe this is the engine I've always been waiting for, there is no substitute for real-time and 1:1 (preferred Close Combat to CMx1 in many ways). Super-happy WeGo remains, even if it is a little redundant - love the relative spotting and C2, good stuff - AI plans make a big difference to gameplay.. AI manages half-decent attacks (good enough to demand some sort of tactical response so far in my experience) and appears to have an uncanny ability to make you suffer when using artillery, all-round I give it the 'good enough' stamp... though largely due to scenario designer's worthy efforts, but hey, it works - how often do we get to say that as wargamers? - vehicle models are exquisite, movement looks pretty real; on the downside, the way they rock about after firing is kinda ridiculous - toy-like, that's all I'll say about that - artillery is deliciously lethal, played Le Desert scenarios as Germans, my tactical plans largely failed miserably (on mines and bocage), but my off-map mortars and howitzers swept the town like a broom; it was serious business, and I began to fret about playing humans at this game, it will be terrible - and properly so. Please find a way of displaying casualties for off-map support after a battle - pathfinding is pretty good, before I started playing I did not expect to trust it to the degree I do now. I like the way vehicles show awareness of impending snarl-ups and try to give way to each other, perhaps the priority and pausing of the vehicle giving way could use work.. sometimes it can get a little comical with vehicles spasmodically stopping and starting in a: 'you first' 'no you' 'no you, I insist' kinda loop.. things work themselves out, but it's not ideal (it needs to make a firm decision - do I give way or keep going? If I give way, for how long should I delay?) - 'buddy-aid' is the greatest - I loathe relative hotkeys, alternatives should be defaulted.. your call though. Ever thought about an MMO-style system where one can assign orders, units etc to a hotbar and access them using number keys? Being able to map things on the fly in battle would be of great benefit for the flow of real-time gameplay - I press 1, I have access to my forward observer or targeting line of overwatching gun without undue hassle, etc - I'd really love that - I'd like to be able to hide the UI in-battle (maybe I just don't know how, I hope so). If you were to steal the system from CC (unit status and ammo displays can be summoned and dismissed with hotkeys - if you only care about ammo, just have that, or just display unit status, etc) that would be fine with me - sometimes I see very small bugs, like dead guys lying contorted vertically off the ground, or guys marching along normally, but at an unusual angle to the ground (tilted back 15-20 degrees), the odd floaty weapon; gladly these bugs so far exclusively fall into the 'charmingly quirky' category rather than 'game-breaking' - I want to play more, in fact I am addicted already.. slavishly awaiting new content. Code seems very mature and has everything I want in a tactical wargame, and more - I bet team BF is chuffed with this product, I would be - cheers, this one is definately a keeper :cool:

Well done, thank you.