LemuelG

Oh yeah, that is down-right desirable stuff. I think my game is about to be de-vanilla-fied

Can we please have some castles? Preferably in modular form, so we can just use individual towers etc. There's loads of buildings like this in Normandy at-large: That one was dubbed 'gray castle' by the troops who fought the Germans defending there. Rather appropriate really - on this same map I am making there are two more important buildings that feature large castle-like towers. This is the kind of thing people are talking about when they describe 'fortress-like' farms and houses in the Normandy fighting. I, we really need them, sign-up?

It really impressed me when I picked up the demo. The way they would tell units that just arrived in the line where they spotted an enemy, and the chinese-whispers which would lead to some units suspecting enemies in places you knew to be clear, just 'cause they heard about it earlier and were never informed of the enemy's destruction; at first it confused me, when the realization of what had happened dawned on me I was deeply impressed. Credit where it is due, this is a brilliant spotting system.

You were mis-informed. If the damage is merely a thrown track there's no good reason for it to take longer than a half hour. To argue that there's no time, or it didn't happen in a hot-zone is BS, frankly. I am more compelled by the argument that it is a lot of code for a feature of little relevance and unlikely to be prioritized over a zillion other things in the pipeline.

The problem with QB maps is that the designer doesn't have the luxury of knowing force-composition beforehand. There are multitudes of subtle factors to take into account when putting a defense together with the forces at hand. My point is that human, context-sensitive deployment is best, and you get this in pre-baked scenarios. If it were solely up to AI, deployments would be routinely bad, we have seen it game after game.

That is awesome, thank you sir.

I can see it being an issue on smaller maps, with smaller forces, otherwise there is more room to deploy and more troops on-hand so an unfortunately well-placed barrage doesn't spell the end. Since what you're effectively purchasing is priority, maybe heavy assets of battalion-level and above should become prohibitively expensive for smaller formations to purchase. The logic being, the larger the formation with the larger area-of-operation finds it has greater priority over smaller units in localized skirmishes and can access artillery with more ease. So you wont end up fighting someone on a small map who has only an FO and the rest of his points spent on rockets. But then, people want to have their cake, and eat it too. So that wont work. I predict an evolution in map design, larger with more extensive deployment areas - arena-style maps dont really give you much chance against heavy support. The player should have an option: do I deploy all my troops in the obvious positions on the objective? Or do I set up outposts and 'duck' the preliminary barrage, moving the main force in after the enemy's firepower is spent? Do I run my guys down the obviously well-defended approach, or do I try to hit it from another direction? As a hard and fast rule, I'd say don't allow off-map support at all on any map under one, maybe two square kilometers in size, unless you want a blood-bath. From some historical scenarios I expect this. Not much fun in a duel.

This post helped me understand what the heck was being discussed here, and I can have some empathy with you. I do wonder exactly what you were expecting in terms of AI. I was glad when I saw what CM was doing with high-level AI... basically removing it from the equation, after playing the shambolic Total War titles of the last few years I can only say Good Riddance. The unit-level AI in CMBN is really quite excellent, easily a cut-above the rest; the only problem is that the system is highly dependent on designer-input for deployment/movements etc. I constantly run into ATGs/mines etc that only a human's devious mind could have placed so perfectly, it makes this game quite playable solo in scenarios/campaigns - but in QBs that just wont happen. It seems the future of this game is highly-scripted user-designed scenarios for mainly solo play and a QB system mostly appropriate for head-to-head play. I don't know why you don't play MP or scenarios/campaigns, please give them a go - follow the fun.

I had a zook team in my recon-element, they bravely disabled two StuGs (one engine-kill, one gun-damage/crew kill), forcing the crews to dismount, after which the German crews were dispatched by the other scouts. These heroes received no credit. Both empty/useless vehicles were eventually brewed-up by a game Sherman following the advance, the twat claimed both kills.

Great paragraph. Keepin' it real for all the freedom-fighters struggling for justice against BFC's Evil Empire. Hang tough brother, never give up - no matter how asinine or paranoid they say you are.

Yes, you do. Please explain away the reality of planned barrages in real warfare... I am curious, particularly after you extoll the 'buying' of TRPs and calling in artificially-shortened on-call bombardments as a more authentic option. What nonsense.

Generals Ridgeway and Gavin jumped into Normandy. And yes, battalion commanders jumped with their units. You will find colonels leading recon patrols, majors running ammo on the front line, and generals repairing vehicles under mortar fire.

Aww, man. It almost seems as if you might appreciate it more than I do, and therefore I should sell-up... but nah, it is pretty cool. I need the manual to figure out what flavour-object is what. I'm touching it now, it is quite weighty for a game box, and being winter here, very cold to the touch - it is metallic and sturdy enough while still being cheap (oops) and functional. I accidentally sat on mine and only a very small dent resulted, most games would have been annihilated.

Good finds, I never thought of looking at Panzerwrecks. Now, if there was a concession here and Marders were armed by-the-book, what is appropriate in-game considering we are pretty certain they're solely for AA use, and will never be able to be used for their intended purpose, instead likely to be abused to turn the vehicle into some kind of pseudo-tank, pushing ahead in the vanguard mowing down infantry with MG fire?

Marder III & Grille Vladimir Francev - Charles K. Kliment The first thing to jump out at me was the use of "usually" and "according to German regulations", but I guess I wouldn't argue (too vigorously) if they were given their guns. My money is still on the actuality being that they either never got these weapons or were soon stripped from the vehicle and given to someone who could actually use them. I do have a soft-spot for the ol' 38(t), am expecting sIG 33 armed version of the M (for 'Mitte', indicating mid-engined variants) chassis to make it's appearance with the SS panzer regiments. Thinking of all the versions we wont be seeing anytime soon makes me a little melancholy.

The ausf.H chassis-variants retained the Bow HMG of the tank-version of the chassis. It does not automatically follow that this means other variants always carry loose MGs for the crew. False logic. This discussion has piqued my interest enough that I've pestered a friend to translate a section of a Czech-language source I have; I'll report back later.

Not at all, provision is made inside the fighting-compartment for one's storage. But that doesn't prove they did have one Personally I don't really see the sense in it, why should they get one? If the crew were ever in a position to actually need it something has gone horrifically wrong. Better served by giving them to riflemen, unless there was some kind of local surplus of MG42s. Sure, the blueprints say X - but in practice it's often actually Y.

My bad; the truth is that it's no worse at all than any other tactical-scale game out there, except for CMBN - and that's mainly because the most consequential AI decisions are ceded to the human designer. Developers have to get with the program - without a coherent human-designed plan for the AI to follow their game will be crap (for the solo). If I'm ever proven wrong in that statement I'll whistle a happy tune and jump into the air clicking my heels like I was walkin' the yellow F'n brick road. This game is light-years ahead of the rest in single-player fun-ness (what?) - and I say that as someone who thinks the system could and should be radically improved with no delay, not even for bugs. Triggers are needed right away.

The MG-equipped Marder I posted before may simply have had experimental/prototype fittings which never made it into circulation. It's important to note that after perusing at least several dozens of contemporary photos of Marders in combat I counted a grand total of ZERO Marders packing MGs or their brackets mounted anywhere at all. This fact speaks much louder to me than the existence of MG mounts on a vehicle pictured at it's factory. At the very least, we can rest-assured that MG-less MarderIIIMs in this game are quite correct. Maybe the odd vehicle had one... but then I'm sure we'd be subjected to Steve's favorite lecture about not wanting to turn the 'extraordinary into the ordinary', and I'm sick of hearing about it

The 'C' refers entirely to the 251 chassis-variant the gun was installed in. 9s only come in C and D variants. Cs in Normandy are very unlikely. The short 75 was at this point at the very far end of the line as far as production priorities go. It was a case of: "what do we do with all these virtually-useless guns now we up-gunned our Panzer/SPG fleet? Let's biff em into HTs and scout-cars then call it a day eh? Who cares if they'll be grossly overweight? Moar gunz."

Gaming has changed a lot in the last decade (woo! I'm old), it's a combination of consumers demanding more and more info on the games they're interested in (re: those with the largest marketing budgets, that's life), and 'journalistic' outlets giving ceaseless service to those who pay their bills via advertising. Someone like Gamespot devoting reviewer-hours to CMBN smacks a little of charity, doubt I'd ask my people to devote time to it either when there are more profitable activities to be done. There is another favorable review at Digitally Downloaded.com - from an 'outsider' even (non-Grog).

The engine is terrific, it even has a few things CM does not - illumination flares; unit-formations; headlights; using your tanks to shunt wrecks outta the way etc. It's problem is that there is no MP, and the AI is absolutely God-awful; it takes a battle or two, then you realize there is unlikely to be any reasonably accurate tactical developments and un-install. Perhaps that's why their forum is a ghost-town, if no-one is playing, there isn't anyone to complain

So a game you can't even play against another human-being is somehow gonna challenge CM? Yeah, right. Code me some MP Graviteam, I might pick it up.

The mounts (including a version welded to the superstructure I wasn't aware of). Could not find any in combat situations (these pics taken outside the factory of a fresh vehicle). They exist, but are very uncommon.

There are special pivoting mounts which install onto the rail above the fighting compartment. Sightings in the wild are extremely rare. Rare enough that they may as well not exist at all. Befehlsjager vehicles may have them, the rest - highly doubtful. I'd wanna see some hard evidence of their regular use before I supported an initiative to have them added to the game.