bisu

Could anybody confirm that you can or can not continue a PBEM game which was started in v2.01 after BOTH opponents have upgraded to v2.1? Thx.

Yea i have a similar problem. It seems all german infantry portraits are absent or messed up. Allied portraits seem ok. initially I thought it might be a problem with mod conflict but it persists even after removing the Z folder..

I thought Cover Arc and Target orders were mutually exclusive..

The problem I have mentioned was already discussed before: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110210 Some quotes from there: Maybe that makes it more clear what I have in mind. It is not so difficult to imagine such encounter especially in Normandy: a light mortar setup behind a berm of a bocage , and 250-300 m away suspected enemy behind another bocage strip. You could efficiently target the enemy with the tube only and remain unspotted as long as the accompanying riflemen wouldn't open fire and make a lot of noise. Currently this is not possible in game.

There was another issue specifically concerning mortar teams.. It was the situation where after indirect fire target order has been given to the mortar to engage suspected enemy in a specific area, the supporting riflemen started to fire their small arms as well thus immediately giving away position. This problem significantly limited the use of mortars at smaller distances.. Has this issue been adressed somehow?

Well, I thought about it for some time and then I ran a quick test. Hypothesis: Undistracted buttonned Sherman tanks spotting to the rear spot tanks better than infantry. Methods: Map with well separated lines (available at the Repository). 1. tank vs inf: Seven german vet FO teams (3 soldiers) hiding in the open field with no concealment (Target Line on the map). Seven M4 Sherman identical regular tanks buttonned standing 100m in the front of the FO teams (with their backs directed towards FO's). 2. tank vs tank: The same M4 tanks. Instead of FO's now 7 identical Mark IV tanks with tight CA's at the Target Line (again 100 m distance). Results: 1. tank vs inf: minute 1: no FO spotted by tanks (1 question mark - see link). https://www.dropbox.com/s/8kzse6jfzbia00d/inf%20vs%20tanks%201%20min.jpg minute 2: no change. minute 3 no change. 2. tank vs tank: minute 1: two Mark IV spotted and engaged by shermans (see link) https://www.dropbox.com/s/6fxgda7486y6pjw/tanks%20vs%20tanks%201%20min.jpg minute 2: +2 Mark IV's spotted. minute 3: +2 Mark IV's spotted. Conclusions: Hypothesis confirmed. Additional remarks: Striking for me was that: 1. No infantry was spotted by tanks during 3 consecutive minutes at 100 m even without concealment. 2. In some cases it took the Shermans as long as 3 mins to spot a tank in the open only 100m behind.. I also did a complimentary tank vs inf test using the setup from the Methods but this time I ordered infantry to crawl perpendiculary to the tanks (the distance remained unchanged). As expected the spotting improved: 1st minute: 2 inf spotted and engaged. 2nd minute: +2 3rd minute:+1. This also seems correct. Comments are welcome:)

I am wondering what the consequences of this improvement will be for H2H, in cases where one of the players will have MG installed and the other not..

Well, actually I originally had something different in mind. Even without additional wind strength option, I don't understand what makes the wind change between map settings and final QB settings. That has impact on your battle plans, because if you previously saw GENTLE and decided to use a lot of smoke assets and afterwards it changes to STRONG you can throw your assets to the bin.

Bil, in one of your videos I've noticed a Hanomag gunner firing at enemy infantry. Has the vulnerability of halftrack gunners been changed/decreased in MG according to your experience so far?

Well, the fact that your Cromwells did not spot anything can be explained IMO by the fact that both of them were sitting in the open fileld (dunes). Bil's armor OTOH was well hidden in the clumps of trees and bushes. It is also my experience that one should always attempt to position a tank in the trees or bushes as it gives a real bonus to concealment and permits to get the first shot in a potential tank firefight..

+1 to this!!! I couldn't express it better! Cheers GJR144!!

I always find it funny when people are being told to be quiet on a discussion forum. I also don't see any reason why discussions about MG should be prohibited until the moment of release. Steve himself opened a thread on MG and provided us with information on the features of the module. So he opened the topic for discussion. Percisely thanks to opinions expressed PRIOR to release BTF can improve the final product which happened many times in the past. I entirely share the opinion of warrenpeace but I hope that BTF "always bring more than they promise".

Well, Steve and we are grateful for that. Keep it going. I hope that you had a look at this thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110504 and took some notes for the future releases. There are plenty of reasonable requests and unreasonable demands in it. According to the discussion about the MG module I think the misunderstandings origin from our small knowledge about its actual content.. I'd understand beelzeboss and waclaw standpoint if I based my assessment on the information provided in the "Start of actual news" thread. Usually the developpers present the MAIN features of a new release in such a thread. Some content may be added afterwards but rather secondary. And frankly speaking if the features listed by Steve would eventually end as MAIN new features of MG then I'd agree that the module would look rather poor IN RELATION to the former modules. And consequently the identical pricing would make me go hmmmm.. So far we know that we will have some AA vehicles, bridges and this mill:) and the bulk of the MG news thread is actually about what will NOT be included (it is a pretty long list so far). Well, but Steve is telling us recently that we shouldn't be afraid cause he knows what a release should contain to be worth 35 bucks. Therefore I'm confident and I am waiting to be nicely surprised soon..

I have a question to all H2H QB grogs. Is there any justification for purchasing a Stug III in a QB? According to the view frequently presented on this forum the price of a Stug being higher than the price of a Pz IV makes the purchase of the former rather unreasonable, considering its turretless design and less HE rounds. But on the other hand Stug's lower profile and good frontal armor characteristics makes it more difficult to spot and penetrate (as was confirmed by the tests performed recently by womble). So do you guys ever purchase a Stug III for QB's and if yes, under what circumstances (type of map, size) and what is your tactics for playing this vehicle?

I am assuming that the the small arms vs. unarmored vehicles interaction has been corrected in the 2.01 patch (as mentioned in the patch feature list) so these vehicles can be now used as "baseline".

Indeed c3k was involved, but AFAIK there was no information yet on the conclusion of his testing. So we still don't know whether BTF is going to change something or they consider gunners vulnerability is OK as it is currently. That is what I meant with "no official comment"..

Your tests confirm again that there is an issue with halftrack gunners, as did those conducted initially by Baneman. Unfortunately the original thread got somehow derailed into discussion about the use of halftracks in RL, which in fact was irrelevant to the actual topic. And unfortunately we never had any official comment from BTF regarding this.

I have a QB map, and when I open it in the editor mission data section the wind is set to gentle. When I preview the map in editor in the conditions section I also see gentle. Thats ok. But then when I setup a QB on the basis of this map, with weather set to "clear" and "day" (you don't have any impact on wind strength while setting up a QB, right?) I have STRONG wind in the actual conditions of the battle. How come the strength of the wind changes? Anybody can help?

Good to hear that. Thx Steve.

Well, there seems to be a uniform opinion on these mortars in the community. Shouldn't be an extensive coding effort either to fix that. Come on BTF, good suggestion for the next patch .

I don't think there is a way to avoid riflemen firing when giving target or even target light order to mortars. This is a major limitation to the use of especially light 60mm US mortars in the bocage setting where distances are relatively small and thus units get suppressed quickly by response small arma fire. Light mortars could be a valuable suppressing tool (as they were in RL) but their use in game is tricky because of these riflemen firing giving away position within seconds. If you don't give any orders and rely on the TACAI then you can't use the mortar effectively for indirect suppresion. I'am curious what tactics you guys are using with 60mm mortars in bocage?

Where can I find the 2.5.4 release? I can only see the 2.4.4 version on GaJ's Mods Website..

I experience some issues with H2HH 2.4.4 after having installed GL. It keeps changing automatically the correct CMFI.exe directory to the incorrect D:\Documents\Battlefront\Combat Mission\Fortress Italy\CM Fortress Italy.exe (it does not exist there). I am trying to manually retype the correct path (in the edit install), but after closing and re-opening the H2HH reverts to the wrong directory. CMBN works fine. Anybody having such a problem?

Any plans to include the Hetzer in the MG module? To my knowledge they took part in the fights in Netherlands. And it has been the much beloved little toy already since the CMBO era

I also have the impression that the quality of graphics becomes worse when switched to movie mode..