Georgie

I ran some tests several months ago on the value of buildings for cover. I used individual buildings only. I found that several buildings provided good cover and several buildings didn't. In fact some buildings were so bad that a squad was better off laying down in the open. The problem is to identify the building before you use it or attack it. The realism is there there is just an identification problem. I doubt it that BF changed anything building structure wise. The troops don't bunch up at the windows with the patch v1.10 and the scenario designers selected a more bullet proof building for the new scenarios. At least thats what I think happened.

Has the "stand alone" v1.10 patch been released yet?

Thanks Matt I'll give it a try.

Will someone please tell me how to find the "change log" thread?

OOM is a problem where your PC runs out of memory and the scenario crashes. This only occurs on very large scenarios. I'm sure that someone else can explain it a lot better than I did.

Does the CW module include a patch? If it does is there a list of the problems that have been addressed? From reading some of the most recent threads it seems that the OOM problem for the PC has been corrected and this is great news.

Thanks Moon , hopefully the patch will correct most of the problems.

Hello Moon. Will the new patch be released with the Common Wealth module? If so what was patched?

The MG42 can only aim at one action spot at a time at close range.It has to be moved to engage a different action spot which will involve extra movement to get the bi pod seated in a new position. The other option for the MG42 is to fire at a single action spot till the Americans in this action spot are suppressed but this will allow the other two American teams to ignore the bolt action equipped Germans and concentrate on the MG42. I wonder if this is modeled in CMBN?

Don't worry about it. Your dad will talk to you about it when the time is right.

A question. Can a German tank be damaged by 75mm HE from a Sherman? I had an instance where a 75 Sherman was firing on a Panther head to head with AP but got no hits. The Panther apparently did not see the Sherman so the Panther backed away out of the sight. The area where the Panther was located was under good los from various locations and just the one little area where he backed to wasn't in los so I knew approximately where he was so I switched my Sherman to area fire and due to the flashes in the target area it looked as though the Sherman got hits with HE. My Sherman latter engaged this Panther when it reappeared, flank shot, and knocked it out but I could not determine whether or not the Panther had been damaged by the HE.

I like the tank on tank gameplay much better in CMBN than it was in the CM1 games. In CM1 if a Panther or a Tiger encountered a Sherman even a 76 Sherman then the outcome was ,in my experience, 99 percent of the time in favor of the Panther or Tiger. Now the Sherman still loses but not as often. This makes the game more fun for me. Cant wait to see how the Jackson fares with that big 90.

Has anybody been able to play Fire Brigade without an OOM error. If you have please post here. Has any body tried and failed to play Fire Brigade because of an OOM error. If you have please post here.

Hi Phil, I feel enough like Vossliewulf that I am thinking about switching to a Mac to get around the OOM error. I think that its a mistake to minimize the importance of the OOM error. If left uncorrected it will only get worse.

Will any fixes that are put in the Commonwealth module also fix the base game?

AFAIK the Mac version of CMBN is coded in 64bit and therefore does't suffer from the OOM error problem and is able to play the largest existing scenarios with out said error? If this is true would the Mac be capable of playing the largest map and scenario that the editor is capable of producing? Any correction or clarification or any other info concerning Mac vs PC will be welcomed. I am considering switching to the Mac.

During the early years of the war the US was supplying a part of the British needs by sea and in the process the US and the British lost many ships which were replaced by the industry of the Americans and the British. What was the survival rate of the US and British crews whose ships were sunk at sea? Who manned these new ships that were produced? I have read that in many instances when US tanks were destroyed and their crews killed or wounded that infantry men who had no tank training were used to man the replacement tanks and this resulted in a dismal performance by these replacement tanks. Where I read about the tank replacement crews I don't remember. Maybe some one else has read this and they do remember.

Yes!!! Once the lid is closed you are in a smokey hot box trying to look out a couple of slits and a periscope or two to get an idea of which way you are heading and trying not to shoot your own troops or a friendly tank.

I have read reports that tests performed post war indicate that the panzerfaust will penetrate the frontal armor of the Tiger 2. Which reports? I don't remember. Hopefully some one else has read the same or similar reports and does remember.

When Michael When?

Phil showed himself ....so I know that they are all not dead. So, how about a bone particle, at least, for the followers, or the interested... a patch, an announcement, anything.:cool:

Bumpk, bumpk.

Thanks, good info. Its on my save file.

The problem that I have is that there are buildings in the game that provide protection against small arms fire but there is no way to tell which building it is.:confused:

A while back I ran a series of tests using a squad each of US and German with similar firepower. Its been awhile since I did it but the results were, counting from left to right on each succeeding line of houses in the editor, 1st thru 6th house offered no cover and was worse than being in the open laying down. House 8, 9 and 12 offered good cover. These were individual houses. Some one might want to rerun these tests and maybe a way could be devised to identify the buildings that offer good or bad protection.