Zels77

Nope, it's a recurring issue I've experienced across multiple scenarios. The ratio of kills against gunners in moving HTs compared to stationary infantry behind similar or inferior cover doesn't match up. For a game that used to pride itself on the pursuit of total realism, this should be seen as a significant flaw - in the same way that leader-seeking shrapnel was addressed as a significant flaw in the v1.10 patch.

Step 1: supply the enemy with gun-mounted halftracks Step 2: fire in the general direction of the halftracks Apparently it's impossible not to kill the gunner. You could be anywhere in the world, and if you fired your handgun into the air, the round would come down on a gunner in a halftrack somewhere on the planet. It takes concentrated fire to kill troops taking cover behind a stationary wall, but shoot at a halftrack moving at full speed and you are guaranteed to kill the gunner. You can't see it in the game, but every halftrack - and unbuttoned tank for that matter - has a giant dog cone that directs all small arms fire towards the exposed gunner. Very realistic.

I agree Vencini, but expect a message from a BF drone along these lines "unless you can prove it in court we will deny it!"

Three units positioned within 30m of each other in a triangle. Two are behind bocage, facing the enemy (Plat HQ and 60mm mortar) while one is 30m back from bocage in wheatfield (BAR team). Stray mortar round comes in and lands in the middle of the triangle. Only three guys buy it out of a total of nine men - two of them are leaders. In isolation, not completely far-fetched, but it happens MOST of the time. Leaders are magnets for enemy fire in CMBN.

The CM series is, far and away, the best WWII tactical wargame simulator ever produced. Nothing else comes close to replicating the obvious amount of effort that was invested into acquiring unprecedented levels of realism. But it's for this reason that I think BF needs to be a little less defensive and a little more receptive to the fact that buildings serve as little more than a visual reference - they provide zero cover. There's a reason buildings offered a wopping +2 or +3 modifier in ASL. If buildings had provided as little cover as they do in CMBN, the Sixth Army wouldn't have lasted a day in Stalingrad. It's round about now that a boneheaded grognard will point out that Stalingrad was full of industrial warehouses and not farmhouses... that's not the point, slappy. The point is this: in CMBN, deploying troops in a building is a surefire way of getting them killed or routed. Also, there's a disturbing (read: undeniable) propensity for leaders to be the casualty of any and all incoming fire. I'll bite my tonge on the "yes, but leaders were - by definition - leading their troops into battle and therefore often copped it" argument related to small arms fire, but how does the shrapnel of a mortar that explodes in the midst of a squad always seem to find its way to the guy with the most stripes on his arm? To the developers: admit you got it wrong and fix these issues so that we can get on with playing your masterpiece.

1) Close combat option - watching soldiers repeatedly fire (and miss) at each other at point blank range takes away from the realism 2) more intelligent/reliable movement for vehicles across bridges 3) maybe it's just me, but it seems like any time a unit takes a casualty, it's the leader who gets hit

Cheers tx bud!

Thanks for that mate, but I can't find any of the files in the saved game folder - am I looking in the right place?

I'm having difficulty setting up a QB by PBEM. I check off all the relevant scenario parameters, but when I select 2-player, PBEM and enter my password, the game just returns to the main menu. I've tried the exact same procedure for a single-player QB and it works just fine. What am I missing?