Bulletpoint

I'm not sure this is high value. Of course more is cool, especially the multi size of the same species, but there already is quite a few varieties and adding them is more work and more computing load so I'm not sure if it ranks high enough for me to ask for with the current engine. That's cool. We all have our own takes on what we think would be worthwhile. For me it would be. And if I couldn't get different sizes of the same trees, then some more vegetation in the size interval between bushes and trees would be really nice. Currently, it's either those little pretty "rose bushes" or proper trees. In real life, there are many sizes in between.

Yuck, more work for scenario designers. Pass thanks. Well it would just be an option to use in those rare cases wher fine-tuning th elocation of a tree is useful. In other cases, it would work as it does currently, so there wouldn't be more work for the designer unless he wanted to.

If it's foggy and max visibility is 300m, then it would be brilliant to show that to the player using the graphics, instead of having to draw a target line and notice where it gets cut off. So basically, if you placed the camera at ground level, your view would be white-out after 300 metres. But with a toggle option to make the fog lift to see the big picture just like the night lighting option. More varieties and sizes of trees and shrubs for more variety and realistic flowing nature. It's not bad currently, but variety is the spice of life. I'd love to see three sizes of every species of tree. Maybe an option to fine-tune the position of trees within each square? Even if restricted to grid-placed trees. More seamless blending of ground textures at all camera elevations. Currently, some blend nicely but others seem to stand out and clash against each other, especially when lifting up the camera some distance from the ground. Something about moire patterns in ploughed fields. Hit decals for buildings. Or if that's too difficult, just a few more damage states (textures) would be nice. Scorched textures for tanks when they catch fire. Various real damage models would also be great, but just a burnt-out texture for each vehicle would go a long way without too (?) much extra work.

This forum has a very nice filter function that you can use to block me and any other horrible person here who might say something you disagree with. Then you can be in your safe space. Peace out from the psychedelic hippie

I don't know what version of the game they were playing. I loaded up the demo and started to feel nauseaus from the the flickering shadows and the swirling psychedelic moire patterns in the plowed fields, until the point where I had to quit the game. The review would come off as more credible if it had said something along the lines of "great gameplay, shame about the graphics".

Thank you for testing it out. What experience level were the crews? In my game, they were green.

You worked for NOKIA ?

As long as the squad is together, they all benefit from the squad leader's binoculars, I believe. Also, I think they benefit from the squad leader's leadership rating. Once you split the squad, the individual teams tend to have the same leadership scores as the parent squad, but I'm not sure this leadership bonus actually counts unless there's a designated "leader" or "assistant leader" in the team... drifting into speculation here.

That's not very close for canister. That's actually starting to get close to its effective range limit. In the interest of exactness, I went back and checked the savegame. I was ordering the scout car to area fire at a house 81m away, but it spotted some infantry in another house at 60m distance and engaged them with canister instead of its given target. Then it started firing HE at the targeted house but quickly spotted infantry in a house at 122m distance and started firing canister at them instead. Then it went back to firing HE at the given target.

I remember one of the missons from Scottish Corridor I knocked out a Tiger frontally with a 57mm gun In any case, at close ranges the Panthers usually get hit on the mantlet, knocking out the main gun. Happens all the time in my games. But again, I'm not saying your campaign wont be great. It's just extremely difficult to make good (enjoyable) scenarios with the AI on the attack, that's all. In my humble opinion.

It was very close, around 80 metres if I remember.

Depends on what kind of game you like to play. For me, this is the best way to go about it, but I rarely ever play QBs against the computer any more. Anyway, for what it's worth: 1: Find an interesting map. I recommend the map pack called '57 quick battle maps'. It's on the repository. 2: Choose a map with as little bocage as possible. The more cover there is on a map, the better the for the human player who can maneuver and take advantage of it. 3: The less armour the better. Again, the human player can quickly get the upper hand to destroy the enemy armour and then steamroll the AI infantry with ease. Infantry only fights give the most challenge. 4: Pick the enemy force manually. Because automatic force selection gives bizarre results. 5: Choose an attack mission and give yourself 45 minutes max.

I doubt it - my tank skills are atrocious And I agree with you both. The problem about playing a defence is not so much that it's too easy (well, that too), but that it (usually) just feels like a turkey shoot.

No, they ducked down and the armoured car lost sight of them, then it fired another canister shot at another building where the troops were visible, then a third one at the first building when the troops there popped up again. Im just saying the general end result should be comparable, that's all. If a weapon is generally effective against a certain target in real life, then it should (generally) be effective against the same kind of target in the game. Of course there will be bad 'dice rolls' and all that, but the bottom line is that the TacAI in this situation chooses ammunition that is pretty much useless against builings, when it could use effective 37mm HE.

I'm sure that if you have a vision and design with passion (and plenty of patience), the result will be good. My comments were just general observations about attack and defence scenarios in this game.

I think the biggest problem with attack/defence artillery is that every player seems to have his own interpretation of what you can and cannot do. For example, my only personal rule is that as a defender, I will never fire into the attacker's setup zone, not even late into the game, because the thin setup zone usually represents miles of countryside behind the front where the attacker could have placed his assets. But I've played against people who say neither player may fire artillery on the first turn, and even some people who chose to not use their artillery (and air power) at all, even though they had it in the particular scenario.

I personally always design for only one side - the attacker. Because the only way to make a defence scenario pose any kind of challenge is to either customise the map to offer huge disadvantages for the defender and/or to massively overpower the AI attacking force. Both options make it pointless to then switch sides, since the human player will not have any challenge at all. In my view, the best way to balance a scenario for both sides is to simply make two separate versions of it.

They were in fact sitting up, that's how the scout car spotted them by the window. My question was not about real life, but about the game. If canister works against troops in buildings in real life, then it should also work in the game. And vice versa. And the TacAI should generally choose the right tool for the right job.

I don't think I specifically mentioned bridges, because there were no bridges on the map I was playing at the time. I remember it as being about flavour objects and some other stuff that turned bright white and stood out in fog.

I'm not on the beta team, but I've seen this full-brightness bug on various stuff in the game when there's fog involved. I reported it about a year ago.

I think going slow or fast has no impact on the risk of bogging... unless it has been changed in CMFB?

and the more you drink... the more fun you have, but the less you're able to do it

There is no AI that is "playing". It's a human designer who decides where the AI sets up and where it moves at what time.

If it's so good then why doesn't canister work against troops in buildings in the game? I just confirmed with my opponent, and he said the several shots of canister fired caused no damage. But one single 37mm shell took out four of his troops in a building just before that.

If that's true then I wish they would make the canister deadly against troops in buildings. It's not what I currently see. I think the game should reflect real life, and also give our pixeltroops a decent understanding of what munition to use against what target. Of course, if they want to make it so that inexperienced troops sometimes grab the wrong ammunition off the shelf and fire HE at tanks and AP at infantry, then that could be interesting as well.