Bulletpoint

No offense taken, sometimes it's necessary to ask 'stupid' questions if we want to learn something. However, I know about gravity The thing I don't understand is how longer range is an advantage in this case, because I assume an aircraft would need to get closer than 1000 metres anyway, in order to see and hit the target. Maybe this assumption is wrong? Edit: Or maybe we could say 2000 metres. From what I read, an MG42 has an effective range of 2 km, and a max range of around 4.7 km.

I also love real curvy... roads. On huge ... tracts of land. Seriously though I'm surprised you say hard dirt tiles flatten the surface. I never noticed this. How does it work - you mean it changes the elevation of that point?

Not sure I understand why such tank-mounted machineguns would discourage or chase off enemy airplanes, if the ammunition was not effective? Also not sure I understand why attacking aircraft would have a range advantage, since a MG42 has an effective range of more than 2 km? What distance/altitude did aircraft engage from? If more than 2 km, how could they even see the target? By the way, I'm not attacking anyone's argument here, it's just that I genuinely don't understand

I would like the same thing, but I guess it's because some guns are unable to fire that fast. So the interface would have to change for each battery. Still would like to see it implemented, or some other means of better being able to control rate of fire. Maybe give the player a preview screen that said "Ok, so you chose to fire 2x81mm mortars at medium intensity. That will give you a rate of fire of apprx. 20 rounds per minute. Yes/no"?

The only problem with BattleFront is that they know they are the "only show in town" when it comes to this particular genre. Some good old fashioned American free market competition would help to give them a run for their money.. but I'd still cheer for them to win the race.

That's one amazing tree. I wonder how old it is. Most trees are much smaller though. I would like to know how strong a regular big oak tree (too big to wrap your arms all the way around) would be against bullets and shells.

"Turd forests". It's a term I've come up with for those maps where the designer believes forests are made by painting a turd-like area with 100% heavy forest tiles, then adding maximum number of trees for every tile. Because to do a forest you need to paint it with forest tiles right? That's what they are there for? And forests have lots of trees, right? The result is a ridiculous, impenetrable and ugly thing to look at. In real life, even the heaviest forest terrain has some patches of less density, some open areas, and they don't just stop at an arbitrary border. Rather, there will be some smaller trees, some bushes, etc. (this is a pet peeve of mine, but fortunately it's rare - I've also seen many designers doing great looking and very believable forest terrain)

Yes, I believe they will do an Africa game or module eventually, because they need an income, and it doesn't seem like they are keen on making a new engine that would make the most famous theaters sellable again. So once the other famous battles are exhausted, their eye will fall on Africa. And I think it could work out well. Even quite flat maps can be made interesting by making gentle undulations of the terrain, to mask movement, but this kind of warfare would probably need an engine upgrade to allow for larger maps - 8x8km at the least. Maybe hard on the computer, but it wouldn't have to do much foliage, or hedgerows, or other terrain.

I think this is one of the rare moments when the ASSAULT command would have been useful. Because then the second team would also have been suppressed when the first team took fire, and so they wouldn't have completed their movement.

I believe it's not just about having fewer "spotting" cycles, but more about being behind a wall, as you say. The hiding troops will stay prone even while hiding, and this means the wall or bocage (or anything really) will completely block LOS, giving the troops 0% chance of spotting the enemy. Because they never come up to peek over the obstacle as they likely would in real life. So if your guys are hiding behind bocage or a low wall, they will never see anything on the other side, even if the enemy walks straight up to them.

Yes, exactly. Setting textures to "best" should be no problem if you have a 4 Gb GPU. At least it doesn't decrease performance on my system.

Are you talking about "graphics quality" or "texture quality"?

Sorry for derailing the thread, but I can't look at that screenshot without wondering why there are haystacks in the middle of an un-harvested field On topic, you should easily be able to use "best" textures, since you have a 4 Gb graphics card. No reason to keep it on "balanced".

Sounds like you are talking about texture quality. I was talking about the setting graphics quality.

In reality, wouldn't an AP shell just go straight through the trunk? I would love to see a slow-motion clip of that.

Thanks, interesting stuff. Never knew this.

But is that because planes became armoured, or is the problem that the MG rounds typically just pass straight through, leaving little holes but not much other damage?

How come 7.92 wouldn't do any damage to aircraft? Too difficult to hit a critical component?

Well, I would say they are both intentional. If you know there's a bug in your feature and you can't fix it, but you still keep the feature in the game, then that's the same as a coding compromise. But I'm just being snarky I've seen this bug in practice, but it's no big deal - it's really rare and you can avoid it by setting good waypoints instead of leaving too much to the pathfinding AI.

What's the difference between a "bug they know about but can't fix" and a "gameplay/coding compromise"?

I've seen it happen too.

I think there is no bigger risk of bogging from moving fast or quick across terrain than any other speed. A guy on this forum did some tests once, running a Sherman around a map for long distances..

What about just replacing it with silence?

Won't change much, as the spotter doesn't need the radio anyway, under current game rules...

Definitely a difficult game. I've been playing for some years now, and I still learn new tricks now and then. To me, that's a big part of the fun. About Markshot's comment, I just thought it was amusing that he called the Cmx2 engine new...