Bulletpoint

But there is already a risk of getting a tank immobilized while going through fences and forests, and even a (tiny) risk while driving over clear, open, dry ground. I haven't seen any outcry over any of that. Why assume that players are unreasonable? The vast majority of people here seem very rational to me. And even if there are one or two players who do throw a tantrum, well, why should that stop the game from improving? It wouldn't be the first time someone disagreed with BattleFront's game design, I don't think they would lose any sleep over it..

Why would there be any "fallout" over that? What's the realistic risk of bogging a Sherman by pushing a car off the road?

They do, but you may have to zoom in a bit (by pressing x, not just by moving the camera) to see it though. Not sure if cannon artillery shows a 3D shell, but mortars do.

I just tested this with the latest version (3.11), the mortars still fall sideways. And I realised it only happens when doing a fire mission from off-map mortars. Tested with both US and German 81mm mortars. Can anyone else confirm this?

The crater is way too big. According to your table, the maximum size of the crater under optimum conditions (soil/burst depth) would be 45 feet = 13,7 metres. A jeep is 3,36 metres, so the biggest possible crater should be 4 times the length of the jeep, but a quick measuring on my screen shows that the crater is around 6,6666 times the length of the jeep. Which gives us approximately 22,3 metres, so the crater on that screenshot is a lot bigger than the maximum possible in real life from such a bomb. If your table is correct.

I wondered the same thing when I downloaded the demo the other day. Soldiers sitting on tanks and their feet poking through the armour. Not a job well done on that - unless it's to simulate some cruel Soviet practice of welding their tank riders to the tanks to prevent them from running away..

I think when doing an attack or assault, all defending infantry troops should have the ability to dig in for free, producing one square of foholes for each team. Or maybe it would just be easier to make foxholes and trenches way cheaper for the defending side in attack or assault missions, with assaults getting the biggest discount to reflect more time to prepare.

Maybe you usually play larger missions then, where small spotting issues average out. In smaller scenarios, one unit can decide the whole game.

Well as far as I have seen, hit decals are always round, they just show the point of impact. That's ok for penetrations, but for shots that bounce off it would be nice if the dent in the armour were more like a long scratch, streak, or furrow in the direction that the shell travelled...

I guess you can finish not only the Rise of the Tomb Raider, but also the Golden Years of the Tomb Raider and the Fall of the Tomb Raider, maybe even with time to spare to complete the Retirement Years of the Tomb Raider before CMFB comes out.

Those are not bugs. Those are feature requests and game balance ideas. I support many of your points though. I have one more idea: Hit decals from shells that bounce off could be elongated along the axis of the trajectory, instead of always being round. This would look more like ricochets that plough through a bit of armour before glancing off.

Well there are two kinds of barns. The one where you can enter the second floor looks like it could be wood rendered with plaster, but the other one has walls that look like bricks of some kind. And since it offers little protection, I always think of it as a cinderblock wall.

You should check the stuff @kohlenklau is doing. He sets up campaigns in another game and then translates the outcomes to and from the CM engine.

Thanks. Was just worried having both the master installer on and the demo on the computer might clash somehow and screw up one or both.

I think the graphics for the barn should be different then, to show a wooden construction with gaps between the planks. The current cinderblock (?) construction looks quite sturdy and without holes.

That makes sense. Does it start from maximum engangement range or only from a set distance, say, 200 metres? Is there any "danger close" for the opponent?

I've done some testing now, and it seems we're talking about a bug. The problem is with barns. You can fire from the sides without windows as if there were windows or doors. This is probably what I remember, and at that time thought it was a feature. Update: It's only happening with the barn that has 1 level. The barn with two levels seems to be working fine.

I could swear that it used to be possible to fire out from windowless walls that had holes in them. But now when I am trying this in the game, it is not possible. Am I remembering wrong? In fact, I strongly seems to me that you didn't even have to have visible holes in the wall - just having a couple of salvoes of riles hitting it would "soften it" and make it possible to fire from there.

Amazing screenshots. I wish more atmospheric stuff like this would make it into the official games.

I'd like to try the Red Thunder demo, do I need to download it separately or can I just unlock it from the 10Gb master installer?

There was a patch recently where it said US Garand rifles now fire more rapidly at closer ranges. Does anyone know what range that is? And is it a gradual increase in rate of fire as the distance to target decreases, or is it a sharp threshold where suddenly they start pulling the triggers like crazy?

There seems to be a very big difference in troop quality between 'green' and 'regular' though. Even at quite short ranges, don't expect greens to actually hit anything, even if you manage to have the enemy walk straight into an ambush.

To me it just looks like a lot of random vehicles milling about randomly, firing weapons at random.

According to Wikipedia, he's now living a quiet life in United Arab Emirates.

Wouldn't it make good sense to fire HE to get a chance of immobilising the Tiger? If your AP shot won't harm it anyway...