BornGinger

A long time ago I was playing an H2H game against buckycat,or what (s)he is called, and had almost a whole squad wiped out. The only survivor was cowering for a while and was now in a state of he equivalent of horrified. To my surprise he stood up and ran forward, stopped to shoot and ran forward again and stopped to shoot just to get killed. I don't know whether him standing up and attacking the enemy was a point of soft factor bravery which goes on behind the curtains or whether it was a point of the "run for the hills but do it in the wrong direction". But I agree whith what was said earlier about troops getting frightened a bit too easily, especially when small arms fire is shooting at a tank or other armoured vehicles.

There is a mod you can use to get this effect. I don't remember what it's called but you find in on the mod section of thefewgoodmen website.

Motorcycles, with or without a sidecar, would be great for reconnaisance and to spread the knowledge of enemy movements to other companies/batallions much quicker. But we would probably need more AI-groups if we'd like to use them for the AI-opponent. And the knowledge they would spread to the AI-troops wouldn't make any difference to them, as their movements depend on our AI-plans, but the human player would get the chance to shoot them down if spotted. But I'm sure they would be of good use in H2H battles if the players are following the rule that they are only allowed to react to their troops knowledge of the battle situation.

Every time I see destroyed and burning vehicles it seems a bit silly that the smoke from them always go straight up while other kinds of smoke and dust go sideways. Is this something BFC has designed to make it easier to spot the enemy's destroyed vehicles so the player can think "Yes! I killed that bloody tank. I'm so good I deserve a lollypop" or is there another reason to this? Strong wind doesn't make much of a difference and the smoke still goes mostly straight up to do a slight bend higher up. The picture is from DoubleD's youtube video of an H2H battle in Black Sea.

Do you have a picture to show us exactly what you mean? With contour, spikes and stair stepping effects I understand that you are talking about the elevation and how sometimes the result of changing it is not what was intended. But a picture, or pictures, could still be of help for those who haven't made their own map yet. You could for example add one picture with the changes done the wrong way on the 2D map and the result in the 3D map and a picture with the changes done the correct way on the 2D map and the result in the 3D map. In a map I'm making now I wanted to raise the land a little bit on certain places in a river to make it look like there are rocks in the river across which the troops could move to cross the river and behind which they could hide if they were shot at. On some parts of the river it looked quite ok but on other parts there was those annoying spikes pointing straight up like stalagmites. I tried to correct those spikes but it didn't matter what I did, those "rocks" still didn't look ok. So in the end I kept only those that looked good enough. One thing that would make these spikes and pits occure less on the 3D map would be if the action squares were a lot smaller. It would then be easier to raise and lower the elevation on the 2D map without getting unwanted effects. I also think that if the change in elevation wasn't 1 meter but 50 cm the elevation would look better in the 3D map and the troops would lie more corrrectly in the ditches.

Some people on the forum have been asking about the ability to modify the vehicles to their liking and do more than just change the skin of the vehicles. If BFC opened up for that possibility I'm sure there would be players of the BN-game who would be happy to do that work. The result would be that there wouldn't be a lot of extra work for BFC, some members would have their own little project of doing these modifications and all owners of BN would be happy.

Something more than just a link to Youtube would have been good. As Jc chino was too tired to write a few lines to the link I'll do that for him: "Hiya mates at this formidable forum. Jc chino here on the sofa in my sweet living room with a 37" Samsung tv and home cinema system of five Harman Kardon loudspeakers. Did you watch the Irish rugby team crush the Welsh in the Six Nations Tournament which was on tv yesterday? The result was 27-9 to the Irish, innit? 27-9 to the Irish! I could hardly believe it! No, you didn't watch that game? I bet you all were watching my youtube video instead which must have been more fun. At least if you are from Wales, he he. Innit? Jokes aside. Watch my youtube video and see how the US stryker squad fools those towel head Talibanis and give it in their face, he he. You won't regret it. Take my words for it."

Another good reason to use mortars on halftracks is that they can quickly move to a new location from where they can harass the enemy with direct fire.

I was thinking that just as tanks, assault guns and halftracks in quick battles have different value points depending on how effective they are they could do the same when/if they decide to play an "against AI only" scenario and want to make it more balanced for an H2H game. To find out the value points they can check the values for tanks, assault guns and halftracks in quick battles or make up their own value points.

If there is a scenario which seems interesting and has a great looking map and both of you feel that you would like to play it even though it is an "against AI only" battle you could still play it. This would need some tweeking of the scenario from both of you. What you do is to agree on how many tanks that seems fair for one side to have and if the scenario gives more than that to one side the extra tanks should either be removed or put as a very late reinforcement. You could also copy the quick battle way of giving different tanks certain points. You then agree on how many points of tanks are allowed in your H2H game and have to remove each tank that means too many points. The one who has fewer tanks than allowed points isn't allowed to add tanks to reach the allowed points as you both would want to keep the scenario as close as possible to how it was done by the designer. This approach and way to make "against the AI only"-scenarios more balanced is a little bit similar to playing a quick battle but with the difference that the opponents don't have to spend time choosing their whole force but only to remove what is necessary to remove. This approach also requires that you trust each other and don't take a quick glance on your opponent's troops. As a quick explanation: 1. You both agree on a scenario and agree on allowed tanks or allowed tank points. You also decide which side you play as respectively - Axis or Allies (NATO/Ukraine or Soviet/Russia/Syria in the games after WW2). 2. Player One opens the scenario in the editor and checks his side's amount of tanks/armoured vehiles and does the changes if necessary. After that the scenario is saved with a new name and sent to Player Two (to be sure not to do it wrong it's probably better to save the scenario with a new name before doing any changes). 3. Player Two does the same with his side's tanks/armoured vehicles and saves the scenario. 4. Player Two either starts to play the scenario and does his initial moves or sends the scenario back to Player One if he's the one who's supposed to do the first moves. Everyone is happy and noone will feel like Donald Duck when his cousin gets to take Daisy out on a romantic stroll.

I thought people play these games for a moment of fun and to see how they cope with a challenge and not always for the chance to win the battles.

If you ask the ones accusing Lee Harvey Oswald of killing John Kennedy he was apparently super quick with his bolt action rifle on a not very long distance. But then he was also accused of being a communist so that assumption of his ability to shoot quickly is questioned.

He did it the ASL Veteran style. So nothing wrong with the way he did it.

This is the funniest thread so far. Keep them posts coming.

Not necessarily the wrong forum. If there was the possibility to buy a game from the Battlefront website and then, if one realised it was another game one wanted, there was the possibility to swap the game already payed for to get another one instead, your question would still be valid. Would the other game that one swapped actually be better or more fun that the one originally paid for? So would changing your choice of game by swapping change your odds of feeling that you picked the correct one or would you regret the swap?

I'm fairly sure that this was a good example of the magical line of sight these games give infantry and tank crew. The T-34's crew probably managed to see the truck behind the house because their line of sight went in through a windows facing the tank, through the house and out through a window facing the truck with the result that they tried to shoot at the truck. Pure Combat Mission magic.

I think in this case there should be the possibility for the driver to automatically return to the truck again when he has calmed down. If the driver doesn't some AI orderes might get undone and have the same result as when a vehicle gets bogged down and immobilised. The tank riders or infantry inside trucks will be stuck in the position where the vehicle got bogged down and immobilised or where the truck driver ran away and their AI-orders won't be followed.

Are you sure that you didn't order the truck to drive up and paus behind the house for maybe about 45 seconds after which you wanted it to drive away to another position? And are you also sure that you didn't order the AT-gun crew to disembark the truck and move the AT-gun to its position while the truck was pausing for 45 seconds? If the answers to the above is "Yes, I did pause the truck so the AT-crew could jump off and move the gun to its position before the truck continued on its route", I'm sorry to say that the game doesn't allow vehicles to pause and have passengers leave them. Vehicles can pause and allow passangers to embark them before they continue on their route but of some strange reason they can't pause and allow passangers to disembark them before they continue.

You and the other ones who don't want too many Shermans in Red Thunder can always open the scenarios in the editor and swap the Shermans with T-34s and/or IS-tanks and then save the scenarios with another name. For the campaigns it is possible to open them up with a program someone made and is to be found somewhere (don't remember what the program is called), swap the tanks in the scenarios and compile them back into campaigns again. All of you would then have the tanks you want. Easy peasy.

Back to square one, then.

The same can be said about documentaries and films about the sionist political organisation which apparently has the goal to create a greater Israel even if that means to steal the land of the Palestinians or to kill them and other people they call "goi".

In the thread about 2022 Steven mentioned the text above. So I figure the demo to Cold War will have to wait until February or March. When the demo finally is up for download it will have been a very long time to wait for it.

Doing it the way I proposed is a risk you take and hope it will go well. I just wasn't very interested in giving that scenario much planning and didn't care what might happen. It just happened to turn out well.

Just make an end point where those tanks are supposed to go and they'll go over logs and stones until they reach the end point. I only lost one vehicle when I did it that way. You can always restart the scenario if you loose more than one vehicle due to it being bogged down.

We'll see what news and maybe surprises Steven and Co. will have planned for and we'll get information about in that "new years bones" we are waiting for.