Jabble

Same here, no problems. FWIW I had previously uninstalled the native version and rebooted the PC before installing the Steam version, in case there were any clashes.

That reminds me, I need to buy a new pepperpot.

I last played the Metagame version when I was a kid. There is now a PC version of Ogre on Steam - anyone tried it?

I'd suggest a set of defaults that would apply to both sides, based on relative threat as well as unit abilities. On the AI side this could be varied by a random 'commander demeanour' factor, from cautious to gung ho. The AI may also be influenced by any overall stance or goal prioritisation at that time, e.g. prepared to take higher risks to push through a high-priority objective. There could also be a surprise factor that should give some sort of bonus to the unit less affected, e.g. on a 'hunt' move. I envisage that a 'react' would be pretty much the same set of behaviours you'd expect the AI to carry out during the command phase. I'm not necessarily talking about any new functionality - I'm suggesting that it would be a trigger to standard game functions, and would relate to dealing with a threat. For example, a scout team encountering a tank would retreat immediately rather than fight, whereas a deployed ATGM team would fire a shot and then relocate ASAP. MBTs would go toe-to-toe as usual. In some ways this would be the same as if the encounter happened during the last second of the WeGo minute - the AI would then have to make similar decisions based on this new information. Perhaps some new features could apply; the human side could allow setting a 'retreat to' location (based on current waypoint) while the AI would have to determine where's the nearest cover at the moment of encounter. That way an ATGM team could sit tight until a target appears, take the shot, and then scarper to that predetermined location. I put a post in to the suggestions/requests thread along these lines.

Ah, that was more a joke. While you have a reasonable point, the vast majority of PC users I know use admin accounts for normal use without problems. It's a safety vs convenience issue, but if people are aware of the problems then dangers can be avoided e.g. not downloading & installing anything you don't know to be safe. Even in admin mode it should still need a confirmation before running anything - it needs a deliberate choice to continue. A shared computer will be very restrictive if people are unable to install things - arguably it's better to teach people to be careful.

Maybe unavoidable, but when Stinger-carrying guys are sitting in a Jeep, the end of the launcher protudes through the floor. Expect sparks.

Just a thought - where did you put the installer? If it's also somewhere with elevated security, the same problem happens. You could try putting the installer in another directory under "\games".

Norway. As well as the main push around Fulda there would have been a myriad of smaller fronts, and Norway would be one of the most interesting IMO. It would need winter textures and would provide interesting opportunities for mountain/fjord choke points. Which would need the inclusion of Norgie forces as well as British, probably.

Wait - is that Richard Branson?

That's good advice. "C:\games" is where I put 'em all. Basically avoid installing them under "Program Files" where there is elevated security giving rise to problems as you describe.

More appropriate reaction to events would be desirable. I reckon the Tac AI here could be improved by a configurable "react" posture that would be automatic during WeGo resolution, e.g. hit the dirt, fight back, and/or retreat. That way troops could be instructed to behave more realistically when reacting to events during that golden minute. There's an inherent difficulty in the WeGo approach where the main intelligence is the player who only sees what he sees during the command phase, and the pixeltruppen who tend to behave like unthinking robots, slavishly following those orders given less than a minute ago. That's certainly a challenge for AI to mitigate but I do think a few basic reactions would make an enormous difference there. It could work just the same way for the AI side so no imbalance there.

Not if it's a home machine and you trust the people who live with you. Of course if your work involves dealing with nuclear launch codes and your lodger's name is Philby, Burgess or Mclean, then it might be an issue.

Also, if you log into your account it'll be there. Yup! Just tried Dollbach Heights, and was caught with my khakis down by a very early appearance.

I guess most players will use their home machines, where typically there's only one admin account. It will be different for shared machines and/or those also used for (now delayed ) work.

I like the way the training campaign uses a 1/10 scale mini-map to decide the initial deployment - it's rather useful to give a good sense of the lie of the land. I'll suggest that's used in future campaigns to provide an immersive geographical perspective.

It's Arrival day!

Yuss! Dropping everything else I was doing today...

Don't be scared to withdraw units if you think they're going to meet devastating force - they're better kept alive to fight elsewhere on the map. Take the time to best figure out sightlines and overlapping arcs when you're moving people - it's fustrating to see your guys being hammered because a cover team or base of fire can't shoot at the enemy. In the countryside, it's worth figuring out when to get your dismounts back in the wagon (shrapnel, withering MG fire) and when to keep them out (tanks, AT teams). It's worth gaining the experience to figure out the sort of places where ambushes & AT teams will be placed, so as to advance carefully and detect/avoid them.

Ah, fair enough. Bear in mind we live in a world where some people are happy to fund development and to help iron out wrinkles in the hope they get a better/sooner game at the end of the process (than not doing so), so maybe it will be reconsidered in the future. And I'm still hoping for a natty silver suit to go with a flying car...

I first noticed it when I could unbutton an infantry squad but not an ATGM team, so I thought it's about using primary weapons. But there are other cases where that logic doesn't apply, so I'm not sure what's even intended.

Exactly! If there were also an optional "debug" window, then all sorts of internal numbers could be output to give a better idea of how behaviour corresponds to what is intended, e.g. LOS spot outcomes or hit probabilities in various circumstances.

Yes there's a bit of inconsistency there. Some vehicles can unbutton the crew, typically the commander, while others can unbutton their dismounts if hatches are available. As far as i've noticed, the crew "open up" is only available if there is an external gun available for use. For hatched troop-carrying vehicles with a topside gun, "open up" causes both commander and dismounts to unbutton. Interestingly if you then dismount the troops, their "open up" button will remain selected even if they're hiding behind a wall. I think it rememebers their status for when they remount the vehicle. Edit: Actually I think I'm wrong about the above. I just tried a couple of examples and noticed that if the vehicle allows the commander to unbutton to serve an external gun, then no dismounts can do so. I only see dismounts being able to unbutton if there's no external manual weapon i.e. no external role for the commander. Indeed some types of units can unbutton while others can't, and I can't see any obvious pattern to that.

Do you think this could be the beginning of an ongoing idea, where interim builds (tweaks, bug fixes, enhancements) could be made available to interested players prior to release? I'm guessing that would be a viable approach as everything becomes available on Steam with a growing user base there, and would be useful for wider-scale testing. I'm comparing to the likes of Command:MO where there's a core of regulars on the forum who are always keen to try out each beta as it's posted, helping iron out the wrinkles, and contributing to that eventual official update.

Yes, but it'll be a beta - not the finished version with multiplayer which is delayed 'til June. The suggestion is that BFC customers will do a sizeable part of the multiplayer beta testing, i.e. we should report any bugs we find.

That's very believable. While the basic mechanic of LOS/F is sound, it looks like it needs to be reworked for a number of units. It would be nice if BFC had a system of putting out betas with specific fixes added, later to appear bundled in a release patch. Perhaps that will be a more realistic hope when all titles are available on Slitherine/Steam. For example, look at what the guys at Command:MO do.