Michael Emrys Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 I think that they have been secretly working on fire all this time and will bombshell everyone when it appears in MG I think being able to demo bridges would have a higher priority for this module. Anyway, I think Steve has implied that fire is still a long way off, maybe might come with v3.00. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 I think being able to demo bridges would have a higher priority for this module. Anyway, I think Steve has implied that fire is still a long way off, maybe might come with v3.00. Michael I thought the BFC line was that bridge-demo was beyond the timeline of CM battles. Bridges are anyway too easy to drop with mortars and such. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 It would be good as a compromise if a bridge could be designated in the scenario editor as wired or not wired for demo at setup, and then the player defending it could choose to blow it or not during play. I can understand not allowing bridges to be wired during the short tactical span of a CMBN battle. But if a bridge had been designated as wired before a battle starts, they shuld be able to blow during a battle. IRL, didn't the Son bridge blow up right in the 101st AB's faces just as they reached it on 17 Sept.? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baneman Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 It would be good as a compromise if a bridge could be designated in the scenario editor as wired or not wired for demo at setup, and then the player defending it could choose to blow it or not during play. I can understand not allowing bridges to be wired during the short tactical span of a CMBN battle. But if a bridge had been designated as wired before a battle starts, they shuld be able to blow during a battle. IRL, didn't the Son bridge blow up right in the 101st AB's faces just as they reached it on 17 Sept.? Agree - especially if blowing/not blowing a bridge could be connected to a victory condition/points. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amizaur Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 * Vehicles with paused movement orders no longer have lowered accuracy. I second that . He heh ! Now it seems that people who insisted that the lowered accuracy IS A BUG were actually... right... ? And those who defended the state of things and treated it as a "feature" - were actually... well... somewhat... wrong ? . 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 You can check out some more info here: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109972 Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted May 23, 2013 Share Posted May 23, 2013 It would be good as a compromise if a bridge could be designated in the scenario editor as wired or not wired for demo at setup, and then the player defending it could choose to blow it or not during play. Exactly. Though I wasn't explicit, that is precisely what I had in mind. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kettler Posted May 25, 2013 Share Posted May 25, 2013 While we're waiting, I found a different look at the Battle of Arnhem--from the German side. This growing site is full of grog stuff, to include some After The Battle type comparison pics. Will it make the waiting harder or easier? http://www.defendingarnhem.com/index.htm Regards, John Kettler 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.