GerryCMBB

Assuming at ATG team wanted to hide a 76mm in that location in RL, how would they try to conceal it more? Would they dig a pit for example to reduce its profile? Gerry

Ken just cannot find the Peng thread. That is all. Gerry

I just don't understand how they feel they can leave things like this out of the manual. It is poor customer service. And people are paying $50+ for each game with modules around $35. It seems to me that the customers deserve better service. It is unfair to have customers have to set up tests to figure out something that someone in the company obviously knows. Gerry

It would have been interesting to see what would have happened if the 2 PzIVs survived a bit longer. For sure unopposed armor killed it at the end. Gerry

Bottom right of screen, click Login. Go to bottom right of that screen and you will see the Register button. Gerry

Curious why they don't do an AAR of a scenario even if the scenarios are in playtest. This would give both players a more balanced forced for the relative tasks at hand. And remove the part of the debate about force selection. Maybe would give BF a chance to highlight better the new forces in the game. Gerry

Nice AAR by both of you. I applaud GAJ for taking on Bil, who in my mind at least, has a 2-0 record in these AARs. Obviously a very strong opponent. Gerry

Hello Bil: It looks like you are not splitting squads? I have read where people do not split squads. But with lethal mortars etc. it always seemed a recipe for disaster to me. Not splitting would sure cut down on the micro-management. Gerry

Hello All: 1) Sometimes there are multiple victory locations on a map. How do you know what each is worth? Seems it would make a huge difference to your plans. 2) Is there a chart that shows the amount of cover by different terrain types? Thanks in advance, Gerry

In real life, if it was the commander that saw the PzIV, but the gunner could not, they would soon figure it out and adjust. There is no possibility in the game for the player to do this adjusting. Would be nice if the gunner cannot see something that the game shows this somehow. I think the same can happen with ATGs when someone can see a tank but the gunner cannot. Gerry

Pretty sure I had one of those spotting-aiming sequences with a Sherman in an overwatch position against a PzIV for 10s of seconds and the Sherman didn't fire. But the PzIV did. Gerry

Thanks for your help. One other thought on LOS. You cannot be in the middle of the floor and see out all sides I presume? To see out the north side of the building they have to be near the north facing wall of the building, right? Gerry

Why would Bil's tank not fire for 30 secs when he has spotted the Pz IV and the PzIV got off a shot very quickly? Has it to do with better optics? Better crews? Thanks, Gerry

Hello All and thanks for the previous help. How much abstraction is used with infantry in buildings? If a unit is in a building can they see out all sides or do they have to be positioned near one wall/window? Are there special commands to finesse their placement? (In CMx2 for example there is a face command). Thanks, Gerry

Hello: I set an arc where I know an enemy vehicle is hiding but I have my AFV moving. As my tank moves the arc moves with it. It ends up not "looking" where the enemy AFV is anymore. Any way to set the arc, be moving, and have it still cover that original arc area? Thanks, Gerry

Hello: Wondering how the patch has affected artillery but especially small mortars. Are they still as lethal? Thanks, Gerry

I appreciate it is a simulation. And I am happy for those that like it. It is not a game, for me at least. The Artillery was one of the things that makes it impossible for me to enjoy it - the small mortars that killed way more than MGs; and so much Artillery per scenario. I play wargames for scenarios and campaigns, not QBs so I do not want to go the latter route. Gerry

Hello All: Are the mini Mortars as deadly as before? Gerry

It took forever before BF even admitted they were looking at it. Prior to that we had a certain group of people arguing, IIRC sometimes in an aggressive manner, that there was nothing wrong.

Over time it has been amazing to me to see how much effort supporters of the game and/or Battlefront are willing to put in defending CMx2. If someone dares question something they better have done a scientific study to prove their point. Pretty soon many of the regular supporters are on here mocking their ideas. It's embarrassing at this stage. In terms of the mortars I don't think BF has even acknowledged the problem to their paying customers. Gerry

I made a mistake. Let me clarify. I don't play Battles vs AI; nor campaigns as they are against the AI; nor QBs (I like the history part of Battles). So let's not get hung up on my mistake and sorry for the confusion in the first place. I am sorry but I believe that all Battles provided for purchase should be play tested to be reasonably balanced for H2H. I define "reasonably balanced" as giving two players of equal strength a fighting chance, and therefore much more engagement and fun. CMx2 is a lot of work for players. It is reasonable I think to expect scenarios to have been play tested H2H to make for enjoyable H2H experiences. Notice that this has nothing to do with ego or winning versus losing. I lose at lots of things. Gerry

Hello All: I wonder what I paid for with CMFI after reading the thread about battles set up as best vs AI. I don't play vs AI and obviously not QBs then. There could be a 1000 QB maps and it would not matter to me. There were some new features added but some did not work (assigning numbers to HQ units) or did not work well (Target Briefly did not work well with Mortars). So mostly I am paying for new units and battles. I play small or medium H2H games. So that is not a large selection of battles. Now if some were never tested or initially designed with H2H in mind that list gets smaller. I am curious how many battles are tested (percentage-wise in a module on average) for H2H play. Thanks, Gerry

I agree with GAJ. Not much fun playing another opponent if one is getting trounced and never had a chance from the beginning. No challenge for the trouncer either. Not looking for perfectly balanced, just want a fighting chance. Gerry

How was urban fighting in CMBB? Did the higher level of abstraction help it for example? Thanks, Gerry

I really agree with this. I do realize there was fighting outside city areas in relation to the operation but surely the iconic fighting was in an urban setting? Right now I cannot see how that works well. I struggle to see where to place infantry in buildings so that they can defend a piece of terrain (currently defending in a Villa. Imagine the Villa divided into 3 connected buildings A, B, and C. I placed a unit on the Floor 2 of building B and it is able to targets units in Floor 1 of Building A (basically firing through the ceiling - no holes in it so I didn't imagine they would have that LOF.). Also hard to know how much waypoint management to get them into a particular building location so that they don't take a dangerous path. They still run through walls to get into some (all?) buildings. I know there is abstraction of some kind going on but that is not defined and you have to figure it out as you play. Some of the strange things I see in terms of firing is a unit in the middle of a building floor firing at targets more than 100m away through a part of the building where there are no windows or doors. Some say imagine holes in the walls. Even if we can do that they couldn't fire from the middle of the room through these holes; they would have to have the rifle next to the hole. Take care, Gerry