Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Content Count

    3,109
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

Everything posted by slysniper

  1. Well, If nothing else, this polling method is a good way to get a bunch of like votes for yourself. Will need to keep that in mind if I need a self image improvement. But I just gave you 3 or 4 votes - yes, very slow as to getting to some of these threads
  2. Anyway, I played it enough that I was impressed by how such a simple system did a good job of portraying a complex thing. Where as, anyone that played ASL well and knew all the rules and how to use them. Deserved a collage degree. I wore out my chart chards multiple times, it was a constant grind to go through all the charts just to have a dice roll.
  3. I played through about six battles that it provided, then did some of my own to see how well the game did with certain match ups. then , put it aside, I want to play some h2h with it, but I have only one son out of my kids that I might convince to do that with me and being he is married with 3 kids. Finding the time for such things is not a common event.
  4. I use to play all the old stuff from Avalon Hill with ASL being my Love, with ownership of most of their modules in that and most of their other war games also. But once close combat and combat missions came out, my love for board gaming really began to stop. I sold my ASL stuff and held on to all the operational and strategic games. But don't find the desire to play them much. The rules are too complex for most people to try and pick it as a game to play against most. But I will put in the suggestion of the Conflict of heroes series. My kids gave me Storm of Steel - kursh 1943 a few years back as a present. I will say, A much better design than ASL in that the Rules are simple and not hard to understand and can be explained to someone else pretty quickly. High quality Board and units. It does a very good job of dealing with and having the feel of battle at the tactical level. So I feel good about having it in my closet for when the world starts coming to a end and I have no electrical power. I have something to still spend my time on. I dont know if I would consider it great as a solo game, just for the fact there is cards that are being used by the players, so there is a factor there that is missed unless playing h2h
  5. oh, so very true. But since its been at least a few years, with my old man memory and that fact that I have done so many other things since then, it all did a pretty good job of clearing my memory of the battle other than I remember it as being hard and that I needed to make sure to clear the enemy before tying to move up. I know it is easier to some extent, no matter what, But the fact still is in place, I did not game the defense to get a good result, I used good tactics to show that the mission can be accomplished and that losses can be kept down. And in that battle, 3 of my men I lost was my fault, thinking I could rush them forward to the wall and make it without taking losses from fire through the gap in the wall. Not even close, all 3 men in that fire team was gunned down in the matter of 2 seconds from each other.
  6. Ok, this is likely one of the hardest battles in all of the games and because the player did not win, he has to blame the game instead of ever believing he might have some more skills to need to learn. Well the answer is the second, and the game is playing better than it has in a long time with the latest changes as to unit reactions to gun fire. I also recall this Scenario kicking my butt when I played it years ago. But I fired it up tonight and did a quick play of the early part of the battle and this is the results. This is at 42 minutes left in the game http:// What is this, my forces are in the hospital and there is a nice breach right through the front wall to let more of my forces in. http:// 6 dead and 8 wounded so far, (but the enemy is down 34 on a map that favors the defender to the fullest.) Hmmm they still outnumber me 3 to 2. No wonder i am taking some serious losses. Oh, whats that, a victory already, better just play it out to see it to the end. http:// So, the question is, has my skills improved over the time frame or is it just easy to play this the second time around. Well, the answer is my tactical skills have improved, because going right up the middle was not the easy path, I just did it to prove with correct use of forces, you can have successful results and there is nothing wrong with the game. So , if you want to discuss ways and things that might help you improve your skills, great. But get off the fact that there has to be flaws in the game just because you just did not magically become skilled at playing it. Oh, by the way, turn one need all units firing on likely enemy locations. then next major key, smoke being used to blind sections of the defenders so you can bring your entire firepower on only portions of the defenders at a time. Using smoke this way is a method to get dominating firepower in a sector, since there is no way to flank or use terrain to get you a position and overwelming firepower in any area on this map.
  7. Yes, this has been known and reported and it is fixed, you will see the correction when the next patch is released.
  8. Go ahead and game the system. Its not like you are the only one that has ever done that. And when playing another person. I hope it works for you, because they might be just as smart as you as to how to game the system. Like pull their tank up so that tree is center mass right in front of their tank. So they fire at you with no issues and you fire back and hit that blasted tree every time. Or they stay hulled down and adjust so they only see the top portion of your tank. Or by the simple fact that everything that has not been spotted by you will get a full view of you and blast away from their hidden locations. But I do believe in the concept of tanks being smart enough that maybe at 400 or 500 meters and under. That some tanks should be aiming for locations where there is a better chance for success since they are under gunned to take on the hull of the enemy tank.
  9. As for the last recent comments, I agree. The precision of the targeting could be the real issue here. If that accuracy was just even reduced to a larger area so as the impact circle was much larger. That could help to make the results much more realistic. it is also something that might be adjustable in the present programming of the game. So that would be a good course of action
  10. Personally, I think center mass was used a majority of the time in the real situation. The only time I think gunners in the war did anything else was when they knew they had no chance of a kill doing such a shot. That would mean the gunner would have had to have the knowledge that he needed to do that. (So that means he would have been informed he had to do this from command) or he had experienced it in his unit or from others in his unit and was still alive to try to resolve the issue. It also means he would have to be at a range that he could see to take such a shot. But there is accounts of units knowing they needed to aim at weak points on certain tanks. From the writing of German tank aces from 1941, they found they could not take on a kv1 to any extent. word passed quickly and there is plenty of accounts of how they were aiming for the gun to disable it of the tracks to immobilize it so as to be able to out position it. We also have plenty of accounts from Sherman tankers that knew they needed to aim for the turret ring when possible when engaging from the front, which again could only happen if the range was close enough to do so. But we also read that they were quickly trained to split their force , with the units from the front engaging and trying to use shoot and scoot tactics and smoke to stay alive while one or two of their units tried to flank the enemy. All of which only works if you have the numeric advantage to do such a thing. Which at the end of the war they generally did. Its not that the concept is incorrect for a gunner to aim at something other than center mass. But how and when would it be logical for such a thing to be implemented. In your test, I can guarantee that a 1000 meters is not when such a tactic would have been used.
  11. It would be nice if the game did aim for what is the weaker location of the tank when it is fully exposed. But that brings up many questions as to how often should it do this. Because if it did it all the time, then the results would be more like the hull down results, with all that grouping now on the turret. But all gunners did not always aim for the perfect shot, so if the aiming should be adjusted, then to what. What percentage of the shots should be aimed at the turret what percentage at the tracks What percentage at the turret ring what percentage at center mass. How should this be adjusted for the crew experience. At what range should the crew be allowed to start targeting specific locations of the tank instead of center mass. Should these factors be adjusted for each tank since optic and trajectory of round is going to make the gunner confident to aim at such things at different ranges depending on the tank he is in. Ok, provide all that suggested data, then think about the work to put that all into the programming and to keep it accurate. And you wonder why they just programmed center mass. I dont. Can the game be created to do this - Yes. You have proven to some extent what the game does, well, that has been known for along time. So you show what the weaknesses of the game is. What I am asking, is figure out how to answer all my questions and then suggestions as to how best to implement it. Plus I am sure I have missed other factors that we should be implementing. Like the fact that the game does nothing to reflect viewing issues. Presently a tank on the skyline is as hard to spot as a tank in the shadows under a thick tree canopy. There is no factor for any viewing issues other than a number added to make it harder to spot for certain terrain types that your line of sight passes through. There is no adjustment to spotting for a target on the move compared to a non-moving target. So if we are going to fix targeting. lets fix these items also. So lets get a chart going for all the possible values there also that could impact the spotting numbers. In otherwards, where do we draw the line at how much data to try to create and calc to represent this one feature in the game. Personally, My answer would be very simple. Just have the game target the turret 40 percent of the time, hull 60 percent. If the tracks are in view, then maybe aim for them 20% on a tank that has armor past your likely penetration ability. But it would be a discussion of what the game should be doing, with the realization that the present game engine will not ever do that, but if the concepts are good, maybe it will impact the next game engine. I just think the focus needs to be helping to try to make the next engine better, than the concept that there is going to be programming changes to a present engine that it was not likely designed to do. So providing realistic numbers on what we would like to see the game do would be a much better discussion.
  12. If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull. So yes the game is not perfect. But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards, playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter. In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game. So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why. Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes. But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is. If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations.
  13. Start crying. Actually, I assume you have tried to reload it more than once and it crashes. Have you tried to reload earlier saves to see if they still work. If they do, my only simple answer is, play past the point where the game action is calculating so much data before trying another save. Because the only other answer is more memory, which might be a task in and of itself to track down and see if adding more helps, depends which memory storage is being maxed out.
  14. I agree, gun damage from the front has for a long time been modelled in a manor where it occurs too often. As for noticing it or not while playing goes along with the concept of what are you trying to create a scenario to do. Most scenarios are not going to be armor vs armor frontal duels, so no problem in them. I was making a scenario a long time ago where it was the classic armor focus, a few German heavies against a hoard of allied tanks. Its the perfect way to prove that there is a issue here with how often the damage happens. In my event, the engagement ranges were well over 1000 yards and I can tell you that the German armor was still losing its guns at a high level of regularity. Even before the ranges decreased. It was enough to forget trying to make the scenario. Since then, I have also noticed it in many battles where the German Heavy is likely going to have to take many frontal shots. So I have learned that it is not a good option for any game play. Now what I would be interested in, does it happen to Russian heavys vs lighter hoards of the German. Never have that in a battle for it to be noticed, but it should have the same issue, should it not. But If someone could get some real world statistics as to likelyhood and prove the game is well above that, then you have a chance to get BF to adjust it possibly
  15. Match ups have been made and the Tournament will start today. I can still accept new additional players. but the offer will be limited for just a few more days before I close it to sign ups.
  16. PBEM, I really don't know of anyone doing TCP. Not for a organized event.
  17. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com here you go
  18. One day so far and we have 13 people wanting to participate. get involved if you have not done something like this before. The only outcome is you possible having fun. I will be starting this within the week, but late comers will be welcome also.
  19. Yes in cm2, position the unit behind the tree just right and the woods become a great defense. But when playing against someone using such a tactic, you just need to make sure you have units attack from angles that remove the tree as a defense. But yes, it is a common practice out there. I will take that issue over the cmX1 issue where you could stack armor one behind the other to get a great advantage, it made for very unrealistic tactics. I think that is the reason now, you see the round go through multi units, which in truth would likely never happen. So CMX3 will likely make sure that tree issue never happens - BF does not like cheats.
  20. I am going to host a Tournament over at "A few good Men" site and just wanted to post here to give others who might not use that site a chance to get involved.The format will be new, in that you will be given a selected force. Your mission will be to do the best you can with the situation you have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle.So in otherwards, your side could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and you have won and will be given a point value as to how you have done.Winners will get a score of somewhere between 80 to 100 points per match depending on how they have performed to each other. so best player will receive 100 points, lowest winner will receive 80 points, and everyone else is somewhere in between.Scoring in scenarios will be your score minus your opponents score (as to how you will be selected for the top 50%).Each round you will be in charge of a different Nations forces, so skill with all forces will be a factor.The first scenario is ready, a Marine excort team with additional elite units attached are in a small town for a pick up when they are attacked by a Syrian mech recon company bent on their distruction.quick and intense (battle will be 10 -15 minutes in length.)
  21. close combat had a way to cheat, what was it, I never knew that
  22. No, we need to find out who he is playing against and get him testing the game, he need to change because at the moment he is using the dark side of the force.
  23. it helps if you are going to try, to send infantry in from two sides if you can and are so desperate to want to take it out. That way, the tank will only focus on one group, giving the other time to attack if its going to. Of course, you are risking more men to possible die in a desperate move. best to being hiding where the tank comes to you, but that cannot always happen, can it.
×
×
  • Create New...