slysniper

I met one fellow way back when I was in college. he was in Vietnam (infantry) and had been caught in a ambush and they did just that. Turned into it and assaulted.
Of course, his memory of it was very limited. They were on a roadway when they were hit. he managed to take a few steps before a explosion blew him back and dropped him on the ground, when he managed to get his wits about him again, he crawled away from the enemy to the far side of the road and found the only cover available, a tree trunk, so he positioned himself behind that and hide. The problem was, it was not really any cover. So he next was shot in his butt. That was all he had to the story.
His unit did manage to assault enough that the ambush ceased and withdrew. He said the unit lost a lot of men that day, some were his friends and he felt terrible about his own actions. but that was about the only combat experience he had while there.
the few other events he was in, all he knew was where the fire was coming from, never really could see anyone, just muzzle flashes, and him firing back into the location. And no one moving , just firing til the units disengaged from each other.
 

WJA, all your points are on the mark.
and some here have pointed out a few of them can be somewhat resolved with features presently in the game.
Other items are likely not going to be resolved,  but it does not hurt to point them out. The sad thing is I am sure the designers also know about these short comings along withy some others not mentioned.
We as players can get very critical as to the game needing to represent things correctly as to how it is in real life. I am sure I have done it myself more than a few times over the years. But the truth is, it is a game and it is a computer program with all sorts of compromises in the programming that has been made but to us the user it seems to reflect reality pretty good.
I am just amazed that it does as well as it does. The things we complain about the game is pretty limited compared to all the things the game is trying to portray.
These guys really do try to get it right and we as the consumer needs to be reminded that they have made a huge effort to do just that.
So keep that in mind before you make comments that sound like the effort has not been put into trying to get it to do things as correct as possible.
We the consumer needs to realize there is going to be short comings, just is how it is. So when asking about possible improvements, keeping our tone in a positive manor is important. Because there is limits to what they can do.
Nothing wrong in making suggestions, but acting upset because they are there is not a mature way of seeing it.
 
 

WJA, all your points are on the mark.
and some here have pointed out a few of them can be somewhat resolved with features presently in the game.
Other items are likely not going to be resolved,  but it does not hurt to point them out. The sad thing is I am sure the designers also know about these short comings along withy some others not mentioned.
We as players can get very critical as to the game needing to represent things correctly as to how it is in real life. I am sure I have done it myself more than a few times over the years. But the truth is, it is a game and it is a computer program with all sorts of compromises in the programming that has been made but to us the user it seems to reflect reality pretty good.
I am just amazed that it does as well as it does. The things we complain about the game is pretty limited compared to all the things the game is trying to portray.
These guys really do try to get it right and we as the consumer needs to be reminded that they have made a huge effort to do just that.
So keep that in mind before you make comments that sound like the effort has not been put into trying to get it to do things as correct as possible.
We the consumer needs to realize there is going to be short comings, just is how it is. So when asking about possible improvements, keeping our tone in a positive manor is important. Because there is limits to what they can do.
Nothing wrong in making suggestions, but acting upset because they are there is not a mature way of seeing it.
 
 

WJA, all your points are on the mark.
and some here have pointed out a few of them can be somewhat resolved with features presently in the game.
Other items are likely not going to be resolved,  but it does not hurt to point them out. The sad thing is I am sure the designers also know about these short comings along withy some others not mentioned.
We as players can get very critical as to the game needing to represent things correctly as to how it is in real life. I am sure I have done it myself more than a few times over the years. But the truth is, it is a game and it is a computer program with all sorts of compromises in the programming that has been made but to us the user it seems to reflect reality pretty good.
I am just amazed that it does as well as it does. The things we complain about the game is pretty limited compared to all the things the game is trying to portray.
These guys really do try to get it right and we as the consumer needs to be reminded that they have made a huge effort to do just that.
So keep that in mind before you make comments that sound like the effort has not been put into trying to get it to do things as correct as possible.
We the consumer needs to realize there is going to be short comings, just is how it is. So when asking about possible improvements, keeping our tone in a positive manor is important. Because there is limits to what they can do.
Nothing wrong in making suggestions, but acting upset because they are there is not a mature way of seeing it.
 
 

I agree with you as too, not getting into replaying a battle much, I only enjoy the first event, the real test of the unknown.
But it does work as a way to test tactical choices one has made, so I don't blame anyone for going back and testing options, But that only is of a benefit if you control yourself and play the situation as if you have none of the knowledge you now enjoy.
Its also a needed skill if you are making scenarios, you have to test them many times, but you have to move the units as if you have never seen the situation before or have any knowledge of where the enemy is.

So As you can see, I played it three times.
Anyone can dissect a situation until its not a challenge at all.
In my world, only the first score matters, because there is no do overs.
 
The second score is playing it again without trying to risk my units for the sake of a score.
 
The third time was with the knowledge of your AI plan and scoring from the first two effort and then going in with the intent to get a perfect score. And it was done.
 
Not wanting to be a jerk about it but the format lacks a way to be a good challenge for comparison, there will always be someone that will do what it takes to get such a score.
Just showed you how easy it could be done and there is plenty of ways to even make it easier. but I was not going to mention all the cheap methods to take the challenge out of it.

Thanks
Well if you ever need a play tester, I am more than willing to get my hands on new stuff that I get to be the first and give it a couple of run throughs and tell you what I think of the work.
I have played plenty of your work and you keep it at a good high standard.
 

http://
 
And in review, my hero's of the battle were the 2nd platoon leaders. (no losses on top of it)
And all my units were moved around often, it was a situation of replacing some so they could resupply, or covering a area another unit had retreated from or withdrew to take cover so units had many different firing positions in the battle.

I agree, at one time there was more of this on the forum and more discussion of how to use ones units.
Hardly see any good stuff on it anymore.
 
Detailed AAR's are the best, but its even better if you can get a open discussion going as to other options that were available and evaluate the choices made.
But there is a lot of work in making a good AAR. Only done a couple in all the years playing.
 
But I always debrief myself after every battle and review my actions,  then if I want to see how another choice would have gone, I replay the battle and use the other option.
Basically, this post was a little of that but with me trying to get input as to if anyone else had come up with a better option than what I was rethinking.
 
This was therapy for me, when setting up to play it for the first time. My gut  and thought process was telling me to not go down that right flank.  but I let myself get in a mindset that is what the scenario was designed for you to do, so play it as they intended and I will work through the challenges it gives me.
Needless to say, I regretted that so much I just had to do this thread as a part of my healing.
 

Good question.
I recall the last new reinforcement's came on for the AI likely in that 60-55 minute mark.
Of course I don't know that as a player, that it is the last that is going to show up. So with how rapid  they had been coming up til that point, it did not take long to figure out it appeared no more was arriving So maybe at the 45 minute mark I figured it was over as to the reds doing anything. (but you never know for sure. Now if I was playing RT, I would cease fire - but in Wego, I can click through a turn in maybe 10 seconds or so. So it only takes a few minutes to run the clock down to just make sure nothing happens. So that is what I did.
 
As I said, I have been on here long enough to understand  how giving plenty of time for players with lesser skills or different approaches is needed. 
(I just think there should be a time set even for them that makes them play the game to some extent as intended.) Just my opinion.
 
First thing I will point out in this battle, no player is likely to do well if they are not actively engaged in doing the mission objective and doing it in a timely manor. that is getting aid to what I call the Alamo.
The first two bmp's I had that made it to those strong point objectives were sent for two reasons. First was my units were about to be overrun because most of the men remaining were running out of ammo, I had a couple of fire teams basically down to a few grenades.
Second, as mentioned, I had already lost the ability to use them as fire platforms since they had only one crew member, so if I lost them in route, it was not a great loss. (So in other wards, I was not sure I had cleared a route that was going to get them there for sure) Just mentioning this to point out how important I felt it was to get to those troops.
 
So maybe I am wrong, but I have a hard time believing anyone will do well if they don't keep a schedule somewhere near what I did.
And in truth, I did not rush or push my armour units in any manor to get there. They were being used very cautiously and my losses suffered were from those opening twenty minutes as to the loss of 2 tanks and 2 bmp's.
 
So I see a battle that was designed and played very well for about 40 minutes and then 50 minutes of add on time for the sake of pleasing everyone.
In this situation, what I think is if the player hasn't achieved what he needs to in that first 40 minutes of play, how much time should he get to do the task. I think 20 - 30 minutes is more than enough  time for anyone , if they still have a force worth doing anything with at that point anyway. ( As I said just my way of looking at it.)
I think designer should leave times at a logical length and let players who want more time add it themselves. Removing time challenges remove the need for players to improve their skills.
 
Overall a great battle and a perfect example of how well CM does portray city fighting. I always shake my head at those that complain it does a terrible job at city fighting.
Yes, there is ways it could be better, but in general, I think it does a good job of giving the feel of the challenges one faces in built up areas.
 
I had a few times , The enemy infiltrated my lines in this battle and we were mixing it up in room to room fighting. That's a perfect way to get a feel for how desperate the situation is.

Sounds good but I would not give them a week to play them to score for points. I think 1 to 2 days seems better (limit the amount of replays people might do).
I was suggesting that you only posted one a week at a certain time each week. That would be for your own well being more than anything else.
 

Just wanted to report the results of playing the first battle.
Played Ian, he wanted to check these out so we are.
He was the Germans, I selected the Americans.
My briefing did not give a clear objective as to what I needed to focus on. I had to determine for myself what the key areas were and then I was informed to react to what the enemy was doing. (That is what the challenge was that you gave us) The briefing did a good job of setting that up.
The bridge and crossroads were the obvious key areas in my mind but because I had them right next to me they were not objectives I had to go obtain. So I felt I needed to be aggressive and attack and get other objectives. So that meant I needed to push for other objectives.

But with the M8’s being my only assets with any real fire power, they were too brittle to risk. Losing 1 or 2 of them would for sure be costly to my side in any efforts in the battle.

So it meant any aggressive actions on my part would be a slow action trying to use my infantry. So after moving across the bridge and getting units at the cross roads and coming into contact with German units I began a slow process of moving infantry units forward on my flanks.
Ian was focused on the center of the map objectives, so my flanks were able to get to the next objectives without too much problem
I was surprised by what the German units were, but since I had the m8's in reserve, they were used to react to any areas I felt I was getting out gunned in.
As the battle progressed I could tell Ian was going to stay focused on the crossroads and that I needed to make sure that I had good fire on areas he would likely approach to taking that objective. Having taken the flanks, this became somewhat easy in that I had units holding those objectives but they could also support the center cross road area.
So that was really the cause for the win in that the Germans lost most of their units on that approach which I had prepared for. Holding the flanks also cause Ian to divert some forces to his flanks , so that prevented him from using them in his main attack.
So I hope this gives you some insight without me giving too much away about the scenario  for others who have not played it.
 

I can answer this for you, most of the time, no, some times yes.
What happens is just what you thought, the rifle recoil will knock you view off and for a moment because of movement, you really cannot see anything.
now what is interesting is, depending on how well you have the weapon locked into your body and secure. You can have the weapon come right back into a resting position and be right on the original line of site basically.
In this case, it is possible to see impact. rare but possible.
What I remember more than anything was when shooting at very long ranges (800 to 1000 yards) in a hot open environment (desert) and this would happen where the weapon came back to the original sight picture. Not only at times could you see impact, but you actually could see the bullet cutting through the air, the heat waves coming up off the surface is visible in the sight and the bullet is moving the air as it flies and you can see that as it moves to target.
Now as for seeing the results of being a sniper. If you do not know, snipers now work always in teams of 2 or 3 in most armies.
One is designated as a spotter when shots are fired. they normally are viewing the target, many times with even stronger optics than the sniper. so that person has a view of the whole event. so yes they get images that will likely never leave their mind.
For a sniper , the mental challenge is war is a little different than for others in one sense.
Killing impacts most  people,  it can play on their minds. For a Sniper, they have the situation of normally being able to see the victim and know that as they pull the trigger they are taking that persons life away from them and that its within their control to do it. (its not like its a fair fight. Most of the time that person has no clue you are going to take their life or that they are presently at risk of death) So for many it can become a challenge to be a killer in such a manor.

I can answer this for you, most of the time, no, some times yes.
What happens is just what you thought, the rifle recoil will knock you view off and for a moment because of movement, you really cannot see anything.
now what is interesting is, depending on how well you have the weapon locked into your body and secure. You can have the weapon come right back into a resting position and be right on the original line of site basically.
In this case, it is possible to see impact. rare but possible.
What I remember more than anything was when shooting at very long ranges (800 to 1000 yards) in a hot open environment (desert) and this would happen where the weapon came back to the original sight picture. Not only at times could you see impact, but you actually could see the bullet cutting through the air, the heat waves coming up off the surface is visible in the sight and the bullet is moving the air as it flies and you can see that as it moves to target.
Now as for seeing the results of being a sniper. If you do not know, snipers now work always in teams of 2 or 3 in most armies.
One is designated as a spotter when shots are fired. they normally are viewing the target, many times with even stronger optics than the sniper. so that person has a view of the whole event. so yes they get images that will likely never leave their mind.
For a sniper , the mental challenge is war is a little different than for others in one sense.
Killing impacts most  people,  it can play on their minds. For a Sniper, they have the situation of normally being able to see the victim and know that as they pull the trigger they are taking that persons life away from them and that its within their control to do it. (its not like its a fair fight. Most of the time that person has no clue you are going to take their life or that they are presently at risk of death) So for many it can become a challenge to be a killer in such a manor.

I can somewhat agree with you on this. Anyone truly into war gaming would not care as to which front or armies are involved.
But I am afraid that the market sales has proven that there is plenty of casual gamers that will buy these games and for that type of buyer, it appears they are only interested if the game covers their countries forces.
What I am surprised about is how many of these type of sales there must be.
We see this forum, you see the type of people who get on it and you get a perception of the type of people that are buying these games.
But I have come to a conclusion that those on the forum are a small portion of those that buy the game and that as a whole we are not a good cross section of the group that purchases these games.

I just smile about all the fools that act like the game was broken and they have waited all this time for the patch, like there was no way to play the game in its present state.
So now SF2 is out and we finally see the corrections that will be patched into all the games shortly.
Great, is it better, Yes.
But If I was one of you over picky types, you better watch out. Because that long awaited patch will not make your men act perfect for you all the time still.
I have still noticed things that the infantry does at times that make no sense in any world, how often, not much. but they still do things that I can see you all get worked over about and will cause you to demand it get fixed,.
Some of these actions have been and will likely be within the game forever. 
But I am really been grateful no one has started the campaign on the issues still out there, most are still focused on getting the patch to their favorite game.

Well, I see this is why I don't trust much of what I read on the web.
from the one site I would have to assume BF is out of business by now and I will not be seeing any of those games that they are releasing in 2019.
people can be so negative about things  ( especially when they have no real knowledge on something and are making assumptions) well  I am glad to see they were all wrong and proving only their own ignorance.
What I did find interesting was the list of weaknesses the game has as to being a good military simulator. (that was insightful, also does make me wonder what BF have done with the efforts they have done with their military contract)

You nailed that on the head, most of these jerks are playing the game and just have toxic attitudes because somewhere along the line the game company did not do something that they the player thought was all important in the design. But like the rest of us, its the only game that truly gives us a fix to the addiction we have. Why they think attacking the company will ever help their cause I do not know, but they do, all the while playing the game just like the rest of us.

there was a thread a few months ago where we had the same topic and there was more imput and plenty of good advice as to the use of Snipers.
 

Well, engaging snipers at closer ranges also becomes tricky. If they start receiving enemy fire they also can become pretty ineffective.
I like to bring them in under 300 meters if I have a situation where my normal troops have fire superiority but are not able to get many kills. Adding a Sniper to such a group will add a lot of lethal fire, that is a situation where the sniper will excel.
In the test I did, I know that I also like Snipers on their own covering open approaches for the enemy where they can cover it at about the 400 meter range.
They can be a good screen defense in such a situation. I like to have a MG out there also if possible. The combination of sniper , MG is really good for covering open approaches.
 
in game situations have me using Snipers all the time in ways I do not think is best, but I am not afraid to see them die either, since they are just game pieces instead of real men.
So yes, Snipers at close ranges can put on a killing spree, but in general it will be very short. Normally plays out with them killing a few men before a lucky round returns and find them as a mark.
If you want a sniper with a high end tally at the end of the game, I say 400 meters is about the best range to work with them to give them such a chance. 
I have had many snipers with up to 20 kills in a game and still be alive to brag about it.

Well I did some testing to see if  CMSF2 is acting the same as what I tested in CMBS years ago.
Before any rant, learn to see what to expect from the game and things will work out much better for you
 
Ok, I selected all 13 Nato Sniper units and placed them in a sniper perfect situation with a target rich field of enemy units, none of which were firing back AND NO COVER
Tested range 420 meters
allowed 2 minutes of firing
used vet+1, then crack +2, then elite +2
 
In all these test the average hits were around 18 units, so that is 1.4 hits approx. within two minutes. But of course I had teams ranging from 3 kills to no kills in the test.
Only on the elite +2 test did I have one unit with 4 kills.
 
Also there was no consistency as to which sniper unit was out performing the others.
these were some of the top performer in some of the test.
German G82,
German G22
US m110
US M107
US MARINE M82A3
 
AT 600M IT WAS THE
DUTCH 338 LAPOA ,
GERMAN G82
 
AT THE 600 METER RANGE I HAD A ADVERAGE OF 7 HITS OUT OF THE 13 TEAMS IN THE 2 Minutes
so you might as well say .5 percent chance in that time frame.
 
take these things , now factor in cover and concealment and all the other things the game does and now you can see what to expect out of your Snipers.
plus keep in mind get them much closer and the enemy fires back.
 
In general, I would not let my sniper fire for more than a few minutes without changing locations and the 400 meter range is a good range to use to start getting results on easy targets.
 
(Side note, these numbers are good for the modern games, I recall the testing on the WWII games were about 150 meters shorter to get similar results. too long ago to remember for sure.)

I have not done any testing on the cmsf2 game, but I have tested in the past and found that the modern snipers in the game can get kills pretty consistently up to 600 meters with most of their rifles.
I have not seen anything since playing SF2 that makes me question that they are still capable of doing the same.
I suspect there is some type of cover, even if its just a fold in the ground that has created the problem for him.
As mentioned, the game does not adjust the targeting, it will do the same over and over to no avail.
I had it happened with a tank just a few days ago. wasted a 1/2 dozen shots on the same target and there was no reason it should not be hitting the enemy unit. So I moved it just a nudge, it missed once at the new location then a killing shot.
Same goes with infantry, sometimes you just have to adjust the location of the shot , even if it looks perfect from the present location. (long before you let it shoot as long as you did)

Well I did some testing to see if  CMSF2 is acting the same as what I tested in CMBS years ago.
Before any rant, learn to see what to expect from the game and things will work out much better for you
 
Ok, I selected all 13 Nato Sniper units and placed them in a sniper perfect situation with a target rich field of enemy units, none of which were firing back AND NO COVER
Tested range 420 meters
allowed 2 minutes of firing
used vet+1, then crack +2, then elite +2
 
In all these test the average hits were around 18 units, so that is 1.4 hits approx. within two minutes. But of course I had teams ranging from 3 kills to no kills in the test.
Only on the elite +2 test did I have one unit with 4 kills.
 
Also there was no consistency as to which sniper unit was out performing the others.
these were some of the top performer in some of the test.
German G82,
German G22
US m110
US M107
US MARINE M82A3
 
AT 600M IT WAS THE
DUTCH 338 LAPOA ,
GERMAN G82
 
AT THE 600 METER RANGE I HAD A ADVERAGE OF 7 HITS OUT OF THE 13 TEAMS IN THE 2 Minutes
so you might as well say .5 percent chance in that time frame.
 
take these things , now factor in cover and concealment and all the other things the game does and now you can see what to expect out of your Snipers.
plus keep in mind get them much closer and the enemy fires back.
 
In general, I would not let my sniper fire for more than a few minutes without changing locations and the 400 meter range is a good range to use to start getting results on easy targets.
 
(Side note, these numbers are good for the modern games, I recall the testing on the WWII games were about 150 meters shorter to get similar results. too long ago to remember for sure.)

Well I did some testing to see if  CMSF2 is acting the same as what I tested in CMBS years ago.
Before any rant, learn to see what to expect from the game and things will work out much better for you
 
Ok, I selected all 13 Nato Sniper units and placed them in a sniper perfect situation with a target rich field of enemy units, none of which were firing back AND NO COVER
Tested range 420 meters
allowed 2 minutes of firing
used vet+1, then crack +2, then elite +2
 
In all these test the average hits were around 18 units, so that is 1.4 hits approx. within two minutes. But of course I had teams ranging from 3 kills to no kills in the test.
Only on the elite +2 test did I have one unit with 4 kills.
 
Also there was no consistency as to which sniper unit was out performing the others.
these were some of the top performer in some of the test.
German G82,
German G22
US m110
US M107
US MARINE M82A3
 
AT 600M IT WAS THE
DUTCH 338 LAPOA ,
GERMAN G82
 
AT THE 600 METER RANGE I HAD A ADVERAGE OF 7 HITS OUT OF THE 13 TEAMS IN THE 2 Minutes
so you might as well say .5 percent chance in that time frame.
 
take these things , now factor in cover and concealment and all the other things the game does and now you can see what to expect out of your Snipers.
plus keep in mind get them much closer and the enemy fires back.
 
In general, I would not let my sniper fire for more than a few minutes without changing locations and the 400 meter range is a good range to use to start getting results on easy targets.
 
(Side note, these numbers are good for the modern games, I recall the testing on the WWII games were about 150 meters shorter to get similar results. too long ago to remember for sure.)

Well I did some testing to see if  CMSF2 is acting the same as what I tested in CMBS years ago.
Before any rant, learn to see what to expect from the game and things will work out much better for you
 
Ok, I selected all 13 Nato Sniper units and placed them in a sniper perfect situation with a target rich field of enemy units, none of which were firing back AND NO COVER
Tested range 420 meters
allowed 2 minutes of firing
used vet+1, then crack +2, then elite +2
 
In all these test the average hits were around 18 units, so that is 1.4 hits approx. within two minutes. But of course I had teams ranging from 3 kills to no kills in the test.
Only on the elite +2 test did I have one unit with 4 kills.
 
Also there was no consistency as to which sniper unit was out performing the others.
these were some of the top performer in some of the test.
German G82,
German G22
US m110
US M107
US MARINE M82A3
 
AT 600M IT WAS THE
DUTCH 338 LAPOA ,
GERMAN G82
 
AT THE 600 METER RANGE I HAD A ADVERAGE OF 7 HITS OUT OF THE 13 TEAMS IN THE 2 Minutes
so you might as well say .5 percent chance in that time frame.
 
take these things , now factor in cover and concealment and all the other things the game does and now you can see what to expect out of your Snipers.
plus keep in mind get them much closer and the enemy fires back.
 
In general, I would not let my sniper fire for more than a few minutes without changing locations and the 400 meter range is a good range to use to start getting results on easy targets.
 
(Side note, these numbers are good for the modern games, I recall the testing on the WWII games were about 150 meters shorter to get similar results. too long ago to remember for sure.)