TheBlackHand

Just a quick question about mounting & dismounting vehicles, as well as giving unit orders. I've noticed that if I put a HMG crew in an unoccupied jeep, then order them to move to a location, I can't seem to get them to dismount once they've arrived at that location. I have to wait for the turn to end, then give them the dismount command. Then I have to wait for that turn to end before I can give them a move/deploy order. This is a problem when I need those guys ASAP. I've also noticed that if I have a crew in a jeep, I can't direct them to drive to a location, get out and then deploy the weapon. I have to drive them there, dismount, wait for the turn to end, then order them to deploy. Am I missing something, or doing something wrong? I realize that if I played real-time this might not be a problem but . . . I'm old school. I prefer turn-based.

I notice that the fanboys on this forum get to act like all sorts of "dicks" without so much as a peep from their daddies. Meanwhile, anyone with a legitimate criticism is quickly handed a pink slip. Interesting.

I finally made it to La Haye after playing and replaying (and replaying). I've spent about four days trying to figure out how to get past the minefields with no engineers. (Well, I was actually given one. One.) Previously, I bitched about what people are calling "puzzle scenarios". I spent a lot of time saving and restarting. Despite the frustration, I had fun trying to get it right. Now, I'm to the point where I just don't care. It's not fun anymore. It feels contrived. This is the first campaign that I chose to play. Is it just my bad luck that I chose the most difficult and frustrating campaign, or are they all this way? I really bought this game to play PBEM. Maybe it's time to leave the canned, Rubiks Cube scenarios behind and focus on finding a few human opponents.

Their .50-cal. machine guns were constantly employed. Targets were personnel, houses, strong points, machine guns, vehicles, and towed guns, as well as tanks and SP guns. Shall I repeat it? Ok. Their .50-cal. machine guns were constantly employed. Targets were personnel, houses, strong points, machine guns, vehicles, and towed guns, as well as tanks and SP guns. One more time. Their .50-cal. machine guns were constantly employed. Targets were personnel, houses, strong points, machine guns, vehicles, and towed guns, as well as tanks and SP guns.

This answer is honest and sensible. No excuses, just the facts. I can accept that the game mechanics make the use of the fifty an impossibility. I will also take the beta testers word for it, since he saw this first-hand. I hope that this is something that can be rectified in a future patch or release. As to the other suggestions about sensitive crews, sneaky stugs and sniper shots . . . I ain't buyin' it. These are poor excuses, particularly in the situation in which I found myself. I've been playing this game (or type of game) long enough to know that there are times when rationalization is necessary. In this instance, I could see no reason why it would have been impossible, or overly risky to man the fifty and put rounds across the valley. To the contrary, any commander with a lick of sense would have ordered the first trooper he saw up there on the gun . . . if he didn't take the initiative and man it himself. Only an idiot/a-hole would sit there and watch his men get shot while a perfectly good suppressive weapon went unused within reach.

So, you people mean to tell me that when I have an MG42 peppering my troops from 500 yards away, I can't call up my M10 and tell a trooper to man that .50 and suppress the German? You're really telling me that this is impossible and unrealistic? Really? Sounds like you're making excuses to me. Despite real world examples. So, the crew doesn't appreciate the sound of the machine gun over their heads or the feel of hot brass? Boo fcking hoo. Tell that to the guys who are advancing under machine gun fire while the fifty, fifty yards behind them, goes unused in their defense. The fifty should be available for suppression or direct fire. Period.

Playing Razorback Ridge. I have a platoon of M10's. All of them have .50's on their turrets, all of them show the ammo for these .50's in the UI . . . none of them are able to use these weapons. Why the tease? The fifty on the M10 was most definitey used in the role in which I would've liked to use it last night ie. suppression or "target light". Here's plenty of real world examples: Brassing off a Kraut. "In the opening phases of the fight the TDs were used in an assault gun role in the infantry front lines. Their .50-cal. machine guns were constantly employed. Targets were personnel, houses, strong points, machine guns, vehicles, and towed guns, as well as tanks and SP guns. One house was fired upon at 300 yards. ". Audie Murphy says so. "After exhausting his carbine ammunition, Murphy was preparing to fall back when the .50-caliber machine gun on the turret of the burning tank destroyer caught his eye. Soon the fire would reach the vehicle’s fuel and ammunition, but Murphy knew the gun was his only chance to stop the Germans. He climbed aboard the tank destroyer and began spraying the big .50-caliber at the enemy. Private First Class Anthony V. Abramski later reported, “I saw Lt. Murphy climb on top of the burning tank destroyer while bursts of machine pistol fire from the advancing infantry battered against the hull and tread.” Murphy knew that the .50-caliber would have no effect on the tanks, so he concentrated his fire on the advancing infantry. ". Wikipedia: M10 Tank Destroyer. "A .50-caliber Browning M2HB machine gun could be mounted on the top rear of the turret for use against enemy infantry and for anti-aircraft use, along with 1000 rounds. ". There's also an often seen video of a GI on back of an M10, firing the .50 at some Germans in a French town. Can't seem to find it anywhere, but I still wanna know why my GI's can't do the same. (Aha, it just occured to me . . . after writing this . . . that it could be because the M10's are buttoned? I figured this out with the scout cars, I didn't think of it with the TD's. I'll have to check that in the battle this evening. If that's the easy answer, well . . . at least I've posted some interesting stories here.)

Aha! That makes sense. I'm still playing the campaign(s). Havent moved on to QB's or PBEM yet.

I just remembered that I had a jeep go immobile in the scenario where you have to make a run through town during the Courage and Fortitude campaign. What happened this time was, I had plotted waypoints around the turns. I kept all the waypoints on the road, but it looked as though the jeep caught an edge and went from bogged to immobile . . . conveniently, directly in front of an MG42 team. The machine gun was suppressed and did not immobilize the jeep. The jeep did that itself, somehow. The MG did, eventually, kill the jeep and it's occupants though. The M10 and the truck also bogged on or near the turns. So, there must be something about the turns that causes vehicles to go all crazy like. It's as though they catch an edge of the pavement and dig in.

Well, OK. I actually just included it because I thought it was a pretty cool clip. Fake or not. The other clips are most definitely not falsified and they do show the sort of backblast that would/should be evident in real life, as well as on the CM battlefield.

It occured to me, around the same time that my zookers were wasting their ammunition on a total of two, half-dead German infantrymen who were crawling in the opposite direction, a hundred yards away while the sound of Panzers approaching from a lesser distance could most-likely be heard over the din of battle . . . ahem, it occured to me that one thing I do miss from the CMX:1 games is the independant bazooka squad. The option to split teams is, perhaps, a decent work-around. I'll try it next time.

I think the first video is pretty obviously a reenactment. However, some of the tank footage looks quite realistic. I put it in there for an example of the copious backblast from the Panzerfaust.

AT teams need some work. This obnoxious firing at tanks with pop guns has got to be fixed. I'm also tired of having my units waste their precious bazooka ammo on soft targets. Last night I had a squad with tanks on one side of the hedge and a decimated German squad across a field, within view. I hadn't ordered my team up to the hedge to engage the tanks yet, because I was waiting for them to get a better broadside. Well, what do my troopers do? They open up on the German infantry, WASTING two of their five rockets. This is ridiculous and totally frustrating. I AM supposed to be the brains behind that squad. I AM their Major, Captain, Lieutenant, Seargent, Corporal. MY ORDERS stipulate that they are to save their rockets for the GODD*MN tanks . . . which are now approaching. Furthermore, the first jackass that opens up on a tank with his non-scoped rifle is going to have a court martial to answer for.

I had a truck and a tank bog and then go immobile on the road in the Razorback Ridge battle. As if that battle isn't hard enough. Both vehicles were moving at "Move" speed and they had waypoints directly on the road itself, or so I thought. Both times the vehicles seem to have moved slightly off the road as they were making a turn. Both times I quit and reloaded. I wouldn't have done that if they'd have gone immobile where it seems likely that they might (a field or ditch) . . . but in the middle of the facking road?

I would suggest that there should be a much greater backblast as well. This backblast from the bazooka to the panzerfaust to the panzerschreck should be something that might give away the firing position to pretty much everyone in direct LOS from a hundred yards or so. The panzerfaust looks especially smoky. The zooks, not quite as much, but the dust that they kick up should have the same effect. I would assume that environmental factors would come into play. Evidence: Firing the Panzerfaust. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9elpbW4c18. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lEF4_OYrl2w.

I liked CMx1's UI better, but CM:BN's isn't half as bad as some people think. Hardly "unplayable/unusable" as some have claimed. Just my opinion. My main gripe with the UI (so far) is the lack of moveable waypoints. Leaving them out is a step backwards. I guess I'll have to accept it if the code wizards decree that moveable waypoints are impossible . . . but it just seems like they SHOULD be possible. They certainly would come in handy.

Good! . . . and shooting while on the move should be nothing more than a loud noise and a waste of ammunition.

I experienced this problem last night in the Razorback Ridge battle and yes, it was quite frustrating. I was yelling at that g*dd*mn mortar team in my computer room, just as I'd have been yelling at them on the battlefield . . . and they'd have heard me because they were only 25 g*dd*mn yards away from my HQ spotter (which is me, in the CM world). If I could've walked up to the mortar, smacked the NCO in the helmet and dialed the damned thing in myself, I would've.

I am enjoying it, despite a few problems here and there. I have complained, loudly a few times, but this doesn't mean I don't enjoy the game as it is . . . and I look forward to it getting better with time. Do I enjoy it as much as I enjoyed the CMX:1 series? Yes and no. No, because it is not as expansive, and thus, not quite as immersive as those games (yet) and no, because it is not as much of a "new thing". Those games were revolutionary. Perhaps I'm/we're a little jaded in the 21st Century. Maybe we expect too much. Nevertheless, I don't feel as much "in control" with CM:BN as I was with CMX:1. The tension of the battle is not quite what it was with CMX:1 (the target-line argument plays into this in a big way . . . not that I miss target lines . . . more on this in a moment). Yes, I am enjoying it . . . for most of the same reasons that I enjoyed the old games. The biggest thing that allowed me to get "over" the old games and learn to enjoy the new is that I approached it AS A NEW GAME ALTOGETHER. At first, this was difficult. At times, it still is . . . when I wish for something that I had in CMX:1, or when I expect the game to behave like CMX:1 did . . . but I'm able to move past these things by focusing on the fact that this is a new engine. Now, when I play this game it remiiiinds me of CMX:1. In a good way. It feels like CMX:1, only different. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Actually, it's a good thing, because this is a good game. It has room to grow, and I'm confident that it will, just as CMX:1 did. I stopped trying to cram CMX:1 in the CM:BN box. The game has grown on me. Sure, I still bitch and bitch and bitch . . . but I also find myself playing the damned thing until wayyyy past my bedtime. This HAS to be a good thing. I wouldn't do it if it wasn't. Yeah, I bitch about things, but like we used to say in the Marines "a bitching Marine is a happy Marine". I wouldn't complain if I didn't care. I was skeptical about the lack of command lines . . . and I'd still like to have them as an option. However, I've learned to live without them pretty well. The fact that you can click on any squad and it's HQ and attendant squads will light up is a pretty easy way for me to tell who's where. Just look at the interface to see if they're in command or not (or don't move them too far away from each other in the first place, you should know better). I haven't had much, if any, problems with the interface. At first I expected it to act like CMX:1. Naturally. Eventually I got used to it. Works fine, far as I'm concerned. I would like more information as to cover, terrain type, perhaps a turn timer/battle timer and a few extra movment options & targeting arcs . . . but I'm happy with it, for the most part. (We DO need moveable waypoints though.) I play WEGO. I don't give a damn about RT. I don't miss the target lines, because I understand the reason why they no longer exist. I do miss the tension that the lines added to the CMX:1 series . . . but the fact is, I believe CM:BN is more accurate/realistic in this regard. The tension is still there . . . you just don't know exactly where it's coming from. I guess I could see adding target lines back to a tank's main gun, but I doubt if that'll ever happen. Frankly, I think there are more important things for the game designers to think about . . . but if it adds enjoyment & suspense & thus increases sales, well . . . I guess it's a worthwhile endeavour. Anyway, this is one of the rare games where the developers actually interact with the players on a daily basis. We should all appreciate that, and I think we do. This can only be a good thing for the future of the franchise. (What will really determine whether I enjoy this game as much as the CMX:1 series will be they way it plays against a human via PBEM. I have yet to give that a try. Will do, after I play the campaigns and get a real feel for how it all works. I played CMX:1 via PBEM right up until about six months ago. I havent played CMX:1 single player since . . . 2004.)

I'm on my third attempt with this battle. The previous two were Tactical Defeats, which caused my entire campaign to result in failure. I have come to the realization that there is no possible way I can actually win this scenario. Too far to go with too few troops. I don't have enough men to hold the toolsheds and take the crossroads before the reinforcements arrive. If I wait that long, I don't think I have enough time to move to the end of the map, and fight at the same time. Gonna give it another go though. A couple of things that I noticed (and which caused a couple of screaming fits). I set up an HQ to call artillery 60mm mortars on the crossroads and on the MG position across the left side of the valley. The HQ unit was +1 for leadership, so I figure he knew how to call arty. The mortars were not too far behind him and within voice/visual contact. Well, on both occasions, I ordered a mortar team to fire on the crossroads . . . but this team put ALL of their rounds down in the creek. 100 - 150 yards from where I directed thier fire. WTF? I ordered another team to fire on the crossroads and they did, successfully, but by this time my mortar ammo was practically depleted. Additionally, one team had a TOT of 4 minutes . . . it took at least five minutes before the first round left the tube and it probably took another three or four turns before they fired a volley. WTF?? They weren't suppressed in any way. Were they just an incompetent team, Murphy's Law or what? Then there's the thing about the M10's and their .50 cal. I would've liked the TD to use his .50 to suppress the MG team across the river . . . instead of wasting HE on it. Why is this not possible? Turn the damn turret and use the fifty. The .50 on the TD just sits there, unused/unusable. Also, I noticed a schreck team take about five shots from a hedge near the middle of the map. I had two MG teams and two ammo bearer teams, plus a couple of headquarters units in direct view of this hedge, from about 100-125yds. NOBODY pinpointed ANY backblast from these numerous panzerschreck shots. Thats not right, right? I would think there would be SOME waft of backblast smoke rising above the hedge. Yeah, there was a contact marker . . . but no smoke. I think there should be smoke, rain or no rain. From everything I've read and seen about WW2 bazooka type weapons . . . there is a LOT of backblast. (In fact, this is why we can't fire them from buildings anymore.) About the toolsheds. I had four or five guys in the larger shed and four or five in the shed by the back of the map. The guys in the large shed seem to be cut down as if they're holed up in tents. The building seems to provide zero cover. Why? Wouldn't these guys do SOMETHING to fortify their position? The guys in the back shed fared OK the first time. The second time, all but one of them were cut down by one rifle grenade and the last guy surrendered. I only have about 8 - 12 guys to hold the sheds. I also was wondering if engineers can clear obstacles and if there is a way to direct them to blow vehicle vs. infantry sized holes in hedges?

I was ended up taking both exits. I took the main road with a jeep and a scout car, but I ran them back through town to exit everyone via the D336. This was on a replay. The first time around I took the D336 and left the main route alone. I replayed it just to see what would happen if I took the main route as well. (I got the points.) I wonder what would happen if you exited via both routes?

You won't/can't win that mission unless you cheat (ie. play it again, and again, and again, and again). One thing I was wondering about engineers. Is it possible to have them clear obstacles? I'm playing the Razorback Ridge battle (on my third try). On the first try I thought I might be able to get the engineers to blow up the obstacles at the crossroads, but they wouldn't do it. They did mark the mines though. Additionally, I did have them blow holes in the hedges through which the vehicles could traverse. This is exactly what I had hoped for. I've seen the engineers make man-sized gaps as well. Is there a way to direct them to blow larger gaps for vehicles, or is it just a chance thing? It seems I should be able to tell them how large of a gap needs to be created.

I know it's been mentioned a million times . . . but I'm just gonna say it again and again until it gets fixed. I would really like more control over my AT assets. I'm tired of my zookers opening up from much too far away . . . and consequently, wasting their only means to actually approach and kill a tank, not to mention, bringing unwanted attention upon themselves. The game also needs a "armor only" target arc. . . . and this thing about tanks shooting on the move with deadly accuracy has just got to stop. How they let this IN-accuracy slip into the game is perplexing. Other than that, I'm really enjoying things. I expect that after a few patches, it'll be as good as all the fanboys already think it is.

I solved it, with the help from the guys on this forum. The battle was playable after understanding that the ONLY way to get tanks across that bridge was to plot a straight line directly across it. My major beef was that it took numerous tries and hundreds of curses to figure that out. The infantry moved over the bridge very smoothly too, but only after the tanks/artillery had suppressed everything else. Trying to wade them through the muck is a waste of time and men (dozens will probably die from the arty). If you lose one tank on the bridge or too near the approach, you will probably lose or tie. I lost one "immobilized" tank to a mine on the far end of the bridge, but the following tanks had room to move around him. (Next time I'd have the pioneers blast directly across the bridge approaches, if possible.) It should have been mentioned, somehow, that there was only ONE way over/across the chokepoint (ie. the bridge). Replaying the game over and over because you can't find the "key" feels . . . gamey. At least the following battle is soooo easy that it lets off a bit of the steam that you've built up during this one.

Aha . . . I thought they were supposed to go everywhere BUT the bridge (I also thought that they would be at great risk of bogging, but that it was a necessary risk). It didn't look to me as though the tanks could actully fit across the bridge so I assumed it was not even possible to send them via that route. I seem to have missed your instruction about how to get them across. I heard this: Now I see it. So . . . I will actually give that a try since it is the one method I never used. Yes, I must be a masochist.