Holien

Just e-mailed and if you are taken I am free to offers as all current games have ended and i need to feed the addiction and stop posting in this forum before I get chased out... H

I think this is one of the features you will have to live with and find some way of accepting. I have had similar situations and while very annoying I am having to re-set my expectations which is not easy but must be done to enjoy the game. The problem I hit is with HMG teams when you think you will get LOS but the man with the HMG does not go where you want him. You have to keep jiggling the team to get him lined up. Just part of the issue of AI and IRL I guess could happen... Poor design and if we keep mentioning it hopefully the designers (those nice people who get off their arse and feed us ungrateful SOB) will put in gaps, hedge and all such nice things to make it like a proper field rather than bocage walls. The whole bocage issue not passable to infantry has been done quite a few times in discussion and there are two camps with different views... However only one view holds and that is of BTS and non passing through bocage with anything..... (Unless you use Cullins or Demo charges...(that's for you Jon))

Hi Jon I disagree with some of your analysis and rather than get into a long debate about it I think will leave it as agree to disagree... I can see where you are coming from but I do not agree with all of your perspectives. I fully accept that you can hold those views absolutely NP. BTW I can see that Mike has upset some people (still need to dig out threads) so I will slowly close the door and walk away from this topic... Too much gaming to do to get bogged down with semantics...

Thanks for the heads up, not quite describing the battle but an interesting insight about bocage and how they approached it.

For me not as the Panther had not been engaged before. Good point as I had one game where a Tiger refused to fire and I could not understand why!!! Then I saw that a previous hit had taken out the gun!!! Darn.... So yes good thing to check especially if you are learning the game. So much to understand...

Was he? Oh dear.... I will have to do some digging to find out what that was all about...

I had a similar gun waggling incident as the tank reversed and was engaged by a Sherman at close range. Same result the loss of a Panther. I chalked it down to luck but maybe one to watch out for and see if we can work out any more incidents....

"...but building interiors are empty shells" = True "...and infantry cannot ride on tanks (despite the fact historian Michael Doubler insisted the 2d Armored Division did just that as a reaction to the challenges of the bocage)." = True "Two-foot tall hedgerows in the game are impassable to 20-ton tanks," = True " and the same-old pathing problems from CM:SF have reappeared, as they show off their vulnerable flanks to go finding the long way around. " = True "Headquarters units still lead attacks. The AI leads attacks with headquarters units (and there are a lot of them with the new order of battle and command/control structure)" = True "As for the history - German paratroop units, some of the major defenders of the Normandy front, are not included." = True "Tiger tanks are, despite not having been present in Normandy versus the Americans. Hornets are not included, neither are the SS. We have to wait and pay for the add-on modules." = True "This definitive game depicting Normandy also doesn't include a single parachute, glider, landing craft, beach assault or custom fortification, be it a Tobruk or an H677 bunker. No Army Rangers. No DD tanks." = True Before you ask I am not!!! Mike has expressed his opinion and the points he raises are true. Of course he does not balance it with all the good stuff but that is his choice. After walking a fair bit of Normandy it is a pity that no beach scenarios could be included especially the fortifications like tobruk pits which are a fairly common feature. But I understand why they are not there and accept that they might never be. To me it is the only game in town but all that has been noted would be great if it could be included or addressed. Obviously lots of commercial choices made and that is fair enough as BTS made the game their choice to make. You see people think 10 years there should be more but reality does always meet what people hope for. Not sure what Killroy was talking about but Mike made some fair points (perhaps in an aggressive manner) but fair points. Good to see more positive reviews and I hope one day these boards will buzz with same hum as CMX1... Now where is the Brits module.... That might get Mike back here....

+1 Just watched it.... Wowww

So still waiting to see what sources? You made a post about talking to Vets etc.... which is good that you have but I guess you never phrased the question could you climb over bocage or find a way through? If you said how was bocage then they will certainly answer it was hell... It was and no one here has ever disputed that. Thanks I did not know that it was not like your neighbours hedge... I just like PAK40 have posted that soldiers would find a way through and if any soldiers on the forum think not then I will listen to them to understand why. (Obstacle training course anyone?) As others have mentioned if designers bother to make maps as described I have no problem and by discussing it here it will highlight to those designers that read the thread that they should adopt a different approach as long as the game keeps bocage as impassible to everything. +1 to all those suggestions. For me the compromise if it could be changed (and maybe it can not) would IMO to allow Low Bocage to be passable by tanks and troops but taking longer than hedges and hence more exposed. (BTS introduced this concept of Low Bocage and I bet they are really glad they did....) High Bocage well that could stay impassable, but as has been mentioned quite a few times Churchills could get over this and I think infantry would still find a way through without recourse to Demo Charges, but that is just my opinion which is mine to have and mine to express as long as BTS does not kick me off their forum for saying it... If they said please don't discuss any more then I would accept that as you mention their house their rules... As you are as much a guest as anyone else asking others to stop discussing things is questionable.

Was it good? Would you recommend it?

Womble it would be nice to keep the posts emotive free rather than tossing these sort of hand grenades when all Jim was doing is posting what he thought was evidence to support his view that tanks should be able to bull through low bocage. Some good points have been made for both points of view and there is no need to start this sort of approach. Focus on what you think is true but comments like the above could be taken the wrong way and I am sure you don't mean it in the way it could be taken? Peace and Love Peace and Love as a certain drummer would say....

Please quote what sources so I can read what you have read? I love how free speech and debate is being encouraged by the tone of your post....

noob you forget that the designers will think it is balanced but only after feedback they will then find out that it might not be. For example this scenario George thought it was balanced but after some play tests there might be changes and I guess the description can then be updated.

You learn something every day.... Thanks

Only 2x 50mm Puma's and I think from memory maybe 4 A/Cs with 20mm canon. I think the Stus and Greyhounds have the edge but I know you feel the AT teams (only 2 with 2 fausts each) gave me an edge which in our game came good for me.

Yes this is painful and if enough people mention the pain maybe just maybe it will be tweaked if at all possible...

I think this is what maybe broke the arc? BTW how do you mange to 360% I only seem to get 180% max? I will double check this and post if it is true. You could be right?

FYI - I have tried the cover arc only for HQ to lose it and then opens fire. The better solution is to have a primary aim for the unit and that underlying logic to be engine driven. If the engine can not do that then I will live with trying to use covered arc and I will try and find why and when the units lose the arc. I think it might be down to cowering? But have not looked close enough to work out how and when they lose the arc. What I can say the arc has been lost and they open up!!! Not something a 2 man HQ squad should be doing unless they are about to be over run... Of course you can argue at what stage would they feel that and how on earth the AI deals with it.... As to your other point of course it is difficult and I can accept might not be possible but it does not stop me from asking (politely I hope) for that behaviour to be modelled if at all possible...

I know what you are saying and the old (it is now old as it has been raised so many times here in different threads) argument that it is a new engine just don't cut it IMO. 10 years on and you would have hoped some things would have been kept and put into the new engine. I know it ain't easy and what we now have is excellent!!! But..... While the game is great and a whole new lease of life for CM there are too often things which you just shout no!!! I am sure they will be tweaked over time and I hope this is one. I would rather the AI use the weapons for their primary purpose and let the humans over ride that in human played games. I.e. Shooting rifles at distant targets when you are part of an AT team. Firing AT weapon at infantry when you have limited ammo and you an AT team. HQ teams opening up at long range targets and revealing position when they should be keeping their teams under control not fighting themselves. FO's doing the same and not spotting. Obviously they feel their main weapon is their rifle. Tanks not stopping and firing at an enemy tank that has just come into view and is taking pot shots at you as you reverse and you have no hope of getting out of sight, where a simple stop and fire would nail the enemy tank or give you a chance. No better to keep reversing and move your turret back and forth in command indecision... (Perhaps AI went into a loop?) FO's who are watching a fire mission land in clear ground and not on the enemy they requested to hit (who can also be clearly seen). Instead the Moles and Worms get nailed and the HMG team in plain sight gets off scot free. IRL I think the mission would be halted and replotted rather than waste the ammo on worms. You would hope in the new engine you could make teams operate in a modus that befits their role? This would help immersion and start removing those moments when you shout at the screen.... (Well I have stopped that now and just shake my head in disbelief) I am enjoying the game as a whole but it is does not stop me wanting improvements...

JonS do you think the design needs tweaking for the Americans? I think your comments support the view that the Americans have an uphill struggle with the Germans having better defensive terrain and the scenario design / briefing lures the American player to attack too early? BTW what was the result of your game? Draw or did you lose? I guess a loss... Also I think the recon phase was the best bit of the game for both sides and having the different locations to check out one of the superb features of the new engine. Having the designers able to give different victory objectives to each side allows for some wonderful scenarios!!!

Once your past 40 you are on the downward slope.... Me I am certainly on downward slope...

wowwww jaw dropped

Just Played Huzzar and would say give the stronger player the Americans and be prepared to face a tough situation unless tweaked by George. Great Map and some great forces to play with....

+1 I agree this will help the scenario and should be fairly easy to tweak.