Blah Blah Blah

I presume that my ammo count is still going to go down quicker than a parched lady of the night? A more than annoying event especially as the first rounds don’t count for jack. Whilst this is the best war game, this ammo count issue and the way that the first shots don’t get a result is well, ridiculous. It makes it so that as the Germans I never attempt to close on the enemy. Then there is the added ‘bonus’ of ALL your units firing upon a tank crew, wasting ammo and ignoring legit targets. Signing off, Teddy Bär A very frustrated player.

If it is an Axis attack I'm in.

bump!

As the title suggests. I am looking for battles as the Germans. Obviously the allies would be defending as they AI cannot attack and with no reserves as it also does not seem capable of using them. I have come accross one or two battles that I would not mind playing again if someone gets a kick out of setting the enemy up. Thanks in advance.

When using tree or woods etc, how far in does one have to be? Is it that it makes no difference if you are in 1 metre or 10?

Incredibly well done.

The smoke was only on the approach of the attacking infantry. The MG42's etc all had a clear line of fire. The attacking infantry made it into the wooded area without loss if I remmember correctly. The 3 units attacked over several minutes one after another.

I am playing this scenario again and I am plytesting my attacks and seeing how it goes again. So far I have not attacked that unit.

CombinedArms, They were in a foxhole not a trench. I had put in at least 30 mortor sheels, MG42 heavy machine gun fire and smoke.

My squads were apart and not suppressed. I had at least 2 MG42's shooting at the enmy unit, though not specifically targeting it. It was in the woods and I had my men advance on the foxhole.

I have been playing as the German's attacking. I have where I can used smoke to get my men within range. However, once there they get massacred. In one instance I had laid down smoke and the unit had got within 30 meters of the enemy in a foxhole, this foxhole had been mortered for a while and was under constant MG42 heavy machine gun fire. Yet two seperate squads (one ofter the other) both veterans, were lost. Eventually the 3rd squad did the job with 3 men left. Apparently the enemy were standard troops with +1 experience. I used the adavnce command for all the units, was this wrong? Though the above is only one instance I do seem to be on the rough end of the stick almost all the time. I always have MG42 machine guns setup before attacking. I will mortor the unit, or use artillery, however I always end up with writers cramp for all the letters I need to send to my men's loved ones. The smoke never seems to be that effective when I use it! I laid down 2 full minutes of 81mm smoke and rushed my halve tracks accross the open about 90+ (might have been more) metres from the enemy up against the woods, with only a smoked out road the enemy's opening to shoot. But as my men get out of the 1/2 tracks and advance into the woods they suffer heavy losses. I suck and I need help. Cheers.

As a quick answer, this is where one unit sees the enemy unit and as such all units now instantly 'know' of that enemy unit and in a lot of cases all fire at the same unit.

I recently enjoyed playing The battle "Valley of death" (unsure where I aquired this). This is a German offensive against 2 British held towns. I am hoping that some one could be kind enough to reconfigure the allies so that I may play this scenario again. E-mail is Blah@mistari.com.au Yes I am a fussy. Just wish that A. the enemy could attack and B. that quick battles could have the troops in some kind of order!

I have searched, no really I did... I would like some advice on how to include my tanks in battle without them dying a quick and horrible death. The AI always seem to be able to nail my tanks, I do not seem to use the right command when advancing. As an example, I used hunt one day, the tank moves along, sees a little allied tnak, has a couple of shots then the tank disappears, my tank then looks the other way and the little allied tanks nails the crap out of it. If I use contact, then it only takes a little bullet to stop the tank and waste anothe minute...

Not much done about the problem but a great read none the less. JonS, Your troop layout is PerFect! and the only way. I would settle for all along the back row as long as it was like this... * . * . *......* . * . *......* . * . *......s . s . s a . h . s......a . h . s......a . h . s....... . h . .

I am a quick battle player as I like the randomness (spelt wrong) and the let's try this factor. Of course the quickbattle also makes some mismatched encounters which when on th giving end is a hoot. However I find that I no longer play at all due to the labour of having to organsise the squads back together. It just takes the life out of the game. Yes I could do it over several nights but I get there and think stuff it Anyway, is there a chance that the next patch could have it so the troops all end up together in neat little groups?

A BIG thanks Caffino, downloading now. I am presuming that fine means the 10m grid and th Grass & Steppe Terrain Grid is the 20m grid? Again, Thanks!

That would be great. May I request a small grid to show greater terrain deviations? Thanks.

Ammo expenditure at close range is excessive.

Actually I really appreciate this simplistic behavior now that I regularly play EYSA. There, you mark a straight path and sometimes the tank starts off in wild directions and zig-zags across the map over seemingly perfect tank terrain. I long for the CM system in these situations! Regards, Thomm </font>

The lack of suitable terrain feed back is for me a great issue. The AI is not good enough for me to not micromanage how they go from A to B or where EXACTLY B is. I also have to agree the current line of sight tool is both clumsy and time consuming. I feel that the current LOS tool is no more realistic than having a light/dark shading to indicate current LOS. I do not feel that I should be able to have a LOS from anywhere other than the unit/s. The setup phase. I have had many experiences where it has taken me a ridiculous amount of time to set up a unit as each time I place the unit I must do a clumsy and time consuming LOS. The battle phase. The problem here is that the AI path finding is so basic that if I put a straight line from A to B that goes through soft ground, rocks, building etc the AI will do just that, go through, not around. Then of course if I then make alterations around the obstacles I then receive a time penalised. As we play out a minute, and we cannot give the unit a complicated enough order to move towards point A till you get a view at point B, With regard to the slopes and valleys within the terrain. In the real world (courting trouble here), as the soldier was moving from A to B walking around the above obstacles, he also would ensure that he moved through the valleys as best as possible. The current AI does not. With the current terrain display there is the issue of trying to move your vehicle and/or men forward enough to engage but not too far to get shot up. As the players AI cannot move intelligently from A to B (very well highlighted with the crawl to enemy away from cover) it is left up to the player to micromanage the move/s without, IMO, suitable terrain feedback. The addition of the Light/Dark would go a long way to make the game more easy to use without loosing anything in realism, but I presume it cannot be done? But the terrain, I am surprised that they did not at least include a high quality grid BMP set for those who may wish to us it. CMAK is a very rough diamond, and to date, for me, the best WWII game I have played apart from a 1992 (?) game about managing aircraft carriers by Microprose (?). I also feel that CMAK was maybe one too many. Whilst I am at it, I hope that the next game includes better documentation, and unit information.

The AI opponent is far better at targeting than the players TAC AI as far as my experience has been in the tank battles that I have played. Not only that, the AI opponent appear to 'borg' target better than the players TAC AI. Add this to it's greater awareness of the lay of the land.

Am I correct to assume that when I have a squad of 10, with 6 weapons that can shoot 500 metres, that when they do target an enemy at that distance that I will also loose the ammo for the submachine guns also? Or is the ammo expenditure reduced as not all weapons can fire?

When looking at the fire power figures for 100 metres it may state a firepower of 95. For a unit of a different makup it may state a fire power of 105 for the same distance. The question is what does that really mean. What results may I expect, is it really worth even looking at these figures when the difference is so small? Thanks in advance.

Yes this is very fustrating.