jep

I am quite sure I encountered this problem with CMBN (PC) but I am not sure how to repeat the issue. Perhaps it was another game.

Kind of kills the more competitive plays. Perhaps this will be fixed in future releases.

Yesterday I played a Quick Battle and began to think something is definitely wrong with victory condition mechanics. Basically, I failed to earn vitory points just because single broken soldier. Problem was emphasized because of the sheer size of the target area.

That is what a single spotter, rocket artillery (300 mm and 82 mm rockets) and infanrty company can do: . Only broken tanks & soldiers exist after the Rocket Barrage. Lets see what human opponent can do against my mighty barrage. Should the one mission per spotter rule also limit preplanned barrages?

Interesting, but I am little bit worried; people were allready complaining about US rockets! I like cheap artillery but what about game balance? I would like to know how Battlefront decides the price list. In general I like what I see. Much more balanced quick battles.

What about multiplayer campaign? Seems like hotseat campaign is already implemented; any changes this will be extended to support LAN/PBEM?

I consider WEGO a little bit unrealistic. Real WW2 era soldiers would never be able to implement exactly coordinated flanking attacs; they should not even know what is happening otherside of battle field. Unless you love pausing the game, real-time forces you to implement straight forward assaults which totals better overall realism. It strikes me weird when people with a chess like playing style say they do not like how real time allows player to micromanage their soldiers. Real time is really an issue of practicality. Kind of hard to justify the need to consume whole day with with multiplayer game when real time mode allows me to finish battles in a hour. That said combat mission is equally enjoyable and more usable in WEGO mode. I think I need to find a pbem opponent since this game really is the best pbem game available (chess does not count).

Only if scenario designer is willing to sacrifice days to implement AI.

I encountered the problem again. This time the timing is OK, but tank fails to immobilize. Actually this happened twice in this quickbattle! Antitank mines are not reliable enought considering they are expensive and easily avoided (do not use roads). Actually they destroyed halftrack just fine; perhaps the explosive is not powerful enough to immobilize Tigers. Is it possible that heavy weight triggers the mine near the tank? Sorry, this is bad quality video because I used my mobile phone as an ad-chock screen recording sofware.

There is probably little point in discussing about quick battless. Still, I consider this somewhat important issue. Killing potential is important factor because no body buys crap units. Rarely used unit equals less to choose from (which in turn hurts replayability). Well, actually I do not think there is too much problems to fix. I personally would like to see that people chooces to use more infanry without implementing house rules (2-4 squads should not equivalent single armor), but this is only my personal opinion. I thought that batalion (etc) commander whould send his men to aqquire/steal/borror machinegun if the only one available was destroyed. Anyway, this would make campaing more interesting for me. I didn't try to be cheap. I believe BF has stated that they do not consider human-human campaign be worth the development time. If so, this would be an easy to implement alternative. That said I do believe that campaign is a clear pain spot in CM. Beyond Overlord was released 13 (?) years ago and we have yet to have human to human campaign. In contrast, Close Combat 2 (1997) allowed multiplayer campaing. Add to that the failed CM: Campaigns. Perhaps BF just have too hight standards to make campaign worth to create. Seems like we have a thread related to this problem. Unfortunately I do not have savegame since I played RealTime, but those mines exploded after my panther was passed them. Perhaps heavy weight was supposed to trigger nearby mines?

I have noticed few problem with this game. I do hope that these problems will be adjusted / fixed when the new game engine will be released. 1) In quck battless artillery is lightly over priced. You can't expect arty to kill worth its price. Chess-like players seems to hate artillery, because they cannot control it. Also, airplanes are over prized with their ridiculously hight rarity (standard). 2) Game favous tanks over infanry. 2-4 squads equivalents single armor. Seriously? Add spotting problems and the infantry's poor anti-tank performance and you have a rather serious problem. 3) Infanry should be lighly more resilient. I like how CMBB infanry squad can (seemingly) take more punishment. Perharps the ai should know how to take cover when they are about to die. Usually squads would be saved if the AI were clever enought to escape deeper into forest when tank shoots back. This is problem with real time battles when I do not have time to micromanage everything. 4) Fortifications seems to be nearly useless because they are too expensive. I would buy light armor rather than machine gun bunker. This is not only QB related issue. Seriously! Actually I would like to purchase house and use it as a bunker. 5) Something wong with AT-mines. Panther drives over two at-mines but only destroys them. Problem seems to be that they explode _after_ a tank has driven over them (move fast). 6) TACAI (?) should do better. I do not understand why suicidal light at-gun decides to shoot tiger. Squad should know thow to move in house to minimize the impact when something serious shoot back. Soldiers are supposed to be invidual persons who do not make suicidal action even when I ask them to. I believe this should be easily fixed by allowing the game engine to simulate the likely result before actually implementing my orders. If result seems to lead certain death, soldier should deny my orders. This would nicely simulate the common sense. 7) Panzerfaus (etc) should be usable from house. Certainly random elements (delay when searching a safe shooting position, cowering, penalties, accidents etc) would be needed, but it's weird that soldiers wont use at -weapons even if they are about to be killed by tank near the house. I would rather risk the backblast when enemy armor is about to shoot me. 8) Scenario designer should be allowed to allow player to purchase his own reserves. Campaigns would be more interesting if player would be able to choose how to use those X points. I believe this would be somewhat realistic as a commanding officer should have something to say. 9) Scenarios can be hard to play without turnbased mode. Scenario designer should be able to give realtime players more time. 10) Campaign should be multiplayer friedly. I know that BF does not want to use time to create a proper campaign, but it would be nice if human player would be able to take role of the AI in standard campaign. Who who cares about balance? Just my opinions.

Without uncontrollable factors immersion would suffer; Who said that war should be fair? Of course scenarios should be invidually rated, but in generally speaking I like artillery.

I would like some infantry too. Seems like computer likes tanks too much.

This is problem because it denies otherwise valid tactics like using at-mines to block narrow corridors.

My dear sir, you are incorrect. We have only one working point based purchase system and that is called the currency. Essentially, more people buy something more expensive it should be. Panthers and tigers are huge game killer. Every sensible player purchases them, which in turn forces the allied player to chooce the British with Fireflies. The basic problem is that the German army stuff is high quality enough to force the allied player to adapt. Triple the price of the Tigers and Panthers and we will have more balanced battless. I personally don't understand the ruckus related to US rockets. Nobody really bother with rockets because the rarity points are needed to counter german heavy panzers (M10 tank destroyes). That is if you even play with US forces. German heavy rocket artillery has considerable bigger impact on the game. Not only are they effective the german player can always not buy big cats since he knows that the allied player can buy nothing cheaper german armors (or even panzerschrecks) coud not kill.

Artificial time limits prevent sensible tactics and gives feeling that I am only playing to solve puzzless. Well, I play real time games.

Will be potentially problematic if I need to reinstall my system. 10 base games, modules and several patches/updates forces me to install whopping 50(?) installations. Sounds Expensive. This wont be problem in near future but seems like I eventually need an effective IT policy to manage my CM intallations. I am also little bit concerned that the current licensing system won't be suitable. I most certainly would not like to realize that I cannot install n:th module only because I have messed with licencess.

Would be nice if I would not need to install multiple base games to play all the content available.

Spotting is problematic in tank versus tank battles too. Does not make much sense that two M10 destroyers won't spot a Panther that is only 100-200 meters away. Especially since it was shot by the very same M10 destroyers only two(?) minutes ago. Well, there was smoke pouring out of Panthers but those TD never realized that smoke had disappeared! Perhaps they were in a "coffee-break" mode but one would hope soldiers were more interested when some one wants to kill them. Main problem seems to be that the engine does not understand if target were seen by spotting unit before LOS was blocket by something.

I do not wish to discredit people who did their best with the Campaigns. It’s just MY OPINION that a projects hard to implement (considering given financial facts and available experience) are too ambitious. I believe that Hunter said that they had problems with fleeing developers and bad programming habits (?). Eventually the project failed because they were not able to root out nasty bugs. Unfortunately we do not even have a suitable documentation of the Battlefront API, which prevents new projects. Even a campaign similar to Close Combat 2 would be enough. Should not be that difficult to extend the current campaign to allow players to buy their own units (etc). I am not that sure about CMBB.

Should not be that hard to implement but i understand why BF would not allow customers to write their own code. Combat Mission: Campaigns likely failed because it was too ambitious project but perhaps BF decides to create a campaign of of their own.

Personally I enjoy quick battless because they give me an opportunity to outsmart my opponent. You are correct in that Battlefront should use their time to implement new features. Problems with the quick battles are not that significant, but I would not mind if BF fixes some of the most obvious problems. Seems like there is a small penalty but nothing significant. M10 (veteran, normal, fit) cost about 204 purchase points where upon an individual M10 cost about 219 purchase point.

Thanks for link. I certainly don't want to criticize Battlefront, but I do feel that it should be appropriate to consider CMBN not only as a simulation but a game. In my book it's bad if CMBN encourages quick battle players to purchase certain fixed unit configuration. Especially if there are problems with game balance. I have not played enought to be sure, but I have a feeling that the system does not do enought to penalize cherry picking. Perhaps stuff should be more expensive if puchased as single vehicles. Of course tanks are not the only balance problem. At the very least the US player seems to be able to buy enought rockets to completely decimate the defending infanry. This would not be a real problem if trenches/fox holes would better protect against an indirect fire. This seems to indicate that trenches should be able to protect soldiers even when subjected to a relatively long artillery barrage. That said, I need to do more testing to see what actually happens.

Hello. I am looking for PBEM opponents. I am a novice player, so don't expect a great challenge. I have both the basic game and the commonwealth add on.

Campaign would be nice. I don't understand why it seems to be that hard to create. I won't need realism. Even a simple implementation would do as far as I am allowed to order my men to dig in until reinforcements arrive (etc). At the very least, Battlefront should implement an API that would allow hobbyists to tell CM to start a quick battle with given troops and map. Actually I would like to Battlefront to tell me why they never implement campaign. Would make a perfect module. Better modelling for trenches. Seriously, why can I not decide what kind of trench I wish to purchase. I do not want a trench like this (http://www.theworldatwar.info/trench.html). This seems much more practical: http://www.shutterstock.com/pic-53455261/stock-photo-trenches-of-ww-real-museum-of-battle-for-kiev-in-ukraine-novie-petrovtsi-near-kiev.html . Also, it feels kind of stupid that my trenches never connect yet they are way too expensive to create connected defensive system. Separate budget for fortifications would be nice. flamethrowers.