Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Content Count

    3,277
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by slysniper

  1. I figured out the problem, the only people that can be happy are the ones that really enjoy any period of time as to the wargaming periods provided. Because BF really does not have the ability to support the 6 different games they are presently marketing, to keep adding to each has created way to much time between when they can add on and make additions to any one. The interest is lost because of the big time gap. Only those players that can be content with each and every release until the next one seem to be somewhat content. If CMBS was the only game that mattered to you as a
  2. just add these issues with all the other things that disappointed you in 2020
  3. Well the size of the battle does have a great impact on what type of tactics might be used. But it really comes down to the amount of troops in a given area as to how scouting and probes are to be used. But no matter what, scouting is a art in every battle, For most CM battles, it might not be sneaking through enemy lines, but I have found a few where I have done just that. For most, its more of being the lead point, finding out the hard way where the enemy is, being shot at and possible killed , to allow the main group to not be ambushed and to learn safely where enemy
  4. What did you expect, he is Dutch, they say everything backwards. Oh, wait a second, I am 1/2 Dutch. So maybe I do also.
  5. Actually, that is a excellent point. I have always hated how they work in general. With the one side only able to access, and if cleared, never being able to reoccupy. They appear to be programed as a none moving armor unit in some ways, but it makes more sense if they were programmed with buildings. But likely the code was not designed to work with purchasing buildings, but as you say. Maybe the next game engine.
  6. well, you need to look back many years and all the answers are there in these threads. But the one that will affect this the most. back in CM1 days, these same type of request were made for different units that did not seem correct in points compared to other units. Bf went in and tweaked the points in the system, that brought on more request or revised request on some of the changes, again adjustments were made. But you know where this is going, the request just never stop and a perfect balanced point system is never had. Something is always a better purchase than something els
  7. It seems its worth looking into, but it always comes down to doing some game test to get enough of a sound picture to know what the results are within the game. Showing what the variables within the game does. Not on the top of my list for sure, but it seems to warrant some testing and seeing if the bunkers can be made tougher by putting in a request on some shown facts. But I agree, that I have seen the results vary a lot for bunkers. So not sure what testing will come up with.
  8. good points. And if that is true that it matches the building results. It is pretty clear that its not modelled correctly. Pretty much, most concrete bunkers were built and designed to take on the weapons that they knew they were defending against. So common sense would dictate, it would work better than any normal wall construction. no matter what. So that is a good example that its not balanced to other items within the game. but its still not even close to understanding what is going on and if its a issue in all or some of the games families.
  9. Has anyone ran any test that shows some real averages for the game. When you say 2 or 3 shots of 75MM to take out the bunker. What range, what type of bunker, what angle. I agree, I have seen the bunkers destroyed too quickly at times. But then gain, I have fired plenty of rounds at bunkers before and not phased them. So, without some data as to what we really have going on, its hard to weigh if its off or how much it is off. I know I have wasted all my ammo on a modern tank on a bunker in CMSF AND NOT GET A KILL. So that would not be a good on
  10. If you are playing a really good scenario, maybe there is truly no weak point. Then you are forced to attack the strength of the enemy. But even then, there is always a possible weak area even as to a strong point in the defense. Always coming up to the best approach to any task will bring about the best chance for success. In otherworld's, Always look for any weakness available, whether large or small. I never like to see complaints about scenarios not giving players enough time. You are correct in that it forces the player not to be able to dismantle the AI
  11. You all need to take a little chill pill on balance and what that means. having messed around for a very long time with creating scenarios, I learned one thing. Take my creation, give it to 10 players - look at the results. 2 players crush it playing side A, 4 players manage a win with side A and 4 player lose with Side A For the First two players, the battle is too easy, for the next 4, the players will say the balance is perfect, for the last 4, they will complain about all sorts of things that need adjusted. But in truth, this sounds like a pretty good scenario playing
  12. I am sure I can easily design a battle where you will not think bunkers are too weak. You will complain they are to hard. It all comes down to who has the fire power advantage and position advantage. But go on, explain what a bunker should be able to defend against.
  13. Ok, I will be closing sign ups after we get one more person or at the end of the day if not. We have 29 and thirty is a good starting number.
  14. Thanks MOS:96b2p That worked. I thought I tried that, but I must have done something different
  15. We are at 21 and should be open for more players for only a few more days at the most.
  16. Yes, you should be a member, since all communications are done there. There is nothing to becoming a member and if you are not active on the site, its easy to not be a member, since they auto remove non active users. We have 18 sign ups all ready. IanL thanks for posting a link for him. Ian, I could use your knowledge on how best to post images here at this site, since My method from Imgur is no longer working.
  17. Man, i am sorry. I must have been half asleep when I posted that. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/ Its actually at "a few good men" site
  18. Just a notice that I am again hosting another tournament over at "a few good men" this time we are using CMBS. The last Tournament was very successful , we managed to have 5 rounds and did the whole tournament in 4 months. So come join the fun, sign ups are now available. Here is somewhat a description of how it works. if more info is wanted, go over to "a few good men" for more information. Scoring FormatThe format is you will be given a selected force. Your mission will be to do the best you can with the situation you have been given and the scoring will be given o
  19. Correct, just load the latest patch and it has the previous patches built into it. So no need to worry about 2.02. This is a common practice for them, they will combine updates every so often so that you only need one file to get the game up to date.
  20. How is sending light armor in front of heavy armor gamey, that is called Scouting and yes it was done in RL also. The units under Patton had the tendency to do it with a few guys in a jeep, so gamey tactics reflect RL or RL reflects the game. Whatever, I think it is a good point in that maybe more control in the next version of the game would be a nice additional feature. Presently, your only option is to stay hidden and hope that the main targets also move into view. but holding out for the main asset has the risk of what happened. The more enemy you allow to get into r
  21. Lt Bull Just glanced over this and I really like some of the concept on how to decide who plays offence / defense and the the force size in a attack / defend map h2h match. As a player who generally hates ME QB's and think they are about the most stupid way to play, I like how these rules are fair enough that a battle played this way should count in ladder play as far as I am concerned. The best option I have found so far is any scenario that you play both sides in 2 battles at the same time against each other and then combine the score. winner is the player with the best combin
  22. there needs to be a way to always regain control of high tech stuff, that will include things more than just war machines, self driving cars could be future weapons for a hacker how we are presently going.
  23. That is why the operators need to stay close but generally safe. In case the high tech communications get jambed or whatever, then the crew will need to man the units and run them without the remotes. This is where I think some present designs lack thinking as to in what ifs situations. Only unmanned units do not float my boat as being a smart approach.
×
×
  • Create New...