slysniper

Thanks for your comments, I have been playing these games for years and have wondered what is a good definition for scenario design when it comes to listing them as either fictional, semi- historical or historical. I go along with what you have expressed to a large meassure. As I mentioned I have done some of both and would mention that the Q.B type play improves by placing in designed maps instead of letting the game design them. Where I have a problem with the Q.B. type game is how the force mix comes out. It seems hard for me to get excited to play a game that has forces that I know would never had been on the battlefield in the type and quantities that show up in the QB game.

I would like a debate and discussion as to which form of play is better. I am finding out there is really the two camps of players. I would really like to hear what makes the form you prefer so important to you. I have been playing both and am leaning one way but would really like to hear other player views.

Sometimes I really wonder about these comments. As a hunter and ex-marine, I will inform you that someone that has been trained how to shoot can make a killing shot on a person with open sight at 300 yards and even probably up to 500 yards if the weapon has some type of sight adjustment. At 400 yards in the game with a sniper and a scope, was a easy task if the target was not moving. Using snipers in the game is not a correct representation for the getto fighters, because the snipers are represented with scopes on their rifles. But the getto fighter could have brought precise fire at someone at 300 yards if they knew what they were doing. As a side note, skilled snipers could make kills at 700 and 800 yards pretty regularly with the equipment they had. I was a sniper in the marines, I might know what I am talking about but don't trust me.

Steve, I do not blame you for getting mad, it is amazing to me to see how some act. I think you said it best "as this is not the place to get the thinking about game design" that you desire to hear. Years ago, many wanted someone to come along and make a game on the computer to match the board game series of squad leader. Even though I understand that your approach was different than that game, your cm games became the game that filled that slot. Many, many of your players come from that backround, and many of the minor request come from things that sort of gaming expearence had brought. Most of us are not "real thinkers outside the box" Trust in your abilities and go where you think you can take this war gaming too, shock us all with a new level of gaming that will make us want to burn everything we own to this point. I and some around me have always wanted one game that could play well, that could give you the fill that cm does now, but also allowed you to be the commander in a single tank, or the sniper taking out that important unit leader. or any unit. On the other hand to also give you the fill of being the commander of the entire force. I might be wrong, but no game has ever given you that much capability, to experence all the different levels of combat in one single game, this is my best shot of thinking big, if you don't like it, thats fine, I never claimed to be a game designer

A trick I use is to back the gun into place leaving the Ht transport out of view but bringing the gun to a hill crest, A little smoke is needed to give cover as the gun is set up, when the smoke clears, you are ready to rock and roll, great tactic if setting it in a ambush location isnt going to benefit you.

Well, I am glad to see that battlefront replied and said that this situation with be handled in their future releases. I knew it was gamey when I started using it, but the last time I checked I was playing a game. Those that play this game and believe that it has created them into some great military leader are still in a dream world. There is a large void between the two. Get real, it is a game. but it is for us, including myself , the best place to be able to imagine we are there, as we sit in our soft chairs and stuff our faces. All safe and sound, living out our dreams of being some type of war hero.

I agree with you Treeburst, but at this point none of this is going to help you with playing the game at the moment. I really had to smile that there were so many trying to convince you that this half squad stuff wasn't going to give you a advantage. I figured it out from the moment I started playing real people instead of the AI, it was a must in so many situations.

In your own words Kingfish is the statement of how powerful half squad tactics are. These comments are being generated because of the ability of these guys to see that. There is a advantage being given to the half squad tactic because there is a poor design flaw in the game. Half squads should be a standard tactic for someone if they want wins and there is no changes to the game. Will someone at least admit they might be wrong, that said, some good house rules should be developed, because at this point, no programing will be likely done to the existing games. I like the half squads in the game, but they should have lower morale that is noticable, and multi targeting by one unit is a must.. Imagine a mg being allowed to pick 3 squads to fire on instead of one, a guarantee to stoping that platoon from crossing 200 yards of open field. This game still has a way to go. But even with them type of changes, I still see the use for half squads

No comment Glider, the only thing you can do for now is have a agreement with whom you are playing that only so many half squads can be used. Or live in fear of the half squad. Kingfish, which is likly a extremely talented player can stop half squads tactics with skill, but the truth is, he would do the task much easier if they were squads. Lets see if we can do something from having this become part of CMx2

Well I see you are finding out how split squads give you the advantage, I wouldn't believe those who tell you otherwise. The slight penalties do not come close to the advantage spliting units give. You need to use it or agree before play that only a certain percentage may be split during play. The game designers can fix this flaw. All that needs to be done is to allow a unit to target more than one unit. If a squad was allowed to target two or three units and split its firepower from one location it would solve the problem you are seeing with the advantage that split squads give. Have fun with all them half squads, men.

I cannot believe that this thread is still going on. It comes down to this, Glider, someone used something you were not use too, he won more because you didn't anticipate such a tactic, learn from it, test it out in game play, split squads is not the answer for everything, but is for somethings like some here have tried to point out, if you dont want to learn when to use it, dont complain when someone who does beats you with it. I don't like Q.B. much, I like to have some variety in life, I'm not trying to show someone I know what to purchase, I want to take out Brummbars with AT rifles. You can all say what you want, but anyone who has worn a uniform knows that a squad working together can produce alot of firepower, but most times in combat, you are not able to work as a squad, fire teams become a commom force, yes your morale is lower because most of the time the amount of infomation you have is so limited, you feel like you are all alone. The game is fine, just learn to play the game instead of thinking everything that does not fit your thinking must be incorrect. As many of these post want to voice. This thread has given me even more incentive to see how spliting my squads effect my play, I mentioned earlier that I use it a lot, but I also know of times that I would never think of it, thats why I play the game, I'm in command.My troops get to live or die from my choices, stop wasting time talking about it and get out there and test it on the game battlefield.

Good move, guys, nice way to put the game into a different level. No, it wasn't designed for this small of a level of units, but it does work. "Ambush", That game is collecting dust around here somewhere. As commented, this level of tactics should be addressed in a game design also with cm.

I have just started playing on line pbem and have used the split squad tactic the hole time in most situations, I have 8 wins and one loss so far, the morale loss isn't that bad of a penalty. The fact is the more targets you have the more likely that you have units dishing out fire power and not having to deal with return fire. These units typ. gain you your victories in the fire fights. When some units spit, they have cc weapons in one half squad and long range weapons in the other, this gives you the ability to give suppressing fire with the ranged weapons while the other can rush the enemy, and if the rush does not work, you loose only a half squad instead of the full. Keep them morale leaders close and you will be surprised by how you can keep the morale at a livable point for these units. Yes its a weakness in the game design, but for now its how it plays best in my view

Well, I see we have some young players that are willing to speak up and say how much they like this type of gaming, hope after all.

I do not know if we can pull the younger ones in, I have a 16 & 14 year old, both love the first person shooters like "call of duty", but I have only marginally been able to get the 14 year old to want to understand the play of tactics in the game of CM, he interest only stays if I load the game very heavy in his favor. Where as I was about 16 when I started and the board games were hard to learn to play (SL and Panzer Leader & such), but wanting to understand the true nature of combat, drew me to the games, just as CM continues to entice me today. Yes, they might change over, but with what the future might offer them In gaming, maybe not. Reality is not the mind set of this coming generation, they want to believe in super powers and such.

All I can say is that this is a real injustice. War accounts abound about how good the germans were at hiding armoured tanks, troops would survey and scope areas to be attacked, but not until in the assault would they start receiving fire from a tank that might look like building rubble or a hay stack or something of the sort when the hidden tank would be discovered

From what I see, nice work, I hope that you are pleased with your efforts. The terrain looks very well modeled, interesting period also.

Whatever the explanation is, feed my cm soilders the same thing them Germans had.

In real life guys, no one is crossing that road if lead is firing, you cannot run through a wall of m.g. bullets about 2-3 foot high. Try it, squads will run right through the fire and not even get hurt, I just want to point out how under-rated mg's are to real life units. I have seen the real thing more than once, two good crews and no one will be crossing that street of death. Not unless they have had enough of this life.

Well, since I have decided to get my feet wet playing a few of you, which has been great fun so far, I really like this pbem, much easier to do, if you have a real life away from your computer. My question is. Tactics teach to set up Mg's at times in what is called a fire lane. Examble, two machine guns at the end of a city street can make that street impossible to cross. One gun fires as the other cools, when it stops, then the other gun fires. Another place this happens is when your about to be overrun, everyone in a prepared defence should have a final fire lane to maintain, creating a crossing pattern of bullets, pretty much impossible to cross if enough people are left, shooting as much lead as possible at the time. Am I wrong or is it impossible to get this type of effect in these cm games? I tried two heavy MG"S at the end of the road and set area targets, 300 yards out and watched 10 squads run across the road without a single wound, went back and set them on cover arch, got a handful of casualties and pinned or broke half the squads. The results were enough to say they might want to look how to model mg. fire strengths a little better

Well, that is good to hear, it was really disapointing in the past to see the childish actions of gamers with other games that I have tried to play on the internet. Wrecked the enjoyment that could be had by the game. I didnt want that to happen in this game since this is the type of gaming I have always wanted to be doing against others. It has been real fun with the few I have played against so far.

I have just started to game on-line again, my last exspearence with on-line gaming found that some were changing codes to give themselves advantages with the game - this was in playing the close combat series. Has that happened here at all or is it something I dont need to be concerned about with these games - I would hate to have to only play those I trust.

Throwdjohn, I dont know if there is such a thing as a typical wargamer, I think that many of us are history buffs. Some of these guys are amazing with the amount of infomation they know. I would say some understand the weapons better than those that fought with them. As you meet others in this hobby you cannot catalog them as one group of people. I just wanted to mention to you that I also had a love for history and what pulled me into this hobby was how I could get a feel for more of what it might have felt and been like to be part of that period of war, I have also found that this hobby has made me interested in all periods of history, it has given me the ability to explore different periods of history and how warfare was fought and some of the challenges that they had to face. As long as you enjoy it and it makes you feel like you are gaining from it as a person, Dont worry about what others think.

I hope there is alot of younger players finding the enjoyment of playing these type of games, they are a good mental challenge & never become something you can totally master. Don't let the old timers scare you off. Also wanted to state, I have also remodeled old asl and squad leader games, it has been fun to bring them to life into the 3d world

I am pleased with your comments, one thing it shows is the ability of this set of games to play well for those of different preferences, it does not limit you with one level of play, you can create what type of combat level & tactics you enjoy. The larger gaming does not appeal to me because of the time commitment, so I have managed to create the same feel in smaller games as far as feints and scouting. As with leadership, I like having total command of my troops also, but just pointing out that no matter who comments, leadership in real life situations is very limiting with how many units can be commanded by one person. I have read the designer problems with protraying the modern battlefield, distances being just one problem, I could see a modern game of this level lasting only two or three turns if you let some weaponary be represented, but since other posts had their dream wishes, I wanted to post mine. I am glad to see that the majority of you that have responded are long time members to this site and hopefully I will find the time to get to know you all better