slysniper

As mentioned, I have seen night and fog conditions that were so bad that I could not see 10 feet and make anything clear out of what I was looking at. a no moon night with clouds or under a tree canopy makes it very hard to see any distance. Fog can get so thick that shining a light makes it worse. Either situation is really bad The problem is, the game reflects that type of vision all the time in settings it should not. Where as, those type of conditions are very rare even in the middle of no-where.

Someone did a series of battles for it but I am pretty sure it was in CMx1 I just remember playing them after I had created one battle of my own. So I am thinking it was back in that time frame

Well a new one on the top of my list is. Sleeping troops. I was playing some different night scenarios at one point and I was trying to infiltrate enemy lines with elite units that were unknown to the enemy. It dawned on me how unrealistic it was, every enemy unit on the alert , all watching and waiting to ambush my men. Where as, this is the farthest from the truth.. If no enemy are known to be in a area, most men are in a state of sleep. listening post are set, a percentage of men are on watch and the rest are either trying to get needed task done or needed rest. (And this is not just at night, even in the day, during down times, commanders are trying to make sure their men are getting rest.) So it crossed my mind, the designer should have a feature to put a certain percentage of men to sleep at the start of the battle, providing only a small portion of each squad to be active. This is the state they remain in til enemy gun fire is heard or friendly troops spot enemy units or things along these lines. Then they awake depending on how close they are to the event and then a little time of not full ability as they get their act together to be able to fight and figure out what is going on. Anyway, as someone that has done this for real, I know for a fact its only because of this that we were able to do such feats. Literally were able to get right inside enemy camps. I knew of one sniper team which actually waited in some scrubs for hours near a commanders tent for them to go to sleep and snuck in and obtained planning documents right of the tables in there and then managed to get out of there in time before it was noticed, which was at about 4:00am, then it was like a ant bed. that has been stomped on. They had every troop on that mountain side patrolling and searching, their commander was pissed and he was willing to risk his men to try and catch who did it.

I like your thinking. I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment. I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan. Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book) So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .

Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used. But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used. So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy. But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.) But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.

Actually, hard to ever know how accurate it is to real life. but I think they have it about right for what I have read on accounts. But it never hurts to have different opinions

ok, I have a test map. I just ran a few quick test to see what I could get I have 5 tanks on a reverse slope that drops one elev for each action square. for two squares I have 4 gills, each firing from a different distance, I counted hits vs misses. only on tanks that have not moved FROM THE REVERSE SLOPE for one minute of play RAN THREE TIMES. 2 HITS , 5 MISSES. 2 HITS, 5 MISSES. 4 HITS, 4 MISSES. So here is the real question, should the gill have a problem with this type of target. I don't know the answer to that. But the game does show its a challenge, not a impossibility. If it was a game computing problem, it would never hit. If you want the test scenario, I can make it available. I also assume I could get a certain position to be very hard to hit if I just went one location vs one location and kept making fine adjustments. But from what I am seeing, the game shows me gills have a problem dropping on hulled down position units?, the question is should they???

yes, normally the action square just behind the one the unit is in. I will try and set up a test map and see if I can create what we are discussing

As for the troop quality, that is not the issue. I had my issues with high quality troops, I recall commenting on the fact I had like 8 missiles miss from two locations. I relocated them and found other targets that they hit flawlessly. I have seen this in 3 different battles now, but the tank I am firing at is always in a reversed slope position that makes this happen. I also recall most of mine where at pretty far distances.

Actually what he is reporting is pretty accurate to what I am seeing also. There seems to be a possible problem when Gills fire at armor in a depression. just as he said the rounds will generally fly over the target and hit behind. if you have a saved game file that can be submitted would help. But I do believe it is a possible bug.

when you mean longer, how much longer. What is the difference, it helps to be clear as to what you are experiencing. Like a certain file which was taking 2:00, is now 2:30 minutes.

Having a player that actually knows how to play the reds and give them good equipment can add to the challenge of getting some balance. But agree, I would love some scenarios designed that lets the reds have the advantage and allows them to tear up blue. And yes it can be done, I have some I have made, just never been made to submit out to the public.

Scoring vs the AI should only be done in battles vs the AI only in my opinion. So that would be campaigns. In Scenarios, I have felt that there should be two versions for each. One for AI play and one for h2h But likely will never see that day

You have that right. And No it is not hard to create a scoring system that works. All it takes is playing the scenario enough times by different folks to take a logical guess as to what a average outcome would be in the game. A draw result is set to that point and then everything else is from that. There will never be a perfect answer to the situation, but there is plenty of scenarios scored not by anything close to this method. played some terrible battles and still get rewarded way to easy.

Without testing its hard to say, I actually believe they are real cover, because I think the sand bags seem to help protect the men if they are behind them, if in front, they die pretty fast to any incoming fire. but that is speculation from what I have seen. I know hiding my men in fox holes pretty much make them immune to most attacks, which it should. So they work well when used with the hidden command. If it matters to you, the only way to truly know is to come up with some test that can show what is likely really happening with them as to cover. As to thinking it would change at this point in the programming, not likely. probably just best to get the game to work the best it can as it is presently.

Good suggestion, I have found the same at times, but no perfect answer. The amount of men is also a factor as George MC points out. But it does go beyond that and is a imperfection as to how well the game works here. For I have seen this same issue with trenches also, which is a little harder to explain than having enough foxholes. But again splitting your men into smaller groups does help and improves the units use of the terrain feature.

This problem has been around for along time, Even during setup, I have had times where troops just don't want to enter the foxholes. I have wondered the same thing. but the main concern is, are they getting any extra protection or not. I am also interested in what other think. With how I understand the game to work and from what I have seen, I think the guys out of the fox hole are not getting cover help and its frustrating. but its sure is not a new issue

personally, that is what makes the game fun, for me anyway. There is just enough unpredictability that one cannot guarantee a move or a event. the game will throw in unplanned results as to what your hopes are for outcomes. It really does mimic life in a artificial way.

I just wanted to confirm that you did good in this design. I made it to the mission where you have to clear the town across the river, I somewhat have lost interest at this point but really enjoyed it til now and saw no real issues with any of your design. I am not one that enjoys campaigns much, but this is at least a 8 out of 10 if not more. so many things I want to play and so little time to do it is maybe the reason I have stopped. Was in progress of clearing the town and no real issues so far, just bored and moved on, maybe I will finish it at some point. hard to tell, there is many a campaign not finished in my files.

WELL SAID, THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT HAS HAPPENED WITH ME. I love creating battle and scenarios, but it has become for my use only and Its all about the time vs enjoyment. Way back when I did do some public releases. My motivation was they would be used in my tournaments and I knew I get a little feed back. But even back in the CMX1 days, to do a good release was still way more work and testing to getting things just right. With not much in return. So with the level of work to do a good job now being much higher. Knowing there is no return on my time spent. I have no motivation to even think of releasing some of my work. Hate to say it, Sad really. But its the truth. But anyone can learn to create all sorts of content and enjoyable engagement if they put some efforts to it, plus there is no limit to what you can do, it just takes coming up with a want and then creating it. I have had some amazing (made it myself battles) that deserve being shared with others but at this point in life it will never happen unless something major was to change in how I am living life. But back to the point, make your own, learn to open up the treasure box of what is available to you.

Excellent You have done a great job. I played through the 3 first battles tonight. really enjoyed the premise. It does a good job of making one feel like they are dealing with what the Soldiers' are dealing with over there. Just to let you know, its done a number on me also, always like it when it gives a good challenge, or shows me I can screw up. Without giving anything away I will only say I lost way more equipment than I should have in the 1st battle, that alone will likely impact me , at least it has so far. The loss was 5 men and 6 Hummers, you likely will know how that happened.

Sounds interesting and also looks as though you have put a lot of effort into this. I have downloaded and hope it delivers a great results for your efforts.

When used correct, the results are fine. Nothing wrong with the flame thrower, its the person using it. Every time something does not work for you does not mean the game has a issue. To use effectively on the offence, the method that must be used to likely get the results you need is likely one of these two things. Don't try to take on the enemy in a fire fight, flame throwers must be moved into locations that they receive no returning fire. Per most military doctrines that is done by smoking the target to allow the flame thrower to move into place. Use smoke correctly and you will get them where you need to get them to go. Second, I find that I can fire them at area target locations one hex away from the target and get the needed results. So you don't need to expose yourself to the target, if cover is available and you can get target to the adjacent hex you are likely good to go. Also a bust or two on adjacent hex might not do the job, but move that one additional hex right after the bust to target directly on target also will likely work. Flame does a great job of putting the enemy troops into a state that they are not going to recover from quickly. Try using these methods before saying flame throwers don't work correctly in game.

there HAS NEVER BEEN GAME BREAKING BUGS. Now the bugs in the 4.0 version is game breaking in a sense in arty and infantry reaction to it if you are not accepting of it, but all it has ever taken is to play the game in version 3.0 before that change was made. what you have is 4.0 format not a good format for play against the AI if you are using arty. Any other way the game is played has been fine, 4.0 is good except for a few other issues. For those needing to bomb the heck out of AI troops, 3.0 was always still available. Yes, was it a issue that buying the upgrade and not getting the fix all this time was bad form. Of course it was, but don't act like the game is been unplayable, for it has not. You all know 4.01 fixes the problems, the releases are close at hand, after all this time you might as well take your chill pills because nothing on your part is making it happen any faster.

Its one of those situations where, show me that it happens all the time before I get worked up about it. If you can show it happening at some type of unusual rate, then its something to worry about. One time is , wow that was cool - move on. I had a lone survivor on a heavy machine gun, pinned, suppressed and being fired on, manage to return fire and kill at least 30 assaulting troops on his location. The bad part of all that was I was the assaulting side of the situation. Should it of happened per game mechanics. NO but it did, it was one of those moments where the game did a unusual thing. (it was a medal of honor moment) it was pretty cool actually. Has the game ever done it again in the years that have followed, nothing even close. Move on and drop it unless this is a reoccurring problem.