slysniper

Carlwaw, What is your point, to put yourself out there as a target for the few fans that sit around here and post all the time. Are you wanting to be a prophet and show us your foreseen powers to tell us what the future is, so we might follow you as the great all knowing war gaming god predictor. or are you just someone that likes to see if they can stir up trouble because there not enough of that around already. Whatever it is, which I really do not care what your motive is. You logic is as stupid and that of most of it here from posters on the forum. Look, there is no question as to this forum and any associated with these games as becoming less active on their sites. How could it be any other way. How many people want to spend day in and day out talking about the same old thing. Thus the lost of interest, thus the reason most have moved on. Most don't visit the sites much anymore because there is nothing new to discuss or learn. When there is not much change in the game, not much different in the tactics to use and not anything new to learn how to play the game better. (then why would anyone in their right mind spend much time here on the site.) Even when a new game release is had, the activity is nothing compared to when the first CMX2 game first came out (and it wont be) Until a day that a new entire game engine is made and a new way of having to play because of it is had. Then and only then will there be a increase in what we see as a game community on these sites. But as to how many play these games, how many drop in from time to time to see when the next is available and to what extent they manage to keep their costumers. The only source worth listening to is BF, because they are the only ones with any real facts and knowledge on the issue. From what I can tell, they seem to paint a very different picture than yours. Plus I know enough to know that those interested in these games are not the normal type of consumer anyway. For most its more like a addiction, seeking for a fix for a need that they have. For me, its that need to have the mental challenge of dealing with the tactical decisions that the game creates as one plays it, I love to put my wit against another's and see how well my decisions do. For some they are addicted to armor, they drool over the models like a work of art and are always trying to make them better. For others, its a way to experience history , history they cannot live for themselves. And the reasons go on. But the fix for their addictions is very limited, and BF is one of the very few places to get a hit, and they do just a good enough job that they want that hit again and again. So calm down, I know you are presently in withdrawals for whatever the fix is you need, or you would not be here in the first place at this time and with this attitude of yours. BF is wanting your money, they have product on the way and when it comes we can all get high on it for a moment til its time to beg for more.

BF is alive and well. Its good to hear some news as to upcoming releases. CMSF II really excites me and will really pay off for you as it takes my money. Did not get the first version because of all the issues, so it will all be new content for me, that will be way more than I likely will ever get to. CMBS has become my favorite game in the series, so I can see CMSF moving high on my list also.

When I was running Mcafee, back a year ago or so, it also had problems with CMFI. It did not identify the file for me but also would do a partial uninstall on me. I would have to turn it off to run the program. So this file is a bad named file, so is this not something that can be fixed in the program. Or is it something we just have to deal with on our end

What the My windows defender found this in the file and has deleted Cmfi from my machine. Is there any known issue of this being within the program. Now or at any time??

Well, it just so happened I had the perfect situation for the use of the command last night, very similar to the fine example given. I was playing CMBS and had a Bradley I wanted to move up to a hull down position so that I could fire on a house that I figured was a perfect location for defenders watching that ave. of approach. So I did just what you instructed, even set my movement point past the ridge just to make sure I would not stop it from getting to a spot far enough. gave the target as the house, which was single story high and lets see what happens. My unit moves up and stop way short of being able to put fire on that location. but what I did find was it was hull downed to that position. (at least that is what the unit tells me when I click on it and try to target that house) so by your example, I would have to select a target point in front of the house by a few hexes. (but if I do that, I will not know if I am going to get hull down or partial hull down.) But I gave the command another try and had the same results (two fails) Where as, I can just select the point I believe is going to give me a good hulldown position that I like, target the area I want to see, it tells me what my hulldown status will be and I can check it to any other location I might have concerns about. I hit the command and know for sure where my unit will go, and know what it is going to see after it gets there. Sorry, but I am still in the camp that the command is not that good and that there is a better method.

Well, thanks for the example. I might have to mess with it again and see if I can get more confidence in it and how to use it. it would be nice to not have to think about it so much., and just have the game stop the tank when the hull down position is obtained.

This is where I gave up on the command. I had units not getting to hull down position at all. Stopping short. I also recall them not stopping in time and cresting the area I wanted them to use for hull down positions. So I went back to doing it the old school way and knowing I was getting what I expected. If the command was working correctly in my mind. Then the gunner should be able to see the indicated hex as pointed to. And from how others are explaining it here. That mean at mid tank elevation, not ground. I could live with that, but I don't even think it does that. If the commander is unbuttoned, it seems to stop for his view. Anyway, it sure seems to not be refined correctly.

This is where I need visuals of what you are doing with the command. I am just not getting how the command works to get the hull down position I want. I might be dumb as a rock with this command, but I really need a step by step clear example of how to get it to work. Written descriptions are not doing it for me.

Well, if you get it figured out as to how to get it doing what it should, give a demo. I messed with it for a long while, thought I had it figured out, but still had it do unexpected things to me in the game. Finally just gave up and used methods I can trust. So I would love to see it work like it is designed to do, but have yet to see that clearly.

Not saying training does not matter, it does, But in the game it is nothing more than experience and leadership factors. You reflect it in that. I do not think it has a category of its own. No need for more programming or a special program for certain countries Even by your own example, all the training did was get a pilot to a similar level as to one who had flown so many combat missions. it helps, how is that not something already available to portray in the settings we have.

No matter what sources you go to to evaluate what a weapon can do, for in game purposes. It is best to just set up test maps and place your units in it to do unit vs unit testing. I have found that is the only way to get a true feel for what to expect. Plus after you done that for a little while, you will have all the main units figured out and you will never need to do it again. But I have been playing these games since they came out in the CM! series and I still find at times a unusual match up and I am not sure what the results will likely be. So to the test map I go to get some in game penetration results so I know what to expect in the coming battle.

The only thing I will add to this is. I know more than once I have read Steve saying, They do not do anything in the game engine to reflect differences in the different troops from different nationalities The only setting that impact them are the ones we have access to, (Experience, Motivation and such) So if you were to set both sides with the exact same settings, then the only thing that is showing a difference is the equipment and the organization of units. But with the settings we have, it does allow for creating any perceived advantages or disadvantages we believe certain units have. I think the CMFI game shows how with them just providing the organization and equipment correctly with the units, you can create the feel of a certain nations troops. Playing them Italians, you learn quickly why they were not very successful in WWII, I think the games provide enough to allow us to reflect most any unit.

Very interesting

Look, if you want content, then no matter how you want to look at it. CMBN is the game for now, plus everyone that plays this game plays that if you are looking to play against others at some point. If you are want to experience combat on the modern battlefield, then CMBS is your game, no, not much content. But you can create your own match ups, there is also the quick battle creator and only you will determine how limited it is. I personally enjoy cmbs much more than I can explain and this is from someone that has played these type of games forever. But the truth is, you need both, because having both will show you how much combat has changed in the last 80 years. Only you can decide , neither choice is wrong

Really, you should know better than that after playing these games all these years. There is times, I watch segments of battles play out and they seem so realistic and one of a kind moments. But then at other times, it shows me it is but just a game and it has programming that just cannot produce realistic results and the scene that plays out because of it defy logic. And yes, there is something that seems to creep in on soft target trucks and jeeps and such that does defy logic at times within the game. And players have taken advantage of it for years. But most of the time it gets it pretty right, so for the times it does not, I let my imagination sore as seen above. Because, I figure we will always have some of them scenes no-matter how much programming they manage to throw at this game.

The driver had laid down on the seats and the engine block was protecting him. Sorry there is no graphic portraying that. Come on, what do you want.

that is not a bug, its how the game has worked all along and they are not changing it from what I know. It does not mean its good, its actually really bad. but it is what it is. If you have four smoke shells and you want to use them, You need to fire them before the ammo count runs down to below 4 on the main ammo. and if I am recalling correctly, when you fire a smoke shell, the main count also minuses a shell still. So if you had 10 HE. and 2 smoke. ( you need to think of it as 10 total rounds to use and 2 can be smoke if you want them to.) I hate it personally, but that is what the game does.

Not sure what you are hoping for out of this thread, but just goes to show that we are all not alike. In many ways, I like CMBS more than any other BF game. I cannot wait for any add-ons that they do. I wish it was their #1 priority, but that's me. I am certain the Brits are not going to be in the first add-on. So I guess you will not grow to like this game anytime soon.

I hope that statement is about me, but "Not" You and I hooked up before I joined a club. But I agree, Joining a club can add excitement into what we have, I sure don't understand this constant demand for more product. Most could spend thousands of hours with what they presently have and still not be great at the game. MeatEtr has proven to be someone to give me a beaten and I have enjoyed every moment of it. Rocketman has crossed my path twice now also and has bested me, I look forward to paying him back in a major way someday. But it is fun playing against some of those I have seen on the forums for many a year.

I agreed that MG fire is likely the best thing for direct fire support. But I still suggest smoking the target and assault to the rear when possible. Not only for bunkers, but for and situation that requires you to close with the enemy to be able to overwhelm them especially over open terrain. The game makes smoke too strong, the enemy cannot area fire like the would do in real life through it. So it allows for unhindered advances. I find that in CMBS, when playing the Russians, its my best weapon. I can easily produce solid smoke screens with my personnel carriers that will allow me to advance to the smoke screen where I will produce another and continue to advance. Every personnel carrier has a couple of loads of smoke. I can easily advance on US troops which are generally well outnumbered and get into close range where most of the weapon advantages they have disappear. Again, I seldom find many players using smoke correctly. But I can tell you, training manuals have it as a basic principle for taking out targets like we are discussing here.

As pointed out by Rocketman, a MG crew in a bunker is prone to take losses if overwhelmed by fire. Now, there is no one answer for all situations. But if I am going to have a concrete bunker, I want it to be the best part of my defensive line, especially if it is covering open terrain the enemy needs to cross. Now how am I going to get that to happen, especially if I am outnumbered. So as I mentioned , to keep the crew in good order, I hide them when they are faced against to much incoming fire. yes , they become nothing of value in such a state. But now let me discuss the set up I like that makes them a good unit. First, don't expose the men until a target is in the open and worth firing on. second, when I do start firing from it, I expect MG gunner losses, answer, have other squads ready to sneak into the bunker before everyone dies. thus it will not be destroyed, only allowing all the crew to die will take out a bunker with small arms, keep running men into it and it cannot happen. best way to achieve a endless supply of man, good cover on the backside to allow units to reinforce the bunker. trench is the best if available. third, always provide supporting units to provide cover fire to the bunker to prevent enemy units from moving up and flanking it without resistance. My goal generally with a bunker is to deny that terrain it is covering to the enemy, to limit that as a approach, if they must cross that terrain, all the better. in such situations. I want to force the enemy to risk units and I allow them to close in on my position before risking anyone in my defensive line weather in or out of the bunker. So if terrain allows it, I have just a few eyes on the enemy, I will keep scouting units from progressing by hit and run tactics I am going to try and force the enemy to use a mass of suppressing fire and then move a large force forward. allowing him to feel that it is working. Only when he has exposed himself to a point where when I move my units forward into firing positions, I hope not only to break his units, but force them to retreat through plenty of open ground to allow me more killing opportunities. that is when the trap is hopefully engaged. I rush units to my exposed firing position or expose them from hidden cover and try to put as much fire power as possible all at once into the battle, including the bunker. Now, generally speaking , the opponents forces will start relocating fire quickly. Either way it does not matter, either I win the situation or I don't, but generally it quickly becomes a match of who can produce suppressive fire and with many of his units in the open, the tide can generally turn my way. His fire, will normally start to focus on more exposed unit instead of my bunker. so the bunker becomes normally one of my strongest points of my fire group. No, I would not trust my words, I have no clue as to what I am talking about. First, the game really does not provide many opportunities to use bunkers correctly. Second, many players do not use them correctly. Third, not sure if you can even create a force in H2H play that is a good purchase, trying to use bunkers as part of the mix. I know many maps are not right for it. But I will stay with my statement, a bunker in a good set up can withstand any small arms attack and not be removed from play vs MG fire. Not unless something has changed in the game since the last time I tried this and the crew will not take cover when given the hidden command

well, if you are going to take in on from the front MG's are likely your best bet. At least getting more rounds through the firing slots anyway. As for it working, maybe that is a good tactic vs the AI, but not sure that works for H2h play if you encounter it. I know for a fact that I can hold a concrete bunker vs a ton of enemy small arms fire with out a issue whatsoever. I will not be firing from it much, but you sure not likely to clear it or remove it as a threat that way. A player can use the hide command and avoid losses. Only exposing his men when a juicy target looks worthy of the risk.

IF YOU HAVE SMOKE, SMOKE IT TO HELP UNITS GET TO THE BACK SIDE without getting fired on from the bunker. As mentioned, satchel are the best thing from the back. flame units work well also, best from the front, but no one fires back from the back. Of course armor from the rear is a sure way to knock the door in. With infantry only, it takes a boat load of grenades to do it. Not worth it unless its a must have issue Plus as everyone mention, when you do breach the door, the enemy pours out. Have one infantry unit set not to fire until the enemy comes out. That stops what everyone else is complaining about. someone with a rapid fire gun and a cover arc does the trick

Yes, a beach landing scenario is not one to try every day, it should be a challenge. And with the present way the game is working. It can be made to be just that, a very hard task. Not sure, but the last time I played one I believe it was after the above corrections. So I recalled it was very pressing to advance even vs the AI. But I remember, every unit was important to me that was packing smoke. I had to shift all my forces to a very small area of the front to manage to punch through and that I used a ton of ammo to try and keep the few units I needed to on defense, pinned or suppressed. And every shell hole and shallow change in terrain becomes critical to moving of troops. personally I enjoy such a challenge, but even for me I only like to play one once in a great while, sure is not enjoyable to do a bunch in a row. The other factor, many players really do not have correct game play skills for such a task, so they find it impossible. (But it has always been a task as to how hard to design a game to be. What is perfect for one person can be to hard or to easy for other players.) So as a designer of a scenario, getting it right is all a matter of opinion. design it for what you feel is right and don't take to much out of what others say. Its a talent to learn what and what not to use from input from others. Gamers can give you some of the best advice and the worst. So you need to judge it also.

I went ahead and verified that building and trees were working normally when I did a check. so pretty sure it is only the walls