slysniper

THE INTERNET, SUCH A WONDERFUL INVENTION. Just a modern way to screw with people

Makes me wonder if it has anything to do with all the internet issues this past week. malware on US hacking codes, just what we needed.

Well, until some of you show information of what is happening in the game that is so unrealistic and put it out there for review, we really have nothing. Some testing showing results as to how the game is presently flawed. I did not like the changes at first either, but I have not been seeing anything that is all that unusual either, believe me, I want to. But I have not seen that unit are breaking after only a few rounds fired at them for any unrealistic reason. ( well, not true, I have seen it, but they have either been moving or are in open terrain. Both of which deserves heading for cover when you receive incoming.)

I FOR ONE DONT NEED THE US AS BEING A PART OF THE MAIN STORY LINE. Let the main players be other countries, the US. could be a added module. but not the main backdrop for the story.

Threads like this crack me up. The realist and self titled experts come out to snuff out such foolish thoughts of a game portraying something that is not likely in their thought process. Well, thanks for all the great wisdom posted. You even managed to stretch your thinking to give a few somewhat possible situations that could be a game backdrop. But really, if I was the game designer, I wanted to model the stuff from China as a good change of pace and create a believable back story for the game. I would ask myself these simple questions. Why does China have such a army presently and why have they created their army with their present forces. What do they see the need for their armor forces as being. Answer these questions, then you have the backdrop for the game. I have my thoughts on that and it would make a great game, but I will leave them to myself, since I really don't need the future tellers here saying they can prove what the future will not be.

Don't feel bad. I know the mission you are talking about and you are hard pressed to do anything else but try it at times. I knew better, but I did as you and had one unit I tried to take out with 6 bmp's. My plan was to have all 6 crest a ridge and take the beast on all at once. Knowing I would lose a few units. 3 units from the front and 3 from a flanking position. All was perfect except three units managed to take longer than expected to cross the last few yards of terrain. The Tunguska cut down the first three units to crest, then had time before taking on the next three. Needles to say, I created a nice smoke screen on the ridge line with the 6 burning hulks. Still won the scenario, and had been successful with taking out other units with far less bmp's using similar tactic. But that one minute event will stick with me forever as to why BMP's should not be used for such task. (In RL anyway, as for the game, My troops love to sacrifice their blood to gain me victory).

Looks great, you picked a interesting battle. Good situation and unusual terrain. Both should make for a interesting scenario. Thanks for your efforts, it can be time consuming. I am interested in playing this soon hopefully. I enjoy making scenarios, but RL and the time it takes just don't make it on my list of items to do presently with the time I have. But am glad to see others doing what appears to be fine work.

Yes, its a great location to be used for a cm game. Shortly after CMBS came out, we had a discussion on a tread about it. Bringing up a fact that China has one of the more interesting what if's situations and a army with plenty of different units to model and use that would be interesting to put in a tactical game, plus it would add a different terrain type than what we have been using and would be a nice added change. I like your thoughts on the year also, which would allow the Russians to have some of their new tools in play if they were added.

Like the designer has any time for this or should we want them wasting time with setting adjustments anyway. Give us the players the power to tweak the engine more. I suggested slide bar, but as you have pointed out, it could be any type of format. you want - a pull up screen with boxes behind categories that give you adjustments from numbers 1-10, then so be it. I could care less about how we are given the ability, just give us the ability to adjust more and stop acting as god and thinking your game must be played by the default settings you select as to how troops react.

Well, that is a matter of opinion. I would think giving the player the ability to adjust many aspects of the game in a quick and easy way as to how it plays and how the troops react would take away many of the problems we hear on these forum pages. Most threads are just like this one, with some players thinking the troops rout too quickly, while others disagree they are just fine. Wouldn't it be nice to be able to adjust it to what you like quickly without having to get buried into the scenario settings that are needed. face it, most of their game sales and people that play, play these games solitaire, they come at many different skill levels. From not understanding war and tactics hardly at all to people who have done the real thing. Letting them have easy control on how the game plays to some extent, does not hurt anyone. For those people, they can make the game challenging to their likings. As for us that like competition and playing others. Then it is easy to set all the setting back to the game designers defaults or to a tournament masters settings or whatever else is wanted. Look at it presently, when is the last time a tournament was not played on the elite setting, Iron is more realistic in a sense, but as a community, everyone has come to a understanding of what the majority likes and it is accepted as a good h2h setting.. I would think slide bar settings would find a acceptable norm given some time and having players imput as to what the majority likes. It sure would be better than this, creating threads, hoping for some magic in the facts that the designer will tweak the settings slightly to make the game react more to what ones perceptions are as to how troops should be reacting.

So, in a sense, all you are doing is taking moral and adjusting it to make the infantry react as to how you feel they should respond within the game. That is one way to get what you want. I always thought that it would have been nice to have some features within the game to allow the player to adjust quickly how the game worked in some aspects. slide bars that would allow for fast universal adjustments. (like spotting, morale, aiming accuracy, or any feature that is somewhat subjective as to what is correct.)

true, having some documented events would help the discussion as to what is going wrong. I believe there is a earlier thread with some of the issues in video format. I know I do not have any because I do not have a program that will create video, cannot get the free version to work either. but I can make images and show it in slide format. So I have no issue doing that the next time I have one of the events that seem non-logical. there is others in this thread that should be posting some examples also, if you are wanting to be heard. Because, here is proof already, some think the present system is great, while some of us do not. Who is to say whom is right, without some hard examples to discuss, its just a waste of efforts with all involved here.

finally, something I can spend my money on soon. Bf gets a pay check and I get some new stuff for the games I love. Win, Win situation

You are correct in the fact, that it takes proper testing and reporting to get any real results that BF is interested in. Along with the fact that you also have to show why something needs to change to be more correct to real life actions. So instead of just saying troops will seek the closest cover when routing, they want me find a documented study that somewhat proves such statements. I normally do just enough testing to help me play the game , I have no interest in proving anything to anyone. At times recently I do not notice the issue as I play, other times it seems pretty clear something does not seem right as to why the troops are breaking from cover anymore. So just in that observation, I figure it is going to be a challenge to prove when and how much this event is happening and then to somehow point out it is not realistic. Or you can see that many here through simple observation can tell its not correct, but then the challenge is, what is correct. So back to this statement As for breaking from present cover and fortifications, I think it is pretty clear that has been a undesired effect in the latest changes. But before, sometimes they were too determined to stay in place no matter the amount of fire they were receiving. So how do you get to something in between, and then who is to say if it is correct and what correct is. They could make it perfect for what I think it should be, but I can promise you there be plenty of players complaining it was still totally wrong because of their perception of what it should be. I feel for BF every time a tread like this pops up. ( but I can at least say, My vote this time is their latest change lost as much ground as it did to improve aspects as to how the infantry acts - I am not saying my opinion is correct, even if I think it is with what knowledge I have on the subject)

OK , I'm back I have to agree with different comments from both sides of the camp in this thread and other threads before. When I view the infantry in the open and how they are acting, I see it as being somewhat more realistic. But on the other hand , when infantry is in cover, and no I do not mean just fortifications, then their reaction many times seem very unrealistic. I have no clue what BF can and cannot do in their programming. But if I had to say what's correct and what's not, then presently, infantry in the open seems pretty good, when they break I wish they would head towards cover more than they seem to do, but that would depend if they are routing or withdrawing, which is hard to know at times which they are doing. As for breaking from present cover and fortifications, I think it is pretty clear that has been a undesired effect in the latest changes. But before, sometimes they were too determined to stay in place no matter the amount of fire they were receiving. whatever programming that can be done, infantry should have a tendency to stay and use cover when it is working. The only time they should be breaking from it is when it seems clear that staying in such a place means death at some point. If there is a way to get them to hold cover until a certain percentage die or are seriously wounded, that seems to make much better sense than the present. but How to program a unit to hold a position unless the location is being overwhelmed with firepower is only something BF can decide is possible or not.

WELL, IF BY SOME CHANCE BF READS THIS. I add my vote as to the latest tweeks to the infantry as making it less realistic instead of improving it from the previous version. Of course this always starts with the fact that players were not happy with it as it was, so they make adjustments and again here we are as player complaining we do not like it as it is. What I find interesting is that some players like portions of the new behavior but most agree that the overall effect is not very desirable. I will comment on this more later - have a meeting to get to

How long have you been running that site, what a great set up for finding scenario's and stuff. All the different locations for such stuff and it appears you have gathered a bunch of it together

The game will never be that close to the real thing, or should it even try. To make the game playable, many things need to be provided for the aid to the player and to make the game enjoyable. We need to stop wanting everything to be like its real. Look you want real. play the game only viewing the map from ground level from your leaders position and that of sub leaders under him that have communication with him. See how that feels and see how long you enjoy playing the game. But it sure would be more realistic.

Bulletpoint, If you are trying to point out the game gives out too much info. when it comes to these things , yes it does. If you are playing H2h, A player can pinpoint the ordnance when he really should not be able to at times. For single play, its easy to ignore and allow it to add to the feel of the game. But if one is playing in a tournament and the enemy is killing your units, it is easy to find that units location by backtracking the rounds and moving to the suspected located area and then replaying and listening to the unit fire. Yes you can hear the location also.Louder when you are on top of it. Needless to say I have lost great placement locations to such tactics and I have done the same to those I have played against. I would love to see it changed, but I doubt that is likely since it has been there from the first engine build.

Ah, he must have watched the movie "Saving private Ryan" In a moment the planes will be there.

One way to use them that has not been mentioned is in woods and dense concealment locations. On defense, they are great, set them up as part of a ambush. when not moving they are great at catching the enemy on the move and getting the first burst in and winning a fire fight quickly. I recall one unit on defense in a large woods supported by other infantry on its flank killing 30+ men when the enemy tried to assault my line. On offense, much harder to use and keep these units alive. but here are a few tricks. Place smoke to allow them to move into range and set up. As the smoke clears, they then have a fair chance of being part of the fire fight. Sometimes terrain can give them cover to move to a location that they cannot be seen from but allows them to fire to a adjacent hex from the desired target. Firing on a adjacent hex will normally pin or cause enemy troops to rout. So this is a one way to have them impact a battle without risking them to almost sure death.

INTERESTING Concept. I am not sure that is how the game works though, I sure have not noticed it before anyway. I always figured it was the ground tile that was determining bog. Not the trees you place in that tile. The only thing I have ever seen the trees do is at times, it will not allow a tank to go over them, the tank will turn and move around a tree at times, not a good thing to have happen if it exposes the flank of the tank to enemy fire. So I actually have a rule of thumb for myself. when I move through woods. I plot a tight point to point path between the trees, just as in RL. trying to avoid surprises. Its only when I have a known enemy unit with a tank killing gun that if I decide to take them on, I might try to place a tree centered in my path to them to use as cover. And even then, not always. Because, keep in mind moving to a spot where you can see them first is not likely behind a tree. getting to a open area where your view is not blocked is normally going to be between trees.

sounds great You guys are always working hard at it. thanks for the effort. Your games are truly one of a kind

Hey, I would never select green tankers for any purpose, it was just a example on how the engine works and that a green tanker in that situation is maybe a better situation at the moment because of the engine and how it functions. As for the trees, Ian you are correct, and yes its not like the game is broken. With the latest code, things are not as bad as they once were. But its not perfect either. Since most of them tree hits happen on the first shots, it gives the advantage to the other tank. no point in adjusting to miss the tree if I am already dead. Just pointing it out, in real life I would drive a tank between the trees as I moved through the woods, in the game. I try moving the tank right to the center of a tree at times. every time it occurs, I just think of how opposite that is to how it should be.

Until I saw this tactic being used, I had no issue with trees, exploding tank rounds. Now I know why it was a good issue when many complained and wanted BF to fix how trees worked, they since have tweaked them some. But they are a very un-natural object in the game and in a sense has always been. ( In the present engine design, I doubt much can be done about it).