slysniper

No, just the reverse of that, the greens troops shot pattern would be larger than the vet crew. So, if both aim at center mass, the vets are going to hit closer to where they aim, which in this discussion is the upper hull of the panther. whereas the green troops have a higher chance of missing by more distance. So in a sense, more rounds would likely hit the turret or lower hull. that is all I meant

Not correct, they affect the accuracy of the shot some, but the aim is to the same location from what I understand. So in truth, you might be better with a green crew, which would be less accurate and more likely to hit somewhere other than the center mass of the target. So, understanding the game and how it functions can lead to a few gamey ways to take advantage of the situation. There is plenty of other areas that this type of understanding can affect ones game play, where as in real life it would not happen. one example, as a tank is positioned to take on a enemy tank, moving to a location where a tree trunk is right in front of you center mass and close. It will not block you from firing at the enemy, but is a bullet proof protection against incoming rounds that fire and hit on center, and I have seen plenty of smart players use this move, gamey as all he** But it is what it is.

Well, I understand where Bulletpoint is coming from as to the game aspect of it anyway. It would not be the same in real life. Since the game always aims at center Mass, At close ranges, it is almost sure to always hit what it fires at, even if its a hulled down target. So fully exposing a Panther is going to lead to a major portion of hits landing on the upper hull, which is the thickest armor and also the most likely to create a deflection in the shot. So until you are at a distance that makes a miss more likely, you can cheat a little in the game by expecting it to hit the worse location possible by exposing the whole tank. As for being a gamey concept, yes it is. As for the distance to use such a concept, not sure if the 500 meters is good or not. As for closer ranges, for sure what he is saying does work, just because the game is not programmed smart enough to take advantage of exposed better shot options.

Sure is funny, All these years, never had a problem finding a good player to play against. never have run out of battles because I can create my own and make my own maps also. And create the exact events I am interested in. So what is your problem, need someone to spoon feed it to you. Plus, what is there to say if BF followed your path, things might not improve, but actually get worse. Because, making games for the masses does not mean focusing on quality, its a focus on quantity. And in general you can put out much lower quality and still get masses that will play. If that was their goal, I doubt the game would stay at the level it is. Anyway, you are just another guy with a rant in a list of many that have come before, you will also likely fade away as many of those before have done. You don't appreciate what this game offers, you just need it to be something else in which it is not. Your interest will fade. May I be the first to say good Bye, For those of us here that have been around for a long time , we know what we have , we appreciate it for what it is , and pretty much accept whatever BF decides to do. The only event I care about is Bf continuing to find a way to do what they do, if they stop, there is nothing out there to replace what they have. Sure does not sound like a game needing more funding to me, since none of the big dogs will produce anything like it.

Some good comments here as to plus and minuses of the changes. I guess the comments about troops routing and not always finding a good route to do it on and the comment about leaving buildings during arty strikes are maybe two of the best as for why at times I do not like the new settings as to their behavior. But then at times having them get out of trouble quickly can be a saving grace and allows them to quickly recover and not take the losses as they once did when they would not move from a spot under enemy fire. So as mentioned, I am torn as to if I think it is better or not. Sometimes, it seems more realistic and other times it seems less. Not sure as of yet if this aspect is a improvement. As for troop quality and how it is a factor, well I cannot speak directly on that. Yes, no question as to better troops doing a better job of not breaking. But since I am one that don't like Qb's or one that seeks to play elite troops all the time. My observations are going on more as a whole, not on certain types of units. Most of my battles are scenarios, and in general , there is a mix of unit levels. So far, I have yet to see any unit hold its ground under any amount of moderate fire against it. But with that comment, I think I will go and find a battle with a focus on higher level units and see if I still notice the difference in how the units react in combat now. For sure, the one thing that it is doing is making me modify my tactics once again. As I learn to anticipate the likely results of what my troops will do or not do in coming situations.

Now that it has been out for a little while, what do you think of the infantry traits in the 4.0 version of the game programming. After playing all these years, there is no question as to how they are now cowards and chickens compared to the earlier version of the game. Of course, there is a group of players that have been asking for that for some time (not me in that group). demanding that they should not be so heroic as they were playing in the game. I am not sure how I feel about the present way it plays, It sure is easy to stop a attack if you can get enough of a first volley in, because the enemy will now run for the hills if you do. But you still might see your men break and run also, even on the winning end of a fire fight. I don't know, but I am starting to miss the possible hero's of old battles, because they might be rare to find in this version of the engine.

For you two that have not bought the game, you have miss a treat. Still one of my favorite, because it plays much different because of the time frame, the equipment and the map settings.

No, you are not getting the versions correct. yes, we call it V4.0, but in truth, it is only 4.0 for CMBN For CMFI it will be v3.0 for the other three games, it is V 2.0 I love how confusing it is.

The problem with men getting detached or separated from their squad has always been there, BF has never really fixed it. I bet you that the only reason it has shown up again more ugly than ever is because they have enlarged the area the unit spreads out as in v4.0. So with the added distance between men, it is likely causing this bug to happen more often. As for the other complaint, again Bf tweeked the infantry reaction to get down and take cover faster than they once did, why, because you all complained that they did not react to incoming fire correctly. So now they drop and crawl because of enemy fire and you complain about that. They can never win with you guys. Version 4.0 My impressions. I have played a few old scenarios with the new update to see what differences I notice. Yes does it impact the game how it plays. Hell Yes. What is the point in a change if the scenarios were not impacted, that would not be a change would it. Anyway, The game play has improved as to the AI and just in general in how units operate. It did not take me long to see a man actually use a corner of a building for cover and sneak around it to take a shot with a bazooka to take out a tank . There is some nice added minor features as to information to show us the players what is happening and in general the game play continues to Improve. Good job, BF Lets get done with engine tweeking and lets get back to kicking out units and different time frames of the war. Way too much time has been spent on these additions and nothing released for three newest games as to new units and time frames.

Lets keep this simple, The AI in QB's for both CMX1 And CMX2 is lacking. Why bother to compare at all??? you started this post by pointing out that you had a much better experience playing a scenario that had the AI programmed for a better challenge. Stop wishing for what is not there and enjoy what is available. A good scenario is much more enjoyable to play, and h2h is truly the only thing any good player would seek for. Stop wasting you efforts playing Qb's and sub par opposition and raise yourself up to a real challenge. Seen these post for 14 years now with the game and it just blows my mind how many people keep thinking this is where the game is at and what needs fixed.

Well, these numbers look correct to what I personally think would be correct. So per that small test sample, things appear to be acting correctly. But it is hard to believe that these numbers could happen in his game with such odds. "By the way, just finished a Scenario in which I used Panzerschrecks. Two teams destroyed 5 Churchills with 0 (that reads zero!) misses (out of seven shots). All but one at 150m +. Two tanks were one-shot'ed at 190m. " If he is having that kind of luck, I want it to be used in a gambling hall and I will put the money up and split the winnings with him. (Because that event is somewhere between 1 in 10,000 to 1 in a 100,000 odds. Then add the fact that this thread has other reports with similar odds that are not likely So I still wonder if somehow the game is not functioning correctly in some situations. " maybe there is even a install bug that is only showing up on some machines. DasMorbo needs to run some controlled test on his machine similar to your and see what he is getting as results - then maybe there would be some knowledge as to if there is a issue or not.

Some interesting concepts mentioned to make the experience better. I personally hate the game programming so much I will not waste my time allowing it to select a force. That is enough about that. But I must admit I have not even tried in CMFB, because I have in every other module or game and it always manages to disappoint me pretty quickly. Other than that, the rest of factors it normally does ok with and can normally place units and use units in somewhat of a realistic fashion. But it is by far the lowest option on how to play the game, other methods of playing bring a higher quality of realism, For me, I don't have the time to waste on this form of play when there is plenty of better styles to play the game by for the amount of time I have to give it. But to each his own.

I hate to say it but I also just finished a game with plenty of Panzerschreck 's and It does appear they seem a little more accurate at long range than they should be. But there is the question of what should they be performing at? And then the question of what the game is doing. And since I am judging it on my experience in gaming, it does lack some real knowledge. But at the moment I assume they are getting a high percentage of hits above 150 meters. At one time I would never let them fire at that range since they missed a lot, so something has changed. But I also have to question when I made that rule for myself. (Likely back in CMX1 days) So maybe in CMX2 they have always been like they are at the moment. But I will agree with the statement, they need reviewed and they seem too accurate at the moment.

spoiler - really. Not much to give away in this battle. The enemy is dug in on the top of the hill at the woods line, you figure that out right from the briefing and the small map.. No time to cheat and out flank the AI for something it is not prepared for. So you need to attack as is the intent of the mission. So, a perfect battle to force players to test what they are capable on as to assaulting a dug in position. As for the AI being able to shift, that is neat that it is programmed into the AI , did not see that in the battle. ( by the time I was close enough to trigger anything like that, if they left their holes they were dead or pinned almost immediately.) I am still amazed on how well at times the Ai does manage to do some realistic actions though. A few enemy units did mange to leave their fox holes move back deeper in the woods find a little cover and managed to return fire and cause more problems and get a man or two.

Ok, finally managed to sit down and play a few more games vs the AI in this game. Yes, I sure am not one that can play through all the Scenarios in the first week of the game released (Its called a job and having a Life) I just wanted to post that this battle is excellent to play vs the Ai as to you taking the Germans and trying to assault the Hill. I love the fact that it is pretty Historically accurate, it made me go back and read a book I had that had the events of this battle. Playing as the Germans you will be tested as to if you are skilled enough to make this attack actually work. The Ai Limitations do not show up much in this battle since they are dug in and just need to fire on your advance. So you almost get as good of a challenge as if you were playing a real person. Playing on Elite I found it a hard task. Managing to clear the objective with only 3 minutes left. It was hard to get a fire base along my lines that could keep the enemy pinned down. My assaulting group had to use good fire and advancing tactics to progress up the left flank. It was not until I managed to get them part way up the hill and close enough that they could add enough firepower to create the pinning fire required to create the situation where a true advance and assault with all my units could take place. Anyway- a really enjoyable task. For those of you that find this too hard and lose, then you have a excellent scenario to practice your tactical skills on until you manage to do this task.. There is many players that struggle with proper fire and move skills when they play. This scenario is a perfect tool to learn to improve them skills on.

Steve , you keep pointing this concept out about how Russia cannot afford it. But really, We live in a country that has proven you can overspend and not have the money for many, many years and just keep doing it. So when is the US going to make its cuts??Seems to me, they are the perfect model on how to built a Military without the funds to do it. So its just Simple economics as you said, and The US will have to pay the price at some point also. Right???

Well, some of your rules only apply to BS (modern) fighting and you are in a FB forum. So that in and of itself lacks a little logic. Example, WWII fighting. no reason at all not to use smoke vs the Americans, just wished there was some to use. Most of the time it is not available.

The in game ballistics really does a fine job of being pretty accurate. With that being said. If the Panther has a little hgt. advantage as mentioned. That is when they get really tough. I have seen them take 15-20 hits in situations like that from 85MM rounds. Now reverse that roll and put them in a poor position where they do not increase the slope of the armor but decrease it and I have seen the first shot from a 85 take them out. The point I am trying to make, use every advantage that is available for you to help your armor. generally pays off in the game. When ever they do make a cm3 engine. Maybe we can start talking about getting tanks that have the ability to aim at different portions of the enemy tank. It sure would be nice to see the gunners aim for the weak portion of the enemy tank. Or maybe allow the player to select a aim point, like hull, turret, tracks, main gun or whatever seems logical.

Sent you a email to join, I am located in Kentucky if I make your 16 players

This is the correct answer to the problem in my opinion. We do not need tanks having super fast reload times in close situations. We need tanks that have taken a hit in a state of shock for a few moments when events deserve it. The original poster has a valid issue but it is the super fast reaction time from the enemy tank he should be focused on instead of the reload time of the first tank.

And here is the AI unit that did me in within this battle, let alone did I not win any armor duels vs it. It had at least four teams with antitank PF's attach it also. All I can say is luck can be cruel when it goes against you at times. Used smoke, maneuvered units to attack from different directions at the same time and so on. Not ont thing worked out as planned. it also was hit a couple of times, but as can be seen, still is running and fully crewed.

I went and played this one also. Very similar in feel as the other except this time you are the Germans and you are heading into a defensive wall. Sadly I lost two pieces of armor to mud in this battle, and there is not much armor to lose. So not helping the cause. Plus one was on the road that was available, so all that much harder to stomach. again a good challenge and the scoring is correct for the Situation. Once again a win will feel like a loss, so for sure a battle designed to play vs the Ai

I will say, for me I felt it was about right as to how mud impacted the game. I crossed plenty of open ground with the armor, so losing two tanks for what I did, felt about right. I knew better than to hit the tiles that look like plowed fields. I am not sure, but I believe they are high prone for bogs, but I have never tested it out to verify that. Then as the game progressed I stayed on the roads as much as possible because as my armor started to dwindle, I just did not want to bear losing it to mud instead of a attack. But the map and situation would force me to take the risk and flank in the field at times. So I enjoyed it, but I remember before, when they had mud nailing tanks and so many players complained they backed the setting off to where it is in the other games. So we will see how players handle it now. No question it can be frustrating, and many players cannot handle that when it is impacting the results of the game.

Post it here (Dropbox link, ect) or if you can't do that I'll message you an email address This makes no sence to me, I have drop box, but would you not just send me a invite to share a folder like any other time I am playing someone.

actually I do, it sat in the same spot for about half the game. so I have a few saves from different points in the game.