slysniper

Thanks guy, you are getting down to what the problem is. It now makes sense also, because I knew I had played a battle not too long ago with tanks that had forks so it now makes sense since they were another variant. Funny how something like this can be out there for awhile before someone spots it.

Without even seeing your file I am on your side as to the fact the game does not get it right when it comes to viewing and trees. I have had the same issues at times when tanks can spot tanks through major tree coverage that it should never be able to. Actually one of the best examples is right on this site. a AAR for CMFI with Bil and someone else. When it was broken down and viewed closely. The player found the baseball size hole that allowed the attacking unit to see through the trees and fire on the enemy unit. So any engine that works on a concept like that, thinking that something can be spotted through open tree spaces that are that small, has a design flaw. The problem is, its not fixable in the present engine I fear. So you better just accept it, realize it is not changing in the near future. I just tell myself, the trees are much more open than they appear, and that large viewing gaps are there, even though they are not to your eye. Amazing how much better I play when I look at trees in that light.

I liked the jamb concept in the game features. I think it should be in the game again. I did not think it was totally correct in CMX1, but at least they had something. I like the concept that prolonged firing should impact the weapon. Also units moving should have higher risk, because they are more likely to get their weapon ammo dirty. But CMX1 did seem to make jambs last too long. In most cases, it should not be over a minute. Not unless the weapon is being abused,

I would be surprised if it was the card. Because they were visible originally for me back when. Of course, I might be thinking about a old machine also. But I am pretty sure I have seen them on this system viewing just fine

I wonder if the vehicle pack might have been the cause to the problem. Because that is the only thing that has changed on my system likely since the last time I would have seen them correctly. Plus I bet I am seeing the shadow as a few of you also have mentioned, that would make sense. It sounds like this needs to get reported since no one has heard of it before.

I Have not played with them in a game for a long time but just received two in a tournament game and when you look at them the models are missing the forks, but they do work at going through bocages. It also is set for June 44, I was thinking they were not available in june. Anyway, is it a bug or something that we are aware of. Also as I have moved around in the game, they did flash into view a few times, but just for a second. And no, I have no mods that are affecting them.

OH, SO VERY GOOD. I always love a story with a hero in it. I have them in my games also, problem is, most of them die.

I was right, you do need a Super hero, You appear to be a little out gunned. Time for "Captain America" Ok Bud, Where is he

Its been a good battle, Both Bil and Baneman have made some excellent decisions and both have made some less than excellent decisions. That is the nature of these games. No one has a foresight of what the future brings, no one is working with a perfect knowledge of what he is facing or up against. The results is showing who has made the best choices so far. I was not a fan of Baneman force selection, but I have enjoyed watching him as to how he has used them, it never hurts to have a little "gods of fortune" on your side either with your opponent making choices that play into your present situation.

Time to get out of dodge or does this comic strip have a super Hero on his way. Because it appears you will need one.

well, you are show casing the JagTiger well, he is becoming the Hero on your Battlefield so far.

Totally agree with the concept that the defense should have drawn in the attackers and force them to close up with the defenders. This would require the Germans to expose their flanks as they progress forward. Also agree that the jag could be any tank and have caused the same results so far. Where the difference is. If it was any other tank. Bils moves would not have been the same. Its the threat that creates the added interest in the decisions made. Baneman is good for the moment and he has great positions for his three tanks. But he still has his work cut out for him to be able to push forward still. But at this point he really needs to do a little math and come to the conclusion that he can push his infantry much more freely since they only are up against a armor formation. As Bils numbers dwindle, the map will continue to have more approachable lanes for him to move forward.

I don't want to jinx him, but big cats have a ability to get hit in the gun or mantlet and find themselves with a un-operational gun. Well, that is what happens too often to me any time I try to use that front armor as my defense instead of getting the jump on one tank at a time concept. Needless to say, that feature in the game has made me learn to use my armor smarter than to ever just trust my frontal steel.

Get the marshmallows, I already have the graham crackers and chocolate. I was waiting for my chance to roast them over a open fire

Switching mouse could solve the problem. I also had a wired mouse that was creating problems for me with the game. So I switched my mouse and the problems went away. I figured it had to do with the game, the mouse and the software I had on the rig to run the mouse.

What weapon is saying is correct. But I will admit, there has ben times when it does not work. Normally under the situation you are in. What is happening , is you can give the unit a command, but if they are about to panic. They could ignore your command, face another direction to run and then throw that smoke you wanted. Oh well. its not like your unit was already in a world of trouble anyway. If the unit is in good order, that command works every time.

I just like to imagine a guy climbing on the tank, opening the hatch and A grenade down the hatch. Much more movie stuff. But a more glorious death than just that flying grenade from the woods.

Bigger is not always better. There is always a limit to when something starts to go bad. But time and time again, we get players that want to push the limits of where this game should go. Good luck, but I doubt you will get what you are hoping for trying for that size of battle. (that's if it even works at all.)

It would be nice. But at the moment it could still be achieved, it just requires publishing the scenario three times. One for each design intent and to have it labeled thus. But again since most scenarios are designed for free and by volunteer efforts, it is hard to expect so much out of them. I know I just cannot even find the motivation to create any to share anymore because of the time needed to invest to do it now. But a attempt at balance for all three types of play would greatly improve the play, but it has always been a problem with the games and for 15 years no one has ever really tried to correct it. Now lets get back to this AAR, these guys need to give us some action to talk about

I can pick up one player, but I am normally only good for one turn a day. maybe two if I have files handy before I go to work in the morning. Normally how it works with chaps from your part of the world

Probe is the best option for qb's. Back when I messed with designing scenarios for awhile. I found that the base for a good design within the game and making a competitive scenario for h2h play worked generally sit around a 3/2 point ratio. So if the defense had 2000, I used about 3000 points of equipment for offense. Now other factors also apply. terrain and defensive strong points could make me have to push that ratio up a bit. But even then it was 5/3. I always found that 2/1 ratio seemed to guarantee the offence would smash through the map. I did a few at 4/3 also. that was to make sure that the offence would get bogged down generally and it turns into more of a meeting engagement. But these numbers really do not equate well with Real world numbers. Most attacks as mentioned look for 3 to 1 ratio advantage. ( a number that somewhat guarantees the attack a good chance for success.) a 2 to 1 ratio is about the min. you would see a real army use unless of course they were in a desperate situation where all this is not possible. But I have seen and played a few battles in the game with that type of balance and it is not even entertaining in the least. Keep in mind, most players are looking for a claw and tooth battle where the last few solders on the last turn determine the win. You know Hollywood stuff. Not real life stuff.

Well, that is easier said than done. You must remember it is a game,. and to make the game work you must have a limited time set. Without a time limit, I can promise you every talented player would win on the offensive side almost every game. Given unlimited time almost guarantees the attacker the ability to take advantage of the situation with his numbers advantage. So time is the only tool there is to force how many options the offense has and how aggressive you want to force them to play. There is needs for these things to help reflect the real life situation.

Well, I would like to sign up, but was not a member. So I have signed the request for membership. But it said I need a admin person to approve it. Til then, Just posting here to let you know I want one of your slots to play. Also. Ian, this should take any hopes you have of ultimate victory away. I just want to crush your dreams now.

Just by the simple fact that the game was set with a very restricted time frame and plenty of map to have to cover. plus open ground. All these would indicate the attacker to select a mobile armored force. Let alone the fact that the Germans have the heaver armor in general, so they have the upper hand just by going that direction in the game. So Bil planned accordingly. Where as baneman, appears to have anticipated a more traditional combined arms force on defence and thought he would meet Bils defensive lines on the first objectives. So he purchased a force where he felt his infantry could outgun the enemy infantry he meet and went light on the armor hoping it would be enough to handle what he likely felt would be a much smaller support in armor units on the defensive side. Even with that thought process, he should have doubled his armor units and kept his infantry with mobile transport available. The time restriction is the biggest factor for Baneman not having selected correctly. Given time, what Bil has is nothing more than a hit and run force. But that is exactly what he is doing and all he is playing with is the stopping baneman in that time frame. Well Baneman did it for Bil before the match ever started by not playing a mobile battle to begin with.

I agree with you that there should be some type of system changes that help provide some way for better match ups in scenarios for h2h play. How BF would do it is up to them. I am one of the few people in the world that do not mind being given the short end of the straw in a battle and I will play them out and not cease fire. Because I can handle that. Most players cannot. But I also am a person that loves the fact that I have managed to win some of them battles when the odds are so against you. Those are the battles that I remember. Not the battles where I won with a equal force.