slysniper

Well, it appears to me that the testing ground is as clear as can be, no brush or anything. Pretty easy to spot and do what you are wanting. But with most terrain you are going to really play in. The hidden units will not be able to spot. Just keep that in mind

It works, but what you are not understanding is that the unit with the hide command on will not spot well in many situations. Thus many players find it not working because the enemy walks right up on top of them before they spot and open up from their hidden position. I personally use this set up concept as you show, but I add one thing. I always make sure to have some overwatch that is not hidden that will engage the enemy if my hiding units do not spot them. So at the worst, the enemy enters my kill zone, overwatch opens up, stops them for the first minute. I can then unhide all my hidden units and within moments I will have all my firepower I can muster being added into the ambush.

you all do understand, I am not saying that the present system needs to change. The present AI settings are fine. I just think that we as players should have another AI set up that we can choose also if we want it to respond differently Thus I suggested something like this for the second selection the tank would still deploy smoke if It is being lazed and it presently cannot see any enemy unit. it presently sees a enemy unit that can destroy it, but it cannot really destroy the enemy unit it has been hit by a round from something that could of killed it but has survived. the tank would deploy smoke. Personally, the present system is fine until I know what is expected when I confront the enemy again. If my units are telling me there is 3 bmp's on a ridge and no other threat. I want my tank to move into sight and engage, that should be a option in choices. I do it now by making sure I have a tank without smoke. that is stupid, but heck it works. If a unknown threat emerges and gets the jump on me, I should expect it to get a shot off, it would in real life. Thus coming up with some logical AI rules for the second option should be present, like suggested above. So far no one is saying they really disagree, but any suggestions on what we should or could have as some basic options is welcomed.

Oh , I agree with you. But would it not be nice to have a choice. If that BTR is 900 meters away, what is the chances that is the only thing spotting my unit. So as a player I don't mind the smoke feature as is, if I pick it to be on and to act that way. But with what I am suggesting, turn the system off and I can go get and nail any btr I know of without my M1 firing smoke. Because I have made a decision that the m1 likely will not run into any other threat. Plus if it does, my auto smoke options with the off selected can still help.

I have a love hate relationship with the way the game presently does Auto Smoke with the units. Yes I know this Topic has been there from since the games first release. I have created my own tactics to work around the games way of using Smoke. Since it drives me crazy to have units pop smoke at times when I do not want it, I basically make sure to run a few units out of smoke early before major contact and keep others in the formation with it so at least I have the option of which one I will lead with and if I want it popping smoke or not. So if I have a enemy unit I want to make sure I am going to fire on just on the other side of a vision block, I am running the unit that does not have any smoke. If I am going somewhere blind as to what the enemy has, I lead with a unit with smoke. But then it crossed my mind again on how stupid the present system is. So here again is a some thoughts of how it might be able to change. Why not have a option as to if you want the unit to auto place smoke or not, then at least the player has control of that much of the feature, at least I would not need to waste smoke to make the not happen as a feature. Then it crossed my mind, that no matter which option is chosen, there is times I would want auto smoke no matter what. So when the button is in the off mode, the tank would still deploy smoke if It is being lazed and it presently cannot see any enemy unit. it presently sees a enemy unit that can destroy it, but it cannot really destroy the enemy unit it has been hit by a round from something that could of killed it but has survived. Now if the button for auto smoke is on, then it would pop smoke as it presently does. I see this as a possible easy way to really improve the present auto smoke options. please give input as to what you think or if you at least agree that something should be done as to how auto smoke presently functions

If you are just playing to entertain yourself. You can select hotseat for H2H play and just play both sides. I do this for testing in that it prevents one side from being the AI and the other not. (plus you can select your forces for both sides here also) Anyway, its like making a movie, you are controlling both sides so you are setting up all confrontations, but you still cannot control the outcome. great way to learn what likely events will play out between different units in different situations.

It has crossed my mind that what I have done on night scenarios, or as a matter of fact, any scenario that has visual conditions is that when I start set up. I check the distance right at first that units can see, try to find the max. range for all units and then use that as a gage for my set up. In other words, I know for a fact no one can see past 150 meters, does not mean they will see anything at the distance, just the possibility of it. That at least helps me know at what ranges to place my units to key areas I want defended. But getting them to actually spot something in them areas is a real guess since you never know for sure. But in general, if it looks possible, it is. But again the sight line is not a way of making sure it is possible.

Sighting and how it functions has always been poor compared to real world standards. It was very frustrating to me when I bought CMBN, Now I have been playing so long I just don't care any more. But I sure don't waste my time doing anything like you just mentioned. Because there is no chance of any guarantees as to what the game will give you as to units spotting. I just set up the units to what visually looks like will work and then start getting into it once the game is actually running. On defense, I will start checking units to see where they can now actually fire and set cover arcs to coordinate with each other, but all this only after the game is running. So that tells you what I think of set up phase spotting. On offence I don't trust way point spotting much either. I normally send a scout unit to every important location first to make sure what they see before I waste time sending main units when ever I have the ability to do so. But hoping for BF to give some major love to this at this point in the engine design is not likely to happen or fix how it basically works. I still see armor running out in the open in plain sight not getting spotted outside the magic spotting window of 7 seconds that the game runs and think Really, can you explain that invisibility with any real WORLD EVENTS. No, SO I just say to myself, its just a blasted game and that feature sucks. But I still like it more than the Borg spotting system we had, or that most games have.

SO AGREE, I THINK THAT THE POINT STRUCTURE SHOULD BE TOTALLY ADJUSTABLE BY THE PLAYERS. How ever they want to do it is fine with me. But I hate the restricted set ups they have now.

May I be the first to say goodbye. Because I sense your time on this forum is very brief In its remaining time. If you look at this thread, it was you that started it off topic once again with all your negative comments. Your life must suck with all the attitude you have. I feel sorry for you. So go ahead and say a few more things about what you think about the game and forum members. Because locking threads wont stop you, but banning will.

Personally, I think I would lean towards more M10's and less Sherman's, plus make the Sherman a 105. , Because Bil's forces appear they would have won a infantry only conflict. So Maybe the M10's could handle the kitty's, So 3 of them and save one Sherman for letting the infantry have some real fun . I agree, the AT guns were ineffective. - but it was a bold move and I think he was hoping to get them in the objective area early. So a move that could have been a game changer if he had managed it.

Now that it is over, what would your force selection be if you had to do it again and you expected to have to deal with the two Panthers???

Which brings up a good point, what should the American force be if for all intents you expect the German to have 2 Panthers

I think you can offer him a cease fire soon, The third Sherman appears to be likely toast also. I would think he would realize he will not dislodge you if he has no real assets to do it soon. What else does he have to take on your panzers. This is were Bil would tell us all, exactly what was left because he has calculated all the purchase points and has kept every sound marker and spotted troop documented. The scouts were a brave lot, cold blooded killers. Did not scare them at all. Just another day at the office for the one standing up. Bullets flying all around him, but he calmly reloads his weapon

Well, it appears a zook round or two came flying in at your tanks that turn. Plus while that smoke is blocking the view still, I would send a few HE rounds towards them AT gun locations unless you are sure they are dead or something. Brief area fire is what I like, that way my tankers don't get caught up in focusing on that to long if something moves into view during the turn. Just a round or two to hurt any soft targets I want to make sure stay out of the battle for another turn or two at least.

I told you that in another thread. You would not like what you would hear. (But you keep wanting to live in fantasy land as to where these guys are going.) Thanks Steve for posting the update and letting us know what the present plans are for the near future. I look forward to the added content and additional items to come my way - I for one know you guys are working hard. Thanks

That turn can be part of the way to your victory. Take out the At gun with area fire and keep your distance and front armor to them Shermans and I sense things will keep going your way. I hate to say it, but Bill is not playing one of His finest games I have ever seen. I see what Bill was trying to do but I think things are falling apart on him and I see no second chances if what he presently doing fails. His units will be hung out to dry if you win the Armor battle

Well, you are correct, thus the reason I am in the habit of 30 seconds. It seems to take about 15 seconds to fire the first shot or two, but after that they are dropping as fast as possible. So for many situations. They tend to land just about the right amount to take and get one dead on target. Only in challenging locations will I up the time if I have the ammo to spare. I mean, I will try this target light when the time comes, of course it has to be working it appears before it is worth the effort.

Well this is what I call harassing fire and yes it makes sense here. But it still is a rare event. Thus the reason I have not seen a issue. Of course light rifle area fire into this type of situation also works, So maybe still not a big issue. I am just pointing out that I thought light fire with mortars meant it is not going to use the mortar.(So I see I am wrong) Saving rounds, I have been using fire briefly. I can hardly remember using a full minute of mortar fire in game except on enemy in a trench line for a long time

Understand, but I get the same results in 30 seconds. And if I have not killed them it seems to be more prone to make them panic. So I will stay with Briefly target and set for 30 seconds

well, that is a great concept, but the key word is money. And there is plenty of post from Steve that shows there is none of that to throw around and risk. The sad thing is, they have hired more people and are spending more money than they once did. But we see, it is a drop in the bucket. You keep wanting to compare these guys to what you see from many main line companies. There just is no comparison. And it is a good thing, because they really do this for their own love of this hobby. As many try to keep pointing out to you, if they wanted to just make money. They would have dropped this line of games and went into games that are profitable. But customers with bad attitudes toward them, might someday just help to push them that way anyway. Why would a sane person put up with war-games demands Personally, that itself is what puts these guys on my fanboy list

It would be nice, but I can understand why that does not happen. Pretty much all the scenarios in the game are donated, even in the original release. So what, you expect them to demand those people that submit the work to them free, update these old scenarios. (not happening) Do you really understand how small these guys are. But they have given us the user all the tools to fix them ourselves. So if you want the old ones to work, you can fix them. Tell me another game where you can create new scenarios, like you can here. The ability to create or fix any scenario is in your hands. Again your demand that it is BF's job to do this, it is just unrealistic for who you are dealing with.

Sure funny, when I look at that poll, I read it as 63% percent seem content to see the present engine for the near future anyway. You know, it is not like we all would not like to see massive improvements also. Everyone here would. I just think it is a situation as to knowing that in the hands of BF, A new engine would likely have all the similar issues we saw when shock force came out, do you really want that again. A new engine with all new bugs to fix. Would it be revolutionary in concept. NO ( it is the same programmers doing it with the same skill sets they have. ) Sorry, I just don't see BF having the staff of people to break into a whole new better way to create a game like they are doing. So it would be about the same amount of change as we saw from CMX1 to CMX2. So until I find I am not willing to buy their present games or find another company that does a better job. I can live with the fact that I will accept their product using the present engine that they have created. Call me a realist or something , OK

No, because that has been you topic for all your post lately, might as well stay here on your own thread. High jacking your own thread. Oh, wait , I do that also, so cannot comment

Well, thus the reason I have never noticed it, because the command never made sense to use anyway. The only place that would make sense is if I wanted it as harassing fire, which I don't think I would ever do with a small 60. Maybe a 81, but anyway. A command that is almost non existent in my playbook