slysniper

if you are close enough to throw a grenade and you are in terrain that makes it hard to not see the enemy. Then you are going to use your grenades. Personally, I think the game has it about right, I have not noticed any overuse of grenades in general. As for them immobilizing tanks. Well, normally I never give the infantry a chance to use them, so no problem. If I am moving close enough for that, my guns are a blazing. so in general, not much return fire is happening. But I have seen enough to know that the odds are not that bad. But the grenades are doing damager and if enough hit. the tracks will become immobilized.

YES, I AM NOT SAYING THEY DID NOT HAVE THEM. It appears the Russians made two types of smoke grenades, one being the RDG1 But the hand thrown type of smoke grenade is of extremely limited value as a screening system. It produces only a brief cloud of smoke and is extremely vulnerable to weather and in particular wind. For the most part such grenades are primarily used as target markers or signaling devices rather than for screening. When screeing was required it was normal for just about every nation to use smoke pots, smoke generators, or massed artillery fire (hence the German adoption of the Nebelwerfer for this purpose as one example). But the question is, was it a standard issued item to Russian tankers and was it successful to be used in the method you think it was being applied. Maybe for the unit you read about it was a practice. But for the Russian army as a whole it likely is not a standard issued item. Then how sucessful was it. Thus a interesting question you have brought up. Within the game, I have had infantry adjacent to a tank pop their smoke grenades to try and help provide a screen for the tank. Normally has not worked for the fact that the tank is hit a few times before the smoke developes enough to act as a screen. Now just to show you how the game works. I find a great tactic for the Russian tanks is , if they need a smoke screen and are not going to engage the enemy. Just fire HE rounds into the ground where you want the screen. The dirt and dust will do a good job as a temporary screen and it happens quickly. It will provide as much or better help than what you are hoping for having the tanks able to use infantry smoke.

I think what he is envisioning is that if a Russian tank is unbutton or is a open top tank, that they should have the abilty to pop smoke. Representing hand thrown grenades. I find it a interesting concept and it would make sence if the crews actually have smoke grenades. Concidering the fact that seldom has anyone represented Russia with smoke in their munitions, even in infantry units. I wonder where all these smoke grenades were available from since it was not manufactured in any large quintities there. I doubt lend-lease was providing it, since they had a hard time providing enough for their own troops. So first it would need to be shown that smoke grenades was part of a tanker typical load

The other day someone mentioned something that made me think about creating a scenario of a Commando attack on a small Target. Now I have tried this before on every game system I have ever played and just have never felt it portrayed it well. Including CMX1 Well, CMX2 can do it and it is doing it better than I thought possible. My scenario presently has 20 elite GI's on a mission to kill or capture a leader and to access his HQ location to represent retrieving some documents. He has a light platoon of infantry protecting him with 2 heavy machine guns, the defense has been set up in a 360 perimeter. (50 Men) These are not front line troops and it represents being well back within their own friendly lines. Anyway, I can get the settings to create a surprise attack. I can get results that seem Hollywood amazing. First test Only one dead commando, 30 plus wounded of dead Germans, the rest routed and the objective taken. Second test lost 2 commando's, still killed or wounded 20 plus Germans but the remaining Germans manage to position them selves to defend the objective and the leaders escape. The commando's run low on their limited ammo supply and it turns into a stalemate. I will be tinkering with it some more but I have never before manage to get a realistic feel event where a surprise attack actually feels natural, really gives the advantage for a moment because only one side is understanding what is going on in the battle (only the GI's are spotting known targets for the first moments of the battle) and because of localized heavy firepower, quickly dominate a larger force enemy. I am impressed with getting a 30 to 1 and a 10 to one kill ratio and actually feel like it is natural , not a game manipulation. Great game system, and always getting better.

As was mentioned, this thread is useless. Without some real testing it means nothing. I am playing a battle right now that I would agree with the comment totally that the T34/85's are at a disadvantage. Except for the fact that I have played three other battles where they outperformed and spotted better than the russian foes, including Panthers, Tigers, King Tiger and Mk IV's. So, you are seeing nothing more than the way the spotting, terrain, situation and all the other facets are able to have a effect on a battle. So until some major testing is done, you have no clue how that tank is doing compared to any other tank and speculation is not the way to get the answer.

Here is my latest amazing event. A half track assault that actually worked. I was moving infantry up on a rail station just on the other side of some tracks, thinking it appeared empty since I had not received fire from it and had been moving infantry towards it in the open. Just as my first troops closed in on the station. Fire erupts. Ambush, the lead squad will be dead in seconds and no one can see the enemy because the tracks are protecting them from view. Desperate situation because I cannot aford to lose the time and men it will take to regroup and do a proper assault to clear this building. So what is my options. I have two halftracks, each with about a 4 man half squad in the back that are within striking range that can rush up and be there in 20 seconds or so and be able to fire over the berm of the tracks and add to the fire power of the few soildiers I have that can see the structure clear. So rush them I did. As they pull up, sure enough, another building of enemy troops also opens up at point blank range. Now each halftrack is taken hits from each structure. But this is Russia , not Normandy, instead of all my men dieing in seconds. The Halftracks repel their fire and actually manage to fire their MG's and begin to supress the infantry. The on board infantry do not seem to want to shoot over the side panels so I risk dismounting them and have them add their fire to little fire fight. Once this is in full bore and I have the enemies attention, I then rush one of my original infantry units over the tracks into a set of foxholes hoping to get a line of site to the back side of the structure so that when Ivan tries to run, they can gun them down. Sure enough, that is just what happens. Little russkies getting shot in the back as they run for their lives. Very Hollywood like, and just after the previous battle in the campaign , where more than once halftrack infantry was destroyed because I had moved them near enemy infantry that I was thinking was cleared areas by my armor.

Well, just dont poke the BF bear too much and make him mad. Because they create these games out of love for the hobby also. Not for the best job they could have. This is their interest also, thus the reason we even have the games. But when you turn it into work, everything gets old after time and it becomes hard to keep working doing the same thing, exspecially if the fun is gone. So just dont make Bf"s lives too hard to bear or maybe they will move on to other things. Then none of us wil have to worry about how they do Bussiness at all because it will be gone.

I am talking about the programming commands that the AI works on. How it reacts in the game is all set up by programming rules that they have created. I think that the programming is not set to hold fire by the percentage concept, but I could be wrong. Only the programmer would know.

Thanks - -

Hey, only two things you care about having in combat: ammo and water. I try to load my men with enough to last through a couple of firefights, not everything in the truck. Then I let the trucks carry some of the original load, because you never know which units will fight and win without dying or using up the ammo. But some do and then I have a little left to resupply them. And if I lose the truck, the loss is not so great.

Amen to that. Agree to the fulliest

Well, I have some of Yeide's writtings, and Bird rings a bell as to having read some of his stuff but I do not see anything on my shelf with his name. I will have to do a search and see what he has written. What was their call names on the Forum??

So is there anyone the frequents this forum that is a true Historian? With published works and such. I figure so, but I really do not know? And if so, instead of their tag name, what is the published name

As for the smoke, I forget the wind direction and waste it at times. Someday maybe they will add a wind arrow into the game for aid (It drives me crazy everytime I place smoke). Such a natural thing that is such a challenge at times in the game. As for assaulting building, I forget to do it because we are playing in more open Terrain now. seldom do I find it is needed. That is one where it is needed when you cannot bring fire to bear on the target at range. We are in Russia now, unless there is a city, most shacks are not lasting long as cover, because they are blasted out way before my infantry gets there

ONLY BF can answer that. But when they adjusted infantry to hold fire at different ranges from what they once did, it appears to be more of a AI script on rules that they are controlled by. So I doubt they have a program holding fire if the odds are under a certain percentage. But you never know. Plus when I override it on testing things, I seem to get hits easy enough, so that would lead me to believe it is not something along that lines.

Well that is true if you are playiny the AI, but in a H2h match. Those T-34's will be firing (Just like you overrode your Tiger to fire)

These commands have lacked from the beginning of the game design and you have brought up a point that others have pointed out before in that there should be some way to set a command to return fire if fired upon. But years have passed and nothing has changed, so don't get too hopeful that they are going to program something to fix this weakness. It is a flaw that you would think they could fix somehow though. But at this point it is likely a empty wish.

CMFI IF YOU BUY IT BY ITSELF without Gustav is likely not as good. If you are getting both, then it might be the better choice presently. As for Flame in Red thunder, that is not worth basing it on at the moment. Some of the units are buggy at the moment, still waiting for a patch that might fix that. Infantry works good, it is some of the tracks and such that it is impossible almost to get them to fire presently.

THAT IS WHY THREADS LIKE THIS ARE A BIG WASTE AT TIMES. I think the origonal post might have made a quick judgement, no real testing. But I think he is questiong spotting against a non moving target, which would still be a question at the moment vs other tanks doing the same. Spotting is also impacted, by units firing, so keep that in mind also. So when testing for spotting, the test would have to done against non-moving, moving, non firing and firing units. Also lighting conditions have a impact. (so clear high noon might be different than cloudy morning light) So really nothing has been answered about any abilities to the nashorn compared to any other unit at all as to spotting abiilities. What has been proved is they can spot a moving target at 4000 meters, nothing more

THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME REAL TESTING BEFORE YOU TAKE THAT TO MEAN ANYTHING. All I know is I have messed in the editor enough and had that tank in duels and I have not noticed it having any problems and have seen it also get many kills in some long range testing. So until some clear defined test is done and available to review I would question those results. But I will agree with the fact that I also have not noted any improved abilities for it, and doubt that any exist.

They are all freaken great. Only fools rate them But CMFI/GL has provided me with the best battles so far. I can think of some very interesting H2H matches I have had in that series. Plus I really enjoyed the campaigns in them the most also. Did I just rate it, Oh I am a fool

I think both have their place. Wego has made H2H possible really, without it, it would be hard to play this game as it should be played. But when I sit down and just want to play something quick vs the AI. It is the only way to go. Plus if you do not pause much. It gives a little bit of help to the AI, the AI is handicapped as is and not challenging enough. So not allowing yourself to micro manage your troops and focus on every little aspect of the battle helps the challenge and makes the AI a little harder to play against.

if it was me I would set up the map with as many bunkers as dirrerent arty pieces you are going to test, one bunker for each arty type and have your F.O. pre-target when you run the test so the arty falls on turn one so you can test quickly And this is a good way to start learning the game editor, it will be challedging at first. but your test set ups are much easier than setting up a real battle

Now that is a easy test you can run yourself. Plus sometimes it is just better to test it than to take what someone else says on the forum. Like no-one is ever wrong. Anyway, it has been so long since I have done any test on a bunker, I would question what results I have also. I normally will only run test when I see the need to verify something in a scenario I am playing H2h. its a good question, just dont know the present answer.

Well, if it is compiled of the music on the game CD's, it is not likely to last long or be successful:p