slysniper

So, even if they did communicate something, it does not change anything. It will not even change your attitude, though you claim it will. So here is a update: Battlefront is working hard to finish the final touches to the product. They have a few things to still take care of and are focused on getting it out as soon as possible when the final adjustments are made. There, does that feel better. Because that is all you would ever find out anyway if they did speak up.

Boats, not likely. back to CMX1 you must go. But I lost my interest with boats when I found I could destroy a mass of them with something like the quad 20 anti air gun. I recall one battle where I ambushed a river crossing with just one gun. I made sure not to allow it to open up until he had most of his boats about mid way across. I sank a least 10 boats and he lost all the infantry witth them and the rest were back on shore with the crews routing. A short battle, won in the events of about 2-3 minutes.

If you really wanted to solve the problem in this country with guns in the hands of the wrong people, then any new laws to enact would need to address the correct problems. Gun laws according to me if I could be in charge. Law 1 – All citizens have the right to own a gun (if and only if they have passed a gun safety course and background check). To drive a car we require a license which requires class study and passing a written and driving test – it is about time to do the same with guns – to force people to earn their right to own a firearm. Law 2 - if in possession of a firearm without being licensed, strict penalties which can and are enforced. Personally I would like a hand cut off if someone is found with a stolen weapon, but that might create an even more depended welfare state of the non-productive part of our society. So 1 year in jail sounds good. But now let’s fix the prison system So let’s start making forced labor prisons and get these guys building infrastructure in this country and stop being concerned about overcrowded prisons. Dig ditches, build roads, and whatever else we can use their labor for. There, with just a few changes, see how much I solved. Too bad the world is full of fools that have lost sight of simple solutions – most of which have been used and worked in the past.

Not exactly true. I recall them being great in the woods also, if on defence. In one of my first HtoH matches I ever played, I had a flame team set as the ambush unit deep in a pocket of woods and had my defence set up to funnel or let the enemy think this was the best path through my defences. Needless to say, he lost two platoons of infantry to that one team and basically stopped that sector from any more enemy activity for the rest of the game.

That is not true, I ran test on that, A stationary tank has the advantage to spotting first. but the adv time difference between the two made it too common of a event that the moving tank does spot and fire first a little too often for it to feel correct. The real problem with this is that placing the non moving tank in parcial concealment did not seem to help or affect spotting in the least. So likely part of the problem with spotting is how the game functions to be able to see through concealment. it shows up in many unusual ways.

I cannot believe it; I am enjoying your side of the AAR. When it first started, I thought really, c3K why in the world did he pick him to play. But between all the smart remarks, it might appear you actually can play the game. Aggressively, yes, we knew that would happen. But let’s see how intelligent and aggressive it will be. I DON’T LIKE YOUR COMMENT ABOUT MANY BATTLE PLANS I like to look at it as one Battle plan and many addendums ADDED to that plan to achieve the original goal. Seldom does my goals of my original plan change, just the method I go about doing it changes as the battle dictates, Which changes constantly as the battle flows

Well there is also the fact he is having the problem on the Huzzah map. If I remember correctly, that map had more problems than most. Something about the way he designed the map bridges was adding to the problem that is being discussed. But really , it has to do with not taking the time to put waypoints on both ends of the bridges, maybe we should not have to do that. But in the last couple of years, I cannot remember having the problem more than once or twice and that would represent at least 300 to 400 units sent over bridges in that time frame. So I do not see a big issue, plus I am sure with these new large bridges, they have figured out how to allow us to put way points and stop points on the bridge so that we can control units on them now. So we will see when it comes out, I know one thing for sure, they are not going to start some new type of programming for it at this point, whatever they have done, they have done and we will be able to judge their efforts soon enough.

settle down. Why not spend a little time and use the search tool. Steve mentioned in a thread somewhere that bridges and how they work have been modified for this upcoming mod. As I recall, there was some mention as to having multi lane ability also for some bridges. So we will just have to wait and see what changes have been made. But no matter what, you will have to learn to play with what is given.

Thank you, much better and some very good advice:D

That battle is like watching paint dry. I am having to push myself to do turns for it. A long slow process At least your on defence, not much to have to do. I have tons of poor tired slow moving grunts to keep having to give orders for to move and keep organized. So that when they get lucky they can approach your shooting gallery. So smile, you have the side that is easy to put a turn together for.

Someone, just had to complain. (Oh, the game is not perfect) Well, some simple tactics against such play. Keep your men behind the buildings, not in them. That is safe as can be from tanks. plan ambushes from alleys and around corners so that as the tank approaches, your AT assets can fire first. plan for multi attacks locations from different directions, A tank can only take on one defender at a time. The second will have plenty of time to destroy the Tank with multi AT shots. If a town has any decent amount of cover to move around and i have infantry with enough AT assets, I have yet to have a problem with a fool that sends armor first. It still require combined arms to clear a town. Yes, things need improvement. But good tactics can cause problems for armor in towns presently. Now small villages with space between buildings and only a few buildings, not a place to take on tanks. But really in the real world it was not either.

Great tip, so simple but had not thought of it. It makes me wonder about a few other spotting issues that something similar might be able to work around.

Well the good news is Steve has been posting on site lately, that means he has spare time. So normally that is only when the work flow is relaxed for a bit. So they must be close to being ready or something.

mines are presently very weak and are somewhat a waste. I think it is a error that showed up with the changes in programming, I just hope BF fixes it back to how it was working when Normandy first game out. No clue as to if that is happening

Wow. Take my money , Please. I am even hopeful that it will not be long before they release it. Two things that caught my eye. First, love the concept of the Master maps, what a great tool to help people with creating scenarios. It is so much easier if you have a map to start with, even if you want to change it. Still a big plus. And will provide some consistancy with what might get created in what we know to be main areas of fighting. Second - The Challenger Tank, have not seen that since CMBO days!!!. Not a tank that you hear about often. But I found it enjoyable the first time I came across it and hope to see it make a nice impact in games in the new series.

GETTING HYPED ABOUT THIS AGAIN ARE WE. Really, I think if Bf would just tweek the game to allow for all infantry to have some close combat abilities vs tanks, it would solve all the issues without having to fix multible things. Who cares if my AT assets dont work from inside a building as long as when the enemy parks a tank next to me there. I have a chance of taking him out. At least in CMX1, that happened once in awhile. Fix this one issue and I think it would solve most of the problems with city fighting

Yes, spotting is done in cycles, that can explain the fact that when you move a unit into the line of sight of the enemy unit, you might have to wait awhile for it to spot the enemy. The problem is, this is the perfect example of a problem beyond that. Please explain how this team did not see the tank from the beginning. really before they even moved, they should have seen this giant mass which was likely no farther than 30 feet from them. If that Tank has not move there, the infantry should have been able to see it easy from any of its locations. The spotting cycle runs at every 3 to 7 seconds as I recall. So likely missed spotting it multible times. Likely because they could not see the ground spot on which the tank is sitting. But realistically, it is far beyond anything close to how it should be. There is just some aspects of the game engine and programming that just dont work well, this is one of them areas

I agree There is other post that have given insight as to what we likely will be seeing soon. I recall that SF2 is more likely to come out first over Bagration. Other than that, who really knows.

The GI is going to win that dual, at least his rifle is pointed the right direction. The German is shooting high

Hey, I reconize that game, I did some play testing for it. I have been wondering how it was going to play out once it started to get played. I thought the designer did a good job. Anyway, looks like a major turn of events in the last turns, that sure would have impacted the outcome from what looks like a German player which was on the verge of a major victory to likely a bristish win

Good Advice And if you are not doing steps like these, then you really are lacking the mind set needed for playing these type of games well. The set up portion of the game is likely the most important part of the game even when placement of units seem to not be important. You should have made plans for the battle , no matter what type of situation you are in and you should have thought about the enemy and what their most likely actions will be. With that you should always be placing you units in positions or groups to perform what is needed with your plans or what you expect the enemy to do. Not doing this means you are playing games and reacting to what is happens to you in the battle, instead you should be acting before the enemy does and forcing action and dictating reaction by the enemy. In other words, those that can preplan good battle plans will dictate the battle and the victory. You hear many players say that their battle plan goes to hell in the first few turns. Look at the AAR of good players. They have a sound plan , have the units placed to perform that plan and when things go wrong in the plan, they adjust, modify and correct as needed. but in general they stick with the plan and many times have already planned the adjustments they would do when things dont work out smoothly. That is the mind set of a tactician and until you start learning to enjoy the task of set up in the game, then a tactician ye are not.

Yes, JasonC is convinced his line of thinking is the best. But then draws lines in the sand that sometimes make no sence. I agree with his outlook about the point of battle is to destroy the enemy by firepower, not movement. But smoke must be used at times to allow movement to help you get into place so that you can adcheive the firepower advantage you are wanting. At other times, it will do no good to pull triggers instead of smoking the area if I seem to be in a fire fight that the enemy has the firepower advantage and I do not see changing that in the near future with any means that I have available. , it is then wise to use smoke and get my units out of the fight by movement if I can. Dead troops are not going to help me by shooting til they die. lets move and save them for a fight I can win. So there is two basic reasons for smoke that do with movement which in no way indicates that I do not want my main objective as to being winning the battle by winning my fights with firepower which I am trying to position for and have units in place so that the firepower will be in my favor. Maybe JasonC can move units into firing positions all the time and somehow manage to get enough firepower to pin the enemy also. But I find dead and pinned men dont shoot much, hard to have the advantage in such a state, and to shoot the enemy I must see the enemy, and to see the enemy I must move into place if I am attacking to do that. Of course maybe he only plays them realistic battles where he has 3-1 odds and then it does not matter if the enemy pins a third of your units. because you will still outnumber them 2-1 with the rest of the units that you are getting into line of sight. So sure, lay down, in whatever place you find yourself, open ground will be fine. because you will pin the enemy in short order. your pinned troops will rally, add their firepower to the rest of it and you are on your way to killing or dislodging the enemy. But how many battles do we play where we have this type of advantage in general. Creating the firepower advantage with smoke is a good use of smoke. But it will not become the only use of smoke for me. But by your point, I guess I will be a adv. player because I dare to also use it for other purposes.

No, the radio man was OK, I was wondering if the chain of command could have something to do with it. I dont want to say Bug - but I did have a plane in another scenario I played here in the last 3-4 months that I had the same issue, It came on as a reinforcement in the game but I just had no one that could contact it, I figured I had lost the unit that was desinated for it, but was not sure who that would have been. Anyway, just wondering, I know planes have limited units that can spot for them.

Maybe someone can answer one question for me that happened in this game. I received a typhoon fighter bomber early in the game. the only unit that could give it orders was the Forward observer. Which it did and things went fine. late in the game you receive another typhoon, so I made sure the FO stayed alive and that it could be used for the next plane to call it in. Needless to say, when the plane came, neither that F.O. or any other unit could contact it. So I was wondering about that, what am Ii missing here or is this a error that was done by the designer or something.

Ok, I finally sat down last night and played the Bonus mission and finished this campaign. The Mission La Mancelliere – and whomever said 2 king Tigers – somehow I had 3 to deal with. I was set on elite level in this campaign, played real time and just had a ball. I could not leave this final mission and stayed up late to finish it, when I realized the Germans were making a counter attack. I had already decided I was only going to get 2 of the 3 objectives in the battle and that the deep area was not feasible. But now the Germans were pushing to take the center area back. It was fun holding them off and having to deal with a King Tiger as part of that force in the counter attack. When all the smoke settled and the Battle was over. I had the two objectives and the third was still firmly in German hands, with 2 King Tigers guarding the road to enter that village. The battle ended with the results of a draw-no winner My hero or the last battle was a little stuart that had 29 kills and 1-PZ-IVJ to its tally, sadly I sacrificed him to drive out the last Germans in the center objective. For the whole campaign it has given me a tactical defeat, which seems harsh since I made it this far without cheating except for once, I think I did restart one battle once for some reason which I cannot remember anymore. But on the other hand I know how this thing kicked my butt in a few missions and how I wasted lives of my units way to many times to feel there was any victory earned. But my final statistics look good and I feel I played OK for the Challenge given me, Likely one of the most enjoyable games I have ever played in Wargaming Kills 493 to 824 Wounds 344 to 505 Tanks 30 to 33 AV (I forgot to write it down but that was in the German favor by a good bit)