slysniper

I like using smoke at times on offence to get a area concealed so I can move my troops into it without any enemy fire, so this is happens when I cannot get firepower presently to pin the enemy. So moving them up under smoke so that when the smoke clears they are located where they can then pin the enemy with firepower from the new location. Learned this one from suggestions when trying to learn the best way to clear large thick woods with enemy infantry. It is almost impossible to take less losses than the enemy unless you use smoke to close in tight with them and then try to overwhelm them.

Here is one tip for you. Dont rush three squads into a building all together like you did in the video. Think real world there, buddy. That is a good way to get many men killed. Just one grenade and if at the wrong time, you will be losing more men than the few enemy units you were taking out. Think proper spacing. Pin the enemy with fire anyway you can , then send one assault team in to finish the job, if they get pinned or killed. then send the next. It always comes down to creating a situation where you have more firepower than the enemy. Which you did. but if it is all located in one spot as you had it. it only takes one good burst of fire or one explosion for you to find most of your men pinned and the enemy now having the advantage and he has a much sweeter target than you ever had and if it is a real player instead of the AI. He will try and make sure to finish the Job. Hope you stick with it, you might be able to flex that brain area of yours instead of wasting your time on the simplistic skills needed in most other gaming.

What part of the Bf quote do you think you guys are saying you are holding Bf too that is incorrect. It mentions they are not formal announcements so no real dead line is given and it said they were wanting to release in 2013. So we still have close to 6 months in the year, with no promise to begin with that they would make it out this year and you all have your panties in a knot because they dont have them in your hands yet. Grow up and play with the toys you have and take a chill pill. I can see them releasing one or two more things possible this year. And that would be amazing if they did. If not. My world will not be impacted in the least. I have plenty to do without their latest release being needed.

And you think your rants about how Bf should follow your marketing outlook would change all that. Buddy. This hobby and game style has always been a interest to a few and will always be that way if the past in wargaming proves anything. As for if it dies out completely, I think not, but to become mainstream, I think not also. So it comes down to being realistic and trying to work in a market that exist and to make a living doing it and not trying to change the world as to what people find as entertainment For the lives. I think we will see the hobby decrease in size by the shear fact that a large portion of us that find it entertaining are from a era that our dads were in that war or time period. thus part of the reason we conect with it so well. but as we die out, the hobby will decrease.Yes we pick and continue to see younger players enter the hobby, but not in the same quintities. Their age group have other interest and most of that age group do not have the ability to want to think deep tactics. They have learned run and gun is what works and thinks that is what war is all about. Oh dear, help our future.

Now on the other hand, I really do support this aspect of the game improving, Just in general. defensive structures could be improved and given more abilities. It is interesting in that I am testing a scenario right now and I am pretty sure. Bunkers have improved in defensive abilties since the early releases. but the present trench system is still poor. (in general - the game trench does not provide enough cover, very easy to pin units in trenches. At least troops dont die as quickly now. direct small arms fire does not kill like it once did but these are still way off of what a real trench would be about as to how effective it could be in combat.

You have some good points, but at other times, you just get too picky. This is sure funny, I have done this type of set up many times and never have had a problem having my guns in radio contact. I am also impressed with how well the ammo is shared between the units and I have to be mindful of it. Is it a perfect system, heck no. But it functions pretty good for a game. It sure is not a area that needs fixed with all the other items that could improved before it. Have you checked this lately. It is much improved. maybe not perfect, but much better. I have a five man team right now in a HtoH game sitting right under the noise of a Sherman and it has been 3 minutes so far. Not spotted yet. So they have made adjustments per our comments on this board.

Not true. Tested this myself and wondered the same thing. attacker spots very quickly. but in all fairness. When its one on one. The defender that is motionless does generally have a decent advantage to be the first to spot the moving enemy.

Hey, the question is NOT if the M20 should be used that way. There is plenty of weapons in the game being used in ways that really is not good doctrine or was not something commonly done in R.L. But the basis of the request is, should any weapon do what it takes to fulfill the request of the command given. If you request the M20 to fire, it should use its AI to open up, expose its crewman and fire its weapon if you have requested it. At least until something on the battlefield stops it from doing such, like a little return fire. I dont like the concept of the game just given me warning that something is not going to work and then I have to input some different commands to get it to work. When I make a request, the game should try to fulfill it if at all possible. As mentioned, this happens more than just here, I have found at times, I am watching units do nothing for a minute in HTH, because I have requested actions that for some reason it presently cannot do. The goal for the game maker should be to improve the units AI to do request when there is a logical way to do it. Not program flags to let you the player know it will not do a request because it is not programmed in the game to perform it. I think BF's goals are along these lines. But it is not a simple task to get all units to do all things that one might think possible. But I say, if a effort is to be made, stay with the concept of making the units smarter as to request made by the user.

it would need more time than that to make the game change. he could have modified the pace for 15 minutes pretty easy I think.

I could test it for you, (quickly) HtoH. but please dont ask me to figure out the email address you posted. Email me and I can hook you up to a drop box folder if needed or just send a email attachment.

Just keep up with having thick skin. Paper Tiger Designing is a gift and you have it. but there is plenty of fools out there that will blame the game, scenario and so forth when their poor tactics and poor play does not get results they like. there are others that have ego's as fragile as egg shells and cannot suffer the insult of the AI betting them. So you will always have someone blaming you for your design no matter how talented you are. But I found out the hard way , trying to be nice by making suggestions to another designer that designers take a lot of pride in their work and sometimes pointing out issues or improvements can offend them because of the work they have put into it. Thus the reason we have lost some designers, why put forth the effort if you are going to get flak about your work. Never let that happen, dont take input from others too seriously, weigh it to what you know, only adjust something if what they ask for rings true to you also. and when they dont see things the way you do, let it go and let them go. Your work proves who knows what they are doing, so let it be.

I agree, the game is not designed to be that realistic, and if it was - boring. You would all find you could not make objectives because after about 10% of your men were wounded or dead, no one would be attacking anymore, they would just be sitting and staying alive to fight another day. Once again, when will people realize we all want to play with hero's, no one really wants true realistic fights, even though they think they do. The game would fail, the company would fail and you not only would have a boring game, but no more of them would be coming in the future.

Well, the game is becoming something that is not suited for the casual player - thus the reason we still have many that wish for the CMX1 type game done somehow with updated graphics. And really it was not a simple game, but it was compared to this engine. It just goes back to either you like the complexity or you dont of the latest engine. As for spotting, i was refering more to infantry. I can remember a time our squad being ambushed by a platoon and they were not 50 yards away in desert scrub type terrain and not being able to spot one enemy soildier for at least 20-30 seconds and thinking, if this was real, I be dead for sure. I recall another where they were approx 75 yards away in a tree line and could not see anyone at all for minutes except when someone jumped up and moved to a new location. Once they dropped they would again disapear in the shadows. A third time was sitting in a horseshoe shaped ambush on a mountain ridge line at night with cloudy skies overwatching a approach that was a few hundred meters with almost no vegetation, wide open and clear. Did see them move out into the open but once they started attacking, was amazed how hard it was to spot them because of the darkness, it was hard to make anyone out until they were within 50 yards of our location. As for armor, no, I think the game is wrong as to how it spots, but that is not saying it is totally bad. But any moving armor should pop up and be seen very, quickly. I think the game does pretty good at that now but is still slow at times. but it is the none moving armor that gives the most inconsistant results, if located in terrain and it has some distance, terrain that can mask and conceal its shape, that is when the game does not ring true. It spots enemy units at great distances without much effort at times, through concealment that would not be liking to do in real life. Then on the other hand it might have a tank right in the open 100-200 yards away and it does not show up with eyes right on the area, again not always, but at times. But in R.l. you would see it 99.9% of the time. Then there is the 20 to 30 yard distance where there is some cover and your unit still cannot spot the enemy tank for long periods of time. Again a task that likely would only take seconds in most situation in R.L. So that aspect of the game just does not feel correct to exsperence, but trying to understand how they programmed the game to work. i think i understand why it does not do that correctly or likey will not with the present approach within the game. Now I only remember once not spotting Real armor that was within plain view of us. They were mobile arty units that were in a valley below our location that started firing a practice mission, we were in mountain terrain, so the sound was bouncing off the hills and making it hard to determine where the sound was truely coming from. I recall taking a few minutes to spot them and we did have Bino's with us. They were likely 2000 yards from our location but blended in nicely with the ground behind them. Once located, they were easy to spot with the naked eye. But it showed me how the human eye looks for shape , color and outline and movement. if these are not present. you can hide even pretty large objects

Good question, likely no clear answers. thus the reason people complain. It is no longer a game you can master knowing if your unit will spot the enemy. No matter how many hours of play you have, the game is constantly suprising you as to if units see or do not see enemy units. The sad thing is, it is more realistic to RL than knowing for sure that your unit will spot in certain situations, which most think is better because they only know how games in the past have done it. But I can think of field training I had where many times I could not spot the enemy, even knowing they were out there. Sometimes even when they were firing and still not able to spot them. So maybe that is why I dont get too upset with how the game works presently. As for what was done that might be factors. GAJ was expecting sighting enemy units at too great of a range, exspecially for infantry. I find infantry can move to well within 100 meters in grasses and not give clear identifications to the enemy. Beyond his power was the fact he really did not have enough units to cover all the ground he needed to defend and thus spread himself out which created more problems in that his units could not work together in the command structure. But beyond that, not much. His AT guns showed up easy, WTF. I am playing a battle right now where the enemy has had 6 guns all in tall grass and or wheat, and let me tell you. not one of them guns has shown up to my units spotting until after they have fired multiple shots or I have moved almost on top of them.And I had more units than Bil is using and much closer to the guns, so plenty of eyes ( but the main trick with that is to place the guns so that the enemy must look through 3-4 hexes of grass, you want the unit as deep as you can get it in the grass and still see out and fire, I am not sure, but GAJ guns looked like they sat at locations where they hardly had any grass in front of them, maybe same hex or a hex in front for concealment, that is not enough. As for tank and halftracks and trucks and such, I have nothing to say, the game just did what the game does at times. But if I am going to engage the enemy intentionally, I want to come up on their flank or rear, if not, then I better have the numbers in my favor, hopefully 2-1 or better or I will not do it unless desperate. GAJ , does not follow that rule, he places his units in situations where it is luck that requires the firefight win. Whereas, Bil is constantly looking for that type of advantage plus makes sure to have combined arms for the unexpected. You never want to be caught with the wrong match up

GAJ Before this battle ever started, I felt you were at a disadvantage. which I posted on the peanut gallery So dont feel too bad with what the results are showing. Purchased forces is too one sided and I would suggest using probe setting instead of attack to get a little better balence in the future. For the size of the map and what was expected, either the amount of forces should be much higher to be able to cover the amount of terrain reguired or if left at present size. Much quicker time restraints to force the attacker to commit to one plan attack and not be given too much time to be able to disect the defence. I know I sure would not be happy if I was given your side if I had to play it as is. (but when I find myself in such a match I look for ways to make goals that I can adcheive, even if it will not reflect much in the scoring. (I try for my victories on the battlefield that seem possible.) Thus a way to enjoy it when losing. Bil is a player at another never of ability from you and that fact alone would make it hard for you to have success. And this battle he is showing a level of play that few will ever reach. I have been amazed at his mission planning and execution on this battle. (again I would not want to be the poor sap against him in this battle.) For you, I would only suggest that you have plenty still to learn about trying to combine as much firepower as possible when you want to engage the enemy. You need more combined arms, ready to work together in single attacks. You have a tendancy to piecemeal your forces and not combining them well. Not only in this battle but also in the last when you were trying to attack. I wish there was a easy way to teach all the things one should know, but there isnt. Thus we are all students using these games as a method to try and learn. But in the future, if you play Bil, at least take the side that has the advantage.

I said something along these lines before the game ever really started going, Bil should be the one with the hard side to start with. But I would like to see what forces he would select if he was playing defence, Give GAJ Bil's present forces and lets see what Bil could do to make a good fight of it. I bet he might make it pretty interesting. I like how well planned and coordinated Bils attack is, very well done, but the game is a sleeper, pretty boring with no sight of it turning into a close battle, more like a clinic how to Coordinate a attack.

I am not disagreeing that movement should be giving units away much more than it does in the game. I am just pointing out that in the game, units laying down have a hard time spotting units. Anyone can run some test, but from my small sample testing. I have come to find that when i want to spot something, it does me well to give a command that gets my men in a positin to see over the grass. take that for what you will.

Who ever it is that is doing that (They are a class act) The one thing that crossed my mind is Wodin lives in the UK and all this time he still had not had any British units. Enjoy - Even if you do look at the models more than you play the game

For GAJ, it is hard to spot with men lying down in the grass. So for all you experts lets put out this game fact. Your units cannot see very far if they are in tall grass lying on their bellies. Thus Bil, with his men standing and in motion is actually in a better situation for being able to spot. And to tell you the truth, this is the same in R.L. It is very hard to see much on your belly when there is a decent amount of vegetation. the difference, in R.l. you move and shift until you can see over or around it. The Pixel men in the game do not do much of that.

You really need to find some way to earn a little extra cash, Problem solved. You might even try dressing up like a begger and look for handouts. A little sign saying the money is to support treatments with CM, Sounds like a winner to me. Now that I think about it, maybe I should do the same

Good plan with your arty spotters. You are correct in that you can not hide them when it is time for spotting. But you can hide them or move them until or after that time. they only need to be looking when the spotting rounds actually fall. So learning to understand when that is going to happen is a good thing to understand in the game. I like moving them behind cover once they have spotted and requested the fire mission. They can cancel the mission from anywhere. If they need to adjust it, I move them back into place to see.

I would not recommend any of the harder campaigns for anyone who is not playing well as to understanding the game engine or has developed some good basic tactics that have proven to work for them in the system in scenarios or QB's. And this is a harder one, for sure if you are running 2.01 So just beware. I love it, but I would not recommend it to you at this point in your gaming. There is many other campaigns that are better for newer players to the system

WELL, In certain conditions you managed to get veiwing down to 15M, then there is no need for any future adjustments there. That turns the whole map into a close weapon gun shoot out that will be a blood bath and grenade are king location. Made a scenario like that for a tournament one time, most of the players did not like my scenario, but I thought it was a great test to see if they would understand what they needed to do. I was laughing about it and enjoyed watch some of the AAR's

Yes, they were. But it had nothing to do with its armor. Speed, my man, Speed. They were the formula one's of the battlefield and moved fast enough that if they were flanking a german tank, the German gunners had problems with their turrets rotating too slow or with getting the correct lead on the enemy armor since they were not use to seeing that type of speed. You cannot kill WHAT YOU CANNOT HIT.

I agree, fog should be tested at night. That is when it is the most limited in viewing distance. It would be nice if there was even a thicker level of fog within the game. I know I have seen night time fog many times within my life that was at the max. 50 M in veiwing anything at. And that has been in many different locations, not just prime locations. But I have only once ever seen fog so thick that I could not drive my car becase I could not see far enough. Even then , , once I turned off the lights, stuck my head out the window so I could look down and view the road. I could see the painted road lines for about 20 feet. But that is a exception. Not the norn. (that location was swamp and had hot springs in it. ) A common area to have problems with very thick fog. The other thing I wonder is does it vary as to how far a unit can see depending on direction within the game. To model fog correctly. It really should be inconsistant and changing constantly as to how far it blocks ones view. I dont think the game does that. Once you know the range within the game, it is easy to plan on how far your units will see.