slysniper

Excellent work. Great looking map. I will likely have to slice it up and play smaller battles on it at some point. Playing a battle on the full thing would likely fry my machine and me. I like larger battles but hate turns that take a ton of time to enter or load. So Since I cannot have it both ways. Likely will never use the whole map. Same thing happened with the Normandy Omaha beach scenario someone made. Just could not force myselve to play it as designed. Just too slow on my rig. But nice work. Some time in it for sure.

thanks for placing the present game point structure for QB's. So if my 3 to2 ratio is a correct concept. No one should ever play beyond probe to have any decent chance at all on defence. The only exception to that would be if the defender had fantastic terrain to defend. Like the enemy having to cross wide open country. Or if the defender has a major unit advantage, like a tiger 2 tank and the attacker only gets cronwells. then you can pitch the typical odds a little. but the probe is giving 3-2 odds, that is plenty. Also even though I mentioned defence for most players is harder for them. I would also like to state that I feel in CMX2, playing defence has improved. I find the game plays much better as a defender now than it did in the old version. I find I can ambush more, move units and rearrange positions in the CMX2 world much more than I could in CMX1 The goal of any defence is to find ways to take your outnumbered troops and find someway to get areas where you can have temporary firepower advantage before the enemy adjust and overwhelms you. You can try to lead the enemy into kill zones, you can try mobile reserves to counter attack in localized areas, you can withdrawl forward troops until you combine into a main defensive line. You can try for flanking positions or keyhole locations that give you a limited area that you can have firepower advantages because of limited enemy units that will be able to return fire. And so on. But no matter what method, I find I can do most of them much better in this game engine than I could before. My win lose ratio has improved and I contribute it to the fact that I win more defensive battles than I once did. But attacking is still very easy to get a win unless the designer forces tight time restraints so that I cannot just work my units into advantagious positions. The game should always be structured so that the attacker does not have time to remodify his attack too much if he has made poor decisions. Its pretty sad when you can redesign your attack for a third time to take advantage of what you know about the enemy. It is good for R.L. aplications but not very fair for someone playing defence in the game. Time should always be one of the tools in the defenders bag. But many have continued asking for matches and games to have more time. many of which have way too much for a good match game now as they are designed. easy to tell, when you have defeated someone and there is 45 minutes left in the game but they are already ready to surrender.

For most players, creating a good defence is very hard, It takes more skill which many of us have not developed. i know for myself, at times defensive solutions to certain situations are outside of my grasp. But I found in scenario designing for the game, the attacker should never have more than a 3 to 2 ratio advantage and in many I would shave that down to even 4 to 3. It generally does not take much of a advantage in the game to keep it and build on it. If you give a 2 to 1 ratio you will find in most situations that is going to make it a cakewalk for the attacker. So I think one problem with QB's in general is the point ratio's assigned, they favor the attacker pretty well. I think the best version QB to play is probe, which gives the closest ratio. I dont remember what that is, but it is plenty for how the game plays in my view.

Yes its this game, no it is not vs AI. As for seeing it, I can see the unit so I know it is the unit firing. My game pieces cannot see the unit and if I could area fire the 88 I would, but with the way spotting works, I cannot area fire in the hex either. none of this is new for the CMX2 engine. The situation is, learning to play the game expecting such events. Now Ian, get the next turn posted so I can comment on what finially happens in that situation.:eek:

The sad thing is, you can get your camera right now to the present correct elevations at times to see what the unit should be able to see and what you find out is, either it cannot see something that seems to be clearly out there in the open at times or at times it sees things that really it should not see but does because of some small tiny hole it has found in the concealment. So it would bring more complaints than it would ever help in finding out what the unit is going to spot.

True, I forgot about that. Is He not already talking about using them possibly here soon. So, just will have to see how it plays out, the longer he goes without having to commit them, the better. As for the sighting in the game, there is nothing unusual in the inconsistancy of it, in CMX2, its just inconsistant. Which does not make for fair game play. But does reflect how in real life one side might not be able to spot the enemy which is in the act of attacking them. (That is a common problem that occurred). I have a game right now where a enemy armor car is firing on a 88 AA gun and a Stug tank now for 2 minutes and my units have not been able to spot him, even though he appears to be pretty much in the open at a lower elevation that should give my units pretty clear line of sight. But I am so use to this type of spotting issues that it does not phase me any more. I just expect and play expecting these type of results.

VeryTrue, My feelings completely. I am amazed with how well he is designing the game for AI play. And at some point BF with continue to give more tools to help with making it possible to do even better AI responces. I have no problem with playing against the AI for now or in the future. Still prefer HtoH, but I enjoy any tough fight that I have a chance at winning, Presently, there is plenty of that coming from some of the better designers using the AI.

Bad tactics for most Cm battles, Forces are too close in balence in most situations to think you are doing well by just blazing into a gun fight. I find the only time I will do an all out assault is when my scouting has proven the enemy is weak and I have a overpowering forces in a certain sector. Then maybe I will do a all out assault in that sector, once through that sector I will send combat patrols aggressively on to continue to take advantage of the break though the enemy line but not risk or over commit my units. With them I can normally find the enemies throat, commit the forces that have broken through and slice his throut with a percision attack on that area. (man I love this game) But sorry,, not often do I see any real Blitzkrieg tactics within the game, seldom it is that I get to even do this. As one player describe my play, You are like a python that just progresses at a constant pace with constant pressure, not allowing one to excape until you sqeeze the life out of your prey. I always thought that describes the perfect way to play most CM battles. One needs to find and take advantage of areas where they know they have the firepower advantage. Plan and develope your position as fast as you can to not allow the enemy to recover from your advantages, but never rush into errors. Just constantly look for new weaknesses that will reveal themselves because you have the advantage. It works good for when you are attacking or in meeting engagements. Of couse defence is a whole other concept. But for CM, Be a Python, not a charging Rhino

For once, maybe Bil did not make the best purchase decisions. But we will see as the battle unfolds. Normally win the armor battle , win the game. Bil's lack of infantry will be interesting as the game unfolds. He also is not using the practice of 2/3rds up front and 1/3rd in reserve. It is always good to have planned for the infantry you want to fight with for the opening stages of the battle and to keep a third back that you can then use in the closing battle to make the final push and mop up. They will be fresh, have ammo and good morale and be the forces to break the remainder or ther enemies spirit. So lets see if he manages to keep some of his units in that shape or if he will have committed them all before hand before reacking the end game.

Stop ready my post, Sir. You are getting information that I dont want you to have. Not only did you kill a emty bunker, but they had a MG when they left too. I am just trying to be the enemy unit that you love to hate.

Did you see the hits on the mantle, I would retreat also. I have found 5-6 hits like that is about the adv. for the enemy to knock out the gun on one of your uber tanks

Yes, in general, the game is harder, in that adjustments have been made and things play differently. I am not sure any of us know what all has adjusted in the different releases. One thing I notice lately, is troops stay hidden much better in grassy type terrain than it semed they once did. As I just found out walking on top of a enemy ambush in nothing more than grass. Wow, even being on the wrong end of that it still was cool.

I see nothing out of normal with bunkers in the game I am playing at the moment. Actually, I am glad I bailed my crew from a concrete one just before a enemy tank destroyed it. I think it shot twice at close range , that is all it needed to destroy it. So, either you have a bug (reload the game) or maybe you are trying to kill it from the side instead of through the vision slits. Now that makes them almost indestructable, I remember doing that once just after the game came out. learned quick to not try that again.

Most of what you said appears true. I messed up asking GAJ about the quad HT, but it appears he has no clue about Bil knowing it is out there. What I find more interesting is Bil is so sure that is what killed his HT's and that it didnt even fire. A little game fog of war going on here. But that is OK. As to the fellow thinking Bil should not act on his scouting with non radio units. Good luch with that rule. You might be able to play that way with your brother, but one of the main facts of playing computer games is that you do not need to debate over the rules of the game because the program is the rule judge. whatever the game allows is normally acceptable. Now having some house rules can be had between players, but in general I find these have to be pretty basic and something that can be easy to judge as to if the other player is following by them rules. Like no 88's bought or no pre arty bombing of set up zones. But how would you ever know if the other guy was following your non radio scouting rule. Lets just imagine when he was sent on the scouting mission his commander gave him orders to send up flare signals to let him know if he spotted enemy units in certain sectors, ok. Now the whole situation is non - gamey, well not really. but it is a game, so really it will always be gamey no matter how hard you try to make it otherwise.

Custer, No way, he would not have listened. He proved that in RL

The only advantage I know with targeting the unit is if you want your unit to focus on that target no matter what, then it helps. It seems the unit will ignore other targets until it knows the unit you have selected is dead. So in general, if you want your unit to fire on the best target at the moment, then leaving it to the Ai and just showing the limits of where you want the unit to fire with the cover arc is the way to go.

When it comes to taking the shot, It depends how close your target line is to the trunks of those trees. If its very close your odds are high that you will get a tree burst, if its just in the leaves of the trees, the odds are high you will have no problems. So have you tested the flanking shot at 1400 meters, that is a pretty good distance, I would want to know my chances of what likely would happen before making the choice. So if the tree burst it not likely, I would still fire if the odds of hitting is high, a immobilized tank is all you need and there appears to be a good chance for that if nothing else. Where is your Quad AA HT action, Bil posted it from his side. Anyway good job, So you did back it up to engage, like you tested??

Yes, that would be for you, good news if its true, for me anyway.

did bunkers get a improved defence in the latest release and it just has not been noticed. It is so seldom I get to use them that it might be worth checking into. What timing if they did. I just started a HtoH match with bunkers on my side. And I could use them standing up to some tank fire.

I wonder how long it will be before you play them then:eek:

Hey, since I am one of them guys that can be so negative and insulting on the forum, I just have to show I have a little ability to point out good things when I see them also.

less than lucky, we had another thread going discussing how often it happens in the game and that it might be that the design of the game mechanics there is off compared to what would happen in real life. Seems way too common of a result.

I just wanted to point out what an amazing job was done on this campaign. Even the way it is designed to give many levels of play depending on how the player does is just a work of art. I can truthfully say it is the first time that I have ever felt that a designer and the AI has really beaten me. Yes I mean beaten. Now for many of you, I know you have played this and likely long ago, maybe some even more than once. But here I am still working through it for the first time. I just finished the "A Bloody Encounter" and will be Rollin into the next mission at some point. But the last few missions have been no winning affair for me and I see I recently dropped to Green level. So a humbling encounter for sure. But the thing that is most amazing is, I feel it is rightfully earned. The play has been balanced and I have had my chances. Position of defensive units have been great and time again I have moved myself into killing zones knowing they could exist, but finding myself forced to do it because of my goals and path of my attacks. It has been a nightmare and one I have enjoyed every step of the way. A panther did a number on some of my Churchill's a game or so ago. Now in this last battle an AT gun has his way against more of my Churchill and again I just could not get arty in there to eliminate the problem. My infantry have found themselves to be taking losses in every way possible. If I am cautious, they will find themselves in arty barrages. If I push them and keep them moving. I find the scouts are not finding all the surprises in store for them. Maybe I am just at the wrong end of the numbers in this battle this time, but I think it is more than that and have found defensive units placed excellently. Good job to whom it is owed to. I normally play just for something to do if my HtoH turns are a little slow. But this might be the first campaign I ever will replay just to prove to myself I could do better by focusing on it and not taking it for granted.

Yes, plenty of unknowns, thus what makes it interesting. I am somewhat interested in the AT guns and want to see if Gaj gets good results out of them in the game. They are better at times than in the old CMX1 series, but still can be easy mortar bait also. But in CMX2 I have had a few AT guns manage to get impressive numbers in kills and also be able to live long enough to do it with arty on the board. But the trick seems to be in general to being placed in tall grass and far enough back into it to create a great concealment situation and also totally prevents direct fire weapons from being able to lock on the hex as area fire.

I would still recommend under 400 if you are want kills, over that, it becomes more of just keeping their heads down. Its been too long but I do recall testing it some and at 600 I recall getting a kill on targets in the open at about 1 in every 5 to 10 shots. Where as under 400 the numbers get much better - it depends on what you are wanting.