slysniper

I feel exactly the same way about this. the terrain aids in the attack more than it does anything for the defender. Bill will be able to swing left or right and bring most of his forces to one side or the other and will then have a huge firepower advantage on one side of the map. With the unit selected, terrain and objectives. I sure would rather be attacking than defending in this battle. I would not want to be in GAJ positiom if I was looking for a win. Then there is the fact that Bil is a better player. he is very good at using combined arms and having units in position to support each other correctly, plus he plays aggressively as to how he will move units. GAJ shows some savy and some good concepts but has a ways to go to be at the level that Bil is at. I just hope he gets a little blood this game and is able to make Bil bleed some before he is defeated. The only thing that would have made this battle much better was if they had to play the other side of the map as is vs each other. That would make for a much closer battle, biut tis not the case

Even if it does fire forward, it still might be better to back into position. If the crew panics, the last thing you need is having them do something stupid like turn the HT around while in the enemy line of sight. So check how how they like to flee while doing your test. Never hurts to know what your units will likely do.

I would just back it up into position when you want to use it and fire to the rear. I think how you have it shown is going to lead into problems. That was how it was in the old version with some of the HT mounted guns anyway. Its not like you have better front armor on a HT anyway. Plus you can see where you are going when its time to get the Hell out of there. And part two 700+m is not in range for a sniper in CM, they might fire, but its a waste of effort. The best ranges for them in the game is 300-400. They still have a chance to hit something and also can stay somewhat hidden if played well.

Just to back up what you are saying. Mine happened in CMBN 2.01 also. Like you, I had 3 AT tank mine explosions to my Churchills within two turns and had nothing more than some damage to the tracks and that was not even major. So I thought the same thing, maybe extremely lucky, but more likely something might be up with the latest release.

Correct, this is the only way to help units throw their smoke where you want it. I have seen them ignore that command though and throw it the direction they were facing before that at times.

+1 TO THAT. I JUST HAD CHURCHILLS DO IT TWICE. I thought they should get a immobilization for entering the mine field at least. Both made it out and one of the two actually set off two mines. So I was like unbeleiving my luck there. But now I wonder what the odds are. Because up to that point Tank mines had been pretty deadly in general for me in past games.

VERY GOOD POINT but the real question is, what is the present game doing as of 2.01 and what should each weapon be allowed to go to in range in the game.

The smg's should be a program fix that can happen I would think. All they need is a Max range that they should not be able to fire at once the target is at that range. The mortar squads have that ability right now, so you guys are wrong when you think it is not in the game. Other team members fire when the Mortar is not allowed to if it is under or over it's target ranges. They just need that added to SMG's and that should improve the game plenty. Now the real question, what should that distance be 100M , 120M ???

Well, many of the guys that visit the site do it during the week, not on week-ends so give it a chance. There has been only one tournament on this forum since CMBN came out, but it had a good enough responce he had to run two brackets of 16 as I recall. But until you get things solid as to what you are really doing and have real dates and what the requirements are, many will not commit or say anything. It sure is not like a club site as to how people respond to these things here, that is for sure.

Actually Ted, I like what you were thinking from the beginning, the real question is are you hosting it. Someone has to be willing to put the time in, who is it??? The club thing is too limited, plus that limits it to so few and the last thing they need is another tourney. Having run 3 open tournaments here myself in years past, I will point out two issues. First, I used my own scenarios when I started but did get some help with additional ones from a good designer once he knew it would really be used and the tournaments was being well runned. The problem at the moment is, I think BF has most of the guys making good scenario's committed making scenarios for them for the upcoming releases. So it could be a problem, but you could just put a request out there for submissions from anyone and see what you get, you could review them and see if you want to use them. The second problem is, making it open here does present this problem. I found I had some players that were not good and committed to play and stay active no matter what happens within their games. So having some way to keep that inmature type of player out is tricky. Or have some way planned as to how to complete games that will need a opponent to replace a non committed opponent. With the orig. concept, that can be resolved as easy as having someone else playing that side just picking up another game to help out. Their results would still be their orig. game. But I had some that played their games much quicker than others, so they would be waiting for the next round anyway. so I think that would be a easy answer for that problem. But if you do get serious about this, You can sign me up as the first participant

Welcome aboard, and I hope you continue to see yourself improve, that is part of the fun of it. As for not jumping on board right from the get go, dont feel bad. I played the CMBO demo the same way, I liked it but was not trully sold on it, I did not buy it right away. It was later when I found it in a store and bought the game that I started learning this was my next step where I would spend my wargaming time. When I found I could make my own maps and battles, there was no way this was not going to become my favorite game system.

I like how they have been properly stored. That should make for a good weapon - right.

Now, how did you know I sent him that??? You are pretty smart !!

good point as to looking for a good map to play

I did not know that, but yes, that allowed you to be a active part of the discussion and propably gave you a few smiles since everyone was speculating but you knew what was already played out and could see comments leading to or not as to coming events.

LOL - Yes I love to slam the QB and those that Love them, but it is not to say I have not played them. And to tell you the truth, I am not sure what my win loss record is in them but I cannot remember losing hardly any. So if it was about that aspect, I should love them. I just dont enjoy them for some reason. Maybe it is because of how I play them, with the forces so balenced in general, i take my time and play a game that waits and takes advantage on any weakness i find within what i see in the opponants play. So it normally takes a lot of time and slow play to get the results i want, I find it boring and unrealistic as to what one would normally be doing in a real battle conflict, that is all. But yes, you understand me perfectly.

Well, I see I stirred up some feathers with my comments. Sorry GaJ, for the attack at your efforts and that my comments came at your expense. Just having a little fun and you have to admit you placed yourself in a situation where you would be opening viewed by others as to your play. So I will give you credit for your efforts and taking the time to do the post along with the playing of the game. As for providing the next AAR – you will all love this. (Since I always say things that are not politically correct) From what I saw in comments and lack of ability to not give information out as to what the opponent is doing or as to gain a understanding as to what is about to happen because of certain remarks. I would not consider it a good option to post an active AAR. I can see an AAR can only be posted as it should be, once the complete game has been played already. Where there is no chance for knowledge that should not be known given to the other side. So not good entertainment since we are all waiting and looking for the next new thing to talk about and this was a way to spend some of that time. Now, Bil, just as I mentioned from the beginning did not disappoint me, He is a good player and I knew what to expect and he did not disappoint me. He is classy in his approach and comments – a Gentleman. I would love to meet and play against him in a tournament or something where I know we were both playing blind and that we had as much lack of knowledge possible as to the battle we were to face against each other. To win or lose a battle like that is what really floats my boat. For if I win, I win a worthy opponent, if I lose, I lose to someone I can respect because their skills are what bring them victory.

Other than, purchase selection, battle plan, use of units and general skill level of play. I think he did really well in the other aspects of the fight. Lets see, that leaves being killed. Yes, he is doing very well there

Yes, but not by the methods demostrated here. Now, if he had captured and tortured a few prisioner, then maybe he should have some of the information he has at this point in the game? Now there is the next level for BF in game design.

Yes, but he is also playing a QB where he knows the amount of points and goes and disects what the otherplayer has. So it makes the task easy for him, once again a reason I am not a fan of QB's, not a realistic skill one would develope in the real world, is it.

Hey, I did not say it was perfect. just that I would prefer that as compared to leaving it as if if I had no other choice. And all your examples would happen if the tank crew did not know about them. Of course if they had them things spotted then that is another story. keep in mind bf is trying to get the AI to react by itself in a realistic manor. And that would mean adjusting position if you see a target that you are capable of killing.

actually, why not have the game programmed to move the tank so that the gunner can see what the other crew member sees as a target. Now that would take care of the problem, would it not. I have found that it is impossible to tell what for sure the tank sees and will fire at, just because it looks clear to me. Some bush or something was likely messing with thre gunners view. I have found it better to have infantry as my eyes, leave my tank below the crest line I want to use as a hull down position and when I see a juicy target like he just had. roll my tank to a likely view spot but then give it a hunt command and continue moving. At some point the gunner gets a clear view and the tank goes into action. And with how spotting works in the game, the odds are not different enough to matter as to if it was movinhg or not as to spotting. But that could be changing with the adjustments in the latest versions, I just cannot test enough to keep track of it

I am suprised that you are going to switch your battle plan so quickly just because of the loss of the one Sherman. I am one that likes to stick with my concept of my battle plan unless I Hit a wall as to what the enemy is doing and I see it is going to cost me more than what I can take out of the enemy. So to me, what part of the original plan of yours is not working? So you do not have the same advantage you had a moment ago. but you have gained terrain, you have some positional advantages. and if you have disadvantages, then please point them out to me. But I will be interested in seeing if pulling back and changing the flank you are going to focus on will pay off for you. A plan should allow for flexability as to what you discover about the enemy and to take advantage of it. So if that is where you understand the enemy to be weak and that you have a way to capitalize upon it, then that is a good decision.

I have to agree with you, I have hated it since I first saw it. The one that drives me crazy is unhooking the gun from the transport, then watching it do magic tricks as it changes it direction of aim multible times to who knows where on a 360 circle until it finially points the way you have asked it to.

That is called, good gamey purchases in QB's I have a QB I am playing right now and I have 5 tanks and all of them are HQ's, cost the same basically as the normal unit and I have no chain of command issues. So, that should really float your boat, try justifying that will you. Once you understand the limitations of the purchasing editor, you can strip out a lot of things to get some pretty customed units.All of course have nothing to do with being realistic.