slysniper

Well, I would be up for that.

all of them But at the top of the list is CMSF2, I still do not own any of the CMSF stuff presently. I was OK with the weapons. I just did not like the fact about the match up. Of course, I could have done blue on blue stuff. But that means I would have to invest time in creating scenario. I am sure there is some out there, but not much. Whereas, I will enjoy scenarios designed with the new CMSF2 concept and will also have the ability to create any terrain map, which also was lacking in the first. So that is for sure at the top of my list.

Nothing wrong with this approach, as long as you are still dictating terms. That is forcing or getting Bil to move units where you are prepared for them. Like the 2 Pz iv's sitting as a reception for any tank rolling forward from Bil. It is just much harder to do that in many situations over being the aggressor where less things require any impact as to what your opponent does. Playing passive can require more skill since you must antipate the enemy intentions correctly, or you will find yourself out of place with no ability to adjust. The aggressor dictates terms generally and can sometimes withdrawl when things turn ugly. But for GaJ, he will have to get it right the first time no matter what he does or this thing is over. So we wait and see. Juus get the game out to the rest of us, that is what I am really waiting for, more toys to play with.

agree here 100% Dont be afraid to try and win. His only chance is to somehow switch the armor advantage. And the most likely way to do that is to somehow ambush or take on the Shermans with a 2-1 advantage. And generally to do that you have to dictate where and how that is to happen, not wait for the enemy to by chance give you that oppotunity.

Well spoken!

Well, since these are my condescending remark. I will own up to them and say. You are correct in all of what you have mentioned. I agree with all of your points. As for my comments, You are correct. I likely would say the same thing to someone complaining about Panzers - So we all know what type of person I am now. I did post that I agree with the fact the having scenario's designed without Arty at times would be good. I just get fired up when it takes on a tone that Arty or Panzers or whatever the blank it is should not be in the game like it is in such and such Scenarios Make the request for what you want to see and learn to appreciate what is out there for what it is. So maybe it is not as fun ,or its harder to predict or design well. So what, someone wanted it that way and that is what they produced. I am sure we will see design concepts change again and again. And nothing is stoping anyone from doing just that or tweeking what they have available to them. As for me playing and seeing my units getting smacked with 155 or anything else as for the matter. Do I enjoy it, Well, Yes in a way, so take that for what you will. Because when something likes that happens it gives me the chance to start thinking. Why did it happen, did I have the ability to avoid it, can I learn from this and help to prevent it in the future. Can I improve in the future from what I did here and so on. So I dont mind at all because it is a chance to improve. And if it happened because of just poor design, then that is nothing to do with me. I accept it and go on. Not much to do about that except to try not and play that designers scenarios if i dont like his style.

I think having scenarios without it for this type of player is fine, yes some scenarios could use a little focus on none arty. But there is another problem here, if Arty is haviing that bad of a affect on you as to playing the game, then I would suggest you start reviewing your tactics of how you are playing and learn some new ones. First, you know its out there, you know the enemy is going to use it, so try not to play in a way that you get your units in trouble with being under it. Like was said, it really is easy to dodge most of it if you pay attention to what is going on and leave yourself excape routes. I find the only one that normally gets the best of me is when the enemy is Direct firing 81's and I have no time to run. And you know what, I deserve what I get when he does that, and the last time I checked, it never was enough to be the game breaker, but yes it impacts the battle just like evrything else does.

Very true, when they camp your odds go up. But playing HtoH, I find the best trick is A heavy short burst and if you can. Not only where they are located, but the route where they likely will pull out when they realize Arty is coming. My best one I remember was sending a few 81 rounds on a Stug, figuring he pull back and keyhole behind some woods. I had a massive 105 mission for that spot also. Had that zeroed in from the set up phase of the game figuring just such a use of that area. So he rolls back just as the 105's start to drop. Soon I see 2 pillers of black smoke. Wow, very late in the game I finially see what I did. Not only did I get that Stug, but he had a buddy he pulled back along side of. Nice days work

You are correct in saying that the same scenario can be designed to be competative by how you base the point structure, so yes the style of scenario was fine. It was the fact that I beleive he knew what he was doing and did it for the wrong reasons. The funny thing was after I had pointed out the fact that he had been handed a battlefield defeat in every sence of the word and that i would now not be able to defend because of the shear lack of forces that could never last the time frame he had set up. I never heard from him again or saw another move. I think the point was clearly understood and he went on his way. I really did just try to suggest ways to balence the scenario. So no reply I think showed his intentions. I had a great time playing that scenario by the way.

You have that correct. I on the other hand, somewhat find larger battles boring, because if given the advantage, its easy to craft a victory. If given a disadvantage, then not only do you need to design a major victory in an area of the battle to really swing the tide, but you must also need to hope for the game to be designed to give you the time and renewed assets to make something like that provide you the ability to enjoy the impact that it has on the situation. So there is a balence, as to what matters to the players. For me, I like it when both sides have a decent chance to produce a victory. So in that sence, generally there is a size of battle that produces that and once past that it is not as good. I played a guy from the Middle east that had this figured out very well. He had set up a huge battle and had more time than anyone would ever need to use for the map. I set up my British defences and just crushed his attacking forces for about the first hour of play. In losses I had him at least 4-1 and had to that point retreated twice to defencive lines I had preplanned to pulled back too. But this was a battle with Battalions from the game selected menu's and I found that at this point in the game I had basically no more ammo for my AT Guns, my armor piercing rounds were used up in my Armor, my infantry had many units almost out of ammo and he still had tons of units to push the map. So I commented on his poor scenario design and pointed out that no matter how the british were to play the game, they had no chance because of how he had created the battle. And to make it fair, time should be cut to force the offence to at least make the objectives in a decent time and provide a cut off point to where the game ammo supplies made sence. Needless to say, he did not like me pointing out his flaw, and to this day I figure it was not by accident. he had designed a battle that he could not lose

Well, even though I picked Bil as mentioned before, the whole point of playing is that things dont always go as planned do they. GAJ needs just one break to have the advantage shift his way.That is get the shermans out first, engaged in combat and then jump them with his panzers and get the first shots in on the tank battle. All it takes is taking out two shermans and the battle changes force strength. But as far as battle planning goes. bill has it hands down. I see this developing into a main battle on Bils left flank, with him holding off Gaj and Bil aggressively attacking the right flank and after breaking through there continueing to roll around the right side until he own a large portion of the map and victory areas. Gaj will be where he wants to be and it will be all he will get and he will have no ability to take or hold any other points. But we will find out with time wont we. But it is possible, for Gaj, I just did it in a meeting engagement I am playing now. I invested in plenty of Arty, My opponent in Armor. But I have nailed three of his tanks and lost none, now I have the Armor advantage and plenty of 105, and 81 to rain on his infantry. So, firepower advantages can shift quickly when you are dealing with just a few main units.

What they need is region event weekend tournaments. where they set dates a year in advance and have a hotel booked with a planned Tournament , events, meals and the whole weekend of thing available. Avalon hill did that back in its strong years and it was fun to meet and get to know others , face to face.

You do not need that amount to do what is needed. 105 and up will get the job done and there is plenty of scenarios with that and you can take out tanks with it. Actually one of the campaigns have navel fire in it, I enjoyed dropping that on 3 panzers hiding in the woods waiting for units to break out in the open.

Yes they will

As far as I am concerned, this matchup is already won. I am sure with the force selection Bil will win, GAJ does not have good match up forces and the only thing he has going for him is the mortars in this one. The problem is, he will have a hard time even catching Bil's infantry with them and will do little vs the armor. Bil is good with movement, so i see him taking advantage of that early, plus the map favors him a little I feel, really you just need three points to ensure a likely win and that leans his way. This is one of the reasons I am not a big fan of QB's, selecting forces is much more of a factor to a win than game play at times, I rather have well crafted forces that should lead to a good fight and then see what the players can do.

No, he will be able to drop arty on the TRP's without having to have sight. But it will be limited, it will only pay off if Bil does something stupid like park units within 50 meters of them and then leaves them there when he sees spotting rounds

I have used your tactic, which is a historically correct one also. It works pretty good in the game and is a good concept. i would only do one tank and have the others ready to crest the hill guns ablazing if the one unit spots a sweet target. it takes too long to get back to the tank and then up on the ridge to be good at times if that is ones plans.

The most interesting thing in this thread so far. So, tell me, what exactly were you doing there. I need a little of your backround story!!

Actually , this is likely the main reason I hardly ever get upset as to what happens in the game. I go along with your thinking. You really should as a player accept the fact that your troops do not always follow orders correctly and that bad things happen. Saw plenty of crazy stuff in RL as to not doing what they were ordered to do and wondering how they came up with the actions they did. I think in the game, its just looks un-natural as to poor actions troops do at times, so once they get them programmed out of the game, maybe then we can ask them to program in stupid troop actions that should be there and then let the players whine about that.

Unless you are seeing real problems, you are wasting your time if you are talking minor adjustment to the system. you likely do not have any data that is going to justify the game results not being realistic enough in its present state. I sure do not find the game having any problems with arty taking out or damaging tanks if you manage to them in your blast area. But it does have a way of showing fate in the results. All close or direct hits do not always give damaging results. So, I will inform you of yes, I have seen craters left under tanks and have watched them drive away. But most of the time That isnt going to be the case.

Buddy Its One of them motto's I live by "never grow up" you know it - from Peter Pan, well it works. I was out playing Basketball just the other night, keep in mind, everyone else on the court is 25 or younger, I am now in my 50's and there still a fire in me to not grow up.:cool:

No, the game does not sim it, but my imagination does. When guys enter the same area, as far as I am concerned. the game is showing shooting and hand grenades, but I know guys are doing that plus using their guns as clubs, and that men are really rushing men and that all sorts of things are going on. Sorry if you are too mature to only accept what the game will show you. I still can imagine.

Good point, one to remember in the present game system.

Maybe a little, I am enjoying that game, then here on the forum I read these statements about how city fight must be improved before releasing MG and I think to myself, "What is wrong with some of these people" I would like improvements as much as anyone, I do get tired of the childish statements some make like trying to claim they will never buy another game unless BF fixes something such and such. Really, that is why they are writing on the forum, because they cannot play the game because of certain issues, but spending time here constantly requesting their desire changes. I just see it as a bunch of bull, they are playing the game, spending time with it, just like the rest of us and they want changes, just like the rest of us, so they think by making statements like that, it will show how important it must be to get it fixed. I would much prefer to have a open discussion like is happening in this thread, as for what BF does, they wage their efforts as they see fit. I am just glad that at times they do take what they read here and try to implement or improve apon their game. I think the game reflect that, has become the leader in its field and I hope to see them continue to find ways to improve what they are providing us. As for my third floor breach, I am pretty proud of that also. Just happened to be the right move for the situation. I just knew that building would be a ambush point for your units to be sitting in and that any approach I would take would be deadly since it had a commanding view. Then I saw that common wall and I thought to myself, breach and assault into hand to hand combat with him. I figured I could overwhelm you that way without heavy losses. Then I started thinking, he likely has units on the first floor, not sure about the rest. Why not breach on a level he is not likely at, then assault in a safer manor with my main infantry units. well a second floor breach makes no sence since I might receive returning fire from 3 levels. So the third floor became the prime location, plus if I covered the doors for your units leaving the building on the first floor, I could gun down any cowards. You have to love it when a plan comes together. No AAR, but it would have been a good battle for showing some good tactics. I like how I managed to push the one flank so quickly that I started cutting off his withdrawl paths and managed to gun down enemy units as they were pulling back or retreating from their sector.

This type of issue has been brought up more than once on the forum, It would be nice to have a command that helped a unit focus on the mission you want it to perform. But I do have one issue, look at your example. Now if such a command was possible, how do you justify it if the unit is not in contact with the enemy tank already anyway. You (god) know where the tank is, but likeky the squad you are assigning the task to assault it with, likely does not have sight of it and knowledge of its exact location. You are the one sending it to the perfect ambush spot that you know, they would have had no clue of that unless they had scouted the area. we sometimes forget, we are moving our troops way more accurately still than likely would happen in real life. So having a command that would help them radar in on a moving enemy target is touchy, when would it be allowed and not allowed. So if a enemy tank moves down the street and you get caught trying to kill it where it was, is not really part of the problem. Because every move you make with any piece in the game can have that issue, we move units constantly and get in trouble when we anticipate the opponents moves incorrectly. That is just part of the game.