slysniper

No the driver was not still in the jeep. And I am sure I have seen it happen more than once. But the game I remember well. The crew had left the jeep, was then in a firefight and retreated to some woods a few hundred yards away with nothing else near them. The jeep had been parked behind a bocage and for approx. twenty turns I was able to see halftracks and tanks that were moving down the road on the other side of the bocage before finially one of his units spotted the jeep and blew it away. I then immediately was not able to see anything in the area. As for reproducing it, not sure what to say. But I sure dont have a saved file of it.

NO, the problem is more than just prisoners. I can run a jeep with a crew into enemy territory. Jump out of the jeep, take my crew to go scout and find out enemy activity. But if I park the jeep in a good location, even though it is empty. it also continues to feed me information and line of sight info. to enemy activities until it is destroyed. So there is some flaws in what provides info. to the player.

send a private message so that I can get your email address and send you a drop box folder, You do have drop box set up ? if not. I will send an invite? Close combat, it was a old love of mine. Now my time is spent here. Also let me know what you would be interested in playing. I am on version 2.0, but without the 2.01 patch out yet. I am more than willing to go back to 1.11

OK, out of which club would I find the best fit for how I enjoy playing. Since it appears I will be joining one.

I am looking for some new folks to play. I like to do at least a turn a day and likely more if we manage to connect on sending turns at about the same time of day. I like scenarios but will do a QB once in awhile. I will play any country and any situation. I would suggest that only those that feel or know their playing level is good reply. All these years and I have never needed to join one of the clubs, but I am starting to wonder if I am going to need to, to find some good reliable opponents

Stay with your plan. Plus keep in mind, there will be a new mod for CMBN coming out this year, you could likely get the base game and 2 mods in some type of bundle sell if you manage to wait for the new Mod with cmbn. Most here do not think thart way, we want the latest stuff the second it comes out.

Well, true But playing it as a form of entertainment is also glorifying it, so we all have some form of looking at War in a Glorified way we likely should not. So if we want to keep the battlefield a little sanitized so that its enjoyable to view, where is the suprize of that.

I see some of you have forgotten to take your medication again. Really, take your pills and chill

Actually, I am kind of glad they have stayed away from the blood and grusome dead bodies That we now see in many other games and movies. Yes, some more might be ok. But I know what bodies would really look like after a Big arty strike, do I want it in the game - Its a area of debate. I have started to find, that when the entertainment goes to that level. Am I entertained or am I being dehumanized. It is not entertaining and I am not proud to tell others that this is a game or for enjoyment. So, just my view point

+100 to this comment With time, our expectations rise because of what we see from other games. But I enjoy what we have and glad they are to the level they are at. Its one of the reasons I cannot go back to CMx1, I just cannot handle seeing the old 3 man squads. I am spoiled. As to improvemnts. Yes always room for that. There is only one that really drives me crazy, AT guns seem to be terrible at times, not with how they look, but with the animation of them and the crew as they move or load . At times it just acts terrible, maybe it has improved, but I never watch them for a long time now, because they are so unrealistic. So I only check on them to see if they are in place and ready to fire.

NOT EXACTLY TRUE IN GAME TERMS - I have been messing with a jag in a scenario i made and at a mere 2000 meters, even with the shermans only able to hit the front plating. The jag would seem invincible - Yes, nothing could kill it. But most test runs, if the shermans managed to hit it a half dozen times. They would damage the gun and make the Jag useless - Personnally I think they have a error in damage modeling. But, No super kitties in this game as long as you have enough units to get some hits on the beast before they blow you away.

Before I moved to kentucky 6 years ago, I worked in Parkerburg, WV for 12 years, lived in Ohio though. It is a small world when people start linking conections of some type actually.

Makes sence other than the ammo carrier. We have mortars and Mg's and other items that are able to transfer ammo within the game now by either the truck or ammo crew being placed near the unit being resupplied. It seems like it could be coded for this unit also. Or maybe not, since it falls into a different catagory and cannot use the coding.

Maybe the unit in the game is a later version than what I have found on it. But the game has the two rear crew man shown up in the gun sheild. But the ammo is shown in storage only accessable from standing behind the unit. Also what I read said it only carried 6 rounds, not 12 as shown in the game. So they would have a ammo carrier and a couple of soilders to support with bringing ammo to the unit. (That would be nice to have in the game since it would give it the possibility of being a support weapon, where as at the moment, it has 3 HE rounds, where as if you actually fought against one, it would have a truck full of HE rounds. That could sure stop infantry at a few thousand meters

All these months and no one has even mentioned that the Semovente 90/53 does not have the crew modeled and shown. Which would be interesting since they were on the outside of the unit and completely exposed. The gunner and loader stood behind the machine on the ground during firing. So this brings up all sorts of questions as to how the game reflects it.

I would just like to comment in that when you study the War, it becomes pretty clear in that it was Russia that Really won the war vs the Germans, not the Americans or brits, or anyone else. No matter how many Hollywood movies say otherwise. It was by the sheer bleedy of them dry in men and materials against a giant that sacraficed its people to adcheive it. I alway think about how Germany lost more then 70 % of their men to the Russian Front. Take even 20% of that and place it on the Western Front and I think Germany would have been Kicking ass in every campaign that was waged in the west. But with how things played out. Russia had exhausted much of its manpower by the end of the war. Where as the Americans were still gearing up and had not come close to using available manpower and sources available. I am pretty sure there has been plenty an expect play out this "what if war" and most feel that as long as the other Allied nations were to stay united. Russia would have lost and if you do not beleive that, then throw in the nukes as a trump card that no matter what, they sure would not have won.

Maybe, but even with all the randomness, for some funny reason. I feel as a good player I am rewarded more consistantly in CMX2 than I was ever rewarded in CMX1. Maybe because it had all its aspects that would never show up in any real battle field. Like Borg spotting or when spotting a enemy squads. You see them all, you can kill them all. Thats a game, nothing to do with Real life. At least now, when you ambush a unit, you better make sure they are all in the open before you open up, or many of them might slither away. In the old. System, my win ratio was 65-70 percent. Now I run close to 80 percent and feel I can do many more aspects of what I feel to be good tactics. So when I hear something like this post. I think, some want a game they can master, others of us want a sim we can master - even with all the inconsistancies that will come.

ran the mission for a forth time , lost the gun to a hit again. So within 4 missions. Three times the German tank has had to withdrawl because of gun damage. I hate to say it, but I can see why some are complaining about how this happens way too much. I sure dont remember coming across records talking about American gunners focusing on trying to hit the mantle at a 1000 meters and able to get German heavy tanks to withdrawl. But in three games with approx. 5 hits per game, the Americans have damage the gun three times. I am not really liking how quickly this is showing up. But I will run it a few more times just to see. But not being a test, it does not prove anything. but I know some test have been done and they look to show likely high results in this catagory.

Yes, that clears things up a little as to your intent.

or he might need to update his drives on his machine. I found that was my problem when I loaded CMFI update.

Well,I must agree. In the wargaming market, things work alittle different than other game markets. To say that a new CMX1 type game would not sale, you would be crazy. I just saw that the close combat series was putting out a new version of the same old game which is much older than CMX1 and its still marketable. And even with the new release, it still has nothing to do with catching up to what is possible with software now. I smiled because it is the first time its been upgraded to 32 bit graphics. But you know what, I am tempted to buy it. I really enjoyed those games until they were not compatable with my computers and I was tired of having to override the AI path control in it, more the what I had to do in the CM games. plus you were limited with the maps, where as in CM it was easy to create your own. Anyway, I will let BF decide how they will make money and make a living. I will decide if I like their product and am willing to buy and support it. So far, I am not bothered by their path in the least. Have they gve me everything I ever dreamed of, no. really in some areas, they have taken things away. but they still have provided me more enjoyment than anything else has. So I appreciate their efforts and talents and professional skills.

Not at all, just pointing out what you understand. Michael, I think is referring to more of a decision when one is playing a QB or something along that line. Which is another good point. You likely would not get your money's worth just buying one tank destroyer. I agree in that if you are going to invest in armor, you want enough of it to try a trump the battlefield wherever you are going to use it. The point is to create a force that can control its safety by its sheer firepower. hard to do in a meeting engagement that has equal force amounts at the start. As for my scenario, none of that matters. Scenarios are based on either what did happen or what might have happened. So placing a single jag in a somewhat perfect terrain feature for it and seeing how it does against a large force is what my intent was. And really, it never reflected badly. even in a battle where it only managed 5 kills and had to withdraw because of damage is not something the enemy would be pleased about. It would be repaired and used to kill again on another day. It dominated the battle field, none of the infantry managed to take out a single tank in any of the battles. There was 120 mortars and on board 81's, from what I recall, i DID NOT SEE A SINGLE IMMOBILIZATION, LET ALONE A KILL . So the focus of th battle is the Jag, its center stage, the rest of the units are a side show for what it accomplishes in the battle. Its performance will dictate the battle, nothing else will.

Actually 18 Shermans, 3 platoons of 5 and 3 leader tanks You are correct in that it would not be a wise use of the German forces, but really, was not the point of the Scenario. Lets face it, the Germans were lacking equipment all the time to do what they wanted by this point in the war. So it does not seem too unrealistic to assign a jag. to be support and the Marder to give it flanking security.

Had a little fun this week-end. Created myself a little quick and dirty scenario. Set up a German infantry company to defend in a small farm area with one Jag Panther and one Marder III as over watch at about 1000m. Then had an American tank company with a few armored infantry platoons in HT assault the area and attempt to take over the farm which was the objective. Of course the map was pretty wide open and the whole point was to have a shooting gallery for the Jag. The marder was placed to take advantage of a ridge so that it was key holed and only saw targets if they were breaking into the farm area. Played the battle three times and just had some fun. The first thing I note. The American unit had at least two platoons with 76’s on their Sherman’s already. Not bad for being set in August. So it gave them a slight chance. First battle: 17 Sherman’s killed by the Jag, 1 by the marder. Marder destroyed , farm held Second battle: 5 Sherman’s by the Jag, 1 by the Marder. Marder destroyed, Jag gun damaged, tank withdrawals, Farm lost. Third battle: 6 Sherman’s killed by Jag, 5 from the Marder. , Jag gun damaged, tank withdrawals, marder runs out of ammo, withdrawals. Farm lost. The one thing I noticed from playing this compared to playing something similar in the old CMAK is the fact that the German Uber-tanks is much more fragile to the damages that the game now allows. It has been pointed out in other threads how gun damage because of mantle hits seems high for what they might be in reality. But on the other hand it is nice to have factors that can take these tanks out of a battle. I still had the invincible outcome once, but it was nice to see that it was not a guarantee as it almost was in the old CMAK version.

Yes, but it likely has much more to do with how they go about creating the game and that they try to limit letting out how many can see how they write code. It sucks to have competition from another source if all they did was steal and mimic your code. That is my theory as to why they will not let out even that outdated game, just dont want to give away any trade secrets if they dont have to.