slysniper

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 That is my theory as to why they will not let out even that outdated game, just dont want to give away any trade secrets if they dont have to.

Sure funny, last time I had any crashes with their product. I found it was all my fault. Once I uploaded the latest drives for my computer. Magic, most of the issues all went away. They were programming just fine, I was the one not understanding what it takes to maintain good computer gaming.

Played it HtoH as the Italians and won, It is one of them victories I will not forget for a long time. Just think about taking them Shermans on, you feel like they are Tigers in some ways. Trick. The 75's can make swiss cheese out of them quick. Just make sure the enemy does not locate your 75's till their tanks expose themselves. Second, use Italian armor for flank attacks once the allied armor moves forward to support the clearing of the city. So in otherwords be patient with your main assets. Ambush american infantry, pull back, ambush again . keep doing hopefully making the Americans decide to use combined Arms. Most of my main units were in keyholed positions waiting for likely enemy armor approach locations.

I SURE SEEM TO BE PLAYING CMBN ON VERSION 1.11 AND JUST ENJOYING IT AS MUCH AS EVER, OH, I GUESS YOU JUST CANNOT GO BACK TO THAT??? TOO HARD FOR YOU.... TO REMEMBER HOW..... Take a chill pill, Version 2.0 will get a patch and the world will maybe get back on its axis for you. Some of you really need a life.

Plus, learn who you are talking about. I can tell you they are not doing the touch coding at all, that is a outside firm that has taken the game and coded it for touch. They just make a little money off it. So that wrecks your one concept of whats on their pallet

Yes, but also improved from the old games in that there is point penalties as you stray away from using proper formations.

i THOUGHT OF A POSSIBLE SIMPLE ANSWER TO HELP THE GAME IN THIS AREA. Why not allow you to save your selections in a file for future QB use. Then each game you would not have to go through the task of deselcting. Most players have a handful of typ. set ups they like to use for a certain size battle anyway. So it would be a great time saver to just have them saved in a file you could reselect, pull it up. Still be able to make adjustments, then proceed. It would also let you see how you once created forces and keep track of adjustments you come up with as you try different formations with time.

One way around the easy spotting is to have more than what you use. I find it very enjoyable to only man a small portion of them and watch the enemy place fire on them all. I also like to sneak units into ones after the enemy fires on them. or fire a few turns and sneak out and watch the enemy waste arty on them holes while I slither into some others. Its a game of wack the mole, you can even program the AI to do it, but they dont sneak in or out well.

Well the Good new is BF mentioned that CMFI sold better than they anticipated and that they made the amount of money needed to make it profitable. So at least you know they will be making a module for it since it has done Ok to their bussiness plan. Plus I thought it was mentioned at another point that CW forces will be in the next module and that it would focus on italy mainland, but that might have been rumers. cannot remember.

It is a good point to see how bunkers are doing again. I have ran no test for them recently. But I was designing a scenario with MG bunkers concrete, and found them great vs. infantry fire from the front. But still found them losing crewman to small mortar rounds. Which has always been their weak point. So instead of wasting that tank ammo, , just hit the things with 45 to 81 mm mortar fire and they die too easy still from what I see. Other than that, they play pretty realistic from what I have seen.

That is exactly how I look at it also. If I want a sit down start to finish battle in one evening. Then RT is great against the AI. Like you said, its a great way to give the AI a fighting chance as long as you are able to control yourself from hitting pause too much. I try to limit my pauses for the size of the battle. Small battles i can do them without pausing much at all. Middle size battles are like WEgo, about a minute apart and then the very large battles I try for a minute but when the action gets hot it goes down to less time if I have multiple battle AREAS going on. But the only time I am doing this is normally if I am playing a CAMPAIGN ANYWAY.

I doubt you will ever see another fix for version 1 I have not bought version 2, for the simple fact that most of my games were in CMFI at the moment and the only HtH game in CMBN, my opponant has not upgraded, so why should I. But now I figure I might wait just because version 2.0 bugs make it sound like playing 1.11 is the better choice til fixed. But I am excited to get my CMBN to level 2.0 when the time comes. I like the features in CMFI and will enjoy being able to update CMBN to it.

I hated the system at first also, but It is a better system. So maybe not as easy and gamey as CMX1. But it does promote trying to use formations that are more realistic. Also I just like it for the fact that if you are designing scenario's . You have all the information at your fingertips as to what units a Battalion had available to use - at least as far as their organizational charts were concerned. So it gives you a good base to design for Historically correct options that were available for your units instead of adding attachments that were not truely available.

iNSTEAD OF THIS REQUEST. Why not just request that the adquire button would allow us to aquire ammo and such weapons from the unit adjacent to us. Thus you could split the supplies however you wanted instead of the default split. But Steve never likes giving that much control to the player. but then, no matter you view, you could have it your way.

I have tested different aspects of the game from time to time. I have also heard BF clearly state that the AI gets no accuracy advantages. But I found running test that if I ran both sides vs the AI and did multible runs from each side, that my numbers would have a patterns that showed differences depending on which side the AI was on. So I now run test using hotseat mode where the AI only factors in as it overrides the players commands. When I run test that way, I have found my numbers to be more consistant as to how each side plays. So it might not be accuracy. But I do think he might be seeing some effect that does accure when playing against the AI that does favor it slightly.

What version of the game is that, looks like CMFI All I know is, yes it still happens and that was a perfect example of unrealistic. But it happens much less than it once did after they made some adjustments. In general, it is rare now and we all know it is how the game plays. When CMBN first came out, we were seeing stuff like that almost every battle. Now I cannot remember the last time someone nailed me with a shot like that.

I,m 51 Been playing war games for 35 years and have been in the service. Do not point that out to these younger players when you are playing them. I made the comment to one "That I had ben playing tactical games longer than he had been on the earth and that might be why I had been winning our matches." Needless to say, that was the last turn I ever saw from him.

This reminds me why qb's are not for me. I just would never invest the time to come up with such practices, and even after I have seen them, likely used against me. I would use them myself but would not find enjoyment in them even though I know I need to use them to be talented. All for the simple fact in the statement - if I was in charge, this is how my army would be. Like that is anything of reality, even if one would have found themselves totally in charge of the Armed forces at that time, none of you could have come close to fielding armies that you love to create in your fantasy world. So a grog I must be, because I have found the world has never delivered the expectations of any one person. People of greatness are those that deliver results with what the world gives them, not with dreams of what they wished they had. This is not a attack against QB's or fantasy setups, they are fun and I enjoy them myself once in awhile. just pointing out it really comes down to what a person values as to why certain styles of play is not for everyone.

So just a final cap on my scenario I have been playing, testing what Hmg's can and cannot do. with 185 italians starting at 500M away in pretty open ground having to advance on entrenched American soilders with three 30 cal heavy Mg's with two placed in concrete bunkers. The Italian's with no support weapons other than one 45mm mortar and Mg's issued with the typ. squad formations the assault was on. This time the americans held them off for 25 minutes, they had 37 men, but basically I had the two bunkers firing and the others were positioned to prevent the enemy from flanking the position and giving protected security there. The odds were 5 to one with 37 Americans on the map. But really the odds were 18 to one since I had the 2 -5 men crews trying to hold off the enemy. This time the italians lost 78 men compared to the Americans losing 19, so 4-1 odds. The two Mg's accounting for 43 men with the loss of 7 in return. 6-1 odds. As a designer, I do not feel any of these numbers reflect that poorly on the Mg's or limits the ability to make the game reflect the challenges of taking one out with small arms fire. By placing a huge scoring penalty to the attacker if he has 30% losses. And letting the attacker know this will happen and that it would likely cause the loss of the game. I think that well placed MG's can surely stop any poorly designed assault on its position. Again I am not saying Mg's are acting correctly, I just think the game does not reflect them much different than they do with any thing else in the game.

Some of you really turn into childish pricks when you find the game is not perfect to your concept of R.L. As was mentioned, it really is a art to get the game to imitate R.L. at all. As steve mentioned, you make a adjusted in one area and find it throws something else even more unbalenced. So Mg's have flaws, what in the game doesn't. All of it comes short and will always come short of what happens in R.L. And likely that is a good thing because if it didnt, the game might be really boring, since we be watching troops for 3 hours doing not much but trying to keep alive. I on the other hand have been messing a little more with my scenario and found that placing heavy conc. Mg bunkers in my defence, just 2 of them, They did a much better job of keeping the enemy pinned and causing causualties. So for 20 minutes of combat they have lost only 7 men. 4 to a light 45 Mortar I gave the italians, three to direct fire rifle fire directed at them. Which is plenty with 160+ men with MG's and rifle. Almost through the whole time, the two bunkers have never coward. they have been putting out a steady stream of fire and causing losses. So without getting all caught up with how things should be. The best way presenty to getting a mg' position that is truly dangerous. It must be in a bunker, and you must design the scenario where there is not enough enemy support weapons to take out all the bunkers. If you can manage to have a few bunkers left in a battle where all the enemy has left is small arms fire. Then you have that focal point that becomes the nightmare to clear. Learn to use what you have, I appreciate all the work that has been placed in the game and what it does provide. I am glad steve continues to look for ways to improve it, and somehows puts up with the childish attitudes that show up so often on the forum. I just hope he never gets tired of it and just decides that it enough and moves on to other things. Because then you all will find out how good we had it and that there is nothing else coming to replace it. Because the last time I checked, no one else is even trying to make something that even comes fractionally close to what is here. For those that think abstract games are better. then go to them and dont let the door hit you in the ass as you leave. Tis the season to remember what life is all about and from what I see, many of you have not figured that out, so spend your time on that instead of wasting it here.

All I can say is those who have not bought CMFI are missing out. Plus with time more fun coming, with the modules. I am not a big fan of the theater. But after playing a few games, I learned, what a perfect setting to see how the armies were in 1943, I can see the differances of the make up and the different challenges that they had in comparison to the later 1944-45 units. Plus playing with the Italians is a art of its own. Still working on that, but I have managed a couple of upsets so far in HtoH. So what a satifying feeling. So I am glad they are making the amoiunt of sells they were hoping for , that sounds like to me, more good things down the road.

I am assuming scenario's that are saved in ver 2.0, can only be opened in that version. Correct??? I just tried to open Wittman's Demise and I cannot see it as a option to open, I figure this is the issue since I am running 1.11 still Just want to verify if I am correct in my thought process.

You are correct, in that in a combined arms battle, the flaw does not show up as badly because infantry is the pawns on the board. But every good chess player understands, evan the pawn , just one can give you the advantage if played well, a one pawn advantage will win the match. In CM, there is still plenty of times when after the arty, tanks and AT Guns have their fun. There is still plenty of conflicts where its Infantry vs. infantry and where these flaws in how the game function can reflect in unrealistic results.

That is a point I agree with. For a long time I have wondered why they just dont give some adjustment bars within the game so we the player can create the level we would like things to function at. I always play on elite, but even if the supression was better on Iron, I likely still would not play it. Just for the fact I hate some of its features. But haveing the abilty to set your own adjustments that could modify aspects of the game would be great. So supression could be adjusted as to how long it adv. would last before a team began to recover. Rate of fire and ammo conserving to be a bar that could be adjusted. routing could be a bar, accuracy of fire and so forth. Then the skill levels should still have some preset ones, just for the fact that if running a tournament, you have a standard that is required and it is easy for everyone to have the exact same settings. The range of the bars could be designed to alloe only adjustments that seem possible within real life. But instead of BF making that decision and we having to live by it. We could tweek the game to what we feel is accurate. Boy that would stop some whinning also. I have seen games with these type of features but sometimes they allow you to set it to very unrealitic abilities. like FPS where you can get the AI to hit anything at any location, superhuman aiming skills. Now we would not want them to allow that type of adjustment. But as JasonC has pointed out, Just doubling the time it takes to recover from pinning could make things seem much more realistic for some of us.