slysniper

The sarcastic remarks is not directed towards you, just to anyone in general that are on the other side of the debate in that these facts should be iqnored and that allowing the weapons use from buildings is a better approach

Well, you have never experenced a busted eardrum, try that first, then tell me how your not willing to use the weapon correctly. Now the game could improve on where in the street the guy is shooting from, but he wants the street.

f. The launcher may be fired from the shoulder in the standing, kneeling, sitting, or prone positions. If fired from the prone position, the body should be at an angle of at least 45 degrees to the direction of fire so as to avoid injury from the back blast of the rocket. g. In using the launcher, it is essential that no personnel, or inflammable material be directly behind the launcher within a distance of 20 feet. h. Never stand in or near the rear of the launcher while it is being fired because the hot gases can inflict serious burns. When firing from trenches or fox holes, clearance should be provided so that back blast is not deflected against personnel. what part of this do you not understand as a warning for firing a bazooka from within a room. Now I will say that given how it reads I would risk firing a bazooke if I was in a large room and I did not have a wall close behind me. Or any friendly troops behind me. Now I figure a shreik would require a little more clearence and I have no clue about a PF. So it becomes even more complicated for the programmer to get the game to do it right. Yes, let that guy fire from the balcony, as long as he does not point the thing with the back side facing any building wall. I can see why they avoided it. But I will agree with you in that maybe it was a little more common than what I had beleived. So when you get them to add it in the game, dont forget to make them add the effects if he mis-judges his clearences.

I missed this in whatever earlier thread it came from, very interesting. I will have to say it does make for a case in that maybe it could be allowed. Except for the fact that military training taught them to not do it. So the only time it likely was used was when someone was deperate enough to use it. And who cares that they cannot hear after that, hearing is way undervalued. Or maybe, they invented hearing protection for themselves also after their buddies did it the first time and they saw what happened. Wish on, if it has to be one way or the other, The more correct choice is to not allow it.

have not tried to do it intentionally, but I have seen my troops shoot at enemy units from inside of the building through solid walls. I figured it was the iissue with the bug that sometimes building dont show door and windows in the correct location. Not sure they have fixed all the buildings with the isue.

NOT CAMPAIGNING FOR PF's FROM BUILDING AGAIN ARE WE. Yes, maybe they were used that way once in a great while, but face it, it was not a common practice and likely was done from locations where the back blast might have a place to go without causing a major problem. To try and allow it in the game as a normal feature would just be wrong on so many levels. So stop trying to justify its use. Plus what is the issue, you are having problems using them on the streets around the buildings. I do not know why, I sure seem to be bagging plenty of tanks and that is on city streets with no cover. Learn to change your tactics and find something that works with the game as is. There has already been threads telling you how to make them work as presently designed. Which per chance happens to match many more war stories about how these poor grunts had to expose themselves to enemy fire to try to use these weapons

For in game purposes at those ranges, yes, Fireflies are deadly to panthers, from the front you might get the rounds to bounce off because of the angle, but they will kill your panthers from the front if given a few hits for sure. The 76's can do it also, but are a little more likely to bounce rounds off.

Just run the test, you are going to find out in the game, you can kill them at a good distance. I did a test against the king Tiger against the 17lbr the day we received the game and poisted the results on a thread here. Cannot remember the result without looking up the thread. But it ws happening out at something like 1700 meters and we were questioning if it was special ammo that was doing the kills, which likely should not be hitting at that distance. Anyway, as is mentioned. In game chances would be rare in that not only does it take multible shots but you also need to be able to do it without being shot back at. But as we play more open maps , this will become a result that might suprise some and the questions will start to fly as to if they have it correct or not.

MANY OF US HAVE HAD THE SAME PROBLEM LEARNING HOW TO USE BLDGS AS COVER IN THE NEW GAME. But now having played for awhile, I find building can give plenty of cover in the right situation. So learning to judge buildings as to how well they protect is a art. The game should give us a clue as to what type of building we are looking at, but it does not. One easy way to know if it gives good cover is send a two man team in, when the enemy bullits start to fly, watch and see how many bounce off the walls and how many go through, exspecially MG's and bigger stuff. Some of the Mod buildings do a real good job, then keep your units small and try to keep only one man per window. Playing a battle right now where two italians have held off 3 squads of Americans in a city fight where their building looks down the street the americans are trying to move down. With all that firepower they could not pin them two guys. That is good protection.

Ok, the battle is ended. I will take back the statement as to the final map as to be boring, but I was not suprised with the results it gave since it was determined to make the last map impossible. I finished the map with 5 tanks left, I made the beach on the left flank and worked down it to destroy AT guns along it, which I did by firing smoke on them and then overrunning them with my armor. thus a reason the map was not a bore. The campaign total results were Americans 466 men killed, I lost 170 Americans 220 wounded, I had 118 Tanks 9, I lost 18 (14 of which were on this last map) And lets not count all them nasty AT guns that I had destroyed, (they should get a stat) The Americans had 1 Sherman and I AT gun left on this map, I had 5 tanks. I had no major functing infantry left. My last two engineer units now looked like all the rest of my infantry. And the Americans had at least 5 more dug in platoons of infantry scattered out on the map still. I was rewarded a minor defeat for the campaign (whatever) I played it and managed to cut a path down along the beach. maybe not a victory , but surely not a defeat. I still think that last mission needs a little tweeking to give a better chance for some type of german victory. Other than that, somewhat a easy campaign with plenty of chances to control the battles and use your advantages. I never play campaigns more than once and I just go through them with whatever results I am getting. So if anyone plays that way and has managed a campaign win I give you a hand. Because I still like to know what the odds are of doing that with the present scoring. Even coming on board with all possible armor and more intact infantry. I just think the last map is biased to a fault.

With about 20 minutes left, I have control of the left flank all the way to the beach. i have a platoon of tanks at the beach and one at the mid way point where the enemy was located. I let my one platoon of engineers and handful of infatry engage the first long row of foxholes from the flank and work down its line from there.. They have made it about half way. All my arty assets are now gone. I beleive there is only one sherman left and 2 AT guns that I know of. My operating tank count is now 9. So the defense was not as strong as I thought it would be. But time is spent and I hardly have anything to work with other than my armor. The enemy arty attacks are deadly but I have managed to miss getting caught with many troops in the impact area, but it still is a concern. taking the flank has allowed me to engage the enemy from side hill locations where I have been able to get a firepower advantage. So I made it a little more interesting, but still a bugger of a mission with no direct goals other than to destroy the enemy.

Well, I do not beleive in listening to history. I have pushed down about half way on the left flank. Not sure what it is going to do for me. But I am starting to get some good match ups. I had 19 tanks coming into the battle, not 17 like I mentioned before. I am already down to 12, . And for my efforts, I might have taken out 4 or 5 AT guns and maybe a tank or two. And maybe a few halftrack mounted guns.

Yes and no With all the other victories to get to this map, I am sure it will likely show a win of some type for me. I dont even mind losing the battle. What I mind is a map that for all intents and purposes, is going to be boring no matter what. It is not like I am going to be able to be the attacker with the limited force and lack of terrain to move into. It is not like I am going to be the defender. Since the Americans are not set up to counterattack much and I am shoved in a corner with nothing to defend except a hill and patch of woods in front of me. So a big Bore, I done a little shoot and scoot. Sent infantry forword to secure a perimeter and spot enemy units and sat there trying to arty some of the AT gun placements that I have exposed. Oh I am trying to take the left flank and see if I can turn some tanks loose on some of that infantry out there. But not likely since the enemy can have units 2000 meters away and I am not spotting them or have the arty to make the whole map a waste land. I just am complaining in that its a anti climax ending, and I see that how it is going to play out no matter what your condition is as you come onto the map. Not sure how to fix it, but having something set up as supply depot at the beach head that could be destroyed and worth Tons of points make sence to me. Then who cares what the odds are. You finish up by trying to destroy landed supplies and the enemy on the beach. If you cut them from supplies, the battle is won.

I sat down today and finally pushed my german units to the final scenario and map, I am at the beach. After all that, this is what I get. Thanks but no thanks. You might as well start bombing me with navel fire and air support. I have come onto the map in what I feel is pretty good shape considering all the missions one must run. But the task on this map is not logical, I am playing it now, trying to do what I can without getting slaughtered. So will give a updated report when I finish. But I had 17 tanks , my MG and pioneer units were in good shape. My infantry , what is left of it , is pretty shot up.. On my armor, 5 units have badly damaged tracks , and one with gun damage. So the final battle comes down to a real bore after all that great fighting to get to the beach. I will likely bleed my units past any logical point and adcheive little since the enemy is dug in and spread out on the map. Or just cease fire once the enemy turns the balence their direction. Or maybe I am just seeing something wrong, but it appears the Americans have a strong enough force that no matter what I came on with, this batle wast just going to be very costly and a drag no matter what.

[Originally Posted by George MC Fire Brigade has lots of tank on tank action at 1800m + huge map on open terrain. I sure am glad you pointed me to this battle. I am now playing it as the American in a HtoH match. What a great map, and a real challenge as the American vs, all them panthers. But the American can have some great fun also on this map. But the more I play it, the more I just love the map itself, it is well designed and has a very natural feel to it. Good job to the designer.

Along these lines. GAJ, it sounds like you know it cannot be fare because it was designed for the AI. I disagree, in some cases, it just takes assigning the weaker player to that side and its a good battle. I just finished a Scenario where I was playing a new opponant, he was amazed I would pick the side he deemed So weak, and that we might select a more even battle. I warned him, if I lose, you have not proven anything. If I win, you will be in a bad place, because not only did I beat your skills, but also the odds which have been placed against me. (Needless to say, I handed him a blood bath, a cease fire was called and I had a slight upper hand in a great fight) Who felt good about the battle. Another guy I have played for a while now that is not at my level, we always select a scenario that gives him the AI side and hopefully the advantage. (But keep in mind, we have found some AI sides of scenario's do not mean they are stronger, some designers build battles where the AI is weak). I think the issue is, some of us cannot handle to lose, they think it reflects directly towards them. Or maybe they are in some stupid ladder thing that it is going to reflect what type of player they are. Or whatever reason. That fact is, you are in the wrong hobby then, because there is no such thing as balenced scenarios. and even if there was. (like blue on blue on a mirrored map) - which these are as boring as it can get. It still proves nothing. I know a handful of excellent players, why, because I have seen it in their play. I need no chart or win / loss record to know who is good. Also I have seen some of the players who will do anything to get a high ranking on a ladder board that have done some crap and are not as good as what they think they are. I hate QB type formats, because the best players are not the best tacticians, they are the best purchasing agents and have developed tactics for their purchasing gene. So Gaj, learn to judge your own skill and stop with the whine about being placed in a unbalenced situation. Second, labeling the scenarios do not fix the problem. If it is a ego's that need purpose, spend your time trying to come up with a way to rate players to their skills that actually means something. Even many of the tournaments work on faulty concepts, but at least most of the time the cream rises to the top. The best player I have ever played, happens to be the same guy that won 2 of my tournaments, I just cannot remember him ever commenting on any scenario we have played as to its balence, either it is fun and challenging or it is not.

This is not good tactics unless you still have a threat from the front also. Then both attack and the same time, then at least if the flanking unit is spotted before it spots the enemy, sure he might get wasted, but in the process, the enemy is now revealing its flank to the other unit. Plus just because you flank a unit, it should not gareentee you get the jump on spotting him first, In R.L. there is many things that might give that unit away and not get the advantage of the move. In the game, we the commander have so much knowledge, we take advantage of it. its easy to make the perfect flanking move in the old system and know you will catch the enemy unprepared. Now it comes down to your unit spotting the enemy once they made the move, on their own. You still direct them to the perfect spot to do it. Compared to R.L. where that unit might get disoriented or misjudge the enemy location. I still think it reflects uncertainty better, even though I hate it as much as anyone else at times. The uncertain spotting adds to the aspects of not having god like control over your units which is how it should be. Yes, I agree spotting could be toned down some to make things a little less unrealistic as to being blind to certain areas. but spotting has added a aspect of uncertainty that adds to the game in a way not found in other tactical games. It has created the uncertainties of battle to show in a game that reflects just a tiny portion as to what happens in R.L. Where uncertainty and lack of control and information is all way too common.

can someone dropbox me what they beleive is a good version of the patch 1.01. I have no clue how it could be corrupt since I pulled it from a zipped file but it might be worth a try.

I have the treads there also. With the reinstall, version 1.0 is working fine. Is there anyway it could be the scenarios I am testing once i go into version 1.01

Well, I had to uninstall CMFI and reinstall it to get version 1.0 to even work again, then I installed Version 1.01 and the same issue happened again. So no question about it, I am getting graphic issues with bldgs with the patch.

Oh, no, I just started a new game and it has the same problem, all my buildings are a brown tone. Great sounds like a reinstall is in order for me. I wonder what happened, I dont even use mods.

Well, I am reporting so far I have opened two different HtoH games and the patch is messing up the graphics. Building textures are corrupt AND ALL ONE TONE and callapsed walls shows the existing wall outline. IT MIGHT BE THAT I NEED TO DO A SAVE TRICK OF SOME TYPE. BUT IS NOT LOOKING PROMISING AT AT MOMENT

Over flanders field I am pretty sure is just Red Baron upgraded to the latest standards as I recall.

i ALWAYS THOUGHT the key to a good relationship was plenty of Sex And I sure do NOT want BF giving me any of that. CMFI also has a patch coming, and since that is the version 2.0 engine with issues, they might need to fix that also, before rolling version 2.0 into the other games. I think their game plan sounds wonderful until they have to use it. This upgrading of engines is all good except for the time it takes, thus slowing down the latest developements. You just cannot have it all, but we seem to try to keep demanding it as users.

Very true. It goes back to in RL the mortar crew would not know the enemy is clustered in a 8m area behind a hedge and be able to drop all their load right on target. They might try to drop behind the hedge up and down the line they would think the enemy is at, but they would not know for sure how close they were landing behind the hedge unless they had landed rounds in front of the hedge, had a locked in weapon and did the adjustment to drop it just a few meters farther. And yes we see the same problems with other weapons. My favorite is when tanks snipe infantry. infantry man moving across a wheat field, tank only sees head and shoulder of man. Fires, HE shell which takes man out with round going right through his head. Shell lands 70 m away. Apply same stupid results to men behind walls and other such things. So yes, we could disect likely each and every weapon in the game and find issues. But a tank killing one man is better than if he had area fired like he should and get the HE hit where the whole squad was. So no one whines to much about that. But when in 30 seconds a mortar team wipes out any known target they know about and are in range of, of course you will hear complaints. It is a game and it is not realistic no matter how much they try to make it just that. So until they learn to abstract somethings to get the feel just about right, then these threads will continue for a very long time. Personnally I could care less how it is adjusted. But mortars need to be adjusted to match the capabilities of the other weapon systems. The fact that they can outplay and become the most important weapon on the map is all the proof that is needed as to that they need adjustment.