slysniper

TESTING IS THE ANSWER, I did some testing for tanks in motion vs stationary tanks already in the game. but it should not be hard to come up with a spotting test to see if things are fair. Nothing has shown up to be funny to me other than the normal issue of If its your tank that does not spot, the game must be crap. But I have found, the other guy gets the same issue also. imagine that. But running some test could quickly prove if its just a issue of every time his tank does not spot first - he notices it as not being right. Because about 50% of the time it will not spot first, imagine that. Then when hit, they sometimes have a hard time picking up the target because of the dust around them.

As for playing the game and the cost. As long as they are pricing their game similar to other good companies out there, I dont think you have much to gripe about when it comes to pricing. I think we have some that think of the days where you could buy games for $5 to 10 dollars all the time, not very long after release. In the bargain bins of software stores. Them days are gone, so are many of the companies that were raped by the publishers of their games. BF had some raping done to them also. I am glad to see they have figured out how to keep their profits and continue to do what they do. Take my money as long as they want . Until I find they start producing junk, my money is theirs for the taking.

I still have the rules and scenarios. I will just carve me a miniture set of ASL out of the bones of the Zombies, I need something to do during my down time anyway. That is as long as I stay alive long enough to enjoy it.

I was like that for a while, then I mentally overcame it, sold it and never looked back. I did keep a copy of all the scenarios. Once in awhile I take one and convert it to CM. So I feel it has not been lost totally in that sence. You can give your collection to me in your will, I would not want then to go to waste....

Interesting Like I said, I normally do not get into the guts of the issues. this solution seems somewhat sad if you have to follow it, with all them features turned off, it should have some impact as to what you sound is coming through like.

What a lie Just turn around and sell them while you can. I played them things for close to 20 years and then I parted with them and had more money in my pocket than I ever spent on them. One of the few great moments in my life when I found I had something worth more than when I bought it new.

That it does, I love the fact that turns load much faster. No, the lock up that has happened to me a few times is during campaign play, when a battle is over I go to the reveiw screen and while I am in there it locks up, will not allow me to exit or anything. Frozen screen, the sad thing is. I loose that point in play, having to go back and replay it from a earlier save. I hate that, I cannot play campaigns more than once, it becomes very boring. So I am in one right now, about 8 missions into it and I just dont want to get back into it , even if I do have to play about 40 minites over again. I know, I am pretty bad, but I really hate having to do it again. It is not the only type that has happened, it is just the one I know best. The other one I have had, the screnn goes blank, I get a white screen. It has happened a few times also. Plus i thought their graphics change was making it easier on the machine, not harder. But I really do not get into the tech stuff when it comes to playing games.

That tanks reaction time is not unusual for the game, and no it is not just american tanks that get that quick reaction. In general. tanks react instantly once they see something. I have seen them spot another tank moving behind a tall hedge or bocage and their turret will immediatly follow along the path and be able to fire and hit on a shot that in R.L. would be gone and passed before the spotter in the tank could even say a word to anyone else. No, if the game wants to be more realistic. they need to build in a couple of seconds of communication time before a tank can respond to a new target.once spotted, that is all.

Well at least you have done your math. Yes it cost to play, and yes, Battlefront has decided to up the ante for playing. That is their choice and it is yours as to if you will pay it. if enough do not pay it, then BF has made a poor choice, if enough do pay it, then they have a successsful bussiness. Simple as that. But I have more than $1000 in cost in a computer, which I upgrade to a new one every few years, then there is the cost of having internet service, which is Over $50 dollors a month. So That is $600 at least every year. And you think I should be upset that they want to charge me for software to play this game, the only game which brings me daily satisfaction and enjoyment. A game that never runs out of options since I can always design something new in it or get work from others which are doing the same thing. A game that works so well at being able to play it at my convenious and not having to worry about hooking up online with someone else. A game i can stop at any moment. Go take care of R.L.matters and not feel like I have lost anything. Personnally, I will pay for it. I wish I could get it for less, but who wouldn't. But campaigning here that BF is charging too much for their work, which you really have no clue as to how much effort or work has gone into it or not into it, is not likely going to get you far. But go ahead, express yourself. If you get them to drop their prices I will praise your name for years to come.

Is it just me or is CMFI more unstaple than CMBN is. I have had CMFI lock up on me or crash now 4 to 6 times, not sure was not counting at first. But I have seen it now enough to know it is happening. This has never happened to me playing CMBN in this mannor and I have played it much more. The only lockup I have ever seen with CMBN is the one that shows up at the start of a battle and it has wire in the scenario, That is a weird one also. Also there is the features that do not work, for me at least - like the delete the saved game button. It seems funny to add that feature, but have it not working. For me this is not bad, since I just do it the old way. But for some folks, they are not very smart at learning to find the files and keeping them clean. Anyway, just wondering if others have noticed added issue which have crept ino the game in this latest release.

That is exactly what I try and do, I give myself goals, no matter the situation. Goals that I see are possible. The funny thing about that is. Not only does it keep me interested if I am losing. But it also is the way to turn battles around. Make a few of them goals in a position you might think is poor and you might find yourself now in a position that might be able to take advantage of. I just did that recently, thought I had no chance in one battle I was playing. I was out gunned and out positioned and I was the attacker. So I just kept looking at the situation for a few turns and decided I could at least maybe push my remaining infantry into his area through some thick woods. It was not likely to be good or benefit me, but it was about the only offensive option I had that might work without for sure crushing my own units. So I pulled back my armor and started the infantry probes. Without getting into too much detail. It managed to turn the battle around since my units did well in the woods against the defences he had and then he was not prepared for my continuing push with my infantry there. I won the battle and the funny thing was I had less units and was still on the attack when it ended. It sure looked funny at the end. he had me outnumbered in the areas I was pushing but he was convinced I had more units and that he was not capable of stopping me.

As for getting feedback, I resolved this problem very easily. I assigned all the passwords in my Tournament, then all I had to do if I had the interest was ask the players to send me a copy of their game file, then I would play the turns to see what was happening. I did not need AAR, I could see everything I needed to know. This also helped in the tournament. I did not have many, but I had a few dropouts or losers that stopped playing before completing their matches. With this method I could pick up the game or get someone else to and get all matches completed. The funny thing with that was, I had one guy drop a match because he thought it was unfair and he was losing, so I played it out for him and won the battle. Skill level is more inmportart than design in these games, but many players just cannot accept that.

I will tell you some of the problems, we are getting more and more fragmented for one thing. Many spend their time at club sites. They support them, more than you see they do anything here. That is not bad, but each club takes away some from the interest here. I have visited the sites and some of them are much better in the site layout and are more of a community than here. They host Tournaments on a regular basis. And they have areas broken out for different types of decussions. So if I want tactics, then I go to Threads that are grouped under that Topic. Personnally, I think Battlefront should have some focus to make this site, the fan site. That this site should supports all these activities. And that encourages us to stay. The larger the group, the more the community thrives. But you can continue to see us breaking into smaller and smaller groups. The biggest one is now we have the CMX1 fans and the CMX2 fans. There is many a player that has not made the transition. So you have to add new blood since many of the old faithful are still in the past or onto other things. But as pointed out, it is hard to get new players to help support the efforts without really receiving nothing in return.

getting testers always helps, it just takes added time unless they are very quick at playing HtoH. Actually that was part of my motive to have mine in a tournament. It was 16 games of each scenario, almost gareenteed to be completed and I would be able to receive game files and feed back. It was a good way to get a quick wide sample of how they played. I did do some tweaking on a few of the poorer ones and a few light adjustments to the better ones from the feedback and then I published them at the Scenario depot. Many of them did very well after that. But taking feed back from just a couple of test can lead to incorrect conclusions. -- just by the decisions made in a game, the results might be poor. But players will look at the scenario being the fault instead of their play. So to adjust from testing, you need enough to get a feel for how it is playing out. I feel that a good designer has a sence for what makes for balence in a game and that they see the likely results before they ever play it out. Then playing it is looking to see if that is correct and looking for the little flaws that come from mapping, unit placement and all the funny things that just pop up in the constructing of a battle.

Personnally, if I played QB's I would reveiw the map that I want to play and find ones that are fair. Plus I really think players should see the map they are playing on before selecting forces anyway. Playing the other way seems so silly to me. But just my opinion. At least my way helps to create pretty fair battles and helps both sides get the equipment best suited for the situation. But for many, that is not the logic to how they want to play anyway. so to each his own.

Boy, do I relate to these later comments. In CMX1 I had designed 30 or so battles before I ever did any to give out, and the only reason I did then was that I wanted to run a new type of tournament so I needed scenarios that I knew no one had played. But creating the ones I shared were much more time consuming. Just making sure I had good briefings was much more important, then knowing how picky people are. Trying to make sure about all the little details. Anyway, I did not mind but I knew I would get both ends of the feedback also. But I have thick skin. So I could care less. Some would just hate some of my work, while others would just love some of the scenarios. It did not matter really. All that mattered was if the scenario played out how I designed it to. If it did, then I was successful. If not, then I had flaws in what I was trying to create. I must have did ok since I had some highly rated scenario’s and was asked to make one for the Master’s Tournament. Which I did and some wrote me to mention it is one of the best they have ever played, but others said they thought it needed adjustments and did not think it was good. I achieved what I wanted from it. So it was perfect as far as I was concerned and could care less if some did not like certain aspects of the scenario. What they generally did not like was things I expected might happen if players did certain thing. Thus causing them losses. So I actually smiled when some criticized my work. As for CMX2, I would like to support the community. But I just cannot find the motivation to create something worth the level it needs to be. Maybe if I do a tournament again someday. I have at least 30 scenarios I have created and tweaked for my personal use, but Like others have said. I have no time or interest in placing them for others to use as is, and no interest in doing what it takes to make them worthy to be available – for nothing in return.

Sent you a email but have not heard anything from you, i will post my email address hear under your private messages.

I have been playing "Conrath's counter Attack" I have played about 7 battles now and I had my best armor assault fun in the last game in a very long while. Ever since I started playing CMBN. It is seldom that you get that type of match up. But here I was with PzIII and Iv's. As the battle progressed I eliminated the enemy shermans and AT guns's and felt I was only up against infantry anymore on the map. The map was wide open, my infantry was of little value since they are pretty shot up from the 3 or 4 battles they have been in. But I had 10 tanks. It was time to assault with massed armor. Boy, did it bring the feeling of the early war German might as my units rolled over and eliminated dug in infantry around the board. But here I was with armor which is weak in a sence by this point in the war. But the infantry really does not have the tools to defend well by themselves. They were like God's on the battle field as I worked them together to bring quick distruction to any location I saw fit on the board. Now I did lose 2 tanks to one last AT gun that was still out there. And I saw some heroic efforts by the Americans to take my armor on. One lad managed to fire a rifle grenade that did kill one crew member in a tank that was buttoned up at that time. I found that very interesting and wondered what might have been the cause of his death. Anyway, it sure added my desire to see earier war stuff come out in this engine. I really have no interest in playing CMX1 anymore but sure would like to get to the different periods of the war to get some of the different match ups that happened in certain time frames.

Are you up for another game. I am looking for a new Opponant also.

I think the game player should be hooked up to electronic probes that shock them and make them feel pain each time they lose a man or someone is wounded. Now that would solve many problems. Lets see guys continue to fight losing battles with those wires hooked up to them. For some of our poorer players, maybe there would be enough pain that we eliminate these players from our game pool.

Thanks for the imput, i was getting all excited about blowing holes in side walls of buildings and entering in from a unexpected direction. But your points make sence, back to the demo charges for me. at least they can do a wall if given some time.

This does remind me it would be nice to have a few more options with these type of weapons. I sure would like to have the option to make possible holes in walls. plus some other things

I guess it is what you are willing to use them for. First I play scenarios, not QB's, so I generally do not find too many mortars to worry about. But on the attack, exspecially the germans, I move them with my infantry, but I find the secret is my lead units draw the fire. So my scouts or half rifle teams, normally with out any auto weapons are these units. I follow closely behind with my own MG's and mortars. When my forward units draw fire, I now position my heaver weapons to take out the enemy high priority targets, if there is none then I dont expose mine. So what I am saying, is I use infantry to find the enemy location and important targets. I use my Mg and mortars and of course heavier stuff to destroy them targets. But I find it easier to position and open up and get the first heavy volumn of fire on the enemy after the location is known. Hard for the enemy mortar to kill my mg's if I have him pinned when I open up on him. Now this works great as long as you move you units into place under cover or smoke or something like that. If you do not have that, then its a whole other ball game. now you are dealing with moving in the open to close the range so you can kill the enemy, not suppress him. Now it comes down to having firepower to keep any unit pinned and down while you move up into position. Does not matter what you move, MG's included. Having Mg's as part of your front line infantry can be very benifictual. I bring them up nice and close to the enemy. I have even used them for killing a pinned squad by walking up on top of them. Firepower is the key. In 90% of the situations MG can provide that at distance and can be safer. But they are part of the infantry unit, using them only at long range will make your grunts weak, not like they are not that way already. learning to support them up close and personnal will increase your infantrys ability to impact the battle.

At least this is some hard numbers as too the percentage of losses which were due to them. Not very high, and by this point in the war. the Germans did not have large amounts of tanks and AT guns floating around either. So that makes the numbers even less impressive.

Well, one point to bring up is this. before the weapon was there, it is more tempting to assault the infantry with armor. After the weapon is in the field. Now the armor has no interest in trying to roll over the enemy. The threat of the weapon has a value, even if it only gets a few kills. I get kills with fausts on a regalur bases. I even recall one game where I was up against a enemy with about 15 tanks and sp guns, I recall I almost removed half of them with the weapon. So if you beleive the math given, man this game is broke. I had more kills in one game than I should have had in a year of playing if I use some of the math given here.