slysniper

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.

No, not Train grogs toooooo

That is not just mortar crews. lately I have been running a bunch of bad luck with units making all sorts of decisions that make no sence. From tanks, to half tracks , to whatever I am playing with. I hardly ever saw a unit disobey my commands, untul lately. I have seen more than I want to, not only disobey, but no logic to them and cannot figure out what might have triggered them. So the mystery of playing the game, it is odd at times.

Ecxcellent tip - this is one I sure did not know, cannot wait to give it a try.

I have not noticed this, likely because I have been playing the Italians, so I just let them little HE chuckers go since they have about 50 rounds and it takes a dozen rounds to do anything anyway. But since this is the case, the old method is still in order. just pause them and then fire after the pause or fire them with the pause, then assign a move command after that to get them to stop firing. maybe not perfect, but there is ways to get that short volley. It is to bad the command does not work. So far, I am not impressed with that command. It would be better if it let you select the time, just like you do with pause. 15 seconds is not enough time for many things. For tanks that likely is only 1 round. I would like 3 rounds, not a ?? as to how much time it might take to get my tank to fire 3 rounds. So in other words, the command would let you request how many rounds to fire. So the mortar has 10 rounds, I want the crew to fire 4. now that would be nice. BF likely thinks that would be giving us too much control. Bull. If a crew in battle has 10 rounds, they will do just what I want to do, they will fire what they think it will take to kill the target, then stop, wait and see if they need to fire more.

Good point. I play this a little different in HtoH play. The trick is, send a scout unit or something like it with a short arc to where you want to place your F.o. firrst. let them see if they draw any fire, if they are safe, then move the F.O into position. I also send the scouts on to another spot to check out the next location if you need to shift the F.O. to another location. You are as good in the game as you are in learning to play smart. Every trick you can come up with as to protecting important units and sacraficing poor units if needed is worth trying. Just as in real life. A price must be paid, that price is normally in the form of the poor infantry.

Yes, hiding as the FO can cause you to have problems spotting. But after you call the arty in. go ahead and hide until the spotting rounds start to fall. Then unhide and get a good spot so that your arty is on target.

All these answers are good. But the real reason was that Fritz was working on the design table, thinking, How can I make a "Bad Ass" looking Tank. This is the true reason it was so. It just so happened that by doing it, it help solve all the issues he was trying to resolve with fixing all the load issues on his track system.

here is a gamey one for you, since you are playing the AI. I ran a few scouting units out into poor cover and that has releived the pressure on the FO before. Playing the AI , you can always cheat, just have to be willing. It did cost me 4 pixel lives to keep the fire off the F.O til it came in.

Having shot the weapon a few times, there is advantages and disadvantages. like any weapon. Most of the time it comes down to what you are wanting to use it for. It strengths, compared to the options at the time. Light weight and very short barrel. makes for a gun that is quick to come to aim and able to put rounds on target. It is confortable to shoot. easy to load. Lighter ammo, makes you able to carry more or keep your pack weight down. Its reliable. Weaknesses, not good for long range shots, lacks knock down power or penetration. Does not have the firepower of the Thompsom for up close fights. It is what it is. But many Gi's loved the weapon, so not sure where you get your opinion. Back to mentioning that I have shot it. From all the weapons i have shot from that era. It was the most confortable and easy weapon to shoot. If I had to pack a weapon on foot for months on end in the situation they had there. It might have been the best choice for many situations if you could only choose one weapon. it might be the best choice. Things are different now. generally in a US Army, you have multible weapons to choose from. It comes down to the mission and the Terrain, back then, it was your rank and your unit that placed the weapon in your hand. Times have changed some.

Ok, now I understand what you are saying. sorry. plus I am afraid I do not remember for sure about that. But if I recall correctly, it seems my reinforcements on the left flank came first. then the others came on the right. And not sure about the arty. All I recall was the Stug was like a suprise to me. and the last thing to show up.

I think it has been pointed out At guns in foxhole locations get no benefits, You might as well have them in open ground. Even normal squads seem to have issues. If they are not in the hole, they are exposed and generally die quickly. part of the problem being, you send them to the hex, but for some strange reason they do not like getting in the holes. It gets old seeing them lay down between the foxholes in the game. That is one area that does not get picked on enough. that could use some improvement.

This just reminded my of a scenario I finished that My sniper team was a 2 man US team, the second guy had a bolt action rifle. Their tally was 16 in the battle, which was excellent for me. Seldom do I get great results from my Sniper units. But I agree with you that not pairing them up can help the sniper. But for once in this battle I saw the second guy actually helping me. They were located behind the enemy lines and I waited to open them up only after the enemy units entered open fields pushing towards my front lines after they had shelled and pinned any of my remaining front line units. So I caught about a platoon moving in the open about 300 meters away. it was a perfect ambush. I stopped that section of the assault in its tracks. I might have done even more damage but he did have some over watch units that he moved into position and they finally killed my sniper, but the second man picked up his weapon and fought on to the end of the battle. What I wanted to point out was for the first time I saw the second guy get a few kills at range with his rifle. He even dropped someone in the overwatch group that was trying to kill them. He then picked up the fight as the sniper when his comrade went down. So in this instance, I was glad to have that second man. It is never black and white as to how the game should be. But I like it when I get scenarios where they have provided only 1 man sniper teams.

Not sure about this, I do not recall the units as reinforcements coming in at unexpected locations. Even if they had, There was time enough to change which flank they could be used on. I have tranferred units including infantry from one flank to the other. So it does show that there is plenty of time in the game. Shorten the time up and it would take away some options.

I think it has already been pointed out that what is lacking is how dug in units do not get the protection or features that they likely should. if there is a flaw, that would be as much of one as any. Plus the fact that a crew cannot run away from a weapon and come back as they did in RL would be another when it comes to the results of Mortar fire. But Small mortars in RL have one main weakness, and the game shows that as correctly as it can. Limited Ammo. If anything impacted it more than anything else in combat it was the fact that it was hard to keep supplied. It was a temporary support. It was a asset that has a limited time of use. Now in game terms, that does not always show up. but I still bet you that it is by far the most common weapon on the board that is out of action because it is out of Ammo. In RL you can multiply that issue alot. Since combat was not scheduled as well as game scenarios.