slysniper

Now this is a good view, except from what I know serving here. Give any American soilder a weapon and he is going to want to shoot it. Break it apart, learn how it functions and likely love it more than he does a woman. Now may be tea and sleep is more important there. But here, I can see that tank crew, if given a chance doing it. Not just one guy, all of them, likely with some bets and stuff going on with the practice. Yes that is a good thought, except I would think in general, most troops would have the pistol on them at all times. now other weapons should be random, but hard to beleive they dont have the pistol on their belt. So tweeking what they do with the pistol would be better than not giving them one to begin with.

As with so many things on this forum, too much thinking down one line of thought. Again, I will say, give me 10 guys, how many are going to be good with a pistol. In the 1940's, if he came from America, Canada, Ausralia At least 1 in 10, likely more. because many of them had grown up using gun, are accustomed to using guns. As someone that has served in the service , has been in normal and elite units, have trained in many weapons, have seen what typical soilders do and have seen men under stress. grew up with firearms, learned to shoot a pistol as a teenager. Not as a elite soilder. I will say again, there is no data out their that can prove anything. There is no adverage that is going to be correct. You are all trying to box a topic into your pre-conceived opinions as to what is correct, just as i have. but it is a area that does not fit into a few simple rules of thumb. Some points, most good shooters during the war did not learn it in training, they came with the skills. Second, the skills do not disapear , just because you are not firing every day. Plus if you like guns , want to be good with one, you find ways to practice, so I am sure any GI that wanted to be good with his 45 was finding ways to get ammo to burn once he was out in the field to be familar with the weapon. So now you have a percentage that are good, out of that percentage, you have a percentage that can and will function under stress just fine. The question is where is some real numbers for that. then you have to have numbers for the rest of the guys that are shooting the best that they can, but likely with low skills and shaking hands. Even they will get lucky some times and get a round on target. What is that number. What is the answer is, not sure, because it is a little bit of all of them. I can see plenty under the right situations not able to hit someone at 5 yards without maybe shooting a full clip. I can see someone cooly dropping soilder after soilder charging towards him and ranges of 10 -15 yards. I can see someone that has time to aim hit a exposed target at 25 meters , but likely not at a high percentage and only if it is someone with skills. But at 50 yards, now I dont know what to expext , but it should be pretty bad. So All I have is what I have seen in life, no number chart has ever reflected that. I know that I do not agree with the game. but I also dont agree with most of the view as to what is right or wrong. So no wonder BF will leave it alone. because It is a area of such cloudiness.

Well, I have learned to accept the fact that in the game, they might look like pistols, but they are not pistols. I still have a imagination , so them tank crews are packing sub machine guns and such. Which in truth, any that had been out in the field for a little while likely were. It surely was not uncommon for them to improve their situation. But inside the tank there was not room for such toys. But you normally read that many commanders did have at least one sub machine gun inside the tank. As for the rest, they would be tied to the outside gear. So not something available when first bailing out. but if the crew managed to get out of the tank and were able to get to it without incoming fire, they might be able to arm themselves with a few rifles and such.

Well, that is the problem of the whole discussion. Too much of it is a matter of opinions instead of some type of known data. So no matter what BF DID, SOMEONE will not like it. At least in general, everyone agrees that some type of tweeking should be done to make this weapons not very accurate.

I agree and I disagree As I was trying to point out, for most people in that situation you are correct. But i also know there are those out there that do have ice running through their vains, Born Killers is one word for them. In situations like this there is no massive adrenaline rush. they can handle the situation and focus on doing what is needed to kill someone. For them that 10-15 yard shot is very makable and very high chance of success. And there is plenty of stories to prove there is such people out there. But back to the game, it does not reflect that aspect at all So cannot be a direct factor of what to expect from the game.

well first some new testing of the game should be done to see where it stands. But the last test I recall was someone placing a team with pistols against a team with bolt action rifles at 50 meters apart behind walls and letting them duel each other. Needless to say , both sides could win the little fire fight. But the pistols had the advantage in getting suppression and kills. I just LOL when I saw it.Thinking what the chances would be in real life to get killing shots at that range with cover with a weapon that is that unsteady.

As for the knife, in the hands of someone willing to use it. It can certainly be the weapon of choice when things get close and personnal. I know a few Vietnam vets and one guy comes to mind. He said he had 4 knifes on him when out in the field, , One on his chest strap, one behind his head in gear, on in his boot and one on his thigh. To me that seemed crazy and just more gear to have to keep managed. But his view was, needed one available to be able to grab where his hand was presenty at. Since he also killed at least 4 eenemy soildiers with them knives, I guess his methods were not all that bad.

So True, I almost watch a mans death from that one. To this day I still do not know how he managed to not fall to his death other that someone from above decided it was not his time yet.

Jon S, a great example Paper tiger, exactly : The more you make it realistic , the less fun it is. I came to a conclusion long ago. I want to play with hero’s or see someone do amazing things in a game environment that seems realistic. Which happens presently still. But in the real world, it really comes down to the few that are willing to do what the many will not. As for the real numbers as to what percentage that is. Who really knows??? I was out this weekend repealing with a bunch of young guys. 9 of us. (For some it was their first time ever. It is really safe repelling (except for the fact that people fear falling) Out of the 9 we had there, 1 that had no fear, was taking risk and just into it. We had 3 that had no real issues, showed respect for it and were safe and enjoying it. Had 3 that really did not want to do it, but were doing it because they needed to check their man cards, So with encouragement, they managed to do it and overcome their fears. For the last 2, from the beginning to the end, they were in constant fear. It did not matter how many times we did it. They never enjoyed it, For them it was a struggle of fighting against their fear the whole time. It is part of human nature, In combat I think the number go up because the environment is very deadly, so the mind is sending plenty of signals to say , get the **** out of here. All I know, is you can do things to help that factor in training. But when the real tests in life come. The natural man comes out in people and from what I have seen, about one in 10 to 20 have a very high no fear level. About 30 -50 % that have ways to place fear where it belong and can overcome it. And the rest. Its just a real challenge from within, that really for them is not something that can be easily removed. The funny thing about my example, after the repeals, we had to do some rock climbing to get back to the ridges. That was actually much more dangerous and as far as I saw, no one had real problems with that. It really is interesting how it is a mind game as to how we do many things in life.

That is too True to be funny I like the spot too much to give it up, even though the other two tanks are mine also which are now giving me such great concealment. I will continue to run the risk just so I can defy the laws of safety. It would be nice to know what odds I am up against. But In general, I know after a huge explosion. They seem pretty mellow after that. I have ran infantry close after they have done that and have not been burned yet. But risking a Stug is alot pricier.

It does not take rocket science to figure out every aspect of this game. Anyone that has done any shooting with a pistol knows the answer to this question? It is not a weapon that you just pick up and master, can it be mastered. yes. . Then even after mastering it, then there is mastering oneself to use them same skills when under stress, or excitement, the situation at the spur of the moment and all the other things that can come into play when it really matters. I can tell you as someone that at least owns a pistol, had training (Limited), had combat competition shoots where we were judged on speed, field positioning and scoring on man targets where we had 2 to the chest and 1 to the head and the maximum score was 30 points for each target. (which popped up normally at 10 to 15 yards away, maybe 25 once in a great while.) That at them closer ranges, that hitting someone and being able to kill them is very possible. At 50 yards, I would not want to waste my ammo. As to how often, depends on the person (in the real deal). 50% would be shaking so much in the real event. They likely would not ever hit it. 30% might be able to use it as a close defense weapon and at least have a chance to hit what they aim at,. Now the rest might actually be able to hold their pistol steady, not rush the shot and do some real damage. And out of that 20% I would say maybe 5% of the whole, you might actually find that type of person that has nerves of steel that can and will make a pistol a deadly weapon. No matter what is going on. So now you have a small percentage of people that should and could use the weapon correctly and if you listen to those that think they are that type of person, which I have. Most would only want to use the weapon out to 15 yards. Thus when in the game I see 50 meter kills, I am thinking to myself, has these guys ever tried this stuff themselves. Then it also comes to a situation where every guy in the game as the ability to fight. Thus enhancing the problem. 5 man tank crew in the game, all 5 have a chance of killing someone at 50 yards. In real life. Three are worthless, scared and shaking. One might be able to hit the enemy and if you really lucky one might be an actual killer. Able to take someone down on a consistent basis. At a realistic range. (15 meters maybe) But you are not going to find charts and data that will prove all this. But sometimes this attitude we have about getting the game right is a bunch of bull. Because if the game was really correct. About 1 in 10 of your solders would be out there fighting. Kicking 2 or 3 others in the ass to try and get them to help him. And the rest would be in a constant state of trying to save their ass and would be of no worth. I have yet to hear any or you wanting to fix the game to start portraying that, and that is very real. Back to what I love to say, the game will never be a perfect sim. It's a game. It mimics real life, but it is not real life. Yes it would be great to get it closer to what is real. But stop over analyzing it. Bf has not changed the numbers yet, and it has been over a year, so onward I play giving great respect to a weapon that has needs to be feared within the game, the mighty pistol

You received what you deserved. Should know better by now. Oh wait a minute I have a stug in a game right now hiding between two burning wrecks. Great concealment and cover. But I do have one thing going for me. I was smart enough to have waited until they had a major explosion, I have not seen multi cook offs once there is a main one. But I am not sure about that. has anyone tried to find out how many times rounds might go off in a burning tank in the game???

The answer to that is simple, they would not be making such statements if they could. So why not explain some of the ways to make them sucessful. Here is one tip for wego play. Since some of you seem to be getting ambushed yourselves because your men do not unhide and fire before the enemy does. One simple thing I do is since I want my closest units to the enemy to not open up until the enemy is so close that I know I will kill them. I set my overwatch with arcs to the location where I want the enemy to be hit in the ambush. Now instead of them walking on top of my front line units before I can unhide them. Overwatch will prevent that, they will open up, stop the enemy for the turn and I can unlease the rest of the ambush on the next turn. it is not as good, because the enemy has gone to ground, but it is safe. Most of the time I never need it. Even playing wego, I unhide my units when I see the enemy about ready to hit that point. Seldom even in a minute time frame do I have problems with the timing. I think the only time it has messed me up is if I do not see the enemy approach, then hiding units can be bad news. But if you have allowed that to happen then you deserve to see your men get gunned down.

Hey, them tanks were cookers, he had his way of dealing with it. Now days it would not suprise me to think they have air conditioning in them:) Do They?

PLAYING THIS ONE MYSELF. I only play it when I have no other files game files from HtoH to play, but its just a pain trying to get my men close to the objective, you really have your hands tied as to what you have to try and assault this hill. I just have not been too motivated to sit down and invest time into this one. Its been a task trying to find avenues of approach with the limited cover there is. I sure hope my arty does something once it arrives. But between time limits, limited arty and not much else in direct fire support unless you take out the enemy guns. It is a fine challenge.

As mentioned, post have been made about this before in the game, pistols test have been done, they are deadly up and beyond 50 meters in the game are are just too powerful. Exspecially if you run across a tank crew with 5 of them and ammo. We thought they might finially do some tweeking to it, but likely have not. I dont even want to test it anymore, so just be cafeful when you know they are out there. The one good thing we have going for us is at least crews have limited ammo. They have 16 rounds as I recall

Sgt Schultz Some good and interesting advice. It sure does remind me of why I do not enjoy playing QB's. Some of you Guys get really masterful at crafting forces that give you some great abilities on the field of play. As to the original question. Keep in mind , it is actually harder to play good defense. It takes more skill and experence to normally be good at defense, many players do not develope good defensive tactic. In scenario play, it becomes even more challenging. because you are not able to select your forces. So each battle is giving different units to work with, and many a time they are lacking some of the tools to make a solid defensive set up. So learning to adapt to what you have and situation can be very challenging. So just keep that in mind, you are looking for good concepts. but there really is not one set of rules that will be able to be followed to lead to the best answer for what is needed.

Interesting stuff. It shows us at least some of the programing numbers. but only steve knows what changing them would do in impacting the game. Of course there must be other factors in when a unit spots besides this. I just hope that we get Steve to do a little tweeking of the numbers. In general it does a good job, but when it does not and we get the weird spotting results it sure is noticable. because it is hard to justify why a unit cannot see a 20 Ton tank, that should be clear for it to see. But no matter what, i assume we might always have some unusaul spotting resuts, just by the nature of the programming.

What I see in your testing, the Pz4 does not manage to get similar results But what I saw in my testing is that a unit in motion sees to well also, with your test that is hard to argue. But your times seem similar to mine, and I had the tank in concealment. But all my times were to known identification. I did not record the ? times.

This is a similar test compared to the ones I posted earier. The main difference being I had Sherman on Sherman and I did it in the 2.0 version of the engine, plus the motionless tank had some concealment to give it the advantage. I ran 60 test. Two things I notice here that stick out. The tank in motion managed to get the spotting advantage 16 times. Which seems wrong. But being that you are out in the open with the motionless tank, it can be said, it should be very easy to spot. but why. In my testing. My motionless tank spotted the moving tank consistantly under 20 second, out of all my test I only had one result that was 33 seconds. So from what I saw in my test and what I am seeing here. There does seem to be a problem with the Pz4 seeing a target quickly. I will repost my test here also.

good catch, something to be mindful of. As to getting it fixed, good luck.

If these guys were such CMx1 fanboys, what are they doing here anyway. They are always on the CMx2 forum. So they must be involved with CMx2, they just want to whine, thinking it will bring them closer to their goal of getting the game they want. Wait a minute, that is what I do, but I am at least smart enough to not try to tell Steve he has no clue what he is doing, since his new game is not like the old. He is aware of that. So having opinions are not bad no matter what camp you are in, but at least try to suggest solutions to improve the present game that goes beyond, why did you not put this in the game again.

Interesting point. I know I am much better at paying attention to the details in CMX2 IT likely would improve my play in CMX1, I was very sloppy with my infantry in CMX1, when I lost, it was normally because of something to do with that. Now, I always know where my leaders and platoons are located to each other. Everyone stays in command unless I intentionally decide to break them loose. Where as in the old games, I had units all over the place at times. Immediate firepower was much more important to me than command and control in CMX1

since the units do not allow you split them, some of the formations come with scout units already split. So they are there, it just depends on having the units that have that scout unit. My first battle was troops that did not have scouts, but I am playing one now that does. they are 3men scout teams

Did you word something wrong here. your first test was 25 out of 50, now you are saying 45 out of 50 on the second test and that it is worse. Something is not clear here