slysniper

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

Good job, interesting test results. It does appear you are on to something as to these tanks not being equal as to spotting ability. Plus some testing that has shown moving tanks can spot very well, (too well) there appears to be multible issues that can be causing the problems as to spotting and the unrealistic results that we see in the game. As for attacking BF because it is not perfect to ones opinion as to what it should be. Grow up, they are about the only company trying to provide you with this type of product, and make, many efforts to meet the never ending demands of the users. Try you attitude with other designers and see where it gets you. At least BF makes efforts to improve and meet some of the items we want.

Not from me, anyway. I have played a couple of scenario's to get the feel for the Italion forces. then I was going to try the campaigns next. Between that and the HtoH games I have going it will be a long while before I get to that. I really dont have tons of time to play the game, most of these post come while I am at work, Bored, waiting for some work flow to hit my computer.

Have you looked at some other threads lately. I just reported on some testing that shows flaws in spotting with moving tanks. There is plenty of room for improvement with the CMx2 engine. So I do think there is a logical reason there is many players that do not like how it functions to what they have in CMX1, I just think some of us are more accepting of its flaws for what we see as its benifits.

I know, but many gamers are not wanting a game to do that, it does not sit well with them when they lose their big bad tank to a enemy unit for no better reason than it spotted them first. exspecially if their logic tells them that their Tank should have spotted the enemy first. I hope I am not coming over as that I think everyone should want to play CMX2 I can see the competative player in certain ladders prefering CMX1 for just the reasons brought up. Your expected results will be much more forthcoming. You have a system that is much more predictable. I also am pointing out that for some of us we prefer CMx2 because even with its flaws, it does a better job of reflecting the mayham of battle. That being able to play and see consistant winning results is just as sweat and for some of us, just as enjoyable. because for some, controling a battle without having complete control of the units is even more satisfying. Because for us, that represents more what real conflict is about.

I think you have a good point here in that in tournament play, most players are very competative by nature. Now introduce a game that places a new concept into gaming. "Spotting, which in the Armor aspect of the game becomes more important at times instead of good tactics. The game reflects that who sees and fires first is at a greater advantage than any other aspect. Which as you point out, with how the game presently works. Might be a large varence in time for no apparent reason other than that is how the sighting works in the game. not a good format for someone that winning really matters and the game just cost you a tank because they could not see the enemy tank that was right in the open. Players want predictable results. not the roll of the dice. Things could be improved on how the game spots, but there will always be some randomness of who gets the first spot. So the issue will never be resolved. As for tournament play. I am sure there are those that would do fine with it, it just might not be the same people that prefer how CMX1 presently plays. IT reminds me I have a game right now where I have a panther that has taken 6 hits from a M4 Sherman because of for the life of me I cannot get my tank to spot his tank. I have infantry right next to my tank that sees it clear as day. I have reprositioned twice trying to get sight. Nothing. Now I can live with that, But if all that matter was the win, then maybe not. In CMX1. That sherman would have been dead long ago, no questions asked. In this game, My panther has damage now that I dont want, I am afraid I dont want to risk much more, so I might need to pull back and try something else. Which seems more realistic. The almost gareenteed win (CMX1) OR bad luck, taking hits and getting nervious , so I am pulling back (cmX2) which sounds like the stuff you read about in combat. I find many a story that talks about lucky guys that see a Tiger or Panther and get the first shot off and pull off some great stuff, Or course I also read the logic of position warfare that gives one tank a major advantage so that they dominate the field of battle. because of armor strength and fire power. Both have there place. Only one of the two games provide you with something that is a mix of both.

SPOILERS: On the left flank I had infantry units clear the house in the woods, then moved them to the lower right end of the woods back near my starting area. I only try to position them where they see a small portion of the village. In that way only the enemy that can see you can be a part of the fire fight. Do not expose yourself to the whole enemy area and you will find that you do much better in fire fights by chipping away at their edges. In the center I sent most of the infantry up the stream, but stayed behind the first bridge until late in the game because there was no way to take on the american fire power. The mortars in that group crawled up to locations on the open side hill behind the wall, they stayed hidden there until I had units that spotted the AT guns. I used them from locations there to take out the AT gun that was facing my position. I also sent some infantry to help the fighting I thought would be needed on the right flank woods. On the right flank. I also moved infantry to the back portion of the woods where the roadway enters there. I did not want any suprises firing down on me from that location. But what happened was, this became the key area to my offense. Again from here I had a nice overview of only the front portion of the village. This really became the area of my main base of fire. At some point I discovered a second AT gun in town behind some bldgs. I moved a mortar a little forward to this general area to place arty on it, plus at a angle where the gun could not return fire. Additional infantry cleared the house in the woods on the right flank along with some reinf, that came. After that was done most of that group moved up to the ridge line overlooking the whole area in the valley. But immediately was getting shot up. So I pulled them back from the ridge, then pushed them up in the woods towards the enemy rear to make sure the woods were clear. This allowed me to use my weak armor in two ways. first I sent a few tanks with that infantry I pushed forward on the right side. Late in the battle I rolled them out of the woods to the enemy rear and flanks when they were engaging my main forces. The rest of the tanks that came in on the right flank went back to the location where the road enters the woods from my side of the board. They added support fire to help clear the enemy infantry behind the first bridge, then shifted and were used on the front bldgs in the villiage. The main armor that came in the center did not do much until I had cleared the first bridge area. At which point I pulled them up to a area just right of the bridge where they started to also area fire on bldgs in town. When the allies had reinfocement appear, it was my right flanking units that gave me the advantage. The thing was, I had no real battle plan in the one. It seemed pretty straight forward and I figured it be a challenge to clear the town. So I played with what the enemy gave me. I did not try to take on what I could not win. My worst mishap was I lost 2 or 3 tanks to at the road intersection on my right flank that was the key base fire location. The first was lost to the second AT gun, that is how I found out that there was a gun there. I lost a second one after I started mortaring that location, I pulled the tank out to help area fire on that gun figuring I had it pinned. But after two shots, some AT gunner managed to have the courage to fire again and I lost a second tank to that same gun. The only reason I had tanks in the woods late in the game ready to flank was because I was afraid to pull them out in fear the Machine guns on the halftracks would make swiss cheese of them. So I left the halftracks to my center tank force, because they could engage them at the greatest distance. Only when I saw the juicy reinf come that I sure did not want them getting their large guns into action did I decide to rush down the hill side and see if I could get them from behind. When it, really comes down to it, looking at many of my battles. It comes down to having a feel for what to do more than it comes down to black and white tactics from a book. There is things that can be taught, but there is also things that come from just practicing it and getting a feel for what is needed.

So we have turned this into a CMX1 vs CMX2 debate once again. face it they are not the same, they are never going to be the same. At least you are getting some of the controls back so that how you order units are more similar. As for which you want to play, great, whichever it is go play it but the other side reallly does not want to hear about it, because they like the other better. I think it comes down to you mastered a way of playing the game, it became natural for you and when them same skills sucked in the new game, you figured the game had problems, I know I did. But after a while, I decided to invest in some time on the new system, changed my style of play and learned how to get the results I wanted out of the new system. I figure many will never want to do that since they are good with their old ways. (Which is fine) For me what I found, after I started becoming good with the new engine, I started to see how it required much more of the skills I was taught in RL in the service, that I could do more real life tactics. So for me, I have went with the new and really do not like playing the old much more. But unless you are willing to change, you will never like the new game, because no matter how many adjustments they make, it will never play like the old. It seems pretty clear to me anyway.

oops, double post

ASL Veteran sounds like he is a excellent player. he is the type that makes you pay if you have not sent out your leading scout units correctly and done correct recon before bringing up your main body of troops. But these things do not mean taking large chunks of time. recon can be aggressive if overwatch teams are where they need to be. As for playing the AI, personnally not much until CMBN came out, now I do like the campaigns. And the last time I checked, its the only way to play them. No I have actively been playing H to H since 2004 and before that , the Close Combat series, before that ASL I have played a few other excellent players over the years. each has his style. But I have only played against one person that I consider my better. And to tell you the truth he somehow manages to make fast coordinated attacks that I cannot come close to matching in speed. In general his play is more fluid than anyone else I have ever seen. Hardly matters the situation, he is constantly moving forces and has a excellent skill in knowing where to set them. Just has a great feel for what the battle is doing and is hard to deceive. Where as, those that play me, that know me have described my play to be like a Snake. Once I have the advantage, I rap my coils around them and slowly but constantly strangle the life out of them. I have taken that as a compliment. To me ASL Veteran sounds like he has a good defensive backround that he is able to use in his play. Players like him are few also. The thing is, I know most players are weak on defensive skills. seldom it is I find one that shows real talent. It only takes one battle to see that in someones play. So in general, one does not need to worry about masterfully designed defensive tactics from most battles they are in. But maybe the truth to what works depends on you, the person you are also. You have to find tactics that work for you but that also follow good logic. There is more than one way to play good offense. But they all follow good tactics if they are going to be consistantly successful.

Thus the reason to be aggressive. Not giving the defender time to pull them up to a good location to provide help is the way to keep the defence off balence

Beware as you may find your forces flowing into a kill sack. I am wary of moving through areas my opponent is allowing me too true, but you have to find a worthy opponent before you start to have to deal with such things. I have not had a problem other than scenario designed ones where reinforcements come in later to create the pocket you are caught in.

that is the Book, I have it on the shelve at home.

testing them in the same testing and comparing spotting times would be a easy way to compare that

Oh one other thing I wanted to mention. I started the test with clear skies at noon, I switched it thinking maybe overcast skies might change spotting the tank in the woods, which is what you are seeing. It was not the point of my test, but if it was a factor, it appeared they were spotted quicker when it was overcast. but based on the number of runs I would say there was no real difference. or not enought that I can say the engine was impacting the sighting because of it.