slysniper

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.

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.

I dont think anything they do with the new engine is going to solve the problems you guys have with the game. CMX2 engine is never going to work with the same aspects as the old game. If you cannot figure out how to get your troops to spot and fire as you would like, THE NEW LITTLE FIXES ARE NOT CHANGING THE BASIC WAY IT FUNCTIONS

Actually I think the concept has been around for a long while. There is a book from an samurai written like a 1000 years ago that talks about the elements of the earth and warfare and tactics. There are five areas. Famous book, I cannot remember the title right now. It is very symbolic and it is sold for business strategy

There is many aspects to think about, this is good. But while these units need to regroup, there should be more going on. Example. I attack with my units in depth. So a company might have one or two platoons forward. when the forward unit gets to the conditions mentioned here, then I pull the reseve platoon forward to keep constaint pressure on the enemy, they push the attack as I regroup the other units. Then you should think about this in larger levels also. So behind this company. i have another company. So as the battle progresses and I come to the end of the match. I can push a whole new fresh company to pick up where the old one is spent and needs to stop attacking. This is a fist. I can put constaint hard pressure in a localized area, if the enemy appears to break. i have troops ready to exploit that break. No time is given for the enemy to recover. YES , SCOUT, YES BE READY TO PROTECT MOVING UNITS, AND SO FORTH. BUT PUSH, AND WHEN YOU DO. take advantage of the enemy weaknesses. When they break, dont play to their strengths take the paths that are the easiest to your goals. I am playing a battle right now where the defender has two excellent flank positions that I have no interest in trying to take. He thinks he has me pinned on both ends. But I have found multible areas and paths not defended well in his middle and my troops are flowing into his center, I hope to find flanking positions to his strong points on the flanks and either get him in a cross fire or watch as he will need to retreat and give up them excellent flank positions because he has committed too many troops there. So eiher way I will get my goal because I found the weakness and will exploit it to gain the advantage I need for my goals. I need the flanking objectives. By why pay a heavy price if I need not. So I am preparing my flanking units to be the fist if the time arrises, so they are just holding the enemy in place until the firepower is to my advantage. It seems like water to me, find the path the seems the easiest and take it to your destination. If no path is there, then take enough water to force the path that is needed. A strong overflowing stream does much more damage than the same water spread out over a 100 meter path.

Ah, the future of warfare, a whole new doctrine of winning tactics. I better start writting now.

My comments were in fun, not a attack on a designer. I look at briefings for what they are, I will take what info I can from them and then do what I want. I pay little attention to what tactics they tell me to use. But again, who is to say what is a good tactic, maybe what is being suggested is good, for someone else, but maybe not me. All I know is there is plenty of times where I am glad I did not follow what the briefing was trying to lead me to do. But truthfully. maybe a majority of briefings are giving good advice, not like I am going to try to point out bad briefings. Truely the only bad briefing to me is one that does try to lead you down a poor path. But in general, if there is a briefing like that. normally there might not be a good path available.

I posted this on another thread in CMBN, but I think it applies to the spotting issues and what might be the area that needs tweeked. It basically shows to me that the area that might need testing is that of how fast should a unit be able to spot a enemy unit if it is moving and the enemy is not firing and motionless. Most of the time if you think about it. this is where the issue lies. As for this thread and the sniper being spotted. In general, if he is shooting. he has about twice as long as it is taking him to spot your open units moving in the field. So not long to get identified. But what I am saying, that this is how all units are working in the game maybe. Here is the other post Ok, I finally sat down and did a little bit of testing last night to see what I would discover under the latest version of the game. I saw some good and some not so good things. And by far, this is not enough testing to mean anything. But it was enough to get me a feel for what is going on and now I can try some other set ups to see how it impacts things. But as of yet, I do not have anything worth running a large number on that would show some issues. The setup is this. I have a moving Sherman M4A1’s in the open, moving from cover to cover at 800 meters away from an enemy Sherman in tall grass under trees with heavy cover and trees behind it. (This might not be considered to be much concealment in the game-I need to test other types of hexes) but it is what I went with to see if it impacts play. Which I have not tested yet. The crews were Vets. With no mods and all units. What I found the game does well is, Moving target in open are sighted very quickly. I saw no problems there. Within 13-15 seconds from the start of the game I always had sight of the moving Tank. I saw nothing in the test to think anything needs changed here. Now the fun stuff. At first I tested the moving Sherman with a hunt order and let both tanks fire at will. The results were the tank in the woods managed to shoot first every time. Spotting in 15 seconds and firing a few seconds later. With the enemy shooting at them the moving Sherman adv. spotting time were 28 seconds and then stopping and returning fire. So in general, not bad. Except for one thing, I had a battle where both tanks almost spotted each other at the same time. So I adjusted the test so no firing would take place. Then I set the moving tank to not move to cover, but to zig zag moving towards the enemy. Let’s see what happens running at different speeds and see how long it takes the moving tank to spot the motionless tank in some concealment. The motionless tank did fine with an adv. of 13 seconds to spot the enemy, nothing longer than 19 seconds. But it is the moving tank that might have issues. Here is what I saw. On the adv. It normally was taking twice as long for the moving tank to spot the motionless, tank. With 50% of the test taking over a minute for it to spot the tank. But that was the adv. Where I see a possible flaw is that 25% of my test had the moving tank spotting the enemy tank in 20 seconds or less. With two tests actually having both tanks spot each other at the same time. This is not good. Now I understand, that I should think of a tank in hunt mode as stopping at times and looking for the enemy. So I ran some test at quick and fast to see if I could get similar results (there does appear to be added penalties). But I did get results of fast moving tanks still spotting the enemy tank twice in less than 23 seconds. (Now that is really bad- no fast moving tank should be seeing things all that well). So In general, the moving tanks in the game adv. twice as long to spot something with a little variance for speed - not bad, at least there is a good difference (but similar results as if the enemy was firing, there should be much more of a difference). They have the ability to spot way to fast. Non motion targets at times. So I think a detailed test focused on this one issue might be what is needed. So I was glad to see in principle it works, it just comes down to how often should a moving tank get eagle eye abilities where nothing is preventing it from seeing the enemy. (It is almost like it was sitting still and the enemy is not in any concealment either. this shot shows what the moving sherman is trying to see note: even if using Binos, this would not be easy to pick up quickly Where as, even not in motion, it is pretty clear that we have a enemy tank out there I do not expect the game to be totally realistic, but Some additional tweeking could be done to prevent moving units from picking up non firing units so quickly at times

Ok, I finally sat down and did a little bit of testing last night to see what I would discover under the latest version of the game. I saw some good and some not so good things. And by far, this is not enough testing to mean anything. But it was enough to get me a feel for what is going on and now I can try some other set ups to see how it impacts things. But as of yet, I do not have anything worth running a large number on that would show some issues. The setup is this. I have a moving Sherman M4A1’s in the open, moving from cover to cover at 800 meters away from an enemy Sherman in tall grass under trees with heavy cover and trees behind it. (This might not be considered to be much concealment in the game-I need to test other types of hexes) but it is what I went with to see if it impacts play. Which I have not tested yet. The crews were Vets. With no mods and all units. What I found the game does well is, Moving target in open are sighted very quickly. I saw no problems there. Within 13-15 seconds from the start of the game I always had sight of the moving Tank. I saw nothing in the test to think anything needs changed here. Now the fun stuff. At first I tested the moving Sherman with a hunt order and let both tanks fire at will. The results were the tank in the woods managed to shoot first every time. Spotting in 15 seconds and firing a few seconds later. With the enemy shooting at them the moving Sherman adv. spotting time were 28 seconds and then stopping and returning fire. So in general, not bad. Except for one thing, I had a battle where both tanks almost spotted each other at the same time. So I adjusted the test so no firing would take place. Then I set the moving tank to not move to cover, but to zig zag moving towards the enemy. Let’s see what happens running at different speeds and see how long it takes the moving tank to spot the motionless tank in some concealment. The motionless tank did fine with an adv. of 13 seconds to spot the enemy, nothing longer than 19 seconds. But it is the moving tank that might have issues. Here is what I saw. On the adv. It normally was taking twice as long for the moving tank to spot the motionless, tank. With 50% of the test taking over a minute for it to spot the tank. But that was the adv. Where I see a possible flaw is that 25% of my test had the moving tank spotting the enemy tank in 20 seconds or less. With two tests actually having both tanks spot each other at the same time. This is not good. Now I understand, that I should think of a tank in hunt mode as stopping at times and looking for the enemy. So I ran some test at quick and fast to see if I could get similar results (there does appear to be added penalties). But I did get results of fast moving tanks still spotting the enemy tank twice in less than 23 seconds. (Now that is really bad- no fast moving tank should be seeing things all that well). So In general, the moving tanks in the game adv. twice as long to spot something with a little variance for speed - not bad, at least there is a good difference (but similar results as if the enemy was firing, there should be much more of a difference). They have the ability to spot way to fast. Non motion targets at times. So I think a detailed test focused on this one issue might be what is needed. So I was glad to see in principle it works, it just comes down to how often should a moving tank get eagle eye abilities where nothing is preventing it from seeing the enemy. (It is almost like it was sitting still and the enemy is not in any concealment either. this shot shows what the moving sherman is trying to see note: even if using Binos, this would not be easy to pick up quickly Where as, even not in motion, it is pretty clear that we have a enemy tank out there I do not expect the game to be totally realistic, but Some additional tweeking could be done to prevent moving units from picking up non firing units so quickly at times

As for speed of play. When playing, I try to push the battle as fast as I can when on offense, it is part of gaining and keeping the advantage. The trick is doing it at a pace where you do not lead your forward units into trouble without proper support or pushing a section of area too quickly without protecting your flanks. No easy way to explain that. That is part of the art of war. Many things will be factors as to how and when you do certain things. But I find many players play way to slow in HtoH. Time and time again when I am on defence. I see someone break my front lines but are so scared to risk commiting some units to see what they have done that by the time they have gained any ground I have regrouped my units and brought up reserves to give them more hell on the battlefield, which could have been theirs for the taking if they play a little more aggressive. But charging head first into the enemy is not the method either. I think of it as water flowing. push against the enemy lines find the weaknesses and find the easiest path that leads to your objectives. If there is no weakness, then group your forces into a fist and punch a area until it is a weakness and exploit it.

What did you say. A briefing that if you follow its instructions, it actually works. Wow, that is a new one. Give the designer a "ata boy" for that. seldom do we find a briefing that if not full of lies to try and get you to do what the designer wants, which is normally bad.

all sizes have their place. But I do agree that there is not enough smaller battles being created. I always feel like the smaller battles are the most exciting. because losing one key piece or unit might swing the whole battle. The bigger the battle gets the less value each unit has in the total objective. you get to a point where losing a platoon of tanks is ok. as long as they bought time for your other three platoons to make the flanking move you wanted. It really does change the thought process you have. For some players, they cannot change the value of their units with how they play the game. So they only like one style.