slysniper

TREES ARE NOT THE IMPORTANT PART OF WHAT IS NEEDED, MAKE SURE YOU SELECT THE CORRECT GROUND TILE, GET THE THICK BRUSH. But I have to agree with others in that in general I am not having problems with infantry poping up unless they are firing lately. (which should get them revealed) So what you are discribing does sound interesting compared to what I have been seeing. Without images, it is normally hard for others to help figure out what might be going on.

but beleive me I agree with you that spotting does not make sence at times in the game. but I dont expext perfection either, I am sure it is very limited as to what they have programmed to get it to work. compared to all the factors that are involved in real life as to why we see or do not see things that are out there.

I am wondering if he should test them at the same location with a new terrain text. maybe rocky is not concidered good concealment in the game. It would be interesting to see how these numbers compare to if the sniper is in short grass or a tall wheat field. Just saying, the game might not be giving them concealment in their present situation

I am noticing the same thing, because of how they play, I expect to take losses. no big deal. That is not a problem as long as you have enough of them to do that. Not so good if you do not outnumber the enemy by a good percentage.

I will admit that now looking at the discussion and all the insight given on the two threads about Italian squads, their organization and tactics. That I should have held my thoughts, since I was not knowledgeable about the Italians. So I did want it explained to me as to why and it surely has been. As for how these things relate to the game play, I can also accept that. From the sounds of it, maybe they have too much flexibility at the moment, per some views given. As for how action spots work when the game provides multiple adjacent spots for a unit, I will just hope someday you get to that task where we have some flexibility as to what players might be able to select. (Which really has nothing to do with the Italians) As to pointing out that bunching up occurs in real life, that this is not just a game situation. That was insightful also. All that training in the service will teach you to avoid it, but as you point out, when the bullets fly; it is amazing how much of that is ignored. And instincts take over which leads us to the opposite end. I appreciate the fact that not only do we have this forum to be able to discuss these things, but that you, the designer will at times come and give us input as to some of the decisions that are being made and as to why the game is presently as it is. As to how I addressed the comment originally. You are correct in that my approach as not worded in a manner that showed proper restraint. So my apologies. (But it did get a response, but I still should not have done it in such a tone) .

Not sure where you get all that bull****, but whatever you say is always correct. No, I did not make you statements at all. But I do feel a commander should at least be able to order his men to take certain areas of cover, which are within yelling distance and sight. where as not having some flexability there does lead to some issues. In the game I was playing, the units were giving me 2 or 3 action spots. but only one action spot would be on the ridge line where I would have some cover and be able to see the enemy infantry below. So it brought up questions as to why we have no flexability there. Steve has answered them and as I figured. there is only so much you can do with the game, he mentions it is not perfect. but for now it is the best path for the situation of what should and should not be done. I started another game today, playing Italions and have not noticed any issues. First, I am the fools in the valley, so they have no issues finding action spots showing cover and facing right. second, these units have built in 3 men scout units, plus the leader and MG in a seperate split unit from part of its squad. So it is already giving me all the flexabily that I wanted in the other game and that anyone could expect. So these must be better troops than the other battle. so excuse me for jumping to some questions as to the logic in the game, since it was not giving realistic command control to the units. But my suggestions were no where along the lines of your comments. But why would I be suprised by your post. About the same tone as 5000 others.

Good points as always Steve. And I understand, you most definitely understand the game you have designed better than I could ever. So thanks for the text and explanations. As for beating me in a real time game, I am sure you would. Since I am at the point in life where real Time is just a area of stress that I do not enjoy. I only play that format if I am playing the machine. then I can pause when I want and give out turns to many units just like I was playing Wego. Plus solves my two left hands on the computer keys also:)

Something like this would be good for all units, just not the Italions. I think having to play with them has just drawn my focus to the fact that I have never liked how the game allows you to select the multi square locations. Steve plays without splitting squads. I always am splitting squads. Not that I dont want to keep them together. But for the fact that I find it is the only way to get all my unit in position to see the enemy. And face command does not solve the problem.

As for the game and feel, last night was my first attempt with the italions and I liked the challenge. manage to win the scenario "avanti". really did not mind the squads having to stay together, since they have no firepower. So it was a good feel to the challenge of a nation that was not to the same level of warfare as other nations at the time. But it was a good thing I had plenty of infantry, because it was hard to get their firepower to bear on targets, so without have the numbers in my favor, the battle would have been hard to win otherwise. The weapon firepower always reflect well to the real thing, so I love having a new nation to play with. with mostly it challenges as to how to get some good out of their weaker stuff, I do hope some adjustments can be done to working with the squads, still seems too restrictive to me. Restictions are in order, it comes down to what extent is realistic.

Thanks for the reply. Not that I disagree with you. Having limits is fine. But even adding a few adjustments could make a big difference. I like your thought about squads spreading out in a building without us having to give them commands. But it could also lead to problems, maybe I know the enemy is on the second floor, so I dont want guys moving to go up there until I order them to. never easy answers. I did make two suggestions on the other thread as to what might be realistic changes. As for my squad clumping into one action spot. maybe it was only seven. but I cannot verify it. I ordered a unit to the outside of a building side wall and I watched in amazement as the whole unit went to that one action spot and laid down along the wall on top of each other. As for the game never leaving more than 7 in a action spot, I know you understand your game better than I. But I also know I have seen all the men rush to one action square, then watch part break off and move to their square and spread out. Now if by chance, something like incomming fire happens at that moment, I think I have seen men get pinned and have more than 7 in one area for a short period until they crawl when able to a second action spot. But again unless i have proof shown here, it never happens, I know.

I was not saying it is wrong in concept, but can there be some flexability as to how they work in the game. Still restricting them but able to work with the game system better. Maybe, like a feature to at least pick the 2 or 3 action points that are touching each other so at least you can try to position the whole squad to be able to maybe see desired point. like lining up along a ridge line. (right now it is shear luck if you can find the machine giving you the correct multi action point locations.) Or maybe a feature, that allows limited splitting but prevents the squad from willing leaving each others sight, they are required to stay within verbal command or something like that. Having some different restrictions are not a issue. But it should be fair to what they were able to preform. (Now you cannot tell me they fought in R.L., by requiring the whole squad to storm and assault the building at once).

I started another thread on this, but this is my first impressions as to playing the Italians, I think that it is not a good way of depicting them because of game mechanics. What is the logic in not letting Italian squads split. I can see it as to poor training maybe. but it is not working well in the game. The units are so big, they are not working well with your action spots. Examples. Assault is only allowed to one action square, 12 men in one square is not very good tactics basically, ties the italians hands as to no scouting units. scoting with a squad is not very stealty. To keep my men spread out, I need them to move to a 2 or 3 action spot location. problem is, since the game selects them spots, many times only 1 of the 3 action spots will have troops with the line of sight I need. when inside bldgs, since I cannot split the squad and spread them out on floor levels, the old problem of too many men at one window is showing up. So what is the logic again, because they are already at a great disadvantage without you doing that to them. With their large squad size, they should at least be able to split into 2 units or something. I am just glad I am not italian or I would consider it a insult as to how they allow them to play.

What is the logic in not letting Italian squads split. I can see it as to poor training maybe. but it is not working well in the game. The units are so big, they are not working well with your action spots. Examples. Assault is only allowed to one action square, 12 men in one square is not very good tactics basically, ties the italians hands as to no scouting units. scoting with a squad is not very stealty. To keep my men spread out, I need them to move to a 2 or 3 action spot location. problem is, since the game selects them spots, many times only 1 of the 3 action spots will have troops with the line of sight I need. when inside bldgs, since I cannot split the squad and spread them out on floor levels, the old problem of too many men at one window is showing up. So what is the logic again, because they are already at a great disadvantage without you doing that to them. With their large squad size, they should at least be able to split into 2 units or something.

it is seldom you see a tank overrun successfully within the game, great post. To bad it was against you instead of for you. edit: If someone can tell me how to use the spoiler tag on BFC I'd appreciate it.

You get a little more for your money when you buy the older stuff. They have the bundle package that saves you $10 bucks or so. But with version 2.0 still a few months out, you might want to wait to get that once they offer the old games in the bundle and the ver 2.0 update. So I would suggest going with the new game with all the latest toys, enjoy it. it will give you plenty of entertainment for now and when you find you like it so much. You can always get CMBN and the mods later when you have the money, plus by then it will be playing the same way as to what you have become accoustomed to.

Now that the next release of the game has come out, maybe a little testing is in order. But I still have issues with what I can test that would make any inpact. First, the designer has told us that to give the AI the ability to fight when on offence. It must have the ability to fire on the move, since it cannot stop, fire and then start moving again. So since the AI rules and ours are the same, when we order units they also have that ability. So he wants it to spot, fire and continue moving. we have to assume it is protraying . moving, stop, spotting, fire, then movement again. (never have liked this decision, but I dont know what factors he is up against to get the game to play well either) So that part of the programming is not changing soon, so my case for not being able to spot enemy units on the move is not going to happen. So that leaves being able to spot moving objects more easily. Which could be tested and which could be adjusted if it appears to be lacking. That testing should not be all that hard to see what is going on presently, with spotting moving to non-moving targets and get a feel for how long it takes. Exspecially when it is that elephant right in front of your noise situation.

FINISHED "CATCH THE TIGER" Just had to get one game in to see the new little tweeks and stuff. I noticed a little more than just the commands, some nice improvement. Played as the Americans,fun little battle to win. But there was a enemy sniper that had a hay day against me, killed eight of my troops. he was driving me crazy, and that was against the AI. 3 of them 8 were from the team I sent up there to take him out, sure did not work so well.

Ok, You guys are in trouble. My first download attempt crashed at 80%, but now I have it and the game is up and running. You wasted 15 minutes of my time, I could be that much farther now if you had stayed quiet.

SAME HERE, AND ISNT' IT NICE, IT IS SO,SO,SO FAR AWAY.

All you really need to know about the Peng is. If them guys start posting in your thread (they have considered it funny, normally because it has turned into some ugly flame war). You need to stop your actions immedietly - for you have gone to a dark place and there is a chance that you might not ever return. Learn their names, watch and see if what I say is not true:)

Well, actually, these spotting actions that occur in the game happen much more than just with the armor. It happens in the infantry fighting also. Moving infantry able to see and then fire on motionless infantry waiting for them in woods or behind hedges or such. Or infantry that cannot see a tank that is less than 20 meters in front of them with no apparent sight blockage at times. But in general, it is much more accepting because its only infantry, and it might cost a man or two, but when its a AT group, you hear the complaints because they have a chance to bag a tank, but for some reason, they cannot see the thing even though its the size of a elephant right in front of them. But of course, we really notice every action to our precious Armor. Its of the most value. So we watch every round, every move it makes. So seeing how the spotting works in the game become much more clear. Again, it is not that I do not like the spotting in the game, I do. It adds alot to the game and does make it seem more realistic. It does add to the fates of war as to who sees and fires first normally wins a conflict. there is plenty a military paper that will back that concept and how important it is to be the side that does it. So since the game is trying to create that type of concept within its play. Then it best try to get that number crunching aspects of that as good as it does its armor penetration numbers. No question, some testing should be done to see what the results show. but it does not take rocket science to understand how movement should affect spotting. Take it from someone who has had to sit in hot fields with bugs crawling over them, less than 50 yards from 4 or 5 men trying to spot them and could sit there for a hour and not be spotted, but the second we were forced to move would be spotted in a fraction of a second. The thing is , pretty much we all know that, we all have many life experences that tell us how sighting works. How many times have you passed a dear on the side of the road and you did not see him until the last second, because you are in a moving car, focused on the road. And there he is, big as life, in the open, just yards away and not until you are right on top of him do you see him (that is because you are the one moving and your sighting is processing all that changing terrain data.) the game does not have this basic spotting concept right. Unless there is something in their programming that reflects moving as to its plus or minus aspects, which I kind of doubt that it does. then we will cotinue to see the same results which are just not natural, that is all.

Baneman, my last comments were directed to dieseltaylor. But does apply to anyone that get so upset with how the results of combat in the game might affect them now. I actually agree with sbuke that most of the time in game play, I get the results that seem correct when I guard roads and such. But it also normally depends on multi units watching the road, units with concealed locations and arcs that allow them to not fire before I am ready. So I agree, cannot think of many situatuions where good tactics have not prevailed in game play. But I can think of some. It is always a factor when you are in a match where you have only a few units. Then the situation might be you only have one tank that can cover a road from enemy use. The terrain is not able to give you a hide, which is common since you only have one unit, so you want him located so he can see down the length of the road. Now we are in the perfect situation where it takes only one enemy tank to pull out on that road and it comes down to who spots who first. Needless to say, I have had the moving tank either spot while moving or after stopping and get the first shot off without the defending tank see anything. I know the irritation, I know the non-logic to it. but i still can accept the fact when it happens. I just place a story line in my head, the tank crew was tired, half asleep and not alert. Sad to say, these type of things do affect the crazy stuff that does happen in real life. So having the game throw me crap does not feel all that un-real. But i would prefer to have my troops not miss seeing 15 ton tanks moving down a road. or do i want to see moving tanks spot while they are bouncing across terrain and see units that should be receiving decent concealment. So room for improvement. but does not stop the fun or the level of competition it presently gives.

you better go back to your other interest, because I can promise you it is not changing enough to become realistic if you presently do not think it is realistic enough. I think the problem might lie in the fact that for some playing competatively against someone else, that any game mechanics that throws in chance actions where units are dieing to things you cannot control is the issue. So no matter what the designer does, I am not sure you will be happy with the game. because in general, they are designing it more and more to take away your god like control over the unit and that as a player you must accept your units actions whether good or bad. They want the player to focus on tactics , not micro managing each unit and getting perfect results. Gone are the days that I can gareentee myself moving three units into place will gareentee me that all three will spot and fire on one unit I know is around the corner or bend. That I can expect that 2 of them 3 units will survive after I overwhelm the enemy unit with firepower. That was wargaming in the past, but not all that real either. Now I have to approach that same challenge with more realistic methods.

have you ever heard, when you post a thread like this. They delay sending you the message a day that the game is ready for download. So you are now at the mercy of someone else letting you know when the real release has occurred.

Well I am more accepting than that, Even with the flaws, I enjoy the game so much, I have no issues wih paying for their product, even with areas that I love to point out as being flawed. Now if there was something out there competing with what they are doing, they might lose my bussiness. But really, nothing in recent years has come close to me as for what I want a tactical game to provide. So i will be more than happy to buy their product as long as it interest me. They ask a fair price and I get tired of those that try and claim other wise. Anyone sitting down at a machine has invested the money for the machine and the money to be on line. I cannot understand where they can complain with the cost for the software of the game if they are using it. lets see. I have spent approx $100.00 dollors for CMBN and its first mod. I probably spend a minimun of 12 hours a week playing this game, so that would be 60 weeks x 12 = 720 hours of entertainment. So at that price it is costing me 14 cents a hour for that entertainment. And no I will not add the machine or internet price since I would need and use them whether I had the game or not. Now for some , they say they cannot aford it, fixed budget. Easy way to fix that. Get off your chair and go do some work. I think you only have to hold the job for two days before you can get yourself fired and go back to being on fixed income. unless you are in part of the world that abuses you and your labor, for them few souls that might be out there trying to stay in this hobby. I do feel for you, but that is a issue that has nothing to do with this product.