slysniper

I dont know where gamey comes into it at all. Pre ordering arty is a real world tactic. The only question is, does the game need adjustment to if it shouldl be on target always. That is the only issue, Personnally, I think there should be a risk of it being off target. But that was not my decision.

Agree with you totally on this, I have really seen nothing that has shown me that placing a cover arc to try and get better spotting on a area works. But I keep trying when I get units that are blind to units i need to spot.

Very True, I generally will use the lower rates of fire on the preplanned stuff if I am on defence. Like you said, can be harder to time. But if you draw it out for a long slow volley, like you said, if you miss time it, you will still likely deni the enemy the desire to move into that area for as long as the mission last. But one it comes down to it, there is many ways to use Arty, depending on what you need. but I find I can use my preplanned attack style in a high persentage of attack missions.

here is my method. I use the preplanned arty. but plan it to areas of attach that I anticipate being to by the delay times I set at the start. So the walking barrage theory. To some extent. Like Jon s stated. I want my men in place next to it by the time it hits the map, so learn to use the delays it allows, set for maximum time on amount used and don’t forget to get your FO in position to see it also if you want to adjust it, but not really needed. So keep him safe unless the rounds need adjustment. Place him a little behind other units that can see the area you want to observe, bring him up only if needed. So an example. Say I have 3- 105 missions of arty available. With 120 rounds each. So I set the first to bomb a hedge row in 15 minutes where I anticipate the first enemy resistance to be. A location I feel I will have troops able to reach by then, when it finishes. Then the second mission might be set for the next objective I plan, but of course I have set that for 30 minutes, since if things go as plan, I should be done with the first and positioning myself for this second location. The good thing about doing it this way is. I can cancel the mission at any time if a feel I do not need it any longer. I know it will be on target, I also keep my FO protected unless I need adjustments to enemy known locations that might be out of its impact area and I have done it in the fastest way possible so that I am not delaying my attack waiting for support arty to be part of my attack. If I fall behind schedule, I can still let it fall and do what damage it will or cancel it and then face the long delays it will take to use it with the normal FO time frames. But at least I am making this decision each game after having played from 15-30 minutes or so. I suggest you learn to use the preplanned arty for all large arty you ever receive unless you have plenty of time to waste. For me I hate to see those 14-16 minute request times it might take some leaders to get arty support, knowing that if I had planned well. I had that stuff coming on target for sure and all I have to do is tell it when to stop if I want to safe some rounds for later use.

This is for me the best news of all. I have been waiting for this since back in the CMBB days. I have yet to own any of the CMX2 modern stuff because it has not allowed the terrain or equipment that would most likely interest me to pit itself against each other. Now the time has finially arrived and I cannot wait for this to be released. Plus with the improvements to the game engine , I expect this to bring many, many hours or enjoyment.

DONT FEEL LIKE IT WAS ABOUT THE TOPIC. I think it was more to do with no other threads worth an discussion. Now with the new games being announced, that should allow this to die, with interest elsewhere for awhile

I think this might lead to trouble in my home. This is amazing. I want them all, it is more gaming than I will ever get to. When Moon said Big, it sure was not a joke this time!!!

THIS MUST BE THE BIG NEWS, I see I will be spending more money here soon.

Well, whenever they do say something, you willl still have your wish there. Since there is always plenty of time from comment to product in General.

I WONDER How many lashings did Moon get for letting that comment slip out. Because as always, BF sure was not ready to say anything or meet their own dead lines as to when they thought they would have something. They are working fast enough for me, if they did get more out I would not be able to play it any faster anyway. SO they would get my money and I would get software that was outdated by the time I really was able to get to it. At least the present method of pace, I get their latest work and I already have a computer way more ready for newer versions than the design they started years ago, So I know I am running the software as best as it can do.

That was what I was thinking. That shot should not be made because he cannot see the tank, then the rocket should have exploded on the roof. So I would think the bug is, the german side does not see buildings there. the game is playing like the buildings do not exist. So I think the bug is in the buildings. So does this mean we all have to stop playing until this resolved, I have seen so many players that claim such acts means the game is terrible and just not worth playing til fixed. Actually, this is a bad error, but not something hat has happened before or reported from anyone that I recall. So you have a real one of a kind bug there.

Good advice, but there is nothing wrong with being under 500 meters, as the distace closes just have a few guys that are available if the gunner goes down. Sometimes I use a scout unit or something like that, now I have three gunners, so who cares if I lose one man, two more to replace him. The MG is ready and it has a ton of ammo. My feelings is , just keep them far enough away so Mg ruunds and stuff like that do not penetrate them. I start feeling convertable 200 meters out and like them at 300, they do alot more hurt at that range instead of the 700 suggested. So I might lose a gunner or two. But I gareentee you I am killing the enemy infantry, not just supressing them. But either method is good, just depends on what your goal are.

others have complained about this also, I have seen their screen shots and they are terrible. But it is not that way for everyone. When I run night scenarios, I have no problem seeing the game or do I need to adjust the monitor, And I do not have my monitor bright because I cannot stand that. Not sure if there has been a answer to the problem but I know there is other threads on it, likely in the tech. section.

item 1: gunners in moving HTs (and unbuttoned AFVs) being picked off like sitting ducks so far there is nothing that anyone has brought forth to back their personal opinion - so why is it incorrect other than you say so. item 2: there's too big a disparity between vehicle-to-vehicle spotting and vehicle-to-infantry spotting (how does a tank commander spot a truck parked behind bocage 500m away but fail to notice the MG team 50m away, in the same cone of vision, that is firing on him Ok, , not perfect, it has been shown time and again, maybe we will see improvements in the future, time will tell, still better than anything else that is out there. item 3: generally, buildings are a poor source of cover been addressed, is better than it was, with good technics, really not a problem for many players anymore. still would be nice to know what the building is going to do in protection - they need indication of some type. As for covered Arcs, they are the Holy Grail of complaints, As for the present system, plenty of threads to help you play the game with the present system. really not a issue as I see it, but yes i would like the old way back also, it would make it better.

Keep in mind, it is not BF not accepting your criticism, it is other players that understand that its poor criticism and that it will not normally be looked at unless there is facts to supports the comments as to what is incorrect BF has made a great wargame, but keep in mind they can make a game, not the perfect sim. ( people do have to understand there is limitations.) Show me where BF has denied the issues, again remember you are talking to other players most of the time, not BF

I am pretty sure this might be the best sniper action and results that I have ever managed out of a team. I had posted the story on another thread and this was their final results. What made this team so cool was both are packing sniper rifles. it really helped in dropping the enemy when I found them out of cover. I dont think the Americans can have a team like this, for once I found something I like about the Brits,

Had to finish my story about the sniper Team, their flank did not receive much more action, what action that was received, other troops handled. but I did move them into this building and pretty much forgot about them. End of game results show that I was off on my numbers a little. I am pretty sure this might be the best sniper action and results that I have ever managed out of a team

Is that not the reason for about 50% of the post on this forum:)

SO WHAT, TAKE AWAY THE DAMAGE SO TANKS CAN RUN OVER ANYTHING, ANYWHERE WITHOUT WORRIES. That is not realistic either. The amount of damge the tank is getting in the game is minimal, if the player has any sence, it should not impact him. But it prevents the unrealistic use of armor mowing everything down for some purpose that is gamey. Maybe it is not perfect, but it was added to remind players that there is risk in going through obstacles and that they should choose to do it when neccesary (not whenever because tanks are immune)

I wondered the same thing with the original post. He might have thought that they were all hits, but there might be a chance they were exploding on something else next to the tank. So some of the issue could be understanding what is going on which is not going to be possible unless he plays wego and then has the chance to diesect the turn in replay. He did not understand the mortars are not a real threat to killing a tank. And admits that he is learning the game and the realistic expectations that should be given by the weapons. I will admit, this game is not for the adverage person anymore, for someone that does not know the period well or has plenty of knowledge of what to expect from each weapon. At least in CMX1 they had a few aids that were clear as to what might be able to kill what, now that is very limited and really not of much value. I know I never even look at the chart, I go off my knowledge of what to expect and how to use the weapons. I do feel the game really lacks in that it has no good aids for someone that would be a greeny to the hobby. If I was to sit my son down, which is a well educated person. he would be clueless how to be successful with what he has in front of him. The only way he could learn to be good or understand the game well would be to go study other sources. Because the game has only that simple chart which is not much. In other words, you really need to already be a history nut of the period and understand military tactics to be any good at this game. Playing the game by itself is not going to give you that knowledge

You have to admit, Halftracks are pretty weak by this point in the war. I have no problem seeing rounds penetrate them if they are armor piercing, which by this point of the war, larger MGs had and likely had some with them. But in the game, it is a guarantee, not only do they have them, but they are loaded, ready to use, no matter what. So standing behind the armor plating is not worth much. So no blitzkrieg with them at this point. The most you can do with them is help support from long range, and I mean long range. They might be a worthy attack platform as long as they were used against an enemy that had only small arms weapons. You are the attacker, have the firepower to suppress, then maybe you could use them in that rolling assault that you want to envision. It has been pointed out here many times, that vision is not a correct one as to how they were really used. But I could see them having been used at some earlier points in the war that way.

now there is a good example. So my question is, how critical should we be.In this footage from the American side First round kills a crew member, second round also. so they dont bail immediatly, the player feels this is wrong- I see it as a possible outcome. The crew can be in a state where they really cannot think straight at all, their brains have been rattled and they are trying to remember they are a crew in a tank. With that many holes in the Tank, the odds are it should have been a fire ball. but the tank did indicate it was red and out of action. So not a terrible outcome from what I see. Again , just a critical player because he did not like the outcome of the game and this fight did not play out as he wanted to preceive it should 99% of the time. What we really need is a thread on mental preperation of players if they are going to play a game where Fate is going to impact the play of the game more than predetermined result as if we are playing a board game where the outcome can be predetermined by charts that we know what our odds will be.

It is only inconsistancy if it happens on a reguler basis. So having a very lucky or unlucky tank in a game once does not show a problem. Yes, does weird stuff happen, it sure does, but how often. To tell you the truth, I can only remember one tank event in a years worth of playing where I thought the odds of it happening were impossible. Now on the sighting and spotting in the game, now there is a area that is inconsistant, even though I am getting use to it and how it works, and feel confortable with it. Every game is going to have multiple moments that I just find myself not liking how it has or has not spotted things. sometimes that is just because it has not benefitted me, but has been better for my opponant. That is bias and I have learned to accept the bad with the good. But other times it is just poor, like infantry not able to spot a enemy tank 50 meters in front of their noise until it starts to gun them down. Now it could sure use some more programming. but you know what, it still is the best we have and I like it. Since it has never even been in any other game I have ever owned. So its much improved over nothing and has added much to how the combat plays out in the game in a much more realistic way. But Steve can improve it all he wants and I hope he does, because there is room for improvement, that is for sure.

As for the game having a bug that somehow caused this tank to not take damage. Well it has been out for over a year and you are the first I can think of claiming that. So not likely, but it could be a one time thing. But to tell you the truth, I would almost say, I would think it was a run of bad luck, now that does happen in the game and I have seen plenty of post about things being wrong, but when they are recreated or replayed, even from the same game file, cannot be reproduced. then it just shows that the game can protray the lots of fate at times.

was this against the AI, if yes. then it might be hard to find out if damage was done or not, you can always review the map at the end of the game and see the condition of each unit. But that is the only point to find out.