slysniper

To jump on your side a little, I too have found at times, units, not just tanks. spotting things that to me should not be spottable. Making shots that really do not make sence that they should have spotted or focused on. But it is a game and asking it to have the same amount of logic that you have is asking alot. Play the game enough and you will learn to judge what to expect. And this is what I expect, tree foilage is not good concealment in the game. It is the one thing that graphics do not match what the game thinks. I have seen time and time again. shots taken through trees that likely in real life would never have happened. Not unless all the leaves are missing on them trees. Now I am in the practice of setting units in such locations knowing I will likely get spotting and shots on the enemy, all I have to do is make sure I have a lane of fire where them invincible trunks are not located. (then I hear the reply from my opponant, I have no clue where you are shooting me from). But I also have lost units the same way. because by magic he spots me but I cannot see him. so it can work both ways. But going down to ground level and looking at the view is worthless. I actually turn the trees off at that point to see if anything else is blocking my view if not, given enough time, the unit will likely spot something. Now the real question. How many trees does it take to not be seen. I have a feel for it, but not a answer. Bocages, have already been mentioned also. At times spotting through them is funny also in the game. But learn to play the game with what it gives you and move on, pointing out it could improve is fine. So I will agree with you that they really should adjust how trees give concealment, but til that day happens, learn what to expect from them and work with it.

I understand, I am not really going after you either. Just pointing out it does have a way of sitting wrong with others. I come here to talk about the game, I like it when we have threads that talk about how to play the game, how to use tactics, how to use the game tools to get units to use certain tactics. What I find, is mostly threads like this, nothing wrong with it. But it does get old, so it does not suprize me when those that are on the site alot get tired of it and post comments in the opposite view with a attitude. Including myself

Nothing is a pushover if designed right. Lets see, during the cold war era, what would be the numbers. 10-1. It would be a little like the arab/israeli war but not in the dessert. So a better chance of getting them weaker units in flanking positions and up close and personnal. Yes it would be less restrictive. But most of us like to wonder of what if. Also as mentioned, you can make good battles no matter what units are used. That is correct. I just have not found a interest in what CMSF offered. I found the few things I played could be challenging. But I will stay with the comments as I mentioned before as to why it lacks.

I figure I could make interesting battles or find some, yes. Likely Blue on blue, which it allows Yes. Let the US. take on Nato forces or something. But then I am lacking the other part of what pulls me to this pasttime- the History. I like stuff that protrays history or protrays History as to what if, So not having a modern game where it is the major forces of the world squaring off in a third World War just misses it for me. I do not care if that is what the game is presented as, but I want the tools so that is the game I can make scenarios of. And not just me, I want the game focus there so that is also the efforts of the community, thus a great value as to what I get. I have missed nothing, I have found more than plenty of things to study and play from this site. Yes, I miss not playing with the weapons which are of our era, but as I said, I figire the time hopefully will come when I get the game I really want, so I just have not wanted to invest my time or money into something that just really does not deliver.

JonS, I see you have managed to win people over with your charm once more:eek: As for some wanting to mention for at least the 100th time some of the features they miss, why get them mad. They can comment as much as you feel you must comment on each and every thing,. But here is the sad part, now I need to somewhat get on the same side of this issue with you. Do any of you think BF would not have put in most of these features if they could have. They thought these things were worth having before, so do you really think they just did not want them now. I for sure do not know what was the reasons for what made it in the game and what did not. I have no issues if someone wants to request them back, so let it be. But I also would like people to get over it, likely many of these things are not coming back in this version of the game. Only BF could ever answer that, which they do not do. So make your post, wish and move on. Unless you have the skill to develope your own computer game, if not. Back to ASL for you, there you can make whatever rules you like. Ps. I would like many of these things back also, but I just know it is not worth the effort to go there, as you have seen. Plus, really most of us really do not understand the challenges of doing a game like this in computer format. These guys need praise, not the same old comments about what we dont have at the moment.

I never bought cmsf or any of the add ons, even now with the reduced price. And I was one that wanted modern combat done before they ever mentioned it, requested it multible times when we had only the WWII stuff. My reason is simple, they missed that main draw to what makes for a very popular game. Two major forces with the best weapons available in conflict against each other. Until they get hard core soviet forces against hard core allied forces and that is a normal feature I can work with within the game, it just has no appeal to me. Plus they gave us no tools to module anything but dessert. Thus I still cannot waste my time or my money with CMSF. Now if I could Merge CMA soviet units and CMSF allied units and Terrain from CMBN. Then for me, they have found my weak point, I will be required to buy each and every thing they produce, because that will just be another addition that I will need to fill. A game I just cannot get enough of. And Yes, there has been hints before now that they are producing a new modern game but the only thing I recall being said was that it would be depicted in a region where Terrain features will be more like what we see in CMBN. Now if they just give us what I think they might be giving us. I cannot take it, Where the he11 is that annoucement

I agree 100% But we have to realize, there are plenty out there that are accustomed to games that work on 2+2 =4 and when this game does not deliver that, they get upset. Whereas some of us have learned to love the unpredictable nature of the game and enjoy that. The thing I find interesting to me the most is that even though there is more things out of my control within the newer version of the game, I find that my tactics, when good still provider me with victories, and I truly feel that good solid tactics pay off more now than they did in the earlier version of the games. I see things, like proper security, protecting my flanks, good unit dispersion. Keeping good chain of command, all these type of things are paying off way more than they use too. The level of play has increased and rewards those that understand how to use it.

Amen to that, but at times I find them not available

Good tip:. I had not noticed that about how spltting the team might affect the grenade distribution to what I want.

Exactly, what I was thinking That is one thing that has improved so much, at times AT guns can be a real death threat now. They have improved so much as to being hard to take out at times. (which should be the case) But many have pointed out that they are still flawed and there should be additional improvements. So if anything, as time goes on, they might become even harder to remove, then we will wonder why we wanted arty toned down.

My mistake, but I still do not like the tactic of using my grenades by the assault group unless I am sure there is enemy inside the building or I have plenty of grenades to waste. Now since I said that, the next time I try to take a building without auto throwing grenades, watch some unsuppressed unit mow my men down or nail me with a grenade. A good tactic would be to throw grenades into every building and level before entering. But the game and units do not give you the ammo for such a feat. So it always come down to if you really want them using the grenades. I prefer that they do it on known targets, that is all.

I dont like the concept of targeting the building as you mentioned, this creates area fire, thats not a good thing, I think grenades are not used as a area fire option, even if you are close enough. I make sure that as my team assaults a building that I give them a covered arc in the circle shape, just big enough to focus on the building, they thus will keep their focus on the building. As for grenades, if the unit has plenty, they generally will use them. if I cannot see the enemy, I let the cover team do the area fire, but I always let my assaulting team go in and spot, The AI does fine once I restrict their focus area.

Actually, I think this might be the answer. Like, maybe they are allowing the same 3rd party group that did Afghanistan, to also work on this. It is the only way to do justice to both fronts, have two groups focused on adding new features. The time schedule that they are adcheiving presently just is not fast enough to get enough out of the present engine. Of course the sucess with the touch version might change some decision making from this point onward.

You have just discovered how to make the game perfect. If you play the game with the view only at a distance, there is no issues, since it becomes abstract once more and we cannot be critical as to all the little details.

Was that 10 seconds after the turret stops, if so, that would seem more than plenty of time to fire a first round. A good realistic time frame But I have seen tanks fire and the turret has not even stopped rotating yet, but what is worse than that, their bullit is on target. Not sure what a general average would be in the game, but I do not like the super fast tank firing I have seen at times, if it was rare it would likely not bother me, but it has been very common.

Ok, that is a point. But not the only point, it really comes down to what the designer wants to potray. Not if it would be the common time frame as to what would be the normal situation of a formation of that size. If I want a commander to send A company formation to the left flank and another to the right, Holding a reserve to send and reinforce whichever makes their goal the quickiest. My reserve force company is not going to be the normal distannce away. it is going to be at the closest location I want them that reinforce either unit. Plus , just because the trigger point in the game will bring troops maybe too quickly, it likely will have a option to delay when they arrive so that the timing is a little more realistic. But again, the timing in the game is always much faster than what real life events played out. So wanting realistic times is questionable to me anyway. The times should be made for good game flow, not historically accurate. The game needs to be designed in game flow, not historical flow. but some try to do just the opposite, As historically correct as possible. A good way to wreck some scenarios.

Personnally I think tanks acquire and fire too soon after stopping in general in the game. They seem to get shots off in under 2 seconds all the time. So for this issue where a tank fires while it is still rocking is a good penalty. Think about it, in almost all situations, the gunner would need to get his eyes back on the sites, finish rotating the turret and spot the target, then decide if elevation needed adjustment , then fire. That happens way to fast within the game, so any fast shots happening while rocking in the game depicts a fool of a gunner who is scared to death and fires before he has done what is needed to get the gun on target. What should be the issue is not the tank rack, but much longer delays before a new target is acquired and fired at.

JUST ANY COMMANDER THAT BELEIVED IN HOLDING A RESERVE FORCE WHILE ATTACKING TO DO JUST THAT. EXPLOIT SUCCESS. What, this was a unknown concept to battalion leaders, but could be used by squad, platoon and company leaders. The concept has been around for thousands of years, but lets not potray the Battalion doing it in the game. You make no sence in that it is not within the realm of a CM level game.

I like it, not my general approach. but I could see this being a great tactic in certain conditions. And there in is the biggiest challenge, deciding when to use this tactic or not. But I hope to find a situation where it is worth a try. Nothing like throwing the opponanat a surprise if it can help throw him out of his game plan. But no gareentees, I am playing a battle right now, that really I won within the first ten turns because the defender I was up against decided to expose way too many of his units to my starting attack forces, he really needed them back and hidden, waiting for when my troops were in more confined spaces and he could hopefully ambush up close. The name of the game, making good tactical calls for each situation, which if you are playing fair, half the time the scenarios do not give you enough info. to make a good decision if playing blind. So adapting is the name of the game, I find my suggested method gives me plenty of that when I can use it. Sending 1/4 of my units forward is likely going to tie them down, not much adjustment there once you decide to do it. Again depends on terrain.

BF, you leave that Tank Rockin just as it is, First, it just makes me happy that it drives some others here crazy. Second, your not allowed to waste one second on it until you fix the indestructable trees first, now there is a issue. Tank rockin has nothin on that!!!!

Not exactly True, Find a opponent that knows what they are doing. That would be a little more correct. Some really do not.

The only way I am successful with a shifting mobile defence is in a scenario where I can have a defence in depth. So really it is more of a forward listening post, then a few units in good locations to try to delay as the next level, then farther back in good locations placed for different attacks, but they really are the reserve. My goal is with the forward units to try and determine where the main attack is coming from, if possible pull them back and help the delaying force. While this is going on , my rear units are generally repositioning to where I feel the attack of the enemy is coming from. So I am creating my main defence in the back portion of my terrain and withdrawling my forward units back so that they are not be fired on. If the enemy only attacks one flank, then I will push units forward on the other flank so that I can take him on in a L shape defence and get flanking positions. If I have no depth to work with, shifting forces is only done in desperation, not a wanted method as to how to run my forces. None of this would likely help AI planning much.

I find the only way to work around corners is to put a slow movement to the next actiom spot after the corner of the Bldg. Hopefully they spot the enemy after they start working around the corner and stop, they only retreat if they get shot at. Just did it today, Two man team sent on slow around a corner to fire on a tank with a faust from behind. First man gets part way around the corner stops, second man has faust, about 15 seconds later he starts to work his way up to also see the tank that the first guy can see. he manages to do it and then the fun begins. Does not always work out well, but it is a risk I like to take. Some say just run out into the street, that can work also, but I will crawl if I think I might not get spotted.

Good Advice, listen to it.

The Method is fine for what you are wanting to do. Yes, JonS has a point, but who cares. The point being, you are after the best player, no single round elimination tournament can gareentee that. JonS is a Jerk most of the time, just loves to be a pain and gets into always having another view point. But back to what you are suggesting. So who cares if allied player number 5 does not move on even though he was better than the 3rd and 4th german player who does get to move on. That is the luck of the draw, and he still did worse than 4 other Allied players, so he is likely not the best player, so who cares if he is better than some others that move on. You are truly after only rewarding the Best Player when it comes down to it. That is not even going to happen because it all will be random as to who has the best scores, much will depend on who you are up against. So those with the best scores might be great players or they just played poor players from the other side. I used a similar format in my out of the dust tournaments, but they are not single elimination. They were more of a round Robin concept where everyone remains in. But with time and games you can rate players and see the true better players work to the top of the Leader Board, you might want to see what I did in them threads. But even in them I would see a inferior player up in the list better than where they should be. But given enough games, that type of system is the best, where some type of rating is given to players. The good part about it was I could use any scenario for the tournaments, Balence is not important, so you could test the players skills in many types of Missions. Actually I was thinking of running a "Out of the dust Tournament #4" but I have not mastered or had times to generate scenarios in the new system. I would need donated scenarios that have never been released or made available donated to the Tournament. I was thinking two matches per round.