slysniper

You Logic is fine except for one point, yes many of a country boy grew up learning how and using a gun in the outdoors of the great USA, but shooting a rifle is still much different than shooting a pistol, pistols really are not a easy weapon to master., Just a slight jerk of the trigger changes the path of the bullit much more than a rifle. Most of this has to do with the barrel length, which is about 6" and nothing to make the weapon rigged other than your wrist, it sure is not like having a weapon stock in your shoulder. Growing up shooting rifles will be of little value with being good with a pistol. there is a show on TV right now, Top shots, which take marksman which are very good in their field and make them compete against each other in areas they are not masters at. Just watch the show and you can see that if someone is not trained long with a pistol, they generally do very poorly.

Please dont make me tell the story again about how I lost a Panther to a Bazooka 200m+ away facing the front armor to him. He shot and lopped it over and through trees and somehow managed to hit my rear deck as it flew by the side of the turret. So you think you were unlucky, think how I felt. You should have moved up, but if I thought I was going to be able to get 6 shots off at a immobilized tank at 100m. I would have figured at least one hit if not more. Just a bad day for you:)

I tried something similar to this and did not like the end result. I had two enemy tanks pass infantry hiding behind bldg. , I then smoked the tanks and after the smoke was developed, moved the infantry out to use its faust, so it was likely a 4 or 5 man team. Figured they would be able to get a ass shot before the tank would spot or pivot. The infantry moved up to the next action spot with the hunt command but never spotted either tank. The tank spots the infantry, turns and machine guns them down. So smoke was in play, 4 or 5 guys cannot spot or find a Sherman, but that buttoned up tank spots the infantry in the smoke and has time to turn without the grunts seeing a thing. I just pretend, just like I did in the cmX1 days what might have really happened there. But the game still has features in its programming that makes some aspects very unrealistic. That tactic should have worked. But spotting numbers are too high for tanks vs infantry and too low for infantry vs tanks. And I cannot figure why these things were not a easy fix in the programming, it should just takes some type of number adjustment. But the Beta video for this next release so far appears that they have not adjusted or changed these type of issues. I sure hope they still do not think they have it right.

That would be a interesting test, some tank crews against some fire team with normal weapons ( say at about 25 yards apart and see what the results show (Supermen in my prediction)

Well, here in the states. They have to stay quilified. and I can gareentee you that they would be a better lot of a pool than army boys in WWII were. I would expect they would have been lucky to have shot 3-4 clips of ammo before being sent into combat. Not what I would called trained to kill like 007 Bond with a pistol like we see in the game. (And was that not the point. The games use of pistols is a joke. ( then put them in the hands of a tank crew which seems to have better than normal moral features even when outside of a tank and you now somehow have the best close combat fighting force in the game. Back to the point, some math could be adjusted in how the game treats combat, does not need a new UI, does not need a new base game , it just needs adjustment. Pistols is one issue, but we have tank spotting also, Mortar accuracy and a few other things. I when they tone them down, lets give some adjustments to a few units that could use a improvement, Like sharp shooters. I wish they were as good as my tank crews with pistols

Welcome And I will support your statement 100% , I served from 80-87, I also would say I would rather have anything in my hands other than a pistol in that situation. I know for a fact. even at 25 to 30 yards, missing full size human targets is very easy with a pistol even by someone that is in the practice of using them. Just look at police force studies. If they are not under 10 yards, in real situations when they have used their pistols. Missing is all way too common. Actually most of the time they are used under 5 yards, now that is a shot in a stressful situation where you still will likely hit someone with a pistol.

I liked this clip, made of good logic. Sound more convincing than most of the other stuff out there

YES, THE GAME HAS ISSUES WITH PISTOLS I see the problem most often with ex tank crews. They fight like they are still surrounded by armor and that no small arms fire will hurt them. True supermen. Many have pointed out the fact that the accuracy is too good and that crews should not be wanting to fight with nothing more than a 45 in their hand. We will just have to wait to see if BF fixes it at some point. Til then, use them Boys, some of the best fighters on the map.

All your problems are real and no answers for you, there has been threads on it here before. The best answer I have for you is if you can find spots on the side of buildings that will give you a shot as tanks roll by, normally I like intersections, where I can have a unit on each side of road out of view, so if the tank turns the corner to face one group of infantry, their ass is facing the other. But from the sounds of it, you might not have a combat line left to even get troops in positions that are likely ambush points. Most of the other threads came to the conclusion that the only fix is to have maps where city areas provide more cover and concealment for your troops. here is one other tactic, let that tank focus on another group of infantry, which means sending units to their death before trying to move the unit you want out there to take the shot, about 10-15 second delay between the two works well.

Well, I will look at this with the glass half full attitude for once. It just dawned on me that we have not been able to use a KingTiger vs a western Allied tank since back in the CMBO days. So that will be one good thing about the new mod. First test will be how the Firefly does against the King to see if it will have any bite from the front.

Both you and Noob are correct in that there is approaches that do not work, you have mentioned some of them. When it is a stug I am working with, I look for locations where coming from the side is not required. Like a location back in the woods where he just needs to move forward a bit. Or where woods and building hide him from view, but he is set at the angle that will be front armor when the enemy appears. In hedgerow covered lanes, at intersections, even 90 degree turns, you can set the stug at a angle so that when he pulls into the lane he is about 30 degrees off the front face, he needs to rotate only about 10 degrees and then will fire, plus he improves his armor alittle at this position. Maybe all the old positions you are use to cannot be used, but I find generally I can find locations using the new method. Next, as for being concerned about moving and being caught and fired on first. I find in general, I have the advantage. First since they have exposed themselves the turn before and things were quite, they normally think they are safe and have given commands for this turn that generally are in my favor. second, I normally help distract the units. Third, I find that a quick move into position with a hunt after that will have my unit in place within seconds. then I have my arc focused on where I know I want my armor shooting. With the new spotting rules I find my tank almost always will spot and fire first since the enemy unit does not have his focus just on the location I am springing my trap from. As I started out saying from the beginning, I agree with you that I would like my old options back, but I really do think that with the new system, that what I am trying to point out here works very well and gives results that I know I find very satisfactory. What I really need is some of the guys i play against give their opinion on how well it works.

Let someone else answer this better than me. But I know the welded hull was better from the cast . There is threads that already have comments about that. The cast hull was not able to produce the same quility of steel as the rolled plate. So the welded plate was a little better protection.

So I see, none of you agree with my concept, or what? Instead you keep trying to do what works in CMX1 instead of trying a correct tactic that does work in CMX2.

Ok, I agree the game needs the arc system fixed. but here is the work around for now. What I am doing anyway. I now look for keyhole locations that if I am wanting to ambush armor , not infantry. I look for locations I roll into when its time to attack. In other words, I find locations totally out of site where the keyhole is a few yards away, then a place infantry nearby to be my eyes. Thus, if I was guarding the road, I want my infantry to see the enemy, they hold their fire, then when the shermans roll around the corner. Then I roll my tank into place to open fire. I also might have some infantry devert the enemies attention first as I roll into place. Most of the time I find I get the first shot off, maybe the second. Also if too many enemy tank units emerged, I have not been placed in a bad position. With AT guns, I keep the arc way short, located in the keyhole, always someplace if possiple with concealment. They do ok, since the armor generally will not spot them until I open up. In some ways I feel I am actually playing it more realistic than the old armor covered arc. In most situations, hiding a tank with concealment in a location that can be spotted was not the best tactic. The germans were pro's at it, but most of the time they would pull into place from a totally concealed spot. Anyway, learning to adjust ones tactics with how the game plays always work.

Well, dont question it, because I have manage to take out or lose panthers to much less than that in the game from the front armor. Normally if you can get 4 or 5 tanks with guns that cannot kill a tank but can put rounds on target, the game will generally do so much damage to the tank, it either retreats , bails, just does not function because the crew is in shock or something. Normally within 10 -20 rounds, the tank has had it, also gives you time to move someone else to the flank to do the dirty deed if it hangs in there. This case was the exception, for sure. Likely forgot to mention all the shermans had green troops also ??

Of course for us, it became very clear that each round needed the rifle sites adjusted for the round being fired. But again, we would be 600 to 8oo yards very often, so by then there is a major difference. But even at 200 yards, which should be zero for many rifles with the correct ammo, we could see the varience and add recorded adjustments for the round, but for an combat troop, it would not be a issue as to hitting a man target at normal combat range.

Sounds like we need a ammo grog here. As for use, of course they could use them. As for game impact, not something we could notice how within the game as it is designed. For real world situation. I would guess that the difference between the two rounds might be hardness and shape of the bullet itself, and the amount of powder in the casing could be different also. No question these things affect the flight of the bullet and the wear on the weapon. I can only go off my knowledge of the fact that back when, Our sniper rifles fired a .308 round ( which allowed us to also use the Nato 7.62 round,) Which we had plenty of because of the M60 MG. So needless to say, we had fired four types of ammo out of our rifles. Three were A match quality round, a general purpose round, A armor piercing round. I can tell you for sure, a armor piercing round fires hotter and is harder on ones weapon, we had to be careful to not overheat our barrels. Weapons are generally designed for a specific load, when you use something else. the flight trajectory changes and one would need to have a good working knowledge of that to not have it affect ones accuracy. At 300,400, 500 yards it really starts to show.

good points. I also wonder if all the comments about CM needing a campaign system added to it would really be the answer to the game. No question it would make the battles more realistic as to what you as the commander might want to do. But it might make it more boring. Plus, this is a tactical game, not a strategic one. Once you go to that level, a good game would represent victory from choices at that level, not at the tactical level. Tactical level victorys do not create strategic victory. It is the other way around, strategic victorys will almost always dictate outcomes of battles, we love to read about battles when those that should have lost win against terrible odds, but how often does these battles ever really change the outcome that was going to take place at the strategic or operational level. Not often. General Lee won many a battle that on paper he should not. But he was not going to stop the North from victory which was a given, because of the difference in men, materials and ability to receive supplies from other nations. Taking a good strategic game and giving it a tactical level makes a good add on. Taking a tactical game and making a strategic level might fall short. The only games I have played that mixed levels well so far for me has been. The total war series, Which when you think about it. Is more of a economics operational game, which lets you play some tacical battles which would be much larger scale in real life. But the game is won on the operational world map, not by your victories in the small battles. I love playing the close battles because my leadership will play a big part in the outcome to help keep losses down. But mismatched battles the machine generally is allowed to handle since the outcome will generally not be impacted much. Game realistic levels(maybe 2 out of 10) The close combat series had it campaign systems that were there, which really it was more of a tactical game with that campaign level added. Which again never really felt truely correct. Because of how you had 15 units max, could add pretty much any available unit to a depleted group and so forth. Not really what I would call anything remotely realistic to how real combat group are formed and how one might find what they have to use against a enemy in their sector. (realistic level 2 out of 10) Enjoyed both games, but they are games to the max with how they deal between the two levels So here we are with combat mission, the same desire is out there, but like everything with this game , people want it to be realistic . I can see how boring and hard this could get. Already note how with the added realism, we have lost many a gamer, because the game is less predictable and game tactics do not work as well and the player has to allow for more misfortune because that is how real war works. I love to hear players complain about the spottong issues in the game now. They wanted more realism, the game now delivers that, but players dont want to play because, the side that spots the enemy first normally kills the enemy and no arm chair general can control that. so less want to play, because they cannot accept that as being real, except it is much closer to the real world situation.

Now there is a interesting aspect here, where the game is correct. IRL at times, commanders will push the attach even when losses are high. Why. Because if you can break the cohesion of the defence, you then have the advantage, the defender is not going to regroup, cannot receive additional help, cannot recover, cannot control the rest of the battle if you can continue an coordinated attack. You start to destroy a enemy that is becoming or is in a state of panic, you then also have a chance to push behind front lines and force higher objectives. The thing was in WWII, commanders did not really know if they were about to break the enemy or not many times. So aggressive leaders would push attacks more than what you might expect. Which did result in Heavier losses. So again, the situation in real life would compare to the game at times, where as, other times it just goes back to its a game and we do not find it hard to risk every pixel to get our objective. Adding a higher level to the strategic benefits to take losses in the battle would add interest to keeping your men alive. But would it make the game better, likely not. When the truth is told we dont want real men, We want to see heros, who complete amazing events to come out alive and able to win epic battles. I know I love to go through the stats of my survivors after a hard fought battle and see if any have earned numbers that would be medal worthy in reral life.

it has to do much more with it being a game. In the game, when things go bad you continue on. Real life would generally not play out like these battles at all. As the attacker , if your battle plan started to fail, you would stop the attack, regroup and likely wait for more units to increase your odds or find a different sector to attack. On defence, in the game you must slug it out, in real life, if it looks like you are in a losing situation, it is time to pull back find better terrain or hopefully receive additional support so that you are not having to stop the enemy outnumbered. Now in real life there is times that units are not allowed to withdraw, dont really know that they are outnumbered, have poor situational understanding, and so on and so forth. So bloody to the death fights happen. I just read one recently about marines. The unit I am thinking about was a platoon that had the objective to take a knoll overlooking the left flank of the first objective. Thay lost 30% just taking the location, then they held it until reinforced. the enemy countered attacked multible times before they were releived. Only 8 men were alive, most of them wounded. So that would be about 34 dead, 6, wounded, 2 in good health,. (That would be worse than most game results) So comparing the game to something like that, then it does not look unrealistic at all, but the game is almost always being played as a battle to the death, which is the exception , not the rule in real life

What, you think that was by accident:D

I like how you have put this. Agree in many ways. CMBN is by far the best thing out there, but not because of its ease to play, but because of the challenge it is to play. As for the whinning that happens, My take on that is, if they did not like the game, they would not be posting here to begin with. But for many, the only hope for seeing the game maybe take a change in the future to something more to what they like is to gripe. The site has far too long focused on the negative instead of the positive threads. So many wanting to try to get attention to their cause will keep trying to point out the weakness of something so that BF will get tired of listening and change it, it really does not work that way. but many never stop trying. Including me at times. For me , there is nothing even close to this game as for what I am looking for when it comes to play. But everyone is not me either, I know I am not the norm, not for gaming anyway.

Personnally, It appears nothing has changed much in the mechanics of the game as to how units are working. Did not see any terrain features that stuck out as being new. So, it comes down to getting new units to play with, for sure that will make our UK fans happy. Maybe a little blue on blue should be in order. Ameriocans vs Brits

The trick to email being fun is to get enough games going so you do not have to wait for turns, anytime you want to play, turns are waiting for you. So you add opponents until you get to a point that the game turn flow is about the level you want to spend time on it. For me, I like about three game turns waiting for me when I sit down at my machine, to get that I normally need about 5 active games to give me that type of flow. Plus, having 5 battles going on at the same time keeps me from getting bored with one. If one game is boring, I can suffer through it because I have others that I am excited to see what the next turn brings. It helps me to be good at sending turns no matter if I am winning or losing, if the game is good or not. I normally see whoever I play when they start to lose, their turn around time for turns get slower and slower. Just human nature I guess.