slysniper

I read a book "Dearhtraps" within it there was some mention as to how repairs were done in the American Army anyway. Since the man writting the book was part of a American recovery unit. But most tanks were transported back to a repair depot, they were repaired by the ease of the repair and parts available. So if the repair could be done in a few hours, it likely would be worked on right away, major repairs might sit for days until that was the next easy thing to repair that was available. They would have a pool of repaired tanks that when request were sent, would then be sent back to the front. Reading another account, I remember a story about a platoon leader who was shot out of a tank, lost most of his crew, about a week later, he received a repaired tank and found it to be the same tank which he had been in and had lost his friends in. needless to say he was not happy about it.

Well both of them fans were disappointed, we will be seeing no more raw, raw for their teams.

I would suggest you show which games have reported in and keep it updated, that helps encourage those that are not completed to get with the program. Just a suggestion, I ran 3 tournaments and the players appreciate it. You would not need to report who won if you want to wait on that aspect of it.

I agree with this 100%, the weapon itself is modeled pretty well. it is the inability of the enemy to do the right thing against it. Maybe the first round would catch your troops, but in general the defenders would be scattering as fast as possible once targeted unless dug in well, no matter what their moral level was. I hate seeing them lay down and wait for the next 8 rounds to come in to finish them off, plus they are forced to stay so close to each other, one good placed round nails them all. Now the AT gun is a little different. Once a mortar has it sighted, it would be in trouble as to fighting much from that point on in real life unless the mortar is eliminated. The problem in the game is, the crew is unable to leave the gun and then return. At least the infantry might run away if you get them moving before shells strike too close, but a gun is going no where fast and you can abandon it to try and save the crew, but what is the point, without being able to re-man a gun they are worthless anyway. Real life, many a crew, runs find cover, wait , re-mans the gun once the chance is available and back in action. That is the true injustice in this part of the game. And because of programming, will not be corrected any time soon.

If this becomes true, then it is a sad fact as to how the format is done, personnally, you have 8 games going in each bracket. The ones that should move on is the 4 best American scores and the 4 best German scores, then you do not have to worry about the scenario being balenced. For a hobby that has been around as long as it has, most of the Tournaments and ladders do not have good rules to reward the best play. But we all were willing to play by the format he placed before us. I figure there will be some German winners, skill does impact these games even if balence is not always there. but when results are in, then you can see how balenced it looks

Still a good post, I agree with the fact, that MG's have never been right as to how they impact the battlefield within the game. I like the concept about how at times they should be more of a area fire weapon, of course we have the ability to assign them area fire, but doubt that would give rthe results he is looking for here. Also, I dont know about you, but a quicker rate of fire in the game is going to burn through more ammo, which I normally wish I had more than I do, so watching them area fire it at long range targets might not be my favorite way to see them use it.

once you were willing to have your MG open up, why did you not take them off hide and remove the cover arc. The best command is face once you want units to spot and shoot a certain target. Did this whole thing play out in less than aminute of WEGO, likely not. I find once I want my men firing. I remove all restrictions , unless I am certain I do not want them changing directions to face a enemy on the flank or something, That would be the only time I leave the cover arc in play once the shooting starts

Or there is bugs in buildings at times, it is not just waypoint issues and troops deciding to go another way. I have seen them enter and exit solid walls, let alone be determined not to reconize a door at times. What is interesting is you have problems, while someone else playing the same area does not. I have heard some claim it is just certain buildings with the bug. But I had it happen on one map with the small chapel, That building is in many maps, never had a problem. Then in one game. the end the door was on, my troops treated it as the solid wall and would enter and exit from the other end which showed to be the solid wall. There is a issue, but who knows what and has there been files submitted to Battlefront enough to find out why, I do not know.

dear old friends from years ago, but I would really not want to go back, never found head to head play that enjoyable because of all the rules and debates on how they were played. Then once computer gaming made the same level of tactical game available, it was like, truely hidden units and both sides having units moving and fighting in real time to each other, why would I want to go back to the format that cannot protray them basic but important aspects of combat. I do miss some of the depth that was available in it. as to what they created. I still remember a scenario from the japanese modules. I heroic marine with a machine gun on a ridge trying to hold off platoons of Japs. fun stuff. I sure cannot get the same results in these games as to HMG causing that type of control in a battle. I will take that back, once in CMX1 I was on the wrong side of a game where the guy I was against had a machine gun in a trench next to a bridge I needed to clear. He had about 2 platoons guarding that bridge, I had a a couple of companies. I killed and captured everyone except for the MG in a few turns. I then focused all my mortars and MG's on the trench and when I felt he should be totally pinned or dead rushed infantry against the trench. Lets just say to make a long story short. he shot me to pieces, I regrouped and did it two more times with what I had left and never captured the trench. After the game, he had, like one or two guys left of that crew, they had killed 40+ soilders of mine and basically was the only reason he won that scenario. So once, and of course I would be on the wrong end of seeing it happen.

First turn exchanged. I see no problem with sharing how the game works so at least everyone has a chance to be on the same level of knowledge.

That is because they are wargamers themselves, they want it for the hobby as much as any of us do. Not just for the dollar figure. And it is a good thing that they are into this hobby, because if they were not, I think this demanding crowd that loves to pick on the imperfections of the game would have drove them away long ago.

if it gives you line that they can view the enemy, look to see how close you are to tree trunks with the line. I find the shot will normally be successful if no tree trunks are close to the line, if you are barely missing the trunks, then most of the time the shell will hit the tree and explode, not worth taking the risk. If it is only one tree trunk that is close to your path, you might try it, but expect a few rounds hitting the tree before maybe one sneaks through.

Sign me up, I just sent you my email in the private message. Already unhappy with you, I commented in your first thread I was wanting in and I see you somehow overlooked me, you had some others listed right off, so what was the deal. Now I have to be in a second bracket because people start coming out of the woodwork to play. Oh well,

Sign me up. Now, Please, the rest of you can start to fear:D

Totally Groggggy, :eek:

Both have their place. I prefer Wego for many of the same reasons others have mentioned, I really enjoy catching all the events that are taking place on the Battlefield. This is the only game that does that well while you are playing. Rt is fine also. I find it enjoyable if I am playing the AI, it equals the playing field a little since I cannot command or watch everything that is going on. It gives a different feel to the game that is fun also. It is nice to be able to micromanage a unit and prevent it from doing stupid things, but that is a big advantage over the AI though – kind of cheating to say the least. I have two problems, One RT in H to H play, I just do not see CM being a good game for that, I just do not think it’s the right design for good RT play where both sides will play with equal skills. Just think of an attacking player vs. a defensive player. For once I would want to be on the defense, just for the shear fact I need to manage much less in forces. Close combat is a much better design for that. Just for the simple reason they keep the forces to a reasonable managing size of 15 units to start with. If CM battles were designed small for that reason, then it would be fine. But in general, it isn’t. My second issue is I think RT play and designers who use it have added time in scenarios for that style of play. I find many new scenarios just have way too much time and that a defender is at too great of a disadvantage for how long they are to hold their goals in a game. The only way in many scenarios for the defender to achieve their goal is to eliminate so many attacker that the game becomes more of a stalemate situation where neither side can progress much anymore, that is very realistic. But too many battles are too one sided in forces to create them type of losses. So given time the defender will always be eliminated. Thus the time limit in the game is the only method for the defender to achieve a goal, can he play well enough to slow the attack down to take longer than the requested time by the designer. I really think this only requires one simple thing to fix this issue. Scenarios should have two versions, one for RT play and one for Wego. We really need scenarios designed with it stated and clear as to which method they should be played in.

Like you, I prefer to play PBEM. its the only way to play and get a thrill. Playing well against a AI, means nothing, its like playing a child, a win is almost automatic. It is not going to match wits with you. But Campaign Play is not bad, first I like to play at times when PBEM files are not available, Second, would you really want to play a long drawn out campaign PBEM, that would take forever, plus if you were losing, that would be a long time to finish it up if you knew you are beyond a point of turning it into a good match. Plus Campaigns are really designed with the focus you are against the AI at the moment. So some of the designers do a good job of making it challenging vs the AI. They are much better now than the old ones from years ago, but still lack things that can only be done by playing HtoH. It Rules.

I have not done any testing on it, but I think movement might be the big factor here. If a unit moves at all, spotting increases plenty. Some test could be run to prove this. The AT gun shifting can be a big give away, maybe too much compared to RL, but I am sure that is what is doing it. Tanks spoting infantry as they roll by ( if you watch closely, normally it takes someone lifting a head or someone crawling a little. If the guys stay in cover, do not move and hide, you can get away with a lot. personnally I think the new game is much better at keeping men hidden and letting the enemy miss seeing them, is it perfect. No and it should not be. There should be a risk at trying to hide and let the enemy pass. If caught, you should suffer because having your face in the dirt does not normally lead to getting the jump on the enemy.

as to the original question of the thread. I sure am not going to say the game is correct, but I like the fact that damage to the heavy german tanks is causing losses. They might or might not have the raraty of it happening correct, but it did happen. I have read too many accounts of german armor removing itself from battle when there is no apparent reason other than if they are having mech. problems or are out of ammo or fuel. So at least I always have a full load of ammo and I am not watching the gas needle. but with all the immobilized units there are in the game, I moght as well blame it on fuel. In general, the odd issues do happen a little too much, losses should be to true combat, not interesting side issues. I just finished a campaign game that represented one morning of combat. I had 15 tanks as I recall, lost only one to enemy fire, had only two mobile tanks left at the end, barely mobile. that means I lost 12 tanks to immobized type of conditions, either due to mud or damage from fire. seemed to not sound or feel true to most readings I have come across as to WWII The game should be combat focused, in many ways it has become a little too much about luck, weather it is sighting, target path, break downs or so forth. All these things are good, they just seem to be the focus of the results anymore instead of the side note.

I agree, this is one of the few sighting issues that does drive me crazy also. You cannot justify it like some of the other ones in the game

For some the problem is the icons can be deceiving to them as to unit location, that is very true to anyone as long as one does not change the view. But for most people if you look at an icon and rotate the camera a little. Your mind will immediately understand where the unit is. But I have also come to the conclusion, some people cannot understand a 3d world on a 2d screen surface well. Even rotating the view leaves them in a fog. I would suggest you learn to go to the above view then and look straight down on the map to make the icons of any value to you, it is pretty hard to mis-interpret that. if that does not seem to fit you needs. Then turn them off and be done with it, since you cannot get the information from them that they are intended to help with. Personally, like most things, if you try to get value out of them they are helpful. Just because they are not perfect to ones likes, does not make them garbage. I swear, many people have lost the ability to adapt.

Sure: I have sent you my email into the privte message location. I have dropbox so you just need to send me a email:) I cannot speak spanish, but I have others in the house that do very well.

This is one of a very short list of scenarios that can hand even a good player a defeat playing defence. So, dont take it as something odd that just happened to you, it sounds like you did Ok, plenty of other scenarios where you will be able to get your revenge against the AI

Watch it, Buddy We do not want this thread high jacked that much so quickly with such false claims.

now if you are going to compare, that is the way to compare. I was a little luckier than you. I found some other players, but I hated the fact that much of the time playing was spent in discussing and looking up rules and getting the player to play by the rules correctly. I hated trying to be a rule judge. It never made it easy to be friendly when you are in that enviroment. For me, CM type games are worth it for just that. no issues with the rules, what the machine gives, it gives.