slysniper

without multible testings, nothing to complain about. My units normally seem to have the reverse gear figured out. But I have done no testing to see if what is being said here happens too often. But I have seen similar results. where I am wondering why the unit is not getting out of there, its a no win situation. Only thru test can you really decide what the game will normally do.

As mentioned by others, I just like to do it because I was taught, leave no man behind. In game play I find it is not hard if I am on the side winning at the moment and I am advancing. It is easy for trailing units or reserves to treat the wounded while behind the front line forces. In a losing situation, then it is very hard to justify, like has been said. I have more important things to think about, like keeping my good units alive. So this brings up a point that happens. Man goes down, their in a firefight and I see buddy aid going on, I have also watched the guy die during giving aid. Seems realistic but I have a hard time accepting it in the game when it is units in the mist of the fight. I think real life would find guys helping their buddies. but they would get them and try to drag or move them to someplace safer before trying to give first aid.

I wouild like to get feed back from others as to how important you feel it is to try and take care of the wounded in your game play. I think it is one of them situations in how the game is scoring, but if you are not sure how it is scoring (a scenario) then what type of impact is it having in the game if you leave some unattended

If you are playing Wego, you can go to the general area and you can hear the sound yourself if that is what is causing the marker. I have also heard fences or hedges being driven over, So you can make conclusions from that. it takes more effort, but is more realistic.

That is the first suggestion in a while that makes too much sence, it might be a easy one with how the system is designed that would help many players. I use hunt or quick with pauses for all my scouting with armor of any kind. I dont normally use reverse as suggested. I find that if I have something like a armor car, if I use hunt, they stop when they spot something. Normally if it is anything that can kill them, they reverse all on their own if they are near cover, which is where I normally use the hunt command. If not they take some fire, if they live, they alway reverse Actually this is the first thread worth anything in a long time. I really like it when guys start talking about tactics and how to employ them in the game. Wish there was more of this type of talk and that it would be placed in a place easy to find instead of just the main chat room area. But plenty of good suggestions so far, there is never one answer. Its fun to be able to find the best for the situation at hand.

I do not use scouts much. In most of the scenarios I play, I would call it more as Point men. Sending out point men in front of my main units will help smoke out concealed enemy but only exposes the point unit to likely killing fire, so it is more important to make sure you have plenty of overwatch units to spot and return fire once you expose the enemy. This is quick and dirty, you likely lose the point unit in the situation. but you generally find and destroy the enemy for their efforts. taking the safe route, hoping to not run into someone, crawling on your belly until you are tired to truly scout does little in most games and it takes plenty of time that can be better used. Plus if you are ambushed and killed nothing gained at all. So true scouting is a rare need in the game presently unless you are playing huge battles with plenty of ground to keep track of and you are trying to discover enemy movement to likely attack points. I have found a few scenarios where armor cars can be used in a scouting roll. Best way to get the job done quickly is to have multible cars in column or leapfrogging and again expect the first to get wasted in meeting the enemy. but if done correctly the units behind it will spot what happened, then get the information you might be looking for. So I am one that has no problem spilling pixal blood to get the job done right and quickly.

I finished it about a month ago, also played it Wego on warrior setting. Made it through without ever having to replay any battles (meaning go back to earlier save (but did stop battles and was placed in the same map again), commented about some of the battles in other threads here. For anyone who has a poor battle and is faced with having to redo it, I can see the reason for losing interest in it. I was so tired of it that I sat on the last battle in the game for a month and really did not find a interest in finishing it. Then one night I finially played it until I had a foothold in the town and decided to hit cease fire. I had a major victory. I enjoyed the challenges and it was a good test of skills, but I must agree, it was a little much, too many battles with hard won minor adcheivements. It did get old, not one I would likely go back and play again.

Well, I must have missed seeing that option in my visits there.

true enough, But in my next reply I talk about tactics in town where one is having to deal with tanks with infantry where they are in streets with likely no form of cover or concealment. As for their chances, not much of any because they are going to be spotted immediately. the only tactic that works is buying yourself some time by catching them with their guns pointed in another direction. which is hard to do against a good player.

Ok, so I was out of line. You also have the right to suggest things as to what can make scenarios and maps better. As for the things you do for the community with no financial reward, I respect your efforts, and am glad that someone with the skills is willing to do such things. As for me, I am sorry that I see you request sometimes as complaints when things in a match do not work out to your likes. But that likely is just me with a bad attitude.

There is a date showing when it was inputed there, So once you have your files updated to have them all, then all you need to do is look for dates past that point of your last download. It would be really nice if it would group it by dates or authors or some other logical choices. As it grows it will be less enjoyable to have to go thru the pages looking for new ones.

You know, you can learn to work the design program also. You are always suggesting how designers need to make maps and scoring and everything else you have commented on. So instead of expecting someone else to design battles that work perfectly to your likes. I would much more like to see you put some effort into trying it and produce some maps that we all could enjoy. I do agree with you that a good designed town would help solve some of your problems. But even in a town with a terrible layout for infantry out in the open, you need to deal with it. My only suggestions are these. When there is no good cover in town you have four options to look for... Try to find locations that you can set up these tank traps. First, street corners. You can always get the first shot on a tank coming around a corner, be located for a quick exit after that. Second, keyhole positions like small alleys where flanking shots are possible as tanks move down street. Third, trying to use buildings as cover and run out into the street from behind the tank. You can normally get one shot off before the turret pivots around. Forth. Distraction. Multiple units exposing themselves from different angles. You will want to time it so the tank focuses on another unit first before exposing your AT unit. I love running a unit across the street, watching the tank follow it, then run my AT unit out from the same location, now having a side or rear shot available to take on the turret. Of course none of these tactics work if your opponent has cover units or support infantry leading the way or on and on and on. But you look for options, make plans to try and achieve. You can never have success until you start learning to get the enemy in the situation you want, not the one that he wants.

Just today, I did a tank assault to finish taking the objective in a game. 6 tanks moved in on a shot up platoon that was guarding a cross roads, they were hiding in the grass and woods. Needless to say, I had a few tanks that was up close and personnal with the infantry. I had tanks run right over the enemy, of course it did nothing. in real life that would play different. So if by chance a tank machine guns a guy 2 yards away at a angle that is impossible, fine with me since I cannot run over him and do any harm. As for how well they see. I had a tank pass 5 or 6 guys that were pinned and did not see any of them. Other tanks were firing at them, but this tank had no clue. After passing them it stopped and gave them a great chance to take revenge. They only had grenades so I was lucky. just immobilized that tank. But it never did spot the infantry. I had to area fire another tank into the area to get rid of them guys. Since no one was spotting them.

agree with this totally. it is much more important as to the slope of the ground the tank is sitting on than the elevational difference as to it impacting how well the armor will work. If the M10 is on the downhill slope, it could loose 10 degrees or more. if you can find a shell hole or bit of high ground to park the front of your tank on. you can improve the armor slope but alot. Plus the game does not prevent over extending the barrel angle, so in a way you are cheating by being able to fire a depressed barrel angle that is impossible and have great slope to your tank armor from the front.

100% agree The reason they are so devastating is by then you are normally fighting all them troops that were mentioned. Broken, rattled, panic and so on. So, not like I want everyone out there to get better. But reserve units and learning how to use them in battle is something I think is one of the key elements for playing your infantry in the CMX2 engine.

I understand, In CMx1 I did not use reserve play much. It was easy to use infantry to gain fire power supremacy so why hold them back when I can have that. It was better than having units in reserve to replace units I am getting mangled because I cannot keep the enemy pinned. So in that version of the game, for me reserve units were only good for being able to position and move to the needs of the battle. They were my forces to allow for adjustments without being in the line of fire. In CMX2, I started out playing the same way and was finding out quickly something was not right with my tactics but could not place a finger on it. But with some play, I started finding out, even if I outnumbered the enemy with pretty good odds, it was very hard to control the enemy points with infantry firepower. They just could not keep the enemy pinned without support. I started to notice that I could have 2 to 1 advantage but I would lose as many men in the fire fight as the enemy, or even better odds at times and still poor results. Watching the men it was common to see that many men are not really in the fire fight at times, only part of them are shooting, so I would do things to try and help more men get a line of sight and into the fight, but as you spread them out and move them into firing positions, it normally leads to other issues with line of sight. Thus it is hard to get much infantry fire power on one point without bunching them up. And you sure do not want to do that in the game anymore, not with how arty works. So normally I was finding whoever I was getting into a firefight was normally coming away from it with morale issues, and many of them issues do not leave the troops like they did in the old version of the game. Very seldom did I see good success at keeping infantry strong other than a ambush type fire fight. get a good jump on the enemy in a poor position and you will walk away having killed them and your men are still ready for more. So my new game play is the infantry is much more, my eyes and ears of the battle. but once they find the enemy in force, they are there to apply preasure, but whatever else I have in real assets is what I need to figure out how to use to destroy them. the infantry goes in after to mop up and hold the ground. Even then they get low morale quickly and like you pointed out, once there, it is not good to keep pushing them. Unless you want to help the enemy win. Brittle is a bigger trait for infantry now how I see it, if someone can tell me how that is not true and how they adcheive it, I would be glad to listen.

I am amazed at the effort to show a sample of what he would like. Too bad, that to make something like that in the game takes much, much more effort than that. I agree with the side that would like more useable information given that can be done with a glance at a bar instead of having to click on each unit independently. And really there should be no one that should not appreciate that type of ease of understanding what is going on. So counter agreeing with it seems foolish. But to have something like that, takes it to be part of the programming goals. I do not know if that much change could be done now, but i really do not know. It reminds me more of what close combat UI developed into. This company would know what it was like, and have never went down that similar path. So I figure it would be amazing to see them change to it now, even if in some ways it was better. But keep in mind, in that game system there was never more than 15 units. Where as in this, you can be in the hundreds. So it might not be the same type of challenge to overcome.

What, this is normal. I have yet to figure out how not to get infantry into this state if its any kind of battle that is a challenge. The trick is playing well enough that you find your troops in that state after you have made your objective. because once they are in that situation. they are not going to be worth much helping you push for any new ground. They run and break constintly. One thing I have learned to do is, hold reserves and not commit infantry all at once. I find infantry is good at finding the enemy and flanking the enemy. but I need my other assets to do the killing. So I send a couple of platoons at first, they push the fight and when they get to the states you mention I push a fresh platoon into the battle that has good morale and leave these guys to start guarding my flank and less critical areas. So what I am trying to say is plan your attack and defence with plenty of reserves because in general. unless it is a one sided battle. most infantry can only handle a short term amount of combat and then thay are hard to control from that point on. Nothing like the CMX1 games. Right now I am playing a game where I have companys in reserve. Once my first wave starts to slow down. I have a company ready to take my first objective. At that point, I figure they will have poor moral, thus I have another company that will move through that objective and hopefully be the force to take my next point past that. I think it is a much more realistic result as to how brittle infantry truely is.

now that would be something. hope that was against a real player. You could have fun buggy him about that one for a long time.

You just need the sound track to this event. The driver was saying. I feel lucky, watch me as I drive in the track prints through that mind field.

I think of ASL any time someone starts asking for all the less covered areas of the war. the only system that did and likely will ever cover all the countries, troops and units. But given enough tools in the system, players can and have done stuff to represent different fronts. In CMX1 I played scenarios that represented japan and some of the battles. I recall mods being made to make the game look correct. The players will come up with ways to try and protray different areas the game does not cover. I recall some early war battles I played also, again mods were even made to represent tanks that the game did not have. Even though it was actually another tank being used with similar attributes. So, if someone gets creative, there might be some Scenarios made of battles in the front

Great point It a scenario that fits perfect for the challenges of designers. First, I think it is a great scenario. But for what. It is a terrible scenario if you expect the score to reflect a final result that is fare between two human players. but it is a GREAT SCORING SYSTEM if you are playing as the german vs the AI. So, people judge it poorly because it does not score to what they think is fare. The only thing that might need to happen is that designers start putting in information (which they already do) as to what they have designed it for, and maybe be a little more careful at designing the point system for that type of play. I would never play the Germans in Barkmann's Corner, if it was to be HtoH and the score reflected some type of results in a tournament. The score and scenario is not balenced. But Playing the AI, I would recommend it to anyone, because if you win as the german, you have played well and if you had results as was mentioned (100 to 0). seeing a score like that is fine because that is not good enough to match what you are are being tasked to do within the scenario.

That is not true, I think it is foolish to think another war could not come along that will make us see numbers of people killed that would compare to or be worse than what happened in WWII. It only takes two major nations to decide to use their war machine against each other to likely turn this planet into a living nightmare. And it will not be a war of bring our boys home because a few thousand died over there, there could be losses in them numbers daily. but who knows what the future brings

Well, anyone judging their ability in this type of game by the "score only" is a fool. No matter how good the designer is, it is almost impossible to design a game to be truly fare that would reflect the true winner. there is just to many variable. Playing the AI is a poor test of ones skills as to if one is truely good at the game. So them scores are not reflective of any true skill. So that leaves H to H play, and casualties receiving points does not prove if you are better than the other guy either. not unless you both have the exact same units playing a meeting engagement on the symetrical map. So knowing how good you are really comes down to how well you play against players you also know have good skills. All this is left to judgement. because I have yet to see even a ladder or tournament prove them skills correctly all the time. I have seen some good tournament results for people that just had some lucK of whom they played and what side they had in scenarios. Ladders can be deceiving also. Are some of the best players at the top, oh yes, but there is some that get there any way they can and it really is not because of their great skills within the game, more to do with their great skills of how to play the system of the ratings. So feeling that you are good is not a bad way to judge ones selve if you are seeking out the hardests players you can find to play and then managing at times to pull out victories in situations when you know you are at a disadvantage. Then the score is true tactical skills at that moment and hero for the day, you hang your hat on that and move on to try it again. That is the only time that victory in the game is truly sweet.

As to how the game is scored does not matter at all, it does not matter if it is a all or nothing situation, if the designer wants that, then that is fine. Unless you start using the results in tournaments and such, and the results are impacting ratings by the variences in the scores. Then the scores should reflect each loss and all the other differances in the game compared to someone else playing the same game. So it might be more of a point to ask designers to set up scoring a certain way if the game is planned for a certain tournament that needs it to help judge the level of play. But just asking all games to be scored and designed that way is not a valid point. Other than it is the way you like it because it is what you are use to.