slysniper

Actually, that is a excellent point. I have always hated how they work in general. With the one side only able to access, and if cleared, never being able to reoccupy. They appear to be programed as a none moving armor unit in some ways, but it makes more sense if they were programmed with buildings. But likely the code was not designed to work with purchasing buildings, but as you say. Maybe the next game engine.

well, you need to look back many years and all the answers are there in these threads. But the one that will affect this the most. back in CM1 days, these same type of request were made for different units that did not seem correct in points compared to other units. Bf went in and tweaked the points in the system, that brought on more request or revised request on some of the changes, again adjustments were made. But you know where this is going, the request just never stop and a perfect balanced point system is never had. Something is always a better purchase than something else, so then the players start buying said item all the time. It was a rabbit hole with no end. So BF said, they would not make that mistake again. They came up with a system they liked, and assigned it to the units and we have been living with it ever since. Other than for a few huge mistakes that were pointed out and corrected. They don't change the point system. So you would be better off as mentioned, coming to a agreement of some type with a opponant and selecting your forces with that in place, its likely the only way you will ever see the Battlefield flooded with Pz4's

It seems its worth looking into, but it always comes down to doing some game test to get enough of a sound picture to know what the results are within the game. Showing what the variables within the game does. Not on the top of my list for sure, but it seems to warrant some testing and seeing if the bunkers can be made tougher by putting in a request on some shown facts. But I agree, that I have seen the results vary a lot for bunkers. So not sure what testing will come up with.

good points. And if that is true that it matches the building results. It is pretty clear that its not modelled correctly. Pretty much, most concrete bunkers were built and designed to take on the weapons that they knew they were defending against. So common sense would dictate, it would work better than any normal wall construction. no matter what. So that is a good example that its not balanced to other items within the game. but its still not even close to understanding what is going on and if its a issue in all or some of the games families.

Has anyone ran any test that shows some real averages for the game. When you say 2 or 3 shots of 75MM to take out the bunker. What range, what type of bunker, what angle. I agree, I have seen the bunkers destroyed too quickly at times. But then gain, I have fired plenty of rounds at bunkers before and not phased them. So, without some data as to what we really have going on, its hard to weigh if its off or how much it is off. I know I have wasted all my ammo on a modern tank on a bunker in CMSF AND NOT GET A KILL. So that would not be a good one time event to weigh what is going on either. And even the example of seeing the real thing affected. 70 rounds at what range. and a round does not have to penetrate to be a killing round, At some point concrete fragments would become a issue in and of themselves. And in truth HE is the round of choice trying to place it through the slot. Now I just want to make it clear, I do think Bunkers are too soft in the game, but I have never felt it a issue to take the time to want to try and determine what it is or what is appropriate to what we think it should be.

If you are playing a really good scenario, maybe there is truly no weak point. Then you are forced to attack the strength of the enemy. But even then, there is always a possible weak area even as to a strong point in the defense. Always coming up to the best approach to any task will bring about the best chance for success. In otherworld's, Always look for any weakness available, whether large or small. I never like to see complaints about scenarios not giving players enough time. You are correct in that it forces the player not to be able to dismantle the AI defense. But that is exactly the point of time restraints. The AI defense cannot react as if its a real commander, there is a very amount of reaction that can be programmed to selected guesses as to what a player might try to do. The AI is very handicapped as is. Limiting the time forces the player to take the defense on as intended. In otherworld's to take the scenario on as intended. So if you are one that is always wanting more time in your game, all I can say is, you are not testing your skills against the game as intended. As far as I am concerned. Too many battles have given way more time than is needed to be successful. In truth, the game would be much better if the battle time could be set by the designer to test the player. If at that point, instead of the game ending no matter what as it does now. The player could just hit a button and extend the game as long as he wants. Thus providing a method for those that want to be slow and precise. but also providing the scenario designer the ability to truly test and create limited time situations.

You all need to take a little chill pill on balance and what that means. having messed around for a very long time with creating scenarios, I learned one thing. Take my creation, give it to 10 players - look at the results. 2 players crush it playing side A, 4 players manage a win with side A and 4 player lose with Side A For the First two players, the battle is too easy, for the next 4, the players will say the balance is perfect, for the last 4, they will complain about all sorts of things that need adjusted. But in truth, this sounds like a pretty good scenario playing from side A, since that is the results. Its likely very unbalanced from side B in that it will be easier for most to win the AI and likely not balanced for H2H either. The truth is, the player impacts the result way more than a good design. I have felt for a long time that maybe the answer should be that each scenario has multiple designs. One for Side A, One for side B, One for H2H, also they could have a easy or hard setting. But BF provides methods to adjust that presently by doing the percentage troop setting that can be used. So never take it too personnel if there is balance issues, its a hard thing to get correct, and even when you do, there will be a percentage of players not liking it. Learn to listen to the comments about the design, think it through, they might have good points on how to improve your work and be willing to be open to good and bad imput. When its all said and done, you create what you want, if you are pleased with it, that is all that really matters. Take suggestions you like and enjoy the learning process. When you are done with it, let it be, others will love it or hate it, but generally there is always some of both.

I am sure I can easily design a battle where you will not think bunkers are too weak. You will complain they are to hard. It all comes down to who has the fire power advantage and position advantage. But go on, explain what a bunker should be able to defend against.

Ok, I will be closing sign ups after we get one more person or at the end of the day if not. We have 29 and thirty is a good starting number.

Thanks MOS:96b2p That worked. I thought I tried that, but I must have done something different

We are at 21 and should be open for more players for only a few more days at the most.

Thanks for the Support George

Yes, you should be a member, since all communications are done there. There is nothing to becoming a member and if you are not active on the site, its easy to not be a member, since they auto remove non active users. We have 18 sign ups all ready. IanL thanks for posting a link for him. Ian, I could use your knowledge on how best to post images here at this site, since My method from Imgur is no longer working.

Man, i am sorry. I must have been half asleep when I posted that. https://www.thefewgoodmen.com/thefgmforum/ Its actually at "a few good men" site

Just a notice that I am again hosting another tournament over at "a few good men" this time we are using CMBS. The last Tournament was very successful , we managed to have 5 rounds and did the whole tournament in 4 months. So come join the fun, sign ups are now available. Here is somewhat a description of how it works. if more info is wanted, go over to "a few good men" for more information. Scoring FormatThe format is you will be given a selected force. Your mission will be to do the best you can with the situation you have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle.So in otherwards, your side could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and you have won and will be given a point value as to how you have done.Winners will get a score of somewhere between 80 to 100 points per match depending on how they have performed to each other. so best player will receive 100 points, lowest winner will receive 80 points, and everyone else is somewhere in between.Scoring in scenarios will be your score minus your opponents score (as to how you will be selected for the top 50%).Each round you will be in charge of a different Nations forces, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skillsBattles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 25 minutes or less so far.)If you are new to this, go review previous tournament as to how this works if you have any questions

Correct, just load the latest patch and it has the previous patches built into it. So no need to worry about 2.02. This is a common practice for them, they will combine updates every so often so that you only need one file to get the game up to date.

How is sending light armor in front of heavy armor gamey, that is called Scouting and yes it was done in RL also. The units under Patton had the tendency to do it with a few guys in a jeep, so gamey tactics reflect RL or RL reflects the game. Whatever, I think it is a good point in that maybe more control in the next version of the game would be a nice additional feature. Presently, your only option is to stay hidden and hope that the main targets also move into view. but holding out for the main asset has the risk of what happened. The more enemy you allow to get into range, the easier it is for them to overwhelm and kill you once you open up. So, accepting killing the light unit and being positioned to get out of dodge might be the better move. If I am alive and a threat, that might be all i need to screw my enemy up.

Lt Bull Just glanced over this and I really like some of the concept on how to decide who plays offence / defense and the the force size in a attack / defend map h2h match. As a player who generally hates ME QB's and think they are about the most stupid way to play, I like how these rules are fair enough that a battle played this way should count in ladder play as far as I am concerned. The best option I have found so far is any scenario that you play both sides in 2 battles at the same time against each other and then combine the score. winner is the player with the best combined score. With this method, you can play any type of battle, get fights that have equipment that you would never purchase in a player purchase type situation and get to experience the battle from both sides, which give you insights as to how to approach the fight. The only weakness in this type of method is you know what you are up against as to force makeup. But I find that is not a big deal, since most QB's I can tell you what the opponent has within a few turns anyway. Since they will generally lean towards certain units and force makeups.

there needs to be a way to always regain control of high tech stuff, that will include things more than just war machines, self driving cars could be future weapons for a hacker how we are presently going.

That is why the operators need to stay close but generally safe. In case the high tech communications get jambed or whatever, then the crew will need to man the units and run them without the remotes. This is where I think some present designs lack thinking as to in what ifs situations. Only unmanned units do not float my boat as being a smart approach.

So, this is exactly the concept to some extent. So a small platform 150 with just enough protection to keep the ammo safe and the mechanics firing. Crew gets out at the zone of departure and mans it remotely. Drive this up and fire on a heavy defense with enemy combatants. No, it does not need a bunch of high tech attached. How small could this be made, who knows. But for all the weight lost, the chances of getting it and having it available will increase as it becomes more possible to mobilize easily to needed locations.

but I see it as, if they spot and shoot first, I am likely dead ANYWAY. So whatever unit you are thinking of with auto cannons, I see my force with a machine also with auto cannon or better capability. But its smaller, faster and possible the crew is safe behind the hill it is defending. Hopefully more of them than yours because my cost levels. yes, can it be lost , sure, but my logic is, at a cheaper price, maybe saving the crew because of possible remote operation and hopefully just as deadly as what I am fighting against. The concept of armour saving my crew is a concept that is past our day and time other than from small arms, and even them have the ability to penetrate a decent amount of steel with some of the special stuff out there now

I have been thinking for years, is there a need for a tank type weapon system anymore. As the battlefield changes with technology, what should the future weapons be. One thought I have had, over and over. How long will all the high tech weapons last. It would seem that if a conflict lasted any time, they would use up what stocks they have and will they be able to produce enough fast enough to keep up with needs and be able to keep funding the cost of them. I could see the lack of high tech supplies if a prolonged conflict happened. Then more conventional weapons would gain some strength if they were still available. I have thought for awhile, that mobile units should give up on heavy armored units of any type. Its not a defense anymore on the battlefield. Drop all that weight and use it for other gains. I think the future of mobile forces should be to make them as light, small and fast as possible with a powerful attack weapon and minimal protection to counter small arms fire only. Defenses should be high tech options that counter incoming high tech weapons before they make it to the target. Second - crews should be able to control the unit remotely and not have to be in the machine. (but this needs to be flexible, where they can be in it if needed, close by or at great distances. (because jamming signals can and will be a factor in all modern fighting. ) Manning units will still need to be a option. But if you are controlling the communication battle, why not protect the crews by unmanning them. So my concepts of what the future should bring and what I am seeing in development is not the same exactly. I see new machines that are huge as to size. You can see them and hear them from way too far. They are too big to maneuver and it also cost them speed. It just blows me away at the size of some of these machines and they are to transport troops. The size of the unit should be no larger than the platform needed for the main weapon and the ammo supplies wanted and the defense measures that will be added. As far as I am concerned, get them troops outs of those machines and lets get them in these independent machines that will enhance the troopers abilities. (star troopers are on the way)

Yes George, it appears you shocked a newer player once more. I remember the first time I hit one of them traps set up by you also. it was like, what the heck just happened. It was only after replaying the battle did I figure out what had happened. it was a wonderful dirty little trick .