slysniper

In the old system, many designers developed the feel for a good ratio. I always thought that to get a good hard fight that might drain the attacker and turn it into either sides battle as to momentum that ratio was 3 to 2. So if the defender had a thousand points, the attacker had 1500, just as this statement mentioned. If you wanted the attacker to push the board, you increased the ratio. With the new system, a ratio that works best might take a while to determine. Also, when doing design work now, the point value of units do not show up. So it is harder to say. I have a 3 to 2 ratio as one builds a scenario because there is nothing to relate it to, so you have to be a better judge as to what units you are setting up against each other. I do not understand why they cannot leave the point value in that menu, It is in the system for qb games.

I AGREE WITH THIS COMMENT. I think the game would give you similar results if the scenarios were designed with the same concepts and scoring as the older games. If you set the scenarios with units losses counting as points and simple scores at lower values for objectives, the end scores would be closer, the time lengths seem long to me in many scenarios. If they are too long, almost always one side will clear the map of the enemy. With the new tools, the games scoring reflects big wins with battles that would be close in the old system. It does not take a chart to know the end results are more drastic now. I am playing the same guys I have been plaing for years, old system - very rare to get a 70-30 win spread. new system. crushing victories with the loser scoring very low points in general. The one thing impacting the game more now is the way morale works, once you truly start losing on the battlefield. It is hard to recover because units which are broken, do not ever fight well again. Leadership losses cannot be made up for. So,at that point in the game, not much to do except watch units die or run, and as pointed out, they cannot even run off the map like the real life units would. So,, you want close games, set up the scoring like the old game, keep the game short enough that the battle does not become a route. Easy fix, but dont expect the designers to do that for you. it is not what many want.

Halftracks are great tools. No I do not like scouting with them either. But My troops use them as much as possible. If I have time infantry will lead the attack and ground troops on foot are used, half tracks stay behind cover and protect the troops in them from most arty. If a larger map where time is short, I still rather see a halftrack smoke out the enemy instead of my armor. So I split the squad, only leave a assault team in the track and run it towards the next area that needs scouting, if they draw fire. I only loose the team, not a squad. if the enemy plays possum. Then I dismount the team into their lines which normally draws attention quickly. So my main force can start to deliver fire. if the enemy has no real anti tank abilities, then my armor still is better staying back as supporting fire. suppressing the enemy, then a assault with my infantry in the halftracks over the open ground , getting up close and personnal. dismounting and assaulting. trying to leave someone in the halftracks to use the MG to support the assault. Great stuff.

For game play, I think iron and elite is two much for h to h, not just the info and command links. but the long delays for arty and stuff. I think these levels are good for those that want to take it to the farthest levels but for general enjoyment by the majority, it is not the level to pick. I prefer warrior, but I think veteran is very similar except it speeds up the first aid the troops give. As for information about enemy units they give about the same out, which really is not much in general, your memory still is more important as to what you have actually seen. So if you do not like the first aid impacting the game. If you want helpful data and speed in play, Veteran is best. if you want a more realistic time of actions but do not want to make it as long and as boring as real life times, then warrior is best. If wanting to play with lack of info, long time for events to unfold for it to be more like real life and managing units to stay in command is you thing. Then elite and iron are there. I would just suggest that you make sure both sides like them settings. For me, I dont. The game becomes very boring, but that is just me. but I think there is plenty of others that would agree.

The kar98k should actually be giving units a more accurate shot. but like you pointed out, it appears the rifles are not reflecting any difference at these ranges. As for aimed sniper fire, it really would not change the amount of times a sniper would fire. A sniper does not fire multi shots normally for many reasons. so the semi auto is not a preferred weapon until recent times, since the range or distance you are firing from now allows you to get multible shots off and still not be spotted. but even now it still is not a wise decision if the enemy has anyway to reach out and touch you. For that period, both weapons would be similarly. The semi auto would only help if they ran into troops close and was in a normal firefight, but even then, the sniper rifle is the last thing yoou want to use under a 100 meters. Normally the sniper will have some other weapon for use while moving and the scout always has something for up close firepower so they are not totally naked in a fire fight.

Yes it does, the arc is where the crew or men focus a high percentage of their spotting. it helps get units spotted faster. yes they normally will not fire out of the area . But that is for two reasons, first, they are not spotting out of the arc much, so hard to shoot what you cannot see. second, the AI does not allow it to shoot out of the arc unless it is a considered threat.

I dont know about that, the difference is almost twice as good. I do not see anything wrong with that. That is a good improvement. I would like to see the percentages higher at this range, more like what I saw when they were having a good run. personnally I think the best sniper results at this range should produce a 33% hit as a adv. But I did get that one time out of 30 tested runs, but for them type of rare occasions, it should be at least 50% when a elite sniper has a good moment.

Sniper test, 425 meters, no wind, 5 minutes per test, target= 1 American squad (regular) with platoon leaders. Test ran as the German in real time vs. the AI except round 6 Map is open with the Americans on a forward slope of a hill elevation 25 to 20; the snipers are on a ridge at 25. All terrain between is at 20. (This does expose the enemy even more than my first test. I do not know what more you can do to make the shot easy) Sniper units G43, Green, Ldr=0, motivation normal 6 test results 14 shots 2 kills 15 shots 2 kills 14 shots 2 kills 16 shots 0 kills 14 shots 2 kills 13 shots 0 kills Total 86 shots, 8 kills hits 9% of shots (1 in 9) G43, Req, Ldr=+1, motivation high 6 test results 14 shots 2 kills 16 shots 2 kills 18 shots 2 kills 16 shots 2 kills 17 shots 0 kills 16 shots 4 kills Total 97shots, 12 kills hits 12% of shots (1 in 8) Kar98k, Vet, Ldr=+1, motivation high 6 test results 25 shots 2 kills 15 shots 3 kills 14 shots 0 kills 15 shots 2 kills 15 shots 2 kills 16 shots 4 kills Total 99 shots, 13 kills hits 13% of shots (1 in 8) Kar98k, crack, Ldr=+2, motivation extreme 5 test results Unknown shots, died, 2 kills 26 shots 1 kills 16 shots 2 kills 16 shots 3 kills 15 shots 5 kills 15 shots 3 kills Total 86 shots, 14 kills hits 16% of shots (1 in 6) G43, elite, Ldr=+2, motivation extreme 6 test results 21 shots 5 kills 21 shots 1 kills 21 shots 2 kills 21 shots 5 kills 21 shots 5 kills 22 shots 6 kills Total 127 shots, 24 kills hits 19% of shots (1 in 5) I will have to claim this final number is much better than the results I achieved from my first test of a elite team at 200 meters, going back to that test map shows nothing to indicate why other than there was a light breeze and that this map layout exposes the troops possibly more. During this testing you might note that the crack squad had a 5 for 15 rounds in one test, thus hitting 33% one time. The elite squad had one round at 27% and 3 rounds at 24% So I will withdrawal my comments on how poorly these snipers are performing. These top end units in this test did well enough for the game. They did have their moments to at least be a real challenge The test would need to be run much more to get the numbers more accurate, I had results vary from all the snipers together from 8 to 17 kills in the 5 minute test ( with about 80 shots fired per round) The one result with the sniper being killed was an accident, the enemy squad had a sniper, the only one for the Americans and he opened up and killed the German sniper. I left him in the test to see if it would happen again, no, in general, the AI units never fired on the snipers. I ran round 6 as the Americans and area fired at ? markers And then target fired once clear sight was achieved, which was within the first 2 minutes for all units, so the remainder of that round they returned fire. Note: no sniper was lost, plus in general, all my snipers performed better that round except for the Green unit. Possible the Americans are exposing themselves more by firing. I want to run this test with a MG unit and others to see which will do better, no question a mortar unit will have a field day,

I swear, sometimes this game can seem crazy, from what you say your numbers appear to be much higher than mine, plus you are shooting from a greater distance and with lower quality units. This appears to make me now want to do a detailed test with massive data gathered to see what is going on.

You better beleive I want another sand box, and this is the place to get the ear of battlefront . Where as, I have your ear at the moment and you like the sandbox as is. So I think we have made your view clear, you do not want to deal with snipers in the game, is that clear for everyone to understand. Yes, Yes, Yes.

At what range could you hit the following targets without fail? A. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 600 meters. Standing Man up to 700-800 meters. B. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing up to 600 meters. C. Head up to 400 meters. Breast up to 400 meters. Standing Man up to 600 meters. 5. Do the ranges indicated by you apply only to you, i.e. the best snipers, or also to the majority of snipers? A. & B. Only to the best snipers. C. To me personally as well as to the majority of snipers. A few outstanding snipers could hit also at longer ranges. B added: Absolutely positive hitting is possible only up to about 600 meters. 6. What was the range of the furthest target you ever fired at, and what kind of target, size? A. About 1,000 meters. Standing soldier. Positive hitting not possible, but necessary under the circumstances in order to show enemy that he is not safe even at that distance! Or superior wanted to satisfy himself about capability. B. 400 to 700 meters. C. About 600 meters, rarely more. I usually waited until target approached further for better chance of hitting. Also confirmation of successful hit was easier. Used G43 only to about 500 meters because of poor ballistics. These quates are great, it shows how far off the game is lacking in this area. I am not expecting the game to have these abilities, exspecially since in general the infantry shoots poor no matter what your testing in the game. But it is easy to see, that a man size target is not a challenge for a sniper at 200 yards. of course these numbers are in meters. But it would be nice to have a true sniper unit that when it has the highest settings could produce consistant hits up to 300 meters when the enemy is exposed and produce a good threat to 400 meters and then reduce down to poor or no effect past 600 meters. So when I get some time, maybe that will be my test, 300, 400, 500, 600 meters with different levels of snipers and see at least what they can produce in hits. Then maybe a scout team with normal rifles and see what they produce. Maybe that will be proof enough that these units are not producing much differance.

Excellent points but I also do have to agree with the later comments about how many inner city kids were being thrown into the infantry (or the meat grinder). As for their limited impact, once heavier weapons are used. Yes , their impact is minimal in comparison at times. But the fact that their lives were of no more value than any other. A commander would know that maybe that one sniper might even get so much enemy attention that large amounts of arty might be used to kill that one sniper and seek him out instead of focusing it on the real objectives of removing the infantry holding the key terrain they next needed to obtain. They can effect the battle, but only when they have the skills to place a fear on the enemy to not want to risk themselves to any type of movement. The treat is more important than the result. But the sniper needs to prove that the result will happen if given it. If you saw a unit move out in front of you and the first shot takes out one, then they all find cover, then there is a second shot another goes down, but now you have a clue where the shot comes from , so time passes, people start crawling to better safer locations, but from a new direction a shot is fired and another goes down. Lets see you get another squad to expose themselves. If the sniper is smart he needs not fire another shot, but if he does it will again be from a whole new location at a point where he anticipates they enemy might try to advance from again. That is how they impact the enemy. Also note: the one thing I did in the test is to elevate the sniper to a height that normal terrain would not aid in cover, yes that test squad would find ways to hide behind pebbles, maybe manage to dig a slit trench with their fingernails in two minutes while laying on their bellies. But with the height advantage given. A likely line of site would still be likely and cover lacking. The other thing I find funny about this test I did. I improved Tank commanders the same way on a test and their ability improved to very heroic abilities. I have the snipers at this level and the results are poor, I want to see what the difference is when I set them to different levels at greater ranges to see how this will impact their ability. But the results were so poor on this test, I have not been motivated to see that results, since I doubt they will hit anything.

Quote by JonS and they also would infiltrate enemy lines or allow lines to move over them and seek high ranking targets that were normally back in command and control areas. "No kidding. But again it's nothing to do with CM. Or, to put that a slightly different way, I don't think it's the kind of scenario BFC had in mind when they were designing and building CM." ??? reply: And why should it be their decision to say they not allowed. They provide a game that allows us to create battles we find an interest in. Hopefully with the tools to do most anything that is realistic. They also seem to not want to design tools for the beach head portion of the campaign either. But designers work around the limited tools and still come up with pretty good stuff. Omaha beach looks pretty good in the scenario I saw. So I want Snipers that act like snipers so that they can be placed in scenario’s. The problem is, there is no work around. That is the only perspective that I am really trying to voice here – you can think it is twisted as much as you like.

I am not trying to say I have a great knowledge or magic ability to know how it was back then and what the real thing was like. To tell you the truth, I am glad I dont. But I have a least some knowledge to give my point of view, which you seem to not like. As for the role of the Sniper, I hate to inform you of the fact that snipers are used in main battle engagements also. Not just the "what did you call it "The quiet in between battle times" German snipers would be used to cover defensive barriers, where they could stop advances with very little defensive force. They would be supporting fire, to front line units providing long range support, normally stationed a couple hundred yards back to avoid any arty strikes, they were also used as the eyes for arty spotters since they could read and estimate distances so well and view the battlefield without giving away their location. and they also would infiltrate enemy lines or allow lines to move over them and seek high ranking targets that were normally back in command and control areas. All these things can be represented in the level of play and tactics that the game uses. And where might I get that info. from, from the manuals we were referencing when I was active. Since the US still did not have much material on the craft when they finially started creating sniper units in their branches, Much of what we had were WWII manuals from other countries and the training, skills and missions they were taught.

I will and can disagree with this to some extent. It is not exactly true that snipers are made, yes training can and does make snipers. But the truely great snipers normally come into the unit with all the skills given. We had two in our unit that no one ever equalled with all the training we received. They could do from the first days within the unit things that many of us never could. Both grew up in rural areas and had been using guns from very young age. Did they improve, yes. As we all did. But they were the best of the best. As for true snipers, There is no question that they should be represented. For the germans, they were part of the combat doctrine. For Russia, they had a lot of native people with the crafted skills and they did focus on some training. For the american, you are correct in that no Sniper program was there. But there was still plenty of farm boys with the skills, given the weapon, could do a decent job being a markman, which is where the game wants to leave it. I just do not think it reflects the level that even some of these men could adcheive.

as for how rare a true sniper should be, yes. in the point structure, they should or could be very high. Not something for a QB battle normally. But scenario design it is just a shame not to reflect what one good sniper can do to impact a battle. as for German tactics during the time, they did work in teams, but as I recall, both were snipers, so that they could misdirect the focus from one, with a second firing from a new direction. Near the end of the war, they had lost most of their true snipers in the East. So as for how many were in the west. likely not many. As for the game generally having markman, that is correct. but they should be called that, not snipers. And even then, back to my sample test. I would still expect them to out perform a mp40 at 200 yards. That is just a joke.

Also the commment about other things not performing as real life either. True, but pointing it out does make changes. For the arty guys did that for years and now look what we have, Arty heaven, so if this thread goes on long enough, maybe in 5 years I can actually have a sniper that can infiltrate the lines and take out that arty spotter at 500 yards and vanish just like he should instead of the comments battlefront gives."Their not really snipers, just markman and sharpshooter", like calling them that makes it all better, the game sniper is not a real sniper even to them.

when I cannot stop a veteran squad in the open I have a hard time thinking your story about handleing a platoon is normal. Actually, I had started a test with 3 squads at 400 yards with shell holes to run leap frog tactacs moving up on different units to see how well units would perform in pinning the platoon, I was doing this for mg's really, but tested other things to see how well they would do. lets just say, snipers were pretty good at getting themselves killed. not normally able to pin down more than one or two fire teams and receiving return fire from 2 squads in return. now maybe at the magic distance of 600 where they will fire and the enemy cannot unless they have MG's which most do! could I see snipers in this game stop a fit platoon with decent troops and not already broken or something.

So I went to and read your account. that is great, was it Hto H, AI, what was the condition of the unit you were up against. I am not saying that at times they might be able to impact the game, but so could a MG or any other unit that might have been used for the same purpose. But you are NOT expearencing snipers as they truely can impact a battle in real life. Back to my test, I place the best sniper that the game allows at a good heigth advantage that the small lays of the land cannot help give cover. put 13 men 200 yards out in the open with no cover and this guy is not managing to hit more than 1 guy every two minutes. Whereas he should be taking head shots and only missing if by some bad chance the guy happens to move in the second it takes the bullit to get there. now I am willing to imagine that these men are hiding in whatever they can find and are moving around much more than what is shown. but there is plenty accounts where snipers in these type of conditions would likely be hitting almost every shot and that unit would be broken or panic, Snipers did not make the enemy afraid of them by hitting 1 in 10 shots at 200 yards,

That is interesting. I had not bothered to go farther out because the hit ratio was so low where it should be much higher. If the snipers were performing well, then you are correct in that a sniper would never want to engage at close range. Their goal is to be as far as they are capable of and be able to hit a killing shot, I always felt convertable up to 700 yards. But with a normal rifle, I am sure 500 would be about the max. Then as you pointed out, they want to take one or 2 shots relocate and re-engage, they select terrain that gives them a view but also leaves them a exit route that is safe. The test was not to represent any real tactics, but I found with the cover I gave them they easily lasted 6 to 7 minutes without any losses. I did shift them slighty if I felt the AI squad had spotted them. I also area fired the squad just to see ifthey could pin the sniper. But in general neither group was managing to suppress the other totally. At times the squad would have men trying to take cover instead of fighting, but they would generally have 3 or 4 engaging the snipers.

I sure would like to see what they are using to base their numbers on. I can admit, things back at that time did not have the level of equipment that I had available. But I would be more than willing to take any good bolt action hunting rifle with the shell and scope that is equal to what they had then and demostrate there is not "ANYWAY IN #### THAT AT THEM RANGES (200 yards) A SKILLED MARKSMAN IS NOT DEADLY WHEN COVER CANNOT BE FOUND." And good snipers should be able to perform very well to 400 yards, then start to see a drastic drop in abilities every 100 yards past that. With maybe 800 being a extreme distance in th game, with little chance of a hit

You now owe me for your improved game play

This thread does not understand how poor the snipers in the game are. They are marksman, and poor ones at that. There is nothing about them that represent sniper skills in the game, they do not even outperform other troops in killing ability. I ran a test using a German attached sniper team , elite, with the +2 modifier, fanatic moral and placed a enemy squad at 200 meters in open ground and them on a hill behind a bocage or in the church tower. You could not ask for an easier range and target to kill. The results, after about 30 sniper rounds expended each run and running the test 5 times, I saw the sniper would kill 2 to 3 guys each battle and his team mate with a MP40 kill 2- 3 also. So 4 or 5 kills, normally about 6 – 7 minutes to do it in and a partner with a sub-machine gun out of range doing as good. That represents 1 hit in 10 shots. The unit is so mis-modeled, it makes me cry. Being an ex-sniper in real life. :mad:

In the real world, smoke is harder to see out of than into as far as spotting. So if a unit is in the smoke it should be harder for them to spot than to be spotted from someone out of the smoke. Again cmX1 had a tendency to do just the opposite, they unit in the smoke normally fired first. In the new game, not sure who has the advantage. In a real world application, how you were trying to use it, you lay smoke to give you acccess to close and fire on the enemy from a unpredicted location. you should have ran your unit through the smoke, then have the hunt command on once it is out of it far enough to likely see the enemy, so that it would stop and fire hopefully its shot first before it receives a reply. So the closer and far to the flank or rear you can get is the best plan, because you will be lucky to get one shot first, it needs to count.

I agree with this, spotting them can vary plenty in the game, and if you are playing head to head, they dont need spotted in wego, the player can figure out where the fire is coming from and area fire on the next turn, So less likely to last long in that type of play.