slysniper

I only ran each situation 7 times, normally I set up 10 test lanes and run ten times, easy way to see a percentage of 100 doing that. But really, I just run until I see a consistant result, if I see consistant different results, then I run the test until I feel I see the results inconsistancy repeating itself. As for this little test, I was after the commander effects , not which tank was proving to be better, the test showed that in a quick and precise manor. As for the armor, that was not suprising to me, I also know that changing distances will swing the advantage. had not tested to see what ranges. But from test I did back on CMX1, the advantages seem to be more pronouced now than before. But my feelings on that is because the tanks actually hit what they are shooting at now, where as the old system multible miss problem from two non moving platforms did not help to get good results. I hated watchinghg one tank miss 3 easy shots in a row and others hit first shot, exspecially when setting were the same and ranges were easy distances. The CMX2 system is much better, just adding that for those out there that think not.

Here is a interesting one for you. Until we get into tank battles this might not show up much but I did a test, running 5 shermans against 5 Pz4's , both sides with Vet. commanders with 0 modifiers at 600 yards apart. The results were the germans were losing 5 tanks to the the allies 2 or 3 in general then I changed the German tank commanders to the highest level, I think that is crack and the +2 modifier. did the same duel for a series and the americans were losing the battle 5 tanks to 2 of the Germans That is a massive change because of the commander only change, I can promise you, that type of effect was not in the old game system to that type of change. I thought it was cool they actually was taking the inferior tank and winning. basically it has to be giving them deadlier and more precise locations of shots to adcheive that, maybe faster times between shots also.

really, there is nothing wrong with the buildings. It just comes down to a fact we want buildings with different levels of protection, which we might have three types at the moment, but there should be more. plus with the levels it should be possible to tell what they are so that we can play the terrain as to what it is offering. At the moment it is one of the weak points in the games as to how they are affecting play, they look better, but they lack different types of construction and depth of infomation.

They are better than open ground, but care must be taken. That is the point at first that I tried to make. You have to limit your troops to available openings and areas, you have to conclude them to be more as concealment than cover. and maybe the most important thing. Do not place them somewhere where they are outgunned. If they have a equal amount of guns as to what they are up against, they will do better than troops in the open, maybe equal to other light defensive terrain. But they are not heavy cover, that is for sure. but if outnumbered, they will be supressed and then killed very quickly. and buildings have a way of letting plenty of troops see them, so it is easy to be outgunned.

so is there anyway of telling a modular single building from a independent building during game play, is there enough differance with all the models to see the differance. I guess that all it tales is to place them all on a map and view, or is there settings that can be used to make them look similar

these last two entrees are young pups, you know you are dragging down our average, now knock that off. Ready to party my 50th birthday, or is that some type of funeral I am going to have. No man cave here, mine will be called the war room, now to just get the kids out of the house for good to make that happen.

What is worse than that, on this forum the average age is much older than those stats, so does that mean we have old men living in their dead parent's basements?

This is the part that gets me also, even if the bullit does penetrate that type of material, what is the flight path and velocity by then. Well no matter what, the game should have some classifications of buildings so you can tell if it offers cover and there should be a new type that has not been in any of their games and that is buildings which have been fortified.

Yes, comments similar to yours have been made on other threads. The game appears to me to be treating buildings more as concealment than cover anymore. But some have pointed out that there is some buildings giving cover benefits. If that is so, the problem is, there is no clear easy way of telling which buildings they might be.

it was already suggested, I tried multiple times and seem to not be having any luck.

No luck, sure seems funny how it is only CMBN I cannot get the printscreen to work on, it just does not seem to reconize it is there. I tried some other programs and it captures the program fine, I have a good photo program so I really should not need a freebie, plus that would really not change what I am capturing in the buffer. Plus anyway, it brings up the question of why not have something within the game to capture images. Most of my other games have a button asigned and a folder location to save images you want while you are playing. We have all these wishes for major improvements in the game, but it still lacks some pretty basic helps.

Thanks, I will give that a try.

I just went back to see if someone answered this question. But I am now trying to capture images and find I have the same problem, print screen is grabing images of my desk top, not of the game. I figure there might be a easy fix in that maybe its a switch option in the windows program, does anyone know the answer to this.

mine was set up with it standard/ no damage / isolated.

I just played chance encounter, and the front section and bell tower was not that great of protection. I lost two teams in that to small arms fire. Now I will admit there was a decent amount of fire coming in when the firefight happened. but really thye only consistant fire coming at them was from MG's a couple of hundred meters out. Pretty much had the rest of them pinned.

I have moved on to testing mg's and trenches, both of them are giving me interesting results also. I test enough to get results and then determine how that will influance play, no one is paying me to reverse engineer the game design and build charts for what is going on. I know some here will do that, but they have time to spend doing it, I dont. just testing one building and doing it enough to see consistant results was time cousuming. and that really only reflects one type of situation. I could have tested the affect of different distances, different small arm weapons and such to see how that would impact the results. I am happy with what I learned, so I have moved on.

No, just not wanting to spend the time testing different bldgs when I cannot tell what they are when it is time to play. In general, I find they are poor in protection, even the large churches. so I will continue to play them with much caution as to their use until there is a logical way of knowing if they will provide good cover also.

this might be what happened in my test, since I only selected the largest house I could find that faced directy with the grid. I just remember it was the last option, whichever that is. So however that matches in construction and protection, I do not know.

I agree with this, also good for head to head play, but I sure would not have my troops in the building until I want to use them, if that is what I am playing

WHAT I DO IS PLAY IT HOT SEAT, PLAYING BOTH SIDES, I try to govern myself not to play to the unknowns that I know since I designed it and know what is happening on both sides. but then I am at least playing it more like it is going to be played Head to head, so I run through it a few times get the results try some different tactics, when I see similar finishes. I base that as the normal finish. set the scoring to balence at that result and then give scores that will swing to a victory if given other results for both sides. This has worked pretty well for me, but still I would not say more than 60 - 70 percent of the time do I get a balenced scenario.

Now here is some good input, as far as the money went it sounds like they might have made 10 cents on the dollar for retail sales compared to their own, so if 200,000 copies were from retail, that would be like only 20,000 if they sold them themselves. As for numbers, then maybe 100,000 is within the potential of their sales. As for running the company, that is why I figured 50,000 would be a good base, that would cover employees pay for a few years and all the cost of company plus a little profit that would push them on to wanting to continue on this adventure. They deserve to make a decent living, but there is no question in my mind that they also do it for the love of the hobby.

Ok, some buildings offer some cover, but not much, thus the test, fighting against a exact same squad, it did very little in improvement. maybe there is a few that do better, but how can you tell without testing it, no clue in the game that is for sure. As for tactics and getting suppressed by the enemy in a building, I pointed that out because anyone that has played for awhile know how buildings are normal targets for area fire, thus if you try to hide in a building and wait to open up on the enemy when they are at the range you want, good luck, you go for it. For me, buildings are crap and I am learning new ways of playing because of the poor protection they provide. Of course that is against real people, I forget that some thinks tactics against the AI matters, As any game is, the AI is not a good test of tactics.

At one time, this forum had a number for when you signed in, they removed that from our view anyway, when they updated the forum, but up to that point the number of reqistered users were much higher than the numbers you are thinking about. Plus I would feel safe in saying olny a small percentage ever bothers to take part in the forum, less than that ever find out or use other sights and a majority of casual gamers have already moved on to other things without ever thinking about any of them types of things.

No, I have not. From what I saw in mine, I decided that building in general can be considered concealment, not cover. So a building is a little better than tall grass, but I doubt the building was stopping hardly any more rounds than the grass, which is none. As for your test, I am sure that the variables selected has the impact on the results, maybe your structure does stop a better percentage of rounds, maybe the tall grass allowed for more misses to them troops allowing for a more even fight in my test. I really am not concerned with that. All I wanted to see was if a large indepentant building performed as bad as many of us beleive, in my test it did. I have seen enough to get a general feel for what I mentioned and will let it go at that. I will thank you for putting it out there for my use, or anyone else

This might be good against the AI, But against any real human with some sence, that building will be area fired on as long as he is moving units towards it and until someone clears it.