slysniper

I look forward to any efforts made with scenario you design I need to take a look and see how you set up the AI commands, I have done some scenario design in the old CMX1 system myself. but I am a little imtimidated by the new set up as to how to give the AI orders, but sure I will get into it at some point when I find the time.

I have to agree, these things can be frustrating. My own most recent was. Foxholes set up for my squads to fall back to in a village. so I send them there and only a few will get in the fox holes and the rest are huddled against the outside walls of the buildings next to them holes. No it is not perfect, and might not even be able to be corrected, But I figure all this is beyond my knowledge as to how to get something like this protrayed in a game and working. I figure there has to be short cuts to things like terrain so that the game even runs without some type of super computer. all I know is a FPS can handle a limited number of people and perform the needed task. Whereas we on one computer are generating very large maps, hundred and hundred of units which are now spoting, keeping communication links and tracking all their shots independantly. Giving us large amount of results in a very smooth system. So however Steve acheives that, he does seem to understand how to make a program that does it better than what we have seen anywhere else, So I am not going to point out the short coming to much.

Well, I am not trying to disagree with you, actually I agree with you facts about some short comings in how the CMX2 engine works. I think it is good to point it out to battlefront but also learn to accept the fact that it is a computer program that no matter what will have limitations as to what it will do. So I just smile at the fact that many thinks it can be programmed to everything we dream of. The fact is, they can make code that might protray many things, other coding is tricks that shows results similar to real things but comes about by math that likely is just factored odds. Then there is things they just have not figured how to wright code into the system to protrays what is wanted.

One question for you on this. I use to stay away from real large battle but found that when I did start playing larger ones that it does protray some of these aspects you mention better or just add things that cannot be done in small battles. But I have a issue when time is longer than ammo supplies, of course now the trucks with ammo help alot. But for a unit to fight for the amount of time you are talking about would take major supplies. So how do you make a scenario like that and manage to keep units supplied to carry out the fighting if needed for any extended time.

If the unit is close enough for a hand toss, you just target the other side whereyou know or suspect the enemy is. It allows you to area fire,so they will area fire, and grenades are part of that, exspecially since the unit cannot make a clear line of site. Since I play wego, they will always toss some within that time frame if they have them to use. If you target light, I am not sure, but I think they may not use them.

But we do want to have our little pixel men act like Rambo's, so that is part of the fun of it since they generally do the other now. One trick I love now is throwing grenades over hedgerows without the unit seeing the enemy on the other side. works really well. but I like the aspect that all of the factor in my infantry unit now will have a big impact as to if they are going to shoot. What is their morale, what is each mans line of site, has the unit panic before now and are in a broken state, what ammo is left and who has it. The game is now challenging in new fun ways if you accept it. The infantry has really come to life for me and the armor is still about the same. Some good things, some bad things there

Wego for me also. I like to play pbem, so it is the only way to practice I never have understood the RT concept in this game,. If you are playing head to head, you really can only play with a limited number of units or you are just not managing most of them well. he close combat games had 15 units and that was plenty. In these games I might be managing 100 units, that is not good for RT If I play RT vs the AI, it is very powerful, I can stop, command and change orders for units all over the map the second I see the need. Great for getting the results I want, But I feel like i am cheating. One minute in WEGO still gives me more command than what I would have in RL, so I just think it is too unrealistic for my personnal likes anyway.

your point is valid, maybe some adjustments could be made. But learning to deal with the present results is not a major issue, I just like pointing out some of us have accepted the results as ok, not because of good game programming, but just accepting the fact it is hard in R.L to control these things, so the game having a hard time with it is OK also. When I was in the Marines, the one truth I learned was I could never see hardly anyone to fire at, either they are concealed or my cover or concealment was preventing me from being able to see well. Then how exposed are you going to make yourself, because when you do, what you will see is the gun flash of guys trying to kill you. So situational awareness is very hard to adcheive, so having many guys not able to seethe enemy in the game rings very true to me.

I must agree with this, the more complex it is, the less fun it is. It is more like work at times. But I am finding now that the quicker I am getting around and issueing commands because the commands are becoming more instictive and I know what to hit on the interface, the faster my play is, actually It might be faster than it was for me in CMX1, I know I can do set ups much faster in this version. the more I am enjoying the game. but the slow play can be unenjoyable, that is why I went and tried chance encounter to see how a old scenario played and felt. The armor is Tons better, the action around the church is great. Every wall, door, bldg and level of the tower has a tactical importance. Where each unit is placed in the complex is important. These are things you did not expearence in cmX1. now I focus on my infantry and every aspect of their fight, whereas before. They were a unit of firepower to bring on the enemy, and i could do it from almost any location.

Agree with you here, but I still classify this as a type one player. They cannot accept the fact that new tactics are needed to play this game, so they dont like the game or think something is wrong with it. but like you said, defence can at times have much more bite to it, one needs to use more realistic tactics are needed to get the job done in the new system that is all. One simple example, I hated how guys could stack tanks in columns and move up on a corner, getting them to fire through each other and gain fire supremacy very easaly. Now it is a real trick to get your units to crest or expose themselves at the same time without being picked off one at a time because the lead unit is the only unit to be able to see and fire. Much more realistic tactics are needed. No longer do you want to be behind each other, rounds able to take you out after passing through the first unit, also no longer do you want to be to close to friendly destroyed tanks. I love the fact you have to deploy units more correctly.

On my first go of it, which was like the second scenario I played in CMBN, I recall taking out two or three Shermans down the main road, then some additional Shermans were moving through the smoke, Firing on the move and hit and damaged my track. Immobilized. I destroyed 5 Shermans with the tank, but then the allies started shifting their attention. So there he was with no way of moving, some where later in the game, it received some fire from the flank, tank was still fine but the crew bailed since they were immobilized. So a mighty tank brought to its knees by hittting the tracks, Classic. It was still a good fight, managed to fight to the end, killed 6 tanks with infantry. but really could not stop the onslaught and found I lost the situation. This time was much different. but doubt I could do it again even if I tried. Things played out really nice and it was a massive win. I will give you credit for a good first round win, not many scenarios do I lose to the AI, but this one did me in and so I know winning is likely a good adcheivement with only one playing. which is the way to really only play.

I also found a Type 7 player from another thread This type has not jumped into CMBN because of the cost of the game, there is a portion of players that seem to have to figure out where to get the money for such past times. For sure, some have a hard time owning a machine that is up to date, that can run the program. But if one has a machine I find it hard not to justify the game purchase if you think you would like it. There is only a handful of computer games that have managed to get me to invest hundred, but more likely thousand of hours playing and working with. this game would be at the top of that list. So I know my cost is pennies for each hour of enjoyment I know I have spent 200 plus hours on this game already and have barely played what is available, So I am already down to .30 cents per hour. Just tell me what else you can do for that type of invertment, that is cheap entertainment.

this a interesting insight So Type 6 older player, no time to want to pick up new game I am actually 50, I seem young compared to many in the hobby, for me, my family now takes less of my time so I am not sure this would be a general truth but for sure there is a bracket of player that has found real life is more important than picking up the latest computer game. So for sure a reason to some

Well I am (B Negative) so I am in trouble, it is hard to find a donor, so I might not be around long. So far in PBEM games I seem to getting beat up also, but that is part of the game, sometimes you are given the poor hand, sometimes the other guy out plays you, sometimes it can be bad luck. In the CMX1 I won about 70% of the time, in the new system. I feel I am playing well but wins are not coming easy in H/H

So we can classify this as a Type 5 player Someone that cannot tolerate aspects of the cmX2 engine that do not work correctly due to the graphic limitations. What I find interesting with this type of person is, they are fine in beleiving in abstract aproach in CMx1 But CMX2 is never given to letting somethings be abstract. Example, you bring up the fact how hard it is to get a squad now to locate and get everyone firing. You can see this as a problem, I see it as a abstract issue that actually protrays real life to some extent. It has been shown that in RL only about 1 in 10 soildiers actually make a effort to find, aim and attempt to kill the enemy while the rest are in a mode of trying to stay alive, only until you get to highly skilled and selected units does this ratio change. So in the game, if I see only half my squad able to see and fire at the enemy, I have no problem with that. Plus if you play more traditional terrain maps, this problem goes away to a great extent. So in CMX1 you get everyone firing all the time, we think anyway. Sure easy to get that firepower going, but likely less like the r/l situation as it is now fighting at times to get units able to see and fire when needed.

actually this makes you a TYPE 4 PLAYER TYPE 4 PLAYER The QB system is better at producing good match ups, able to generate maps and play competative games in the CMX1 engine, CMX2 has messed that up, even selecting units is a much more complex task. (I agree that QB is much better in CMX1 at the moment, I will not fault anyway for staying with CMX1 for this reason)

I am in the mist of playing Chance Encounter, a scenario that is a remake from the one that was part of the demo in the original CMBO game. As I play, it brings back many memories, since I played that demo many times, trying to decide if I liked the game or not back when CMBO was first released. I was a close combat fan at the time and even though I loved the fact it was a 3D game, I was having a struggle with how it played compared to what had become the model of play for me in the other game system. Finally though, I saw the potential of the new system and that the system strengths outweighed some of the things I would be losing in the close combat system. So I dedicated my time to the new system, learned its methods and am glad I did. Now I am in the mist of becoming a CMx2 engine fan, again, I did not jump ship until CMBN came out. Knowing I would lose things I liked in the CMX1 engine, it still was not an issue, because for me, it appears to be so easy to see the strengths of the new system that adds so much more than what I was accustomed too in CMX1 engine play. So I have jumped in, learned the new methods, forget about what was and just have tried to learn to use what has been given to me. The CMx2 engine so outweighs what the CMX1 can do. It just blows my mind that there are so many that cannot see the improvements vastly outweighs things that are lost. Playing this battle again has just proven to me the improvements of the game; CMX1 is dying quickly for me as for any serious use in the future. Hard to eat potatoes when I have steak available to me. So, I started wondering, what might be all the reasons why people truly are reluctant to change, I thought it would be fun to try to list them in this thread. Here is a few of my own I have for different players. Type 1 player I Rule in CMX1,I generally crush all those I play and now this new system is beating me with the AI and my tactics are getting me creamed in head to head play, man this system s**ks. Forget it man, I stay where I rule Type 2 player I have been telling Steve on this forum for ten years how to make the perfect combat game and here is the new game and he has not implemented every concept I think is needed and has made the game by what he thinks is correct, man this game s**ks, . I will never play it; I will wait for the perfect game someone else will create that matches my likes. (This type of person has a long wait) Type 3 player Why did you Not make the interface just the same as what I am use too, I am way too old to relearn key strokes or new ways of getting information about my units or how to control them, forget it, I am not going to learn this new system, I will buy the game when you somehow add all the old game interface concepts to it. This is just a few go ahead and add your own

I need to admit that my revisiting of this scenario was for the fact that I actually lost playing the first time as the Germans in version 1.0. I was impressed with the aggressive play of the AI in the battle and wanted a second go at it in version 1.01 ( I also knew I would not need to be so worried about allied tanks hitting me on the move, well much less likely anyway) I always play on Warrior setting, which could be a discussion in and of itself, but I really believe it to be the best setting for H/H play, so I play everything on that setting. Playing a second time sure gives you the ADVANTAGE, you now have a good knowledge of what to expect and also an understanding of what units you are up against, taking much of the doubt out of one’s play. I manage to reposition Barkmann’s panther 5 times moving to new locations towards the left flank; hitting units that I figured would try to flank me from my previous position. After shifting to the left flank, I moved him up that flank and swung around and came back on the left field and addressed the remaining enemy infantry and tanks from the rear on that flank. In all my playing of CMX1 over the years I cannot remember one unit achieving so much of the victory unless it was a real mismatch as to unit quality and match up. In this battle there are plenty of threats to the panther, mainly the 76’s. But the bazooka’s and 75’s can cause damage that will bring you to your knees. Like my first battle, an immobilized tank just normally is not going to last long. But as the game ended and the final smoke clear, My version of Barkmann's fight ended with his tank taking out 13 Sherman’s, 1 halftrack and 42 men. (That was better than the real thing and I enjoyed every moment of it.) I still was grateful for my infantry on the left flank they managed to take out four Shermans that had broke through the lines there. My infantry on the right flank had it somewhat easy and only had to stop a halftrack and infantry assault on that side, claiming 4 halftracks and about a platoon of infantry. Early in the battle, Sherman 75 round’s had damaged the tank, the optics were destroyed, so I unbuttoned barkmann as much as possible to keep giving the tank the ability to spot quickly. (If I have any complaint, it is infantry shooting at tank commanders seem to be the poorest shots in the world. In general, not just this game) But did find that with only a few minutes left in the game, the enemy infantry did find the mark and my heroic tank commander and one crew mate seemed to have found the wrong end of a enemy bullet. So he will not be able to celebrate his amazing achievements of the day. Version v1.01 made a good difference and I know that additional corrections will continue to improve this outstanding game. Just a "Thank you" for providing such a quality tool and game.

this is true, but the company makes most of its money on all them players that buy it, play the AI and then move onto something else. I am sure that Steve pointed out at one time how small of the percentage is of players that will play Multi player.

Has there been any feed back from battlefront on the topic of the Machine guns and how they are modelled in the game in general. It is one weapon they have never managed to model correctly as to what it can really do on the battlefield. This is a good example as to how poorly they are modeled. But I remember doing test on the CMX1 versions and they were also way poor compared to what they can do in RL. It is sad, because two good MG crews working together can do plenty of damage. You hear people complain about arty now since it is more powerful in the game, just imagine the comments if they ever were able to get MG's correct when they are set up correct. A HMG42 with a line of fire at ground level should leave a immpassable zone for hundreds of yards while it is firing. I can take two of them to cover a perfectly flat street and run enemy squads across the street and hardly lose a man. IN RL, no one would be getting across that street. Should keep starting threads about it until they listen some day

Now, which is more realistic in CMx1, JUST LIKE YOU SAID, THEY WERE A WASTE. So why would any army have had so many of them, face it the game had them under modeled. Now they are more correct and we have people complaining because they cannot just have infantry and tanks. Face it, part of the combined arms is the arty, now it is a bigger part of the game. But it is not all that matters. I disagree with the comments that the game focus is now arty. Yes you can cripple your opp. with it but it is not the thing that can stop them from making objectives, arty is not that flexable. Arty is good against troops you know you can pin down and hold in place while you rain hell on them. To do that, you still need tanks and infantry to hold them where you want them. Having games without it is fine, but to make comments like that is better is questionable, it is more just a wish of what you want your battles to be, that is fine, but it does not make it more realistic, it is just more what you have grown accoustiom to playing. The new cmX2 engine does a better job of reflecting combined arms and people just need to learn to adjust their game play.

I also played on these settings Warrior. WEGO. Personal rules: play it through first time only, no replays #1 Over Hill and Dale. no problems #2 School of Hard Knocks. this is what everyone is screaming at, for a moment I thought I had them beat, then watched as my last few tanks and forward troops take a beaten again, I cease fire and walk away with a draw and feel good about that. I had to play the map again, but no problem with fresh troops and now past the bridge #3 University of Hard Knocks. no problems #4 Crossroads. I agree A very nice use of Recon stuff, I love battles that you get to use different tactics, this is good recon skills #5 Bumper Cars I went to the right. That was lucky, so I managed to take the right and back very easily. but saw what the middle had and know that would have been ugly or if the left flank is tried, same problem. #6 Razorback Ridge the counter-attack at the shed was not that big of a thing. The farm house, was bloody hell and so was the cross roads on the left just past the start point, I found to stay clear from the right side and wish I had not updated to 1.01 since I bombed the hell out of them and in the end they were still safe in their fox holes. Did manage to get two M10's past the farm with engineers to try and push for the main objectives but found that was not enough since I could not clear the ambush locations fast enough and had to push too quickly and that cost me, but I received a draw and moved on. La Haye du Poits. I just loaded last night and saw my final map, battle still to play. But I have loved this campaign, just because of the great challenges and well designed game. As far as I am concerned, please design more like this, maybe not for beginners - warning should be given. but for any grog that likes a real challenge, this was excellent work.

give it a break, the designer should design the game to the extra time that one might see in a varable ending and if it goes 1 or 2 extra turns only, then that is a break to the defense. So plan the defence for all them extra posssible turns and hope the designer had you in mind. The set up is fine, it is getting designers to make the time still a pressure for the attack. The game does not need the fix, the design does. If you are talking QB's then I have no imput on that.

I just finished a small battle where I had american infantry fighing a platoon of tanks. using some common sence and holding fire when possible, I destroyed 5 of the 6 tanks with AT teams. I was wanting to see how much of a issue it was going to be to see if they opened up with small arms fire. This was a mixture of experence since I let the qb select my troops, Only one veteran crew. Yes I saw some small arms fire from my teams, but my man with the bazooka always managed to select the correct weapon and generally in a short time frame get off a first round. Only twice in the game did I lose men to returning tank fire. No this is not any official test, but it satified me that the game generally is performing correctly and that if it does otherwise, it is because of the poor human commander or the game is allowing for poor troop decisions at times also. Both of which exist.

Until things change, you need to learn to use your covered arcs to prevent your troops from opening up on units that you do not want them to (Tanks). I have not had much of a problem with this type of fire doing it, but I do have to cross my fingures that my anti-tank units will use the correct weapon when I do finially order then to target the tank. But having another unit shoot at the tank if the commander is exposed is required to get it button up before you use your anti tank units , this helps them from preventing stupid decisions