slysniper

All I want to say is the designer who made Bloody Omaha did a great job at map making and made some houses strong by laying the stone wall and house walls together, thus creating a house that has walls that we are wishiing for. He used high walls on sides without windows and low walls that go under windows. A great solutuion to making at least the 1st floor level strong for defense

Ok, so you like the opposite of the request for this tread, the point is a request for short battles, there is nothing wrong with that. I personally have learned to enjoy many styles and designs except for the huge maps where there is more moving than battles going on. the game is not desined for that level of combat, but there are those that will take it there. To each his own. But for the adverage player, not a war grog. I know they would prefer shorter to the point scenarios. Mostly because the history of this hobby has proven that is what the majority wants. That is maybe where there is a weakness in these games, the grogs are pushing the game into deeper and deeper levels, forgetting themselves where they started in the hobby and that the game is truly getting to the point no casual new player will ever take it on, it is becoming a game for the elite wargamer only. Which I Love the game and am glad to see it develope, but we are hurting the hobby by not making things for the casual player within the game.

These type of missions have been getting fewer and fewer as the years have gone by, not just in CMBN, even in the Cmx1 games, more and more started the maps with the troops not even in contact of each other for 10 to 20 turns. It does make it boring to play, I agree that shorter get to the combat missions need to be designed. But the designers, are players themselves and design them to how they like to play. You might just have to learn to design missions, it is a good challenge and takes plenty of time. But when you post it and see hundreds of players downloading and enjoying your scenario, there is some satisfaction in it all.

In my version of the story of make believe. Germany can win the war if by the simple fact. Russia does not have T34 and KV1 tanks at the start of the Russian campaign in 1941, without them. The German tactics would have managed to get them into Moscow, and other main objectives they had to win quickly. whole war changes from there once Russia is captured before the end of 1941, because of the new resources available to Germany.

great pictures. but we all know the game is not modeled like these blds, that is for sure. I find I like the stone walls in the game, they give good protection. many bldgs should be at about the same level. but they treat them like some cheap modern home that does not have much at all on the walls except a plywood board , a board of gypson and some batt insulation, Sure bullits can go through that. But find me that type of construction, even many russian structures were built better than that at that time period. One way to get pretty good protection is to put a stone wall in front of the building, the protection on ground level is very good then.

I find that the best thing to do is make sure your unit is as close as possible and that the blast command crosses the object to blow. For bocages, if you have the demo charges to use and you want to make sure to get that big hole just give the command twice, the same unit will do both demo's one after the other, of course this is for wego type play and you are in a hurry.

Then do it, I do not know if their value is more than plain infantry, but in the game they should be valued much higher so than when they get gunned down, they are of more value to the enemy that ordinary troops, which they might be. For me I just try to get them out of harms way, very seldom do I let them fight unless they have the misfortune of being caught among the enemy.

You need to start giving your troops covered arcs and stop wishing the game to get it right. The only way to really hold fire is to order them to hold fire. I do not like it either, because having the arc on can cause issues at times also. But I take the risk as long as I am convertable that no enemy units are going to jump me outside of the arc area.

Yes, they think they have the penetration factors correct, but like you point out, it is sometimes a joke compared to what is real. I have trucks and troops behind buildings and they still have rounds hitting them. In the game the rounds go through both walls and penetrate trucks on the back side. I am afraid that just isnt real, no matter what type of construction. I do not remember reading many accounts of men worried about MG rounds going through complete buildings and hitting them while on the Far side.

it recommended you save all the games you wanted to carry over to the new version in the command portion of your turn, then use that file once you updated your files. Why no one has seen that portion of the text blows my mind. I have even done PBEM games and it seems to have worked.

one charge will open a mansize hole, maybe a larger tank size hole, second charge will always get you the larger hole. There is a thread where someone claims by some methods how to get the large hole with only one charge, I have tried them and found they were still creating both sizes of holes and actually sometime no hole with the method they showed.

it is just a plot to get rid of Stugs in PBEM games, way to many were played with in CMx1, its time to get the PzIV into the action also. Lets have red on red testing and see which is truly better. The same test that you see for sports cars and stuff, testing all situations of course.

I kind of figured it was programmed in, so when things do not work out as expected, one must relize its the exception to the norm. And to be trueful about it, that is like RL. The thing that was always amazing to me was how hard it was to see the enemy when I was in field training for combat. It really is a very confusing place. many times when you jump onto cover or concealment, it also makes it hard for you to see other locations unless you are willing to expose yourself. In first person shooters, it is common to be killed by a enemy closeby because you are focused on another area, and the one I play has sound to help and other tools, but situational awareness is always limited. So I really like it in the game, again at times I hate it if it seems very unlucky and a low percentage as to how one would think it should play out. but I still want it there. My favorite one was a night attack I was playing and I had some armor and infantry trying to hold onto a village from a armor counter attack. Tanks were burning, smoke was everywhere from all the shell firing. I had two tanks facing towards the enemy line behind the village and one tank in the village facing the rear to fire into the backside of enemy units breaking into town. This was working well until a enemy tank had driven right between my two tanks coming right through the middle of the little village through all the smoke and haze with no one spotting it. When it came into view it could not have been 50 yards from either tank. One tank spotted it, but that was already the tank in the enemy crosshairs. the second tank never did know where it was, it died without a clue. My tank in the village was facing this the whole time but did not see a thing. bu then it finially managed to get a view of it and ended the tanks life there after killing my two. the reason I mention it is because it reminded my of many stories I have read from tankers during WWII, how they would drive right up on the enemy in all the confusion and smoke and have these type of crazy fire fights. So realistic yes, for gamers who want to control their battlefield, hair pulling. So I know why some complain, including me. at times.

I am also very impressed with it, the complete feel of the game is because of it. I just wish that the mechanics of it were a little clearer as to how it works. The one thing I see is that units that are moving should always be much easier to spot, more so than any other situation. Units not moving in concealed terrain should of course be the hardest to spot. I will take it for granted these things have been designed into the programming for the game. but with the playing of the game so far, these two aspects do not seem to be as big of factors as I would think they should be in sighting enemy units. There seems to be plenty of times that the moving unit seems to be the one spotting the unit that is non moving and in concealment first and getting a first shot advantage. I still have not done testing on this, but other than that, the concept is really great. It really does open the game up to movement and it being a much bigger factor in how to adchieve victory.

THAT IS HOW IT IS NOW, NO DELAYS. But watch out sabout your pinned units, they do not like listening to commands, exspecially move orders

have sent you a reply

The AI might be dumber in QB's which I do not generally play, but I would disagree with that if you are playing a scenario where someone that knows how to program the AI to play has done the job. I have found that AI to play as a much more challenging opponant than back in the CMX1 days. Actually cmX1 was a real joke once you played it a few times and understood its weaknesses.. Not all games, but some that I have played in the new campaigns can be really a good test and there is actions at times that you would think you were actually playing someone with intelligence on the other side. So I feel it has improved Yes, will it still do stypid things yes. I have rolled up on a platoon of tanks with their ass end towards me and the AI does not seen to care much about it.

I think the game has the features in it to prevent that if the player who programs the AI knows how to set it up. Now for AI qb's . no help is there - so the AI could use some programmng. BUt a person can design the game so only so much arty is available on the first turns and then bring additional arty availability to the AI for future use once the pre-bombing is past..

Just make me a offer, it can be much less than what Aqua is asking. keep in mind shipping, really have no clue as to what it would cost to ship. I have to smile, there was a thread with everyone complaining about it not being up to the level they were hoping for. But I still think it might be the coolest box I have ever received for a computer game, I better stop thinking about that, might change my mind. It actually is the only computer game I have ever displayed on my military book case.

I agree with this in a major way, really it does not take some redesign to solve the problem. the game is fine as is. What is incorrect is the map design. basically the maps need large set up zones to prevent known unit locations that are easy prey for pre-arty attacks. And really, this is only a issue in maps for QB type games. If a scenario is designed with it, then you just have to live with the fact that you might get hit in your set up zone. In RL it happened more than you think, and it was not by a good guess. what do you think all them night patrols into enemy lines was about. If you had info. that the enemy might be gathering at a location for a assault in the morning, for sure if arty was available, that possible location was hit with arty, normally before dawn. I think just modifying maps would resolve this problem, that could be done very easily.with just a little effort.

thus I think the reason I think I would need to keep the CD, I am pretty sure my product key is only in the form of a email sent to me. Where the only ones who would receive a product key with the cd are if they buy the CD only - I think, I am not sure.

I will sell you the box and manual, mine are in perfect condition, (many had problems getting them in good shape) but you will need to get your own CD I think. Or whatever works best, but I will be needing a CD of the game. never know when I need to reinstall after the magic year mark from time of buying it. Other than just wanting to collect the two items, there is no real value in them, I still printed the manual out on 8x11 paper because it reads much better than the sent manual

Oh no, I am a FanBoy, but now the Anti Fanboy's are using my comments, I am getting so confused. Which side of the war do I want to be on, that is what it is, isnt it. Just a war of words. The sad thing is, all these issues and comments have already been voiced. the game can be adjusted, but to some extent things will change, but the game is going to continue to play somewhat like it does, no matter what. So you can either learn to accept it, like all good fanboys do, which is what I do. making comments hoping for change down the road. Or you can act like a jerk, attack the game, programmer, designer, grandma, and god as to why it isnt perfect and hope for the silver bullit to hit the programmer and make everything right

Give me a break, no one in their right mind can justify what they see in the game as to tanks firing on the move and spotting while they are at it, you can test away all day long. but I am not At the moment the stationary tank is not getting the advantages in a duel that should lead it to getting first shots. Dont need much of a gut to feel that. Where as I mentioned just like in CMX1, that tanks never had fire accuracy that should have been there for short ranged duels (No real life tank would miss enemy tank 3 times in a row at 100 yards with neither moving. It could in CMx1!

Boy, I wish that statement was true, I might have played 40 battles by now in cmbn. But even though I really have no issue with it, there is events happening much more in the CMX2 engine than I never saw in the CMX1 as to first to shot kills that do not feel right. IN RL, the first side to fire generally wins in a duel the majority of the time. The same seems true in the CMX2 engine, the problem being. the first to fire happens to be the guy moving in a large Tank. Now I understand I should think of it as that the tank is actually stopping , firing and then moving out again, because of programming issue. but still, lets see if this sounds likely. Enemy tank 600 yards out moving through terrain with woods and hedges, hard to get clear view. Stationary tank for reasons unknown never seems to get a view and able to lock on target. but moving enemy tank seems to spot my tank in woods and brush, while on the move, aim and fire within some small window of terrain that my unit could not even spot them at for some reason. That is why people are complaining, something is wrong. How many times have I seen that type of thing play out. Maybe 10 times already, stopped counting because I JUST EXPECT IT MIGHT HAPPEN NOW. You can say it always has been a problem, but it was hard to notice, likely because of the fact MY CMX1 tanks could miss hitting a target at point blank range even when they were not moving and firing more than once. So my issue has just changed from one to another.