slysniper

Steve's Post said it all. I am glad with how they approach the job, I think it is smart in how they have managed the company and cannot complain with how they beleive they need to design and break out the games to make money. The games are great, and no they will never get them to a point that people will not have issues with how they work. but they continue on the path to try and fix and give us something closer to the real thing than anyone else has done, and those few other similar games out there are not pushing to new levels like what is being done here. My addiction is complete, this is where my passion of the hobby stays, I will continue to buy and play these games until I find something better. It appears I will be here for a long time or until I go blind or lose my mind, hard to say which might happen first.

HEY, I am not knocking that a person can make the AI into a good competitor. I am glad to see it is much better than it once was, I do not mind those that are asking for more tools in how to make it work. I like designing scenarios myself, but I normally focus on them for head to head play. I could make them play ok vs the AI if the AI was defence in the old CMX1 system. Now I look at what there is to work with and have no clue as to how to get the AI to work, have not really tried. But I think it is great that its there for those that want to work with it. But the truth is the human challenge is by far the most satisfying expereance, plus times that by 4 because of the type of game we have here. I am playing a few PBEM's right now. No where in the AI will you see it make a adjustment once you crush one of its flanking probes as you would a real person. No AI is going to adjust for a enemy defensive line and bring all the support it can muster to break that line as a real player would. No AI is going to realize you are sneaking to new positions and start area firing where they anticipate you are going to move to like a real person would. No AI can hold everyones fire until the enemy is right on top of them before releasing their ambush fire on the enemy troops. And that is just a few things that I can think about enjoying in just one of my email games. There is the aspect of playing a game twice, Many times I would play the game from the other side against someone after our first match because they felt the scenario was one sided and that they did not have a fair chance. The point being, the same battle played, totally different tactics used and results would vary generally alot. The battle would have a total different feel to it. Try that with the AI, maybe now, you can give it some options, but in general it is always limited. A human might even set up for who they are fighting, they have played you for awhile, they know you style, so they set traps just for the way you like to play. I guess it just comes down to how much competition someone wants, what is the point of winning if its not a worthy opponant. That is how I see the AI, but I will admit it is getting better

That is not fair to those type of players, I can see why they play solo. But they should realize no AI is up to par if they are going to play the same scenario over and over again. I sure hope they are able to beat it after playing multible times, sure there is weaknesses in it. but they did not find that out before playing it the first time. Some people just never want to face another person and be beaten, so they play a machine that has no comments, regardless of the results. I do not mind playing the AI if that is what the designer intended, it is better than nothing and can help ones skills. But head to head is the only way to become a skilled master. I must admit I am enjoying the campaigns, which is the only way to play is vs the AI

IT SURE DOES. Arty is the one thing that has given me nightmares as to what is going on in the game mechanics. While playing it is great fun when you have a devastating barrage hit the enemy, which at times can have pin point accuracy. but just as frustrating when 10 minutes later you cannot get them to group their shots anywhere near the enemy. I think there is good observations here as to some of the likely issues. All I know is I do like the fact that it is hard to count on if you are going to be able to get a good arty strike or not. It makes the game feel more realistic and brings the fun factor up for me anyway.

All these years on the forum, now I see we have orchard grogs, what is next???

Well, I would like to thank the designer for one he!! of a campaign. I think it if funny how many hate it because it can actually hand them a defeat in a battle. I am in the mist of it now, on the third mission. First went smooth, second was a nightmare, but I thought I had it at one point. had managed to get my infantry past the bridge up into the marshes. had cleared the wire and mines hand been demoed and marked, still had four tanks, thought I had cleared AT guns and was pushing them forward for direct support arty on the enemy infantry. That was when I was hit by a AT gun I thought I had destroyed on the flank. IT killed two of my tanks in twenty seconds, a third tank found a marked mine and became immobile. Leaving me one tank to support my infantry trying to push past the marsh and one on the road that could only fire on the hill because of its stuck location. Then the enemy arty began to rain on my forward units again, within momonts I had two platoons of fighting men basically vanish. I found the cease fire button and knew that I just been handed a assault stopping beating by a AI that was designed to do just that. For me I was lucky and it gave me a draw and now I am on the third mission and have pushed through that area with little difficulty. Since I had more arty, fresh troops and knew where the enemy is located because of the previous battle.. Yes, the campaign can be played one time only, enjoyable and frustrating in a good way. if you can accept the fact that the designer had a goal to create one he!! of a situation for you to try and tackle and you are trying to see if you can handle a fight that is not going to be the typical cake walk. I think it is a masterful piece of work, but it should have the warning that it is for skilled players that can accept a hard fight. It sure is not a scenario for the newer player to tackle, easy to see it would be frustrating. Not trying to say that many skilled players have not been frustrated by it also. But I hate seeing the mind set that you should not have to be challenged to your upmost skills to see if you can tackle very difficult situations.

I HAVE HAD THE SAME THING, BUTTON DOES NOT APPEAR TO CHANGE, I HAVE LEARNED TO JUST CLICK ONCE, MAYBE IT DOES NOT APPEAR CHANGED, BUT THE COMMAND IS ACTIVATED. Actually, I think I have seen it change if I go issue orders to another unit, then come back, the button then shows what I selected.

As to the comments, I agree with all of them as to what I have seen. broken troops still fight and are controllable, but they will panic very easily with any type of new incoming fire. I have seen panic units seem to recover at time without the broken status, but once a unit panics, there is a chance they will be broken when they recover and broken status does not change once it appears, once broken always broken for the rest of the battle. It does not appear anyone has done any heavy testing to see if it is more definable as to what to expect. For me so far, and this is without any testing, Tanks seem to recover better and maybe faster than infantry in general. But I have seen some infantry bounce back quickly also. so not sure, could just be a perception.

Has anyone done some checking to get a feel for the time it takes a unit to recover from a panic state, I am sure it is likely affected by if they are near a leader and the type of troop unit and quality. but just wonder what the expected time might be. Plus if a unit is broken, will or can it recover from that status in the game given time, again if it does, how long are we talking about approx.

Oh well, maybe it is just one of them percheived things until you test it out and find everything is OK. There could be terrain factors that help one side spot the other that are in effect, never can tell with these guys, like maybe siluette against a sky background compared to undergrowth behind units, who knows where the logic starts or stops in the game. Also there might be a advantage to one tank to the other if the set up requires the turrets to move, that could easily give one tank the advantage of getting off the first shot.

I do not think it has anything to do with the map. I think it is in the mechanics of the tanks, for some reason, shermans are spotting better than panthers in the game and it might be some type of input error. I also have noticed how hard it is to get my panthers to spot enemy in the game, where as shermans seem to see things that they should not very quickly. My gut feeling is that there is a possible data error on the sherman tanks. but how to show that in a test is a good question.

Most of your complaints have been addressed here in the forum under other threads and I believe Battlefront is addressing most of them. They always have patches and things will improve. Yes your points are valid, but give them a chance to improve what they have, that is really how all their CM games have developed in the past. If not, you cannot wait, move on to another game, oh, wait a minute, there is no other game close to what they have. OK, so I am waiting for improvements and am enjoying the good things that the game does right. So its not perfect, but I am sure it will get better.

lets just put it to you this way, I played the german side, was handed my head, dont recall what the final score was, but that was on warrior verse the AI. I cannot remember when the AI last beat me, normally do not play against AI because it is not very competative. So is the battle a little Allied favored, like major. I destroyed 11 enemy tanks and still scored low. So I do not know if you will get a response for your allied adcheivement. Now there might be plenty of players that can tell you about their amazing german win. I would be interested in that, if they did it playing the battle only once. what a great scenario to try and win playing the German vs the AI, verse a person with skill. better modify the scoring, likely not possible.

very good points The game will never really protray war as it really is, which Jason loves to point out at times. I am just impressed with the fact, that my men have realistic ammo loads, I can control their use of it within the battle and now get them to share their ammo at times. I like the fact I am fighting at times to save ammo. And really could care less if the fire rate is just right or any of this bull as to how it is in real life, because at some point you have to try and stop thinking it needs to be just as it is in RL, because it would never be playable as a game. Just look how much slower it plays now than before. make it too real and it might take days to get a firefight completed. A balence in all things, what more can one say.

Will never happen, for one basic reason. So they have a list of things they want to fix or try to modify in the game. so away they go, you dont really think thay manage to solve them in order do you. they might come down the list and find one they cannot figure how to change the coding to work, so they stop , leave it as it is and move onto the next challenge. Or maybe cannot even figure a way for it to work in the present coding, thus never to be seen in the game. can you hear the cries and the demands from the gamers once they find that item so important to them being bypassed or to find out it will never be in the game. Battlefront already takes too much heat as it is trying to bring the product that is everything to everyone, they sure are not going to give out information that would create some angery mop mentality.

This is a gem in advice. I have noticed this more in this game than any other also, really never worried about it before, in most games. But moving units into areas of retreat paths is very important in CMBN, even while playing just the AI I have noticed the same thing, Units pulling back setting up new locations, then costing me lives having to run into them again. It is much better to have units in flanking positions, ready, watching for the enemy to try to break or relocate and gun them down as they pull back. Puts a smile on ones face.

So far all I have seen in two different locations is the machine gunner prone, not able to fire, the rest of the squad does fine and kneel and shoot over the wall

let me ask the question differently. I have german mg's, cannot remember if they are 34 or 42's, but is there anyway to get them to set up and shoot over a low stone wall, so far I am having no success.

I agree, fast is useful in dash situations, but they are rare.

I almost use nothing but Quick as a movement option while playing, unless it is hunt or slow, (I find fast and move both very undesirable to my troops, They are agood way to die) Yes at times they manage to get spread out and it does not appear so bad, but at other times, maybe when they are all tired or something, it is a big joke. I just brought it up, becasue I see it as a major way to make the infantry even better. I did not want to post it in a thread with 50 other concepts players have requested to be added.

Ok, my Mg guys still have no clue as to how to deal with a wall, the rest of the squad is kneeing and firing over the wall, but the MG gunner is prone taking him out of the battle, what does it take to get them to set up on or fire over a wall they are next to. Or is it another one of them things the game cannot handle right now.

Very true, my problem is not with the troops when they are at any location, the face command does a good job and the troops are doing pretty good at finding cover. The comment is really only about when they are on the move. they have a follow the leader mentality, which really looks ok in some situations, but in open ground and the enemy likely towards your front, is a murderous position to put yourself into. And no, their position is not abstracted, I have seen one bullit kill multible soildiers that are in a line one behind another.

Just one question as to if it will ever change. Love the game but one thing that drives me crazy is how the infantry squad forms it man placement when on the move, they generally look like they are moving in column, which almost always would be the last thing they would be doing in a enviroment where they are in contact with the enemy. It would be great to give them orders for v, wedge or diamond or in line or whatever. but seeing the enemy open up on them in column formation where one bullit can almost hit every member in the squad really does take away one important aspect of small unit combat. And reminds me, this still is a game and has a way to go.

I agree with your logic, just wonder how tweekin it in the game would work. I already find my ammo loads not lasting long with troops that are engaged, so let them waste more ammo. The death factor would happen quicker, but maybe that is why the rate of fire has been set back some, so maybe it is not a accident that the rate of fire is slow compared to the real life situation.