slysniper

oh, there is times that they do not pick up the weapon, like was said, its to depict that the weapon is not functioning. ALSO , THE UNIT GIVING AID CAN BE A FACTOR, MAKE SURE THAT THEY HAVE BOLT ACTION RIFLES, IF NOT, THEY MIGHT NOT PICK IT UP In otherwards, there is a priority of which weapon is better, they will not exchange, even if they are low on ammo for what they have. If its the same weapon, they might get the ammo and grenades when they pick up. But I recall smg's will not get picked up for almost anything other than a bolt action rifle

No, Pershings. But we did get the Jumbo, easy eight and the M36. Them 3 equal a Pershing. The Jumbo is the first Sherman that can shed some of those late German tank rounds, The easy eights seem to have the most Tungsten rounds that make their 76MM gun a little more dangerous and fun. And the M36 provide us the 90mm And since most tank battles are one hit only events at this point of the war anyway, who cares it is a Tin can.

With how many years we are into the second game engine and its multiple upgrades. I am sure if we ever see a earlier Russian Front game it will be on a new 3rd generation game engine with all sorts of new features. I would love to see it, but who knows when that day will ever happen. The one thing that has not changed over the years BF's pace is not ever quick since its just a small operation. So I know its not in the near future, that is the only sure thing.

In a battle in CMFB I just finished, I am pretty sure my men have been grabbing the sub machine guns also at times. But my memory is not worth much any more, so a little testing should verify that question for you. But I was having to grab every important weapon dropped to have a chance to keep the fire power I needed. So I am pretty sure i would have noticed if too many smg's did not get snagged.

Ah, bren, that is a easy assault. I much prefer to see GI's rush a target in their jeeps blazing away with nothing more than their carbines. Now there is some hero's

After playing for years, any unit that I am not familiar with. I just enjoy trying to get the best out of every unit no matter what it is, weak or strong. But to your point (how can you not like the quad 50) any time it manages to lock on a target its fun to watch the devastation.

Lets make it more simple, Any map design feature would be nice to do in the 3d view, I hate the time wasted in imagining what it looks like from imput in 2d- then verifying in 3d, then having to go back to 2d to try and correct it. All main features should be functional to change and add right in 3d . That would make a huge difference in map making time.

If there was one thing I would love to see AI programming do, this is it. When AI units attack, they will follow the path that seems correct to their programming to get to their destination. The problem is, they do not take into account if previous units have suffered losses taking that path. Thus a human player can kill enemy unit after unit going through some obvious movement location choke point. If some programming could be written to force the AI to stop using said path once losses has been taken to a certain extent and then recalculate and try other routes, it might be a easy way to make AI on the offensive much more competent.

The one comment I find interesting is, why do we not have many user made scenarios anymore, the answer is easy. As they made the AI programming more difficult to allow the designer more ability to make better AI plans, Less players have spent the time to learn to use the tools. Now adding more tools and increasing the complexity is good for those who want to design better AI plans, but keep in mind, as you create more complexity. Those who master it will be fewer and fewer. So what you get from BF design team will be better in quality, but on the other hand, you will be seeing less output from the casual player who is just into it for their personnel enjoyment. Keep suggesting concepts for better AI - its always good for that type of imput. As for getting more content from the fanbase, I am sorry to say, the answer will never be by adding more features, unless you can also suggest on features that take away the need for the person to program the plan and that somehow the machine just automatically can do it.

I have no issue playing a battle again, but I also have no issue with playing the battle with a whole new battle plan and I also have no issue with playing the battle like I do not know what the AI will do and will allow myself to be taken advantage of something that I know I can avoid. In otherwards, I have many little rules I control my own actions with to help give the AI a better fighting chance. I want it to get results as close as I can make it possible as to if a person is playing. To tell you the truth, when I replay a battle, I might just play both sides, since I know the forces anyway. And then I can make both sides play in a much more realistic manor. Head to head play is what I love, and only in a battle that is designed and has not been seen by me before. (but since that is not always possible, everything else I do is preparing me for that type of engagement - Its some type of training for it)

Thanks for posting this, Its the best interview I have ever seen about BF and what is going on. really enjoyed it.

The gills have a known problem and a patch is in the works

That is a interesting observation - so if someone would take the scenario in question and replace the bridge, then try it. it would be interesting to see if there is a noticeable change.

yes , it still exist. but its sure is weird as to when it happens. I have tried to recreate it when it has occurred and ran the units over the same bridge a ton of times just fine. Or just went back to a saved point in the battle it has happened in and run right over the bridge with no issues. Where as, back when it was a real common issue. It was pretty consistent at screwing up when there was a bad bridge. but yes, getting examples and reporting never hurts.

A little update on Conflict of heroes, Storm of Steel - Kursh 1943. My Son now works from my house also, so we now have time to play a game during lunch. So guess what we are playing. played 4 Scenarios so far. If you can find someone to play against, then this is the best wargame I have ever played that is a board game. The concept and rules are designed for head to head play and it brings in plenty of fog of war and with the mechanics of the game. plenty of uncertainty as to what to expect from your units. If you can accept good and bad luck, its just creates a fun aspect in the play. One example, my Son brought two hidden squads out of hiding, crested a hill and was point blank to two of my squads in a gully. he knowing it was a risky move before he did it. I then opened fire on his units, all I needed was a 6 or better with 2 dice to put some type of hurt on him. I then added two CP points to the attack (they are valuable and he did not think I would use them for this attack), meaning all I needed was a 4 or more to get a pin type result or a 8 or better to just kill him. Needless to say, I was grinning from ear to ear in that I was going to make him pay for a stupid move. I then role a 3 and he is yelling in joy and I in pain. but we both laughed, made a story line about how the sudden shock of seeing enemy troops emerging at point plank range put my men in panic mode and they were not aiming as they fired at the enemy onslaught . I thought for sure that was going to cause my loss in the game, and it has made it very hard but I have manage to bounce back on that flank and gain control once again and cause him equal losses. So the game showed me that even bad luck did not wreck good tactics in that having other units well placed allowed for me to make that loss at least pay off in the long run as a likely amount of casualties for both sides. But the game takes turns and twist as to who might have the advantage and there is no certainty about anything until one side finally gets a few positive events in a row and get more of a commanding presence. Anyway, the only board game that I have ever played that has created excitement with how the odds are calculated and executed in the dice role and how damage is also uncertain. Also in the fact of how simple the roles are determined and it takes only one role to get the results, the game flow is very fast and engaging most of the time.

CMSF2 will give you more content in that CMSF scenarios can also be played on it - so a lot of user content out there. I would go Nato before USMC (but both will be good, no matter which way you go - they each will add their own feel to organizations. Go CMBS if you want more traditional terrain, I think that the river crossing missions and such are interesting since they finally had units in the game that can be used to do such things. Of course, they went back and added that feature into cmsf2, so if my memory serves me right. There is Marines doing a few beach assaults also in its package.

The size of the battle does not matter, I like them all. Personally I like them small because I then become invested in what happens to each unit. Every unit, becomes important to the success of the mission. I am watching the men's ammo, every weapon lost on the battlefield and that if it needs to be recovered and so on. ( I get down in the dirt and see every detail of the battle and see what the game has) But playing large scale battles, you can detach yourself from that micro managing and focus on large scale maneuvering and playing for key terrain and positioning. Losing a tank is not a win or lose issue. Its, did my 6 tanks gain the firepower fast enough to take out the 3 enemy tanks, were my losses acceptable. also its not so much about did my unit save ammo as have I saved a company or platoon in reserve to come in fresh with a full load of ammo and take over the fight, while my initial units go back and resupply and recover a little before having to reengage in the fight. So if you get my drift, each level of combat has its good and bad points. I think some people try to play big battles like they play little battles, it creates too much work and it does take the fun out of it. I do it myself, but only when I am competing against some one else. Vs the AI, I like to stop the micro managing and give the AI a chance and enjoy the larger battles by not overthinking the details.

Well, looking back at the challenges BF faced with the fans that somewhat turned into enemies, has in the long run proven that BF made good decisions and those that tried to tear them down were unsuccessful in their vengeful actions. The game is still a masterpiece for what it is and there is plenty of us that see it for that. I am confident that we will see more come into the ranks with this new available platform as to purchasing the game. the only thing that is sad is that it has taken this long to make it available on such a platform. But then on the other hand, it has not actually been all that long since CMSF was updated to CMSF2. So maybe the timing is not all that bad. Now if they could just make enough money so they can relax and really focus on the next level of the game and come out with CMx3 with all the insights they have now gathered over the years.

Pick the one that interest you the most. But if you want content, I would say your best bet is CMBN or CMSF2, since those two titles have so much more offerings as to scenarios that have been made by players. So more likely will give you the most amount of small battles. but you also will have the ability to make your own, I have used Avalon hill games to make many of a battle or something similar. For head to head play with someone that you get along with, the options can be almost endless. But if you go that rout, it does mean getting the big bundle with all the modules to get that content.

Well, If nothing else, this polling method is a good way to get a bunch of like votes for yourself. Will need to keep that in mind if I need a self image improvement. But I just gave you 3 or 4 votes - yes, very slow as to getting to some of these threads

Anyway, I played it enough that I was impressed by how such a simple system did a good job of portraying a complex thing. Where as, anyone that played ASL well and knew all the rules and how to use them. Deserved a collage degree. I wore out my chart chards multiple times, it was a constant grind to go through all the charts just to have a dice roll.

I played through about six battles that it provided, then did some of my own to see how well the game did with certain match ups. then , put it aside, I want to play some h2h with it, but I have only one son out of my kids that I might convince to do that with me and being he is married with 3 kids. Finding the time for such things is not a common event.

I use to play all the old stuff from Avalon Hill with ASL being my Love, with ownership of most of their modules in that and most of their other war games also. But once close combat and combat missions came out, my love for board gaming really began to stop. I sold my ASL stuff and held on to all the operational and strategic games. But don't find the desire to play them much. The rules are too complex for most people to try and pick it as a game to play against most. But I will put in the suggestion of the Conflict of heroes series. My kids gave me Storm of Steel - kursh 1943 a few years back as a present. I will say, A much better design than ASL in that the Rules are simple and not hard to understand and can be explained to someone else pretty quickly. High quality Board and units. It does a very good job of dealing with and having the feel of battle at the tactical level. So I feel good about having it in my closet for when the world starts coming to a end and I have no electrical power. I have something to still spend my time on. I dont know if I would consider it great as a solo game, just for the fact there is cards that are being used by the players, so there is a factor there that is missed unless playing h2h

oh, so very true. But since its been at least a few years, with my old man memory and that fact that I have done so many other things since then, it all did a pretty good job of clearing my memory of the battle other than I remember it as being hard and that I needed to make sure to clear the enemy before tying to move up. I know it is easier to some extent, no matter what, But the fact still is in place, I did not game the defense to get a good result, I used good tactics to show that the mission can be accomplished and that losses can be kept down. And in that battle, 3 of my men I lost was my fault, thinking I could rush them forward to the wall and make it without taking losses from fire through the gap in the wall. Not even close, all 3 men in that fire team was gunned down in the matter of 2 seconds from each other.

Ok, this is likely one of the hardest battles in all of the games and because the player did not win, he has to blame the game instead of ever believing he might have some more skills to need to learn. Well the answer is the second, and the game is playing better than it has in a long time with the latest changes as to unit reactions to gun fire. I also recall this Scenario kicking my butt when I played it years ago. But I fired it up tonight and did a quick play of the early part of the battle and this is the results. This is at 42 minutes left in the game http:// What is this, my forces are in the hospital and there is a nice breach right through the front wall to let more of my forces in. http:// 6 dead and 8 wounded so far, (but the enemy is down 34 on a map that favors the defender to the fullest.) Hmmm they still outnumber me 3 to 2. No wonder i am taking some serious losses. Oh, whats that, a victory already, better just play it out to see it to the end. http:// So, the question is, has my skills improved over the time frame or is it just easy to play this the second time around. Well, the answer is my tactical skills have improved, because going right up the middle was not the easy path, I just did it to prove with correct use of forces, you can have successful results and there is nothing wrong with the game. So , if you want to discuss ways and things that might help you improve your skills, great. But get off the fact that there has to be flaws in the game just because you just did not magically become skilled at playing it. Oh, by the way, turn one need all units firing on likely enemy locations. then next major key, smoke being used to blind sections of the defenders so you can bring your entire firepower on only portions of the defenders at a time. Using smoke this way is a method to get dominating firepower in a sector, since there is no way to flank or use terrain to get you a position and overwelming firepower in any area on this map.