slysniper

I think the fact is, it is not how it worked back then, and all these guys want to have arty controlled like the envision it today. The only people that can answer what is realistic are not on this forum, that is for sure. But take just one issue. Radio's, back then, they were so flighty, when you did get communication, you made your request hoped it was clearly heard and that you might be lucky to still have communications when it was time to adjust spotting rounds. These simple things were not as realiable as today and the control on the battlefield was not designed to max. each round like we do today. I do agree, it would be nice to be able to adjust a barrage time some, either longer or shorter. But that is because I am god, I see exactly what is being accomplished with the strike, again, in games terms, it might be best to force the estimate to stay in the game, because them troops would never know how effective the strike was until the smoke cleared, and someone would try to move up or expose themselves to the enemy.

Mg's are the best for getting jambs, if you have fired them a lot in a short time frame. I am pretty sure I have seen jambs in the game, the old games always had them, exspecially in the desert, they were more common if fighting there.

Arty in attackers deployment zone in turn one (sometimes very small in most of QB maps) - might be some plain cheating here also. If a map is selected where the known set up zone of the enemies is. Running a US scout team in front of a German tank and after 10 seconds move a US tank in position to take out the distracted German tank. - personnally I do not think that is gamey, I have been using that one for years, I think it is a tactic that real soildiers use, destracting the enemy is not just done in games Exploit US 60mm sniper mortars. - have not seen how this is incorrect, unless the game needs adjustment to realistic abilities Kamikaze Kübelwagen. - gamey, yes. If you have not learned how to deal with it, oh well. All my years of playing and I have only seen it pay off once for my opponant, normally they are just points for my forward listening post or recon.

no one said the game can do everything correctly

You need to save that ammo until you are in range, cover arc them units, yor base of fire should have been the machine guns, that scenario is not hard to finish with the ammo they had, learn to use what you are given before wanting to get your hands on the enemy equipment. but I agree with you that you should be able to pick it up and use it, maybe with some penelties, like not as good of a aim since they are not familar with it, plus more jams, plus let friendlies fire on them if they have lost c/c factors.

this one needs more explaining

These are numbers that could be used to see how the game compares, as to a stationary shot. I bet the game is very close. but as a moving unit, the game really needs to adjust it to a low capability. plus in general, they should just program the tanks to generally stop, take aim and fire. Sometimes I see them stop but they fire ln less than a second after that. that needs adjustment.

No Patton was not crazy, he knew a simple fact. His tanks were fighting infantry and AT guns, he tanks had all they needed for the task and the gun was more reliable, could get ammo stock easier and so forth. The truth is, the allies in general were not running into enemy tanks all that much, it was other anti tank assets that were the problem. When they did run into heavy armor, he knew his tanks were at a disadvantage and men and equipment would be lost. But with 10-1 odds, they could out manuver and still remove the treat. If not, then it was time for air power, or heavy arty or bringing up tanks or armor with the 76's. All of which the Americans had. He understood the fact, that you did not need the best tank to win the battle.

I know there has been other threads on this, but I must agree to the game is totally incorrect as to firing on the move, plus it should be pointed out, that the tanks would stop, then the gunner still needed to adquire sight of the target, adjust the gun before he could fire, again some time is needed for this. In the game, it happens way to fast. As to the accuracy of shots from a non moving tank, I do not agree with it being wrong, it is much better at it than before. It is not hard to hit another tank at 500 meters, now at 1000 meters, exspecially for allied tanks, judging distance and having a clear aim point on many sights would make it hard to get a first hit. but one or two misses, then if they see the shells land, the rest of the shots should have a fair shot of hitting. So I think the cm2 engine does a much better job as to gunner accuracy while stopped. But The old CMX1 engine had a much better logic as to how a tank needed to stop, aim and then fire

Well, unless they get a patch out for this problem. I suggest you learn these pronciples. Covered arcs on your infantry does wonders at preventing them shooting at tanks when they should not, but it also stops them from shooting other things also. I rather keep them hidden until I have a target I know I want them opening up on, in wego this can be a problem if both enemy tanks and infantry are close to my unit. but I have stopped the issues many mention here at firing at tanks for no good reason. second, when said infantry shart shooting at armor, give them the command to get the H-ll out of there, that is the only way to keep them alive in that duel, find a new place to hide. I am setting up squads with AT weapons with covered archs of 30 meters and running them up behind brush and hedges and such and been finding it easy for them to move up, not get spotted by armor and firing their AT assets with great success. If they fail, I then run them back out of sight

THESE ARE GOOD OBSERVATIONS I had not thought about it but I would say he is correct here as to when tanks seem to have problems performing commands, I have seen the same behaver, but had not figured how to overcome it.

I have not read through this thread but I hope someone has pointed out that playing on the basic training level is NOT the easy level, I have found that setting is actually harder because Borg spotting is active, thus if poor tactics is used he is receiving AI fire from every unit that can bear on him. I recall this issue back when I first tried the CM2 engine, even with plenty of skill, the AI seemed tougher on the easy setting.

It sounds like you should of spent your money elsewhere, you will never get that type of control in this game, Steve has made it clear once again for those of us that forget that fact .

thanks for the reply, this one just appears to be something in the numbers, but only from your end can that story be told.

Bump, Fine , ignore the issue these guys found. but until you have a better way to submit possible game issues, this tread is going to stay here. I just want to know what they discovered, because something is not right.

once again I learned something as far as how Steve thinks as to the design concepts of his game, maybe somewhere down the road this will be the AI that takes over the World, and removes us Mortals from existance, we just kept wanting to control it and it became tired of us trying to override its code. Steve , you are just a evil mad programmer, not the truth can be told.

But if the AT crew has three tanks out there, why go after the least likely threat. If you to disobey orders, then at least go for one of the tanks that appears ready to possible kill you. I say the player should expect the troops to be responsive to commands, but for known exceptions that the AI will override, so here is the trick, we have no clue what the AI is really doing. It is never explained, so it could be intentional or it could be poor programming or things that have not been thought of or addressed in the programming. If they leave it unclear, then we can make up all sorts of reasons as to why or why not it should be in the game. That is what most of these threads are about. face it, the game has limits, everything was not thought about and programmed into the game, so when things seem off at times, it is because it is off. I love the game immensly, but there is plenty of things that will always be off from what would truely happen. either accept it, or spend time here pointing them out.

Oh, I did want to add, even if I question the game echanics on this some. I think it is cool how he lost the four halftracks, spreading units out and poor troop location is a big factor in the game now. You see it with infantry also, too often the game has them walking in a column formation, the enemy opens up and you see one bullit pass through multible guys.

I am going to bump this thread until Battlefront "Steve" would like to comment. Come on, something is not right with the Tiger at the moment, just admit it and say it is going to get fixed.

I disagree with this statement, in just a few games I have played already, I have seen too many double kills from large AP shells going through multi tanks or halftracks. What I do not like about it, is the shell never changes speed or angle when it penetrates a armoured unit. Now I have read accounts of shells actually going right through units, I recall one where a M5 stewart tank crew had no causulties and it had went right through the turret, missing limbs and equipment, only one trooper was hit with a piece of spalding that logged into him. the commander joked that it gave him a view port to see the enemy tank that fired on them. But the game either treats it as a deflection or a straight through kill, I would think that penetrations would loose a large amount of volocity and that pure flight would be unlikely after hitting any solid steel object at a angle.

I agree with you on this, we have too many players accepting things that the game engine does which is not rationale, saying it is the fog of war and they accept it. I can go along with that also. It does not bother me that things do not go as I always order them But, and this is a big BUT. There should be things that are consistant in the command structure to the player that funtions as exspected generally. The game has a covered arch that the troops are to focus their attention on unless they feel threatened. That tank was not moving, shooting or showing any signs of life, that is not a threat. So the point is a good one to bring forth as to if the programming is correct.

I will tell you something else the seems strange, no comments from any battlefront guys. Sure seems like there is a flaw here and cannot sem to get any comments fom the design crew.

Now that someone has actually posted some numbers as to what they are seeing, no these numbers do not reflect anything that should be happening within the game. This appears to be a data bug. Steve or someone needs to look at the tank and make sure they have the correct numbers for the armor thickness in the portion of the tank. It could be something as simple as that. The trick is getting battlefront to check it. Seems like we need a inside source to take a look at this.

When playing this game, one must not use the concepts they have learned from all other war games. This game trys to match real world results which is very hard for many to understand, since they have been given tons of misconcepts of what the war was like. Thus for many young or new players wanting to enjoy this game, you need to start studying and finding good information about the subject. Note how many players are WWII war grogs, for a very simple reasom. This game system is trying to get it right, not how Hollywood would have us think it happened. And for those that enjoy trying to understand that war and what really was happening there, this game is a good tool to protray that. Let alone a great game for playing against others and being able to use tactics as a way to win.

Good question, I would like to know also. I am still trying to train myself as to acquiring ammo in the game.