slysniper

Yes, it does affect the troops as to what they have, it likely makes them tire faster, plus less likely to pick up other items on the battlefield if they are already loaded. But having a ton of ammo on your troops is not a bad thing if you are planning on big fire fights.

BACK TO WHAT I SAID BEFORE, ONLY THE PROGRAMMER CAN ANSWER THE QUESTION AS TO WHAT IS TRULLY HAPPENING HERE. But I was pointing out that it might represent weak point hits, just as many others have, but you are convinced it is hitting good armor just as the term states, but after playing these games for many years, it is not uncommon to understand that the game does not always display or say what is trully happening. so with that said, only the programmer can confirm that.

It sounds like you are chasing something that only the designer can answer, but given how many hits you are discussing, the fact is a shell will find a way in whether a weak spot or a deflection that goes through the top deck or what. So whether the game is listing it correct or not, there should be some lucky shots making kills once in awhile, no matter how perfect you place your tank armor. personnally , give me a Hetzer on a nice up slope so that its front armor is at 80% and then lets see what will kill it at 600 meters. Invincable baby, that is what its all about.

My best experence with this issue as to what troops understood was talking to a old co-worker when I was young. He had served in Patton's 3rd armor. He was some type of scout recon type of unit. His stories normally were about riding in a jeep and just driving until they found the enemy and trying not to get killed so they could get back, report their location and verify conditions of routes as to advancing to that location. He had stories about night recon on foot behind enemy lines, also about being fired on by friendly 90MM guns coming back to friendly lines and so forth. He could remember roads and map locations like he had a photographic memory, he had a exceptional memory. During his stories he mentioned dealing with a enemy tank once, also a armored car on another occasion. I did what most of you would do,I asked what type of tank was it, same with the armored car. He looked at me, like what in the *** are you asking about. He had no clue for sure what it had been, other than it was trying to kill him and he was glad to have managed to get out of there alive. The truth of it was, he could hardly discuss anything about the enemies equipment, because he really did not know much about it from his war expearence. Remember, this guy had a great memory. So I doubt they were ever given much information as to what enemy equipment really was. Thus maybe that fact, every German tank somehow turned into aTiger from many stories.

THIS IS SOMETHING I HAVE NOT THOUGHT ABOUT !! It sounds like it will need to become a practice to move up and fire on abandon enemy tanks until they brew, then try that tactic. But I cannot wait to try that nasty little gamey tactic, because as far as I am concerned, all is fare in Love & War Plus remaning a tank was not all that uncommon in my reading also.

Hey, it is not just guns that this concept is a possible factor, just a general truck would be nice. The enemy is fleeing and trucks are sitting around still, why not be able to drive one or get the enemy equipment off of it. I just brought up the concept because maybe the programming was already somewhat set in place for that type of thing. but from the sounds of it, it is not that easy of a thing to change in the game, so this is more of just wishes being placed that will likely never come.

Yes, I did not think the fellow was not telling the story as he remembers, I just figured he had the misunderstanding what a tiger was. I am sure the only tiger they saw was pencil sketches during training and when in the heat of the moment and at that kind of distance, he thought they were tigers. But like the grog I like to pretent to be, I had to prove they were like Mk IVs. As for War Stories, My dad has a few he has shared with me, many times, but he was in the Navy during the war, and he was in the engine room of his ship, so his perspective was much different than that of a foot soilder. I was in the USMC, and during my time as a ground pounder and a sniper I can say, there is a reason the new game is much better, it is the sighting and all them ? as to where is the enemy. In the real situations, it is very hard to figure out, where and what is shooting at you. The fog of war is very real, and situational awarenesss is very hard to understand without possible getting killed. So communication with other troops and units is a big factor as to what you understand is going on out on the battlefield

OK, so maybe we will not be seeing this in the future, but it sounds more like they just do not want to spend the effort to put such a feature in the game. As for the tactic and the concept. I am not wanting a debate, it was not uncommon to have fox holes or trenches somewhere close enough to the gun to watch and protect it, but seek cover from direct fire and wait out in safety likely enemy measures. I was not refering to hiding a half mile away and hoping to find the gun in one piece when one comes back. But I do think it is a incorrect concept to wreck the gun every time a crew walks away from it. I would like to see the crew get killed, the enemy overrun the gun, turn it around and fire it themselves, with it either blowing up, if the troops are fools or raising hell on its own troops if a smart group manages to get ahold of it, like a tank crew with nothing else to do.

Well at least it is one that is known then and will likely get addressed at some point. I know they cannot do everything, but they sure do try to provide as much as possible with the skill that they have. I figure this is one that can be corrected in their coding that they use.

One thing I have always loved about the CM games is to take stories I read or see about WWII, recreate them in the game and see if I can generate a similar result. There is the series on TV ,Greatest tank Battles, I was watching the show and a GI was telling how he and a his unit, which consisted of (2) 57 MM AT guns had ambushed four Tigers from a flanking position and knocked them out, stating it was at 900 yards. I thought to myself, no way, there is a GI that has enlarged his feats of what happened in the war. I also know many GI's would mistake Pz IV's for Tigers during the war, thus their reports of seeing Tigers were many times wrong. Anyway I tried it in the game, let alone is it almost impossible to even take out one or two tigers, 4 would never happen, I even moved the guns to within 150 meters and still could not get good results. One time i did manage to damage two tanks and of of them the crew decide to bail. But to prove to myself the guy was not crazy, I ran 4 mk IV's down the road and watched one 57 gun take all 4 out at the 900 yards with ease. I would say that is what happened in the real event and it is just fun to prove where fact and fiction might be in much of the stuff that is out there about the war. No the game is not perfect results to real life, but it continues to get closer and closer to the real thing as far as I am concerned.

While I was testing My first scenario design in the new game, I noticed while trying this tactic it did not workout. I wanted my AT crew to abandon a good AT gun and hide in foxholes that were in better cover and concealment and wait to man the gun once the enemy made a attempt to attack this area of the battlefield. I found that sure does not work in the game. I thought maybe since we are now able to collect ammo and other soilders weapons, or jump into empty trucks and such. that I could have a crew stay out of harms way and then run and man a AT gun when the time was needed. Nope, I just lost the gun with that move. Seems like that might be able to be programmed in without much effort since it is within other aspects of the game. Am I correct or did I just miss something here as to how the game allows it.

YOU KNOW THAT THE EASY OPTION HERE IS TO JUST PRINT IT OUT FROM THE PDF FILE, IT MAKES NICE 8x11 SHEETS WITH NICE CLEAR COLORS ON WHITE PAPER OR WHATEVER YOU WANT. So the manual is not the best color choices, stop complaining, I am impressed they even provided one at all, not many computer games come with them these days because of printing cost, so keep it up and you all might never see a printed manual from Battlefront again.

Ok, it sounds like you collectors out there that want a perfect box not damaged have a issue with damaged boxes being received. I can solve that for you, I received mine in perfect shape, will send it in a box that will protect it and get it there in one piece. all it takes is you paying for the shipping and what the box is worth to you. Let the bids begin, I just know I will make big bucks off of this. I

And this is the point that should be focused on. There is no need for the map generator, many maps can and will be made and become available. they will be more realistic and will be more creative than any program could ever produce. CM 1 maps many times do not have a good feel to them and sometimes are not very playable either if the correct selections are not made,

Originally Posted by Capt Cliff Sophistry Dude. The map is still only a grid of squares with each square having a series of attributes for graphics and movement and what ever. BF is not stupid and they would keep it simple for simpler programing and program interface. BTW CMx2 is not a new program ... they used CMSF coding, most likely why there is a problem with armor being too accurate in CMx2. But the basic's for CMSF came from CMAK, or at least a straw horse outline vastly improved (?) or changed.. OH, here we go again, a user that seems to know all the answers about the game programming and complaining about why battlefront did not make the game to their own exact desire as to how it should be. Lets get one thing straight, you are right in that coding from CMSF was used since it is the same game engine. But get off the fact that the tanks now hit targets more often, that is correct. its the old concept in CM1 and many war games that had the problem, this is much better, get real. I hated CMX1 way of calculating hit and misses in armor battles. It was common to see a tank miss on the first and second shot firing on another tank from anywhere from 50 yards to 500. Any gunner with 1/2 a brain with a sight that functions at even the most basic concepts will normally hit that shot, even if they are scared and in the heat of battle for the first time. But the game would miss as much as it would hit. Go study and find out what the real thing was like and then tell me how you want that crap back. then the system would also produce this, I hit a tank 2 shots in a row, then the next shot misses or maybe the next two. On a tank in the open which has not moved , same range location and clear line of site, again dont give me crap about CMX1 being better. The truth was it was far too inaccurate, the new system is much better.

finished the second battle, score 1000 to 3, that was much better than the first mission. Lost 2 solders and had 4 wounded. crushed the allied defences and boy did the arty work. especially the 150, nothing but dead soilders where I dropped that at. That is one thing I like about the game now, youcan preregister your arty. have it come in on target and when you feel it has done the job or your troops are in place, you can now cancel the mission , save some ammo. and do other things with it. I always hated the old system where you had to use it all.

I agree, started this a few days ago. I found it easy to make the locations and get a good score but you are not going to spot much. If you try crossing the road with the infantry, you will likely only get shot and have a general feel for where the enemy is. I did manage to move the cars and halftracks up to support the troops once they scouted areas out for them. So I blasted the hedgerows with area fire where troops had been shot from. In the end, I meet all the touch area objectives, did not get any spotting of enemy troops. only had 5 wounded player and managed to kill 2 enemy soilders. I came away from it with a point advantage, few losses and a general clue as to where troops are dug in but no clue as to what or how many. I thought it reminded me of real live scouting missions. Next battle I am just in the early stages and you can bet I have been hitting them likely locations with arty. I cannot wait to see what I might find back there when my forces finally do go through.

This is a very true statement. I know for myself, I was one of those type that it was a while before I turned over to CM from the close combat games, I liked the 3d aspects of the game but the differences was holding me back and I was slow to want to change. As time went on, I became the player that stated, no other games were as good as CMX1. Now the CMX2 game engine has been out for awhiile, again I remember the great hatred of trying to play it at first and not understanding why it was so hard. So I was not interested in the CMX2 games until Afgan came out, But the truth is, by then I understood most of the mechanics of the game, so the game play improved so much that I was enjoying it much more. Now I pre-bought cmbn before the Demo and knew I would just have to master the game interface, Now I find myself totally wondering why I did not get into CMX2 before now, because once you understand the game environment you can enjoy it as much if not more than the CMX1 games. Learning curves and accepting change seems hard for people in general, I see it in the work field and I see it in this game. Its just a fact of life, there will always be those that will adapt to change and there will be those that do not. To each his own.

YOU CAN EDIT THE MAP YOURSELVE AND DO JUST THAT. You just need to learn the tools you have been given.

Well, if a new one gets started, make sure it has a place to report scores so that a general history of how the scenario score results can be accessed. I love playing blind against pbem opponants but have a hard time finding out if the scenario I want to play is balenced well for both players. Most sites do not have this available. I have seen list of results generated in the past but that was long ago.

I must admit I do have a attitude toward QB type players, you are correct there. And yes it shows in my comments. The funny thing is I enjoy playing QB type battles once in awhile also. I just handle the fact that there is always a few best combination of things to purchase for the type and date of battle you are playing. no matter how well the points are balenced, there will be advantages found and exploited by the players, given time, there will be detailed writings as to why you should buy certain combinations of units. It will not change, and questions as to proper point assignment will never leave. Thus to see it already being discussed is sad,the game is still young as to players using it, we really do not know how well it is going to work in its present state until given time for players to use it in many combinations. I just think Steve has the correct frame of mind in that adjusting the points does not adcheive anything. Now if there is a major flaw in points being assigned that was in there accidently from how he determined to value units, yes that should be corrected. but other than that, it was his design, his abilities and his expearence as to what he felt would work well. He should have confidence in them choices and stay true to the point value system that was designed.

I can see why Steve has no interest in adjusting points for QB, just look at the attitude of the comments from those that think it is wrong. How they think they have the answers. There is no answer for a perfect point system, it cannot be fixed in the present concept, no matter what. I do like the concept of a stock market method with the point value changing by purchase habits. Great concept, but now a game would need to be programmed for just that type of use, not going to happen with this game. The real issue is the QB players take pride in thinking they are better than those they beat in a game because of their tactics and that they have played as fair of an battle as possible and that they are proving their skill.This concept is false.There is no meeting engagement that is balenced when two guys purchase units from different armies on any given point system. One player, has more skill in unit selection, or terrain maps will be one sided at times, one armies equipment will be superior to the other and so on and so on and so on. Face it, one player has a advantage wheather by skill in purchasing, by which side he plays or by shear luck. If you want to be the great QB player of all time because of your tactical skills on the battlefield, then you better play blue on blue, might as well have the exact same units and make the map symetrical while your at it. (I do not see great demands for this type of fairness) So get off your high horse that panthers are now too cheap and that american tanks cost too much and do not match up well or whatever other unit pricing has been mentioned that some have issues with. And for any manhood issues out there, if you are a great tactician, you will know it, for one reason, you will only get joy in winning battles when you know that the advantage is to your opponant and you have won the battle anyway, that is when one can claim some skill as to their own tactical game play abilities.

I was laughing out load on this one, just because I could see him diesecting the move turn over and over again, wanting to find out what the hell happened to his team

I will add to this complaint, pretty sure the at guns have a bug when trying to move them with infantry. I have no graphic problems running the game on my machine. But I have tried moving the guns with their crew and watch the gun jump views 180 degrees from itself multiple times and take forever to move a few feet. I am sure that is not what is wanted. Does similar things during hook-up to transports.

Thanks, will need to give that a try.