slysniper

Well I did some testing to see if  CMSF2 is acting the same as what I tested in CMBS years ago.
Before any rant, learn to see what to expect from the game and things will work out much better for you
 
Ok, I selected all 13 Nato Sniper units and placed them in a sniper perfect situation with a target rich field of enemy units, none of which were firing back AND NO COVER
Tested range 420 meters
allowed 2 minutes of firing
used vet+1, then crack +2, then elite +2
 
In all these test the average hits were around 18 units, so that is 1.4 hits approx. within two minutes. But of course I had teams ranging from 3 kills to no kills in the test.
Only on the elite +2 test did I have one unit with 4 kills.
 
Also there was no consistency as to which sniper unit was out performing the others.
these were some of the top performer in some of the test.
German G82,
German G22
US m110
US M107
US MARINE M82A3
 
AT 600M IT WAS THE
DUTCH 338 LAPOA ,
GERMAN G82
 
AT THE 600 METER RANGE I HAD A ADVERAGE OF 7 HITS OUT OF THE 13 TEAMS IN THE 2 Minutes
so you might as well say .5 percent chance in that time frame.
 
take these things , now factor in cover and concealment and all the other things the game does and now you can see what to expect out of your Snipers.
plus keep in mind get them much closer and the enemy fires back.
 
In general, I would not let my sniper fire for more than a few minutes without changing locations and the 400 meter range is a good range to use to start getting results on easy targets.
 
(Side note, these numbers are good for the modern games, I recall the testing on the WWII games were about 150 meters shorter to get similar results. too long ago to remember for sure.)

Well Panzerblitz was my second game, I selected Panzer leader first, heard it had improved on the rules. but it was not long before I had both.
But I am afraid squad Leader was the game that won me over, that was the start to a path of no return. Thus the reason I am here today. These games have replaced those early starts.

I have not done any testing on the cmsf2 game, but I have tested in the past and found that the modern snipers in the game can get kills pretty consistently up to 600 meters with most of their rifles.
I have not seen anything since playing SF2 that makes me question that they are still capable of doing the same.
I suspect there is some type of cover, even if its just a fold in the ground that has created the problem for him.
As mentioned, the game does not adjust the targeting, it will do the same over and over to no avail.
I had it happened with a tank just a few days ago. wasted a 1/2 dozen shots on the same target and there was no reason it should not be hitting the enemy unit. So I moved it just a nudge, it missed once at the new location then a killing shot.
Same goes with infantry, sometimes you just have to adjust the location of the shot , even if it looks perfect from the present location. (long before you let it shoot as long as you did)

I for one have no complaints at all with how you have decided to do the upgrades on all the games and how you have priced the add-ons and upgrades to the engine.
I also am impressed with CMSF 2 in that you made it work being able to load old CMSF 1 scenarios.
When I read complaints about how you are pricing and marketing games, I generally see it appears to be a customer who either is not someone that is going to spend much time with the product or its someone that thinks the world owes them things for free. ( Both of which have come from a gaming industry that teaches them that those two principles can be somewhat true).  So I have no feelings of remorse for them when they find out this company does not work on such concepts.
I also have found that I have never regretted a purchase of your games  in that I likely get about 800 hours a year of gaming entertainment with you products.
Where as, there is hardly any other game that has managed a 100 hours of my time in the whole time of ownership and many a game that has not given me 10 hours of time before I never want to see it again.
Keep up the good work and live long and prosper
 

I for one have no complaints at all with how you have decided to do the upgrades on all the games and how you have priced the add-ons and upgrades to the engine.
I also am impressed with CMSF 2 in that you made it work being able to load old CMSF 1 scenarios.
When I read complaints about how you are pricing and marketing games, I generally see it appears to be a customer who either is not someone that is going to spend much time with the product or its someone that thinks the world owes them things for free. ( Both of which have come from a gaming industry that teaches them that those two principles can be somewhat true).  So I have no feelings of remorse for them when they find out this company does not work on such concepts.
I also have found that I have never regretted a purchase of your games  in that I likely get about 800 hours a year of gaming entertainment with you products.
Where as, there is hardly any other game that has managed a 100 hours of my time in the whole time of ownership and many a game that has not given me 10 hours of time before I never want to see it again.
Keep up the good work and live long and prosper
 

I for one have no complaints at all with how you have decided to do the upgrades on all the games and how you have priced the add-ons and upgrades to the engine.
I also am impressed with CMSF 2 in that you made it work being able to load old CMSF 1 scenarios.
When I read complaints about how you are pricing and marketing games, I generally see it appears to be a customer who either is not someone that is going to spend much time with the product or its someone that thinks the world owes them things for free. ( Both of which have come from a gaming industry that teaches them that those two principles can be somewhat true).  So I have no feelings of remorse for them when they find out this company does not work on such concepts.
I also have found that I have never regretted a purchase of your games  in that I likely get about 800 hours a year of gaming entertainment with you products.
Where as, there is hardly any other game that has managed a 100 hours of my time in the whole time of ownership and many a game that has not given me 10 hours of time before I never want to see it again.
Keep up the good work and live long and prosper
 

I for one have no complaints at all with how you have decided to do the upgrades on all the games and how you have priced the add-ons and upgrades to the engine.
I also am impressed with CMSF 2 in that you made it work being able to load old CMSF 1 scenarios.
When I read complaints about how you are pricing and marketing games, I generally see it appears to be a customer who either is not someone that is going to spend much time with the product or its someone that thinks the world owes them things for free. ( Both of which have come from a gaming industry that teaches them that those two principles can be somewhat true).  So I have no feelings of remorse for them when they find out this company does not work on such concepts.
I also have found that I have never regretted a purchase of your games  in that I likely get about 800 hours a year of gaming entertainment with you products.
Where as, there is hardly any other game that has managed a 100 hours of my time in the whole time of ownership and many a game that has not given me 10 hours of time before I never want to see it again.
Keep up the good work and live long and prosper
 

I for one have no complaints at all with how you have decided to do the upgrades on all the games and how you have priced the add-ons and upgrades to the engine.
I also am impressed with CMSF 2 in that you made it work being able to load old CMSF 1 scenarios.
When I read complaints about how you are pricing and marketing games, I generally see it appears to be a customer who either is not someone that is going to spend much time with the product or its someone that thinks the world owes them things for free. ( Both of which have come from a gaming industry that teaches them that those two principles can be somewhat true).  So I have no feelings of remorse for them when they find out this company does not work on such concepts.
I also have found that I have never regretted a purchase of your games  in that I likely get about 800 hours a year of gaming entertainment with you products.
Where as, there is hardly any other game that has managed a 100 hours of my time in the whole time of ownership and many a game that has not given me 10 hours of time before I never want to see it again.
Keep up the good work and live long and prosper
 

I for one have no complaints at all with how you have decided to do the upgrades on all the games and how you have priced the add-ons and upgrades to the engine.
I also am impressed with CMSF 2 in that you made it work being able to load old CMSF 1 scenarios.
When I read complaints about how you are pricing and marketing games, I generally see it appears to be a customer who either is not someone that is going to spend much time with the product or its someone that thinks the world owes them things for free. ( Both of which have come from a gaming industry that teaches them that those two principles can be somewhat true).  So I have no feelings of remorse for them when they find out this company does not work on such concepts.
I also have found that I have never regretted a purchase of your games  in that I likely get about 800 hours a year of gaming entertainment with you products.
Where as, there is hardly any other game that has managed a 100 hours of my time in the whole time of ownership and many a game that has not given me 10 hours of time before I never want to see it again.
Keep up the good work and live long and prosper
 

I for one have no complaints at all with how you have decided to do the upgrades on all the games and how you have priced the add-ons and upgrades to the engine.
I also am impressed with CMSF 2 in that you made it work being able to load old CMSF 1 scenarios.
When I read complaints about how you are pricing and marketing games, I generally see it appears to be a customer who either is not someone that is going to spend much time with the product or its someone that thinks the world owes them things for free. ( Both of which have come from a gaming industry that teaches them that those two principles can be somewhat true).  So I have no feelings of remorse for them when they find out this company does not work on such concepts.
I also have found that I have never regretted a purchase of your games  in that I likely get about 800 hours a year of gaming entertainment with you products.
Where as, there is hardly any other game that has managed a 100 hours of my time in the whole time of ownership and many a game that has not given me 10 hours of time before I never want to see it again.
Keep up the good work and live long and prosper
 

OK, I really don't want to get into why I never did CMSF, but now in some ways I am glad I didn't.
So I have been indulging in the scenarios of Sf2 - So they are all fresh to me, I get to play blind and enjoy them for the first time on a system that is now pretty darn clean as to how well it works.
Needless to say, I am really enjoying it.
 
Now for the funniest scenario I have played so far. - It is Flank Guard playing as the Dutch.
Hands down, the most unusual battle I have played in a while.
I have felt like I was watching a old Rat Patrol  show from way back.
All my Dutch units running around in them g-wagons, running and gunning down anything they could with their HMG's or Grenade MG's or the MMG's
Nothing like taking on a armored unit in a open jeep and somehow winning the fight. ( Of course, some times its been jumping off the unit and using a proper AT asset to get the job done.)
 Then as time passes, the desperate feeling of just trying to hold on until reinforcements come.
Then when help arrives, the counter attack to hold back the tide and to finish off the enemy.
I really enjoyed using the arty at the end, 155 did a great job of being able to clear that hill of all the pesty enemy units.
 
Two insights with the engine. Infantry and arty are truly fixed. No longer are units running when hit with a barrage.
Second, In the scenario I just discussed. I was amazed how my men in open units survived long enough to actually fire from the g-wagons. (makes me wonder if some adjustments have been made and we will see men in unbutton units last a little longer when the update gets into the other games)
 
Last comment, I also did a scenario of my own this past week-end. Opened up the sand box and created a situation and then proceeded to test three different tactics against the situation.
best tool by far as to practicing tactics there is, my favorite thing of all. and now with units that represent the forces closest to what I trained with when I was in the service.
 
Thank You for being out there BF, nothing else fulfills my need.
 

tell you the truth I do not remember what was the cause of the change myself.
If memory serves me right. they adjusted it so infantry would flee from overwhelming fire (referring to direct fire). But had the mishap of it affecting the indirect fire in a manor many of us did not like.
So far, I have not seen anything that seems incorrect. But I also have not sat down and run test. But I am sure there is someone out there that has. So no one has made complaints since the release, so it must be pretty good now.

OK, I really don't want to get into why I never did CMSF, but now in some ways I am glad I didn't.
So I have been indulging in the scenarios of Sf2 - So they are all fresh to me, I get to play blind and enjoy them for the first time on a system that is now pretty darn clean as to how well it works.
Needless to say, I am really enjoying it.
 
Now for the funniest scenario I have played so far. - It is Flank Guard playing as the Dutch.
Hands down, the most unusual battle I have played in a while.
I have felt like I was watching a old Rat Patrol  show from way back.
All my Dutch units running around in them g-wagons, running and gunning down anything they could with their HMG's or Grenade MG's or the MMG's
Nothing like taking on a armored unit in a open jeep and somehow winning the fight. ( Of course, some times its been jumping off the unit and using a proper AT asset to get the job done.)
 Then as time passes, the desperate feeling of just trying to hold on until reinforcements come.
Then when help arrives, the counter attack to hold back the tide and to finish off the enemy.
I really enjoyed using the arty at the end, 155 did a great job of being able to clear that hill of all the pesty enemy units.
 
Two insights with the engine. Infantry and arty are truly fixed. No longer are units running when hit with a barrage.
Second, In the scenario I just discussed. I was amazed how my men in open units survived long enough to actually fire from the g-wagons. (makes me wonder if some adjustments have been made and we will see men in unbutton units last a little longer when the update gets into the other games)
 
Last comment, I also did a scenario of my own this past week-end. Opened up the sand box and created a situation and then proceeded to test three different tactics against the situation.
best tool by far as to practicing tactics there is, my favorite thing of all. and now with units that represent the forces closest to what I trained with when I was in the service.
 
Thank You for being out there BF, nothing else fulfills my need.
 

OK, I really don't want to get into why I never did CMSF, but now in some ways I am glad I didn't.
So I have been indulging in the scenarios of Sf2 - So they are all fresh to me, I get to play blind and enjoy them for the first time on a system that is now pretty darn clean as to how well it works.
Needless to say, I am really enjoying it.
 
Now for the funniest scenario I have played so far. - It is Flank Guard playing as the Dutch.
Hands down, the most unusual battle I have played in a while.
I have felt like I was watching a old Rat Patrol  show from way back.
All my Dutch units running around in them g-wagons, running and gunning down anything they could with their HMG's or Grenade MG's or the MMG's
Nothing like taking on a armored unit in a open jeep and somehow winning the fight. ( Of course, some times its been jumping off the unit and using a proper AT asset to get the job done.)
 Then as time passes, the desperate feeling of just trying to hold on until reinforcements come.
Then when help arrives, the counter attack to hold back the tide and to finish off the enemy.
I really enjoyed using the arty at the end, 155 did a great job of being able to clear that hill of all the pesty enemy units.
 
Two insights with the engine. Infantry and arty are truly fixed. No longer are units running when hit with a barrage.
Second, In the scenario I just discussed. I was amazed how my men in open units survived long enough to actually fire from the g-wagons. (makes me wonder if some adjustments have been made and we will see men in unbutton units last a little longer when the update gets into the other games)
 
Last comment, I also did a scenario of my own this past week-end. Opened up the sand box and created a situation and then proceeded to test three different tactics against the situation.
best tool by far as to practicing tactics there is, my favorite thing of all. and now with units that represent the forces closest to what I trained with when I was in the service.
 
Thank You for being out there BF, nothing else fulfills my need.
 

I also will stay with the concept that stopping a bogging tank, either giving a different move command or even firing the weapon seems to help in the game stop it from getting immobilized.
testing it out, no have not done it or will I.
but it sure seems to work for me, where as if I just let the machine keep going on the present command. Immobilization seem to happen about as much as it does not.
But with all good things, til its tested who really knows.

OK, I'm done.
I played it on elite and wego. (I always feel the best judge of a scenario is playing it once and being truly blind as to what to expect.)
I can give this a very high rating.
I liked your briefing and the situation you created.
good force selection and the map you selected did a good job ( If I have any complaint, the stock maps lack a little flavor and don't use some of the accent items that make it feel a little more realistic. So the map could be dressed up, but that has nothing to do with gameplay.)
Without giving anything away, it was great gameplay. gave me a real challenge.
I achieved the main objectives without many losses but was given a nice surprise that really screwed me up as to keeping my losses low (you likely know what I am referring to.)
Anyway extracting from the map became a nightmare and only a few of my most valiant survived to fight another day. - but I enjoyed that the best to tell you the truth
 
So end result, scored 1143 to 945 (which gave me a draw)
(I fulfilled the mission but at way too heavy of a cost, 7 killed , 19 wounded and only 6 to escape)
But I did take out 3 to every one of men, so I felt their sacrifice was not in vain.
 
So your elite goal of fulfilling the mission with losing no one was not achieved by me, that is for sure.
 
Now, playing it multi times I know I could get those results much better, but that really is not a fair test is it.
Also playing real time can help you score also, but I think the AI is already at a disadvantage as it is. So having to suffer through one minute periods before I can adjust commands just seems fair to me as a little bit of a leveling device when playing the AI
 
Any way, excellent job, felt the scoring was fair and a good result for what happened.
So all in all, I would give you a score of 9 out of 10 in this design with the 1 point loss for not dressing the map up . 
Its like a Christmas present but with no wrapping paper. (its your baby, give it some finishing touches and make it perfect) 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

I agree with you totally as to your view of these types of request and as to how well they would work as to creating new scenarios and content.
I like to play around with the editor myself and am always looking for different types of tactical situations to set up.
So I have found it possible to set up pretty much any of these types of missions to some extent.
Now did I find these interesting - yes.
Did I find it hard to get the game set up to mimic realistic results from real life events. (very hard at times, but generally it was possible)
Would many of these battles make a good scenario. No - seldom and getting victory conditions that make it a challenge and possible victory for both sides  is really a hard task to achieve.
 
 
Personally, I think the magic to scenario design and battle building is looking for ways to create and reflect different battles and somehow show or reflect a direct challenge in that situation. There really is no one type of design that is better than others, so when people ask for scenarios be designed a certain way, I see that as their preference, likely because it matches their style of game play. But I don't think designers should think they need to restrict themselves to such request.
 
I do think designers should stretch themselves and try to create unusual battles, just for the sake of providing distinct tactical situations. As for having the game model the units for those limited situations, its not a good usage of the companies time. 
But the game can do it,  I wish I had the time where I could provide some quality scenarios in some of these type of situations. But I find I don't have the time or desire to do it.
 
But anyone who own the game can learn to create their own wishes with some effort. and when you are doing it for yourself, it takes much less time. because there is so much more that does not need to be done to meet expectations of a scenarios to release to others. I find I can create a map and get troop types to reflect what I want pretty easily. I don't care if the troops don't look correct or wear the right clothing, I care about their setting so they act appropriate for the abilities that I think they have. I don't need to worry about AI limits or programming it. I either play both sides or I find someone to play one side and off we go.
The game is a excellent tool for reflecting combat - learn to use the tool and you don't need to hope others provide you the battles you want to play, its within reach of your own finger tips

EXCELLENT CONCEPT.
Once again you are providing a service to many  players.
A great way to help improve skill levels of those wanting to use it for such.
 

EXCELLENT CONCEPT.
Once again you are providing a service to many  players.
A great way to help improve skill levels of those wanting to use it for such.
 

EXCELLENT CONCEPT.
Once again you are providing a service to many  players.
A great way to help improve skill levels of those wanting to use it for such.
 

These Tactical Problems designed by Todd Justice ( @ScoutPL ) and myself are designed to give small scale (Platoon to Company (+)) and short (around 30 minute) games for two players to test and explore tactical solutions to unique situations.   
They are Head to Head only in order to provide the toughest challenge.  Each side in these scenarios is designed to provide a challenge, though some sides may be tougher than others, refer to the scenario complexity ratings for the difficulty rating for each side. 
 Post your solutions in the comments section for each scenario, or on the Battlefront forum.  We might in the future add AI to each side of these scenarios based on the best submitted solutions for each side.
Links below:
PBEM Tactical Problems Introduction PBEM Tactical Problem 01 - A Rifle Behind Every Tree PBEM Tactical Problem 02 - Strongpoint! (Coming Soon) PBEM Tactical Problem 03 - The Last Hundred Yards (Coming Soon) It had always been my intent to provide Tactical Problems like these on my blog to allow you to learn and  test tactical situations.  Please leave your feedback below.  I would suggest that if you have an AAR or a solution to one of these scenarios that you start a new thread and post a link to it in this thread to keep spoilers to a minimum.
Bil

I agree with you totally as to your view of these types of request and as to how well they would work as to creating new scenarios and content.
I like to play around with the editor myself and am always looking for different types of tactical situations to set up.
So I have found it possible to set up pretty much any of these types of missions to some extent.
Now did I find these interesting - yes.
Did I find it hard to get the game set up to mimic realistic results from real life events. (very hard at times, but generally it was possible)
Would many of these battles make a good scenario. No - seldom and getting victory conditions that make it a challenge and possible victory for both sides  is really a hard task to achieve.
 
 
Personally, I think the magic to scenario design and battle building is looking for ways to create and reflect different battles and somehow show or reflect a direct challenge in that situation. There really is no one type of design that is better than others, so when people ask for scenarios be designed a certain way, I see that as their preference, likely because it matches their style of game play. But I don't think designers should think they need to restrict themselves to such request.
 
I do think designers should stretch themselves and try to create unusual battles, just for the sake of providing distinct tactical situations. As for having the game model the units for those limited situations, its not a good usage of the companies time. 
But the game can do it,  I wish I had the time where I could provide some quality scenarios in some of these type of situations. But I find I don't have the time or desire to do it.
 
But anyone who own the game can learn to create their own wishes with some effort. and when you are doing it for yourself, it takes much less time. because there is so much more that does not need to be done to meet expectations of a scenarios to release to others. I find I can create a map and get troop types to reflect what I want pretty easily. I don't care if the troops don't look correct or wear the right clothing, I care about their setting so they act appropriate for the abilities that I think they have. I don't need to worry about AI limits or programming it. I either play both sides or I find someone to play one side and off we go.
The game is a excellent tool for reflecting combat - learn to use the tool and you don't need to hope others provide you the battles you want to play, its within reach of your own finger tips

There is no question that the game engine does not represent real life all the time. I think its a impossible task to think that it could, its going to have short falls no matter what,  I also think its good to suggest possible solutions as to how to improve the game also.
So no issue with any of that and yes I do see some things similar to how you do.
for a new player trying to learn how to use the game and apply realistic tactics, the comments were not of any help. Pointing out the shortfalls and suggesting how best to apply correct practices is. - That is all I meant.
 
Also I will point out that spotting in the game and it spotting cycle is unrealistic at times (I agree with you) - no question about it. but it is a interesting way to create something that is much more realistic than most any other game has ever tried. I hated the feature at first, but the more I thought about real life experience's I had while in the service, the more I came to the conclusion that it reflects real life sighting challenges pretty good in some ways.
Including, me and my partner on a mission not spotting a tank right out in the middle of a valley  that we had be observing for over10 minutes once. It was not until a crew member opened a hatch that either of us spotted it.
 

I love it when someone needs to bring in items of what they perceive as short coming in the game when replying to such a thread
First of all, the subleties of infantry tactics tend to fade to the background once there's armour on the field, and generally there's always plenty of tanks and AFVs in CM scenarios. Once you have armour support, I think it mostly becomes a game of using infantry to probe, then blast pockets of resistance with the tanks, then advance and repeat it. Play infantry only battles, issue removed - but you are correct, most provided scenarios are focused on armor conflicts or armour supported conflicts.
The second reason is that overwatch is arguably less effective in the game as compared to real life. The maneuver element takes a lot of incoming fire before dropping down, and the overwatch element takes a quite long time to spot and engage the enemy. Once it opens up, the overwatch element then stops firing again as soon as it loses sight of the enemy. In real life, (trained) troops would be intelligent enough to keep suppressing the enemy position while the maneuver element either continued on or broke contact. Sounds like a personal problem to me, overwatch needs to just area fire in many situations before hand, don't wait to spot a unit. Maneuver unit taking fire and being pinned, then it was not time to maneuver was it. That is a sign of not providing pinning fire to the enemy units or not selecting a proper route to close on the enemy. Don't blame the game for the issue. You can say you don't agree with the amount of fire to do such a task in the game, but doing the task can be done in the game.
 
Thirdly, one MG can only reliably suppress one floor of one building. If the enemy squad is split into two sections and they are in two adjacent small modular buildings, you need two machineguns to target and suppress both, even though from the outside, it just looks like one building. True, it would be nice to see machine guns shift fire with some type of command. So that it covered more area in a one minute time frame. - but I find I get decent results by this method. enemy in multiple stories of bldg. then I target 2nd floor, I get a little pinning action on the 1st and 3rd floor from it., next turn fire on one of those floors if they are managing return fire. Would be nice to see a change in mechanics here in the game
Also, it takes a lot of fire to suppress anyone, and the effect disappears quite quickly. Also agree, not so sure about the amount of fire being a issue, but I agree that recovery time is consistently pretty fast, seems unrealistic at times. Especially when comrades have died in a unit.

I agree with you totally as to your view of these types of request and as to how well they would work as to creating new scenarios and content.
I like to play around with the editor myself and am always looking for different types of tactical situations to set up.
So I have found it possible to set up pretty much any of these types of missions to some extent.
Now did I find these interesting - yes.
Did I find it hard to get the game set up to mimic realistic results from real life events. (very hard at times, but generally it was possible)
Would many of these battles make a good scenario. No - seldom and getting victory conditions that make it a challenge and possible victory for both sides  is really a hard task to achieve.
 
 
Personally, I think the magic to scenario design and battle building is looking for ways to create and reflect different battles and somehow show or reflect a direct challenge in that situation. There really is no one type of design that is better than others, so when people ask for scenarios be designed a certain way, I see that as their preference, likely because it matches their style of game play. But I don't think designers should think they need to restrict themselves to such request.
 
I do think designers should stretch themselves and try to create unusual battles, just for the sake of providing distinct tactical situations. As for having the game model the units for those limited situations, its not a good usage of the companies time. 
But the game can do it,  I wish I had the time where I could provide some quality scenarios in some of these type of situations. But I find I don't have the time or desire to do it.
 
But anyone who own the game can learn to create their own wishes with some effort. and when you are doing it for yourself, it takes much less time. because there is so much more that does not need to be done to meet expectations of a scenarios to release to others. I find I can create a map and get troop types to reflect what I want pretty easily. I don't care if the troops don't look correct or wear the right clothing, I care about their setting so they act appropriate for the abilities that I think they have. I don't need to worry about AI limits or programming it. I either play both sides or I find someone to play one side and off we go.
The game is a excellent tool for reflecting combat - learn to use the tool and you don't need to hope others provide you the battles you want to play, its within reach of your own finger tips