slysniper

if one thing is consistent with this site, its the announcement that something is coming out soon and it seems to come out way later than what everyone is hoping for.

if one thing is consistent with this site, its the announcement that something is coming out soon and it seems to come out way later than what everyone is hoping for.

To make you all feel good, I set up a QB and played the Brits just so I could feel the pain.
And painful it was, so I can see why you all have reason to complain about the patch that has never appeared.
So why it really has not bothered me since 4.0 came out is likely the event that I have not played the British much since the change

If someone cannot see for themselves that the game is worth the money, I am not going to waste my time trying to change their mind.
For myself, I have never regretted any purchase of BF games.
I wish I could say that for other games and items I have spent money on.

This is pretty much exactly what I feel also.
Loaded 4.0 and have been enjoying it the whole time, so I really cannot feel bad for those of you that think it just screwed up the game so much that it is a sin to have one play it.
Now I heard the complaints from the moment they started but I did not see it in the play of my battles.
It was months before I finally came across a battle where I saw the arty really rout my troops in a very obvious unnatural way. So I tested stuff to help try and expose the issue instead of just whine about it.
But did I go back to version 3, no, and nobody I have played have asked to play version 3 either.
So where are the masses that cannot live with the issue til 4.0 is correct. Oh its the same handful here that about every three of four weeks have to act childish once again since they have not been given what they want yet.
Now in the whole 14 or so months I will say, maybe 3 battles I played have been impacted by the flaw, but you know what that means, I have played about 30 battles that have been really enjoyable with the added improvements 4.0 has given.
But you all stay with your version 3.0, because you have your agency and isn't that wonderful. But keep your attitudes in check about your demands, a change will come.
And after all these months of suffering because you did not get the improvements because you demand it play in a certain manor, I doubt you will like the next release anyway, no matter how it comes out, because being jerks is just such a natural thing for us all to do now days.
From one jerk to a few others, have a nice day.
 

If someone cannot see for themselves that the game is worth the money, I am not going to waste my time trying to change their mind.
For myself, I have never regretted any purchase of BF games.
I wish I could say that for other games and items I have spent money on.

If someone cannot see for themselves that the game is worth the money, I am not going to waste my time trying to change their mind.
For myself, I have never regretted any purchase of BF games.
I wish I could say that for other games and items I have spent money on.

I don't think so.
But you can try the face command, if they are commanded to face towards the opposite side of the building than the balcony they might not go out on it.
But if the balcony is the direction the enemy is, what would be the point of that.
 
I personally avoid balconies levels for my troops unless the enemy is at extreme ranges. They just do not give as much protection as being inside the building.
The only other time I send them to those levels is if I have fire power controlling that location. then the risk is low and their view is improved.

They cannot get the games they already have out and added onto and updated fast enough.
So why in the world would you think they would ever get to such a  un-logical game concept.
If anything has ever been proven, BF stays in the realm of realistic and non - fantasy.
I like the sandbox concept, but again logic tells us that would never happen.
 
If they do ever get to a point where all the present titles are not keeping them busy. I am sure they will delve into something that interest them and that follows logical paths and present capabilities.

You should just feel good that your favorite game is not CMRT.
How long has that one been out without any module released yet.

Because one person thinks the whole game is junk because of abrams ability in the game, that is how this thread was derailed.
As to how realistic this game is or any of CM games.
They all suffer from some basic flaws that are intentionally there to make it a good game. not a realistic simulator.
But still, they are the best thing you are going to get you hands on as to a battle simulator, but they have many unrealistic aspects to them that are not close to being realistic .
On the other hand, there is many things modeled well enough, that you do get a great feel for the advantages and strengths of the different weapons on the battlefield just as they would in real life.
 
The fighting in the game is always more bloody and deadly and the time frame very much reduced compared to how it would play out in real life generally. Plus the battles and situations players create would not normally be the situation in real conflicts.
players also direct their troops in unrealistic manors compared to real troop leaders. (Or at least ones that have not been shot by their own troops that is).
Plus, there is plenty of people as you can see from these post that will try and point out every flaw they can as to what they think is incorrect about the game - in general it is best to not encourage them.
 
 

Because one person thinks the whole game is junk because of abrams ability in the game, that is how this thread was derailed.
As to how realistic this game is or any of CM games.
They all suffer from some basic flaws that are intentionally there to make it a good game. not a realistic simulator.
But still, they are the best thing you are going to get you hands on as to a battle simulator, but they have many unrealistic aspects to them that are not close to being realistic .
On the other hand, there is many things modeled well enough, that you do get a great feel for the advantages and strengths of the different weapons on the battlefield just as they would in real life.
 
The fighting in the game is always more bloody and deadly and the time frame very much reduced compared to how it would play out in real life generally. Plus the battles and situations players create would not normally be the situation in real conflicts.
players also direct their troops in unrealistic manors compared to real troop leaders. (Or at least ones that have not been shot by their own troops that is).
Plus, there is plenty of people as you can see from these post that will try and point out every flaw they can as to what they think is incorrect about the game - in general it is best to not encourage them.
 
 

Because one person thinks the whole game is junk because of abrams ability in the game, that is how this thread was derailed.
As to how realistic this game is or any of CM games.
They all suffer from some basic flaws that are intentionally there to make it a good game. not a realistic simulator.
But still, they are the best thing you are going to get you hands on as to a battle simulator, but they have many unrealistic aspects to them that are not close to being realistic .
On the other hand, there is many things modeled well enough, that you do get a great feel for the advantages and strengths of the different weapons on the battlefield just as they would in real life.
 
The fighting in the game is always more bloody and deadly and the time frame very much reduced compared to how it would play out in real life generally. Plus the battles and situations players create would not normally be the situation in real conflicts.
players also direct their troops in unrealistic manors compared to real troop leaders. (Or at least ones that have not been shot by their own troops that is).
Plus, there is plenty of people as you can see from these post that will try and point out every flaw they can as to what they think is incorrect about the game - in general it is best to not encourage them.
 
 

Because one person thinks the whole game is junk because of abrams ability in the game, that is how this thread was derailed.
As to how realistic this game is or any of CM games.
They all suffer from some basic flaws that are intentionally there to make it a good game. not a realistic simulator.
But still, they are the best thing you are going to get you hands on as to a battle simulator, but they have many unrealistic aspects to them that are not close to being realistic .
On the other hand, there is many things modeled well enough, that you do get a great feel for the advantages and strengths of the different weapons on the battlefield just as they would in real life.
 
The fighting in the game is always more bloody and deadly and the time frame very much reduced compared to how it would play out in real life generally. Plus the battles and situations players create would not normally be the situation in real conflicts.
players also direct their troops in unrealistic manors compared to real troop leaders. (Or at least ones that have not been shot by their own troops that is).
Plus, there is plenty of people as you can see from these post that will try and point out every flaw they can as to what they think is incorrect about the game - in general it is best to not encourage them.
 
 

I Know, I know
How in the world could I have the game this long and I just finally sat down and played this scenario vs the AI
Well in my world, that is just how it is, I cannot sit around and play these games like it is a job or truthfully would I want to, I would get bored of them if I did that.
Anyway, over the Holidays I have sat down and played a half dozen or so Scenarios I had not done yet and this is my latest one.
 
I just want to compliment the work that went into this one. Excellent design and effort and it shows.
 
Map - excellent
situation - excellent
units selected - excellent
programming the AI - excellent
Scoring the scenario- excellent
So in other words, A perfect score if I was posting it somewhere.
 
I felt this battle gave me a excellent feel for some of the challenges faced by commanders that I have read many times from different stories from this war.
I played as the German's and found myself being very cautious as to keeping my armor on the roads because  of ground conditions.
Scouting the flanks had just enough importance to make it a need but not a want to have to do.
pushing the attack was not a easy task because of the restrictions and the Ai was programmed well to throw a few surprises into the battle.
Time of battle and scoring was well done, I won the battle, but for the heck of it I went back in and stopped the battle just short of the last objective I captured and found I would have lost with that result. So it was a close result, which I love. (Normally at my skill level. Playing the AI is not a challenge ) So love it when its not a cake walk.
 
I think my favorite moment happened when I had a panther sent to support my flank scouting efforts and it was attacked by some forces along the main objective.
As the panther started to engage a Sherman at very long range and to not have success.  I had that moment of , oh my. I might be in trouble, is that a Jumbo or something. Sure enough later on. I found that to be true. I lost that panther in the duel and when I did finally clear the enemy out and had clear information on each unit. That jumbo had about 10 hits on it and had fought a valiant battle. (just a great moment to get that feel of what a jumbo might have felt like as to a unwanted challenge having to face against on the battlefield.
 

I Know, I know
How in the world could I have the game this long and I just finally sat down and played this scenario vs the AI
Well in my world, that is just how it is, I cannot sit around and play these games like it is a job or truthfully would I want to, I would get bored of them if I did that.
Anyway, over the Holidays I have sat down and played a half dozen or so Scenarios I had not done yet and this is my latest one.
 
I just want to compliment the work that went into this one. Excellent design and effort and it shows.
 
Map - excellent
situation - excellent
units selected - excellent
programming the AI - excellent
Scoring the scenario- excellent
So in other words, A perfect score if I was posting it somewhere.
 
I felt this battle gave me a excellent feel for some of the challenges faced by commanders that I have read many times from different stories from this war.
I played as the German's and found myself being very cautious as to keeping my armor on the roads because  of ground conditions.
Scouting the flanks had just enough importance to make it a need but not a want to have to do.
pushing the attack was not a easy task because of the restrictions and the Ai was programmed well to throw a few surprises into the battle.
Time of battle and scoring was well done, I won the battle, but for the heck of it I went back in and stopped the battle just short of the last objective I captured and found I would have lost with that result. So it was a close result, which I love. (Normally at my skill level. Playing the AI is not a challenge ) So love it when its not a cake walk.
 
I think my favorite moment happened when I had a panther sent to support my flank scouting efforts and it was attacked by some forces along the main objective.
As the panther started to engage a Sherman at very long range and to not have success.  I had that moment of , oh my. I might be in trouble, is that a Jumbo or something. Sure enough later on. I found that to be true. I lost that panther in the duel and when I did finally clear the enemy out and had clear information on each unit. That jumbo had about 10 hits on it and had fought a valiant battle. (just a great moment to get that feel of what a jumbo might have felt like as to a unwanted challenge having to face against on the battlefield.
 

I Know, I know
How in the world could I have the game this long and I just finally sat down and played this scenario vs the AI
Well in my world, that is just how it is, I cannot sit around and play these games like it is a job or truthfully would I want to, I would get bored of them if I did that.
Anyway, over the Holidays I have sat down and played a half dozen or so Scenarios I had not done yet and this is my latest one.
 
I just want to compliment the work that went into this one. Excellent design and effort and it shows.
 
Map - excellent
situation - excellent
units selected - excellent
programming the AI - excellent
Scoring the scenario- excellent
So in other words, A perfect score if I was posting it somewhere.
 
I felt this battle gave me a excellent feel for some of the challenges faced by commanders that I have read many times from different stories from this war.
I played as the German's and found myself being very cautious as to keeping my armor on the roads because  of ground conditions.
Scouting the flanks had just enough importance to make it a need but not a want to have to do.
pushing the attack was not a easy task because of the restrictions and the Ai was programmed well to throw a few surprises into the battle.
Time of battle and scoring was well done, I won the battle, but for the heck of it I went back in and stopped the battle just short of the last objective I captured and found I would have lost with that result. So it was a close result, which I love. (Normally at my skill level. Playing the AI is not a challenge ) So love it when its not a cake walk.
 
I think my favorite moment happened when I had a panther sent to support my flank scouting efforts and it was attacked by some forces along the main objective.
As the panther started to engage a Sherman at very long range and to not have success.  I had that moment of , oh my. I might be in trouble, is that a Jumbo or something. Sure enough later on. I found that to be true. I lost that panther in the duel and when I did finally clear the enemy out and had clear information on each unit. That jumbo had about 10 hits on it and had fought a valiant battle. (just a great moment to get that feel of what a jumbo might have felt like as to a unwanted challenge having to face against on the battlefield.
 

I Know, I know
How in the world could I have the game this long and I just finally sat down and played this scenario vs the AI
Well in my world, that is just how it is, I cannot sit around and play these games like it is a job or truthfully would I want to, I would get bored of them if I did that.
Anyway, over the Holidays I have sat down and played a half dozen or so Scenarios I had not done yet and this is my latest one.
 
I just want to compliment the work that went into this one. Excellent design and effort and it shows.
 
Map - excellent
situation - excellent
units selected - excellent
programming the AI - excellent
Scoring the scenario- excellent
So in other words, A perfect score if I was posting it somewhere.
 
I felt this battle gave me a excellent feel for some of the challenges faced by commanders that I have read many times from different stories from this war.
I played as the German's and found myself being very cautious as to keeping my armor on the roads because  of ground conditions.
Scouting the flanks had just enough importance to make it a need but not a want to have to do.
pushing the attack was not a easy task because of the restrictions and the Ai was programmed well to throw a few surprises into the battle.
Time of battle and scoring was well done, I won the battle, but for the heck of it I went back in and stopped the battle just short of the last objective I captured and found I would have lost with that result. So it was a close result, which I love. (Normally at my skill level. Playing the AI is not a challenge ) So love it when its not a cake walk.
 
I think my favorite moment happened when I had a panther sent to support my flank scouting efforts and it was attacked by some forces along the main objective.
As the panther started to engage a Sherman at very long range and to not have success.  I had that moment of , oh my. I might be in trouble, is that a Jumbo or something. Sure enough later on. I found that to be true. I lost that panther in the duel and when I did finally clear the enemy out and had clear information on each unit. That jumbo had about 10 hits on it and had fought a valiant battle. (just a great moment to get that feel of what a jumbo might have felt like as to a unwanted challenge having to face against on the battlefield.
 

I don't think so.
But you can try the face command, if they are commanded to face towards the opposite side of the building than the balcony they might not go out on it.
But if the balcony is the direction the enemy is, what would be the point of that.
 
I personally avoid balconies levels for my troops unless the enemy is at extreme ranges. They just do not give as much protection as being inside the building.
The only other time I send them to those levels is if I have fire power controlling that location. then the risk is low and their view is improved.

Now I will disagreee with this to some extent.

First, If CMx1 AI can give you a good challenge, You either have to know how to tweek it to make the odds pretty unfavorable or you are just not a very good player. Because I found the AI doing terrible things with its troops in movement, thus the reason it was only semi good on defence. But even on defence it had a tendancy to want to move its troops from good placement locations to stupid positions.

Now , just for giggles. I played a QB vs the CMX2 AI last night just to see if it would be as terrible as I like to point out it is.

Without spending a ton of time to set up and play, could I get a decent battle.

So of course I selected to be the attacker, since the AI does better on defence. I selected the map and I let the AI pick its forces and I selected my forces and gave myself no arty to help improve the challenge and a nice short time frame so that i could not take my sweet time disecting its non- mobile defence.

For armor I selected a company of cronwells, that should make it interesting and a company of infantry minus about a platoon & the heavy support weapons. So I had a few light mortars plus infantry.

I can gareentee you I had a better battle vs the AI for the first 20-25 minutes, playing Real time on elite than I likely would ever get from the old system.

First the enemy was not on the objective, it had made a good battle line between it and me. Second it held its position well and even at one point in the game counter attacked with a stug to get itself in a flanking position to the other flank in which i was pushing.

I lost two tanks before I could even get a spot on a enemy location. (Surely something that would never happen in he old game). Which included taking out my one and only firefly.

I lost two more tanks one to a unseen unit as i was pushing the flank and the last was a cronwell that I rolled down the enemy flank once I had control of the battle, he was trying to mop up and take out any remaining armor that might be on the battle line. I knew a stug would have its flank exposed to it. As I moved it in position to take it out. I opened the hatch to take a better spot and My commander was killed by a hidden infantry unit i had missed in a area i had mopped. The tank lost command control so i watched helplessly as it rolled into a spot that likely could be spotted by the stug and was and watched my tank go into flames.

In the end. I lost 3 cronwells and the Sherman, The AI lost 4 Stugs and a Pv4.
It did not have any infantry to say, just a few scouts that I located and keep me busy early on and a FO with arty that tried to hit me with 3 fire missions within the game.

Now if I knew how (which I dont) give the enemy more units than the preselected point value. Because i had a 2-1 advantage almost in that game. So if I could have tweeked it to give it 50% more units, it might have been a real challenge. Even so, I did not win the battle, I played a battle that the outcome was given since I had the advantage and it would show. I felt the AI played me pretty even and for its limitations, thats not bad.

The things that gave it the ability to do that to me was the spotting and fog of war aspect that is within the CMX2 engine that you will never see in CMX1.
Either you like it or you dont. But it adds the unpredictability of battle (Of course i played the game in a way to make sure that the enemy might get the game engine advantages of that part of the engine)

But I set up played and finished the game in about a hour and a half.

So even with all the complaining, I will still point out, it is a game, learn to use the tools and you might find it is useable after all.

I do smile how we all love to complain about things the game lacks and what it should have, but it is up to us to make the most of what we have also.

I like them all. but as pointed out , the larger maps generally allow for aspects you cannot do on smaller maps.
The secret is, what are you trying to portray.
you do not need a huge map for city street fighting, actually a large city fight on a map too big  becomes less enjoyable to me.
a infantry only battle generally does not need a very large map to depict what is needed.
but a battle where recon or maneuvering is a focus, then of course that map has to be large enough  for that to be allowed. 
 
The secret is not what the size of the map is, but the right size for what type of battle it is.
I recall designing a scenario where the offence needed to select one of three avenue's of approach. the terrain was such that once committed to a choice, there was no time to change or shift to the other options.
the map was very large due to this, the tournament round started and many players just quit when they opened the scenario because the size intimidated them.
but in truth, the map had about the same number of units as any medium battle and  was focused on one or two battles the size most players were accustomed to.
Many that played it praised it as one of the best they ever played. But I had to smile how many just did not even try to experience something they were not accustomed to.
 
So in the end  what I am saying, they all have their place. Just depends on the mood I am in.
 

actually you are almost correct, I would do as you and get them the heck out of there but I would use the evade command for my movement.
Evade button is the best tool in the game. Not only will the troops run to cover, but they will resist the urge to drop and get pinned again. I have found evade to be one of the best movement commands in the game.
 

Amphibious Combat Vehicle under Wikipedia gives a basic understanding as to where the marine corp wants to go with their vision of needs.
and if you do a search for "The Commandant's posture of the United States Marine corps presidents budget 2017"  you will find more information than you want as to the present standing of our corp. and some of their requested needs
note page 11 gives a little reference to getting certain programs up to needed status.
The f-35 program  (Of course this is listed since the corp is in terrible shape as to how many fighters they presently can actually use and how the funding for the f-35's have been a nightmare - but it is listed as to what they have coming for sure and their hopes for the rest of the funding needed.)
And the ACV units -  well I am glad to see it appears that funding has finally been made but the precise direction of the program still seems questionable.
but it is stated 204 ACV's in the 4th quarter of the year 2020 as phase one and 490 in phase two.
 
So there is some improvement to the Amphibious needs I have been referring to, I must admit the last I knew, they had not approved these. So only 3 years away from something they have been asking for roughly for 15 years.
 
Most of the prototypes were along these lines

Did I stir the sand in your sand box.
First, I have not ever said anything about the stryker not doing or being the correct machine for its present mission. I think it does what it is intended to do. So you are getting me confused with others comments here. I do not think they should be changed in any manner other than I see no problem with adding 30 mm to the system.
Second , I did get confused that I thought someone had mentioned, they would lose infantry transport ability. but that appears to be incorrect. So even better as not having a issue as to the 30mm being a part of the force make up.
As for amphibious units, you don't like my point of view, that is so clear. As for generals seeing the lack we have and wanting that fixed. Since the only force that really ever is given that type of task is our marine corp, there is plenty of comments and needs that they presently have. But as is always the case, they do not get the funding to get those wish list made. So, as has always been the case, the marines are generally at the mercy of the other branches to somehow get them updated with equipment more suitable for the job at hand.
In recent history,  Iraq war, Marines tank corp was still in M60's until they manage to purchase none used M1's from the army .
(no where to go for amphibious  stuff  - thus the issue) so just as you said, use them old aav's - remind me to have you be in one of those when they get used
 
Oh, since some of you out there hate the thought that I would ever suggest that the M1 would have a Diesel engine.  That fine and should be expected. 
look, when that tank came out, it was like one of the few times America managed to get it so right, by far the best tank in the world at the time. Even to this day, its design concepts has helped to hold it as one of the best platforms out there.
but as to present design needs, does a tank truly need a turbine engine, does it impact it capabilities enough to justify it added requirements. (that is the question I really am posing)
So if you cannot handle that, its ok. - who wouldn't want the best available thing if they can have it. The turbine engine is that, what I am pointing out is maybe, just maybe, its added benefits are not really needed. My point of view, you might not like it, but don't get all worked up about it if you don't agree
 

This is by far not a question that is easy to answer.
First, I think you need to get your head out of how board games work, its hard to get cm to work on similar concepts.
 
But my suggestion to you is this, you need to get a feel for how cm works with movement, yes, what you are requesting is good to understand. but getting a chart handed to you is not likely to happen.
 
The best thing to do is set up a test map. place your units on the map and then run a test for what they will do in the terrain you want to check them against.
you will get pretty direct results on distances a unit will make in that minute. Run the test multiple times, in each terrain type you want to check.
 
But here is where the problem begins, ok that might get you a good number if the troops are in perfect order and no one is firing in their general area.
but the truth is, the troops condition and how exhausted they are impacts how fast they move,. they might not even take your orders and follow them if they are having morale issues.
Terrain does not work like a board game, woods is not always the same, depending on how the woods are created in the map, they can portray many different levels of obstruction to movement and viewing, none of which is easy for you to tell until your troops are actually in there doing it on the game.
So in CM, its more of a feel for what you expect your units to do instead of knowing for sure what they will do. You will only get good at it after playing it alot and seeing the general tendencies of how troops react under certain conditions.
So running troops that are fresh at full speed on turn one will result in what is expected. but running troops that might be exhausted, have a few men killed and still having to haul the same equipment is going to be a whole different world in what will happen.  There just is no charts for this.
The game is like real life, you don't know how far that second group is going to get in a minute, because in truth, you wouldn't know for sure in the real situation either. you would assume a logical guess and hope for the best, the same is true in the game