slysniper

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

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

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

9. One Engine - CMx3
game performance improvments, graphics improvements, ray tracing, intermediate distance bitmaps
additional editor features, dynamic operational campaigns
additional gameplay features, coop, LoS tool, visible aircraft

8. "Battlefield Asia": Modern Day
USA/NATO vs China
USA/NATO vs North Korea
China vs India
India vs Pakistan
(Afghanistan Update)

5. Arab-Israeli Wars: 1948–49, 56, 67, 73, 82, and 2006
Israeli War of Independence, 1948-49
Suez Crisis, 1956
Six Day War, 1967
Yom Kippur War, 1973
Lebanon Wars, 1982 & 2006

3. Afrika Korps: 1940-43 
WWII North Africa
Operation Torch, American North Africa Invasion Libya, Egypt, and Tunis 1942-43

2. Barbarossa: 1941-43
WWII Eastern Front
Can Combat Mission: Barbarossa to Berlin data be used as sort of an upgrade?
Invasion of Yugoslavia
Operation Typhoon
Case Blue
Blau to Stalingrad
Warsaw to Moscow
(also Finland)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, this has been known and reported and it is fixed, you will see the correction when the next patch is released.

It would be nice if the game did aim for what is the weaker location of the tank  when it is fully exposed.
But that brings up many questions as to how often should it do this.
Because if it did it all the time, then the results would be more like the hull down results, with all that grouping now on the turret.
 
But all gunners did not always aim for the perfect shot, so if the aiming should be adjusted, then to what.
What percentage of the shots should be aimed at the turret
what percentage at the tracks
What percentage at the turret ring
what percentage at center mass.
How should this be adjusted for the crew experience.
At what range should the crew be allowed to start targeting specific locations of the tank instead of center mass.
Should these factors be adjusted for each tank since optic and trajectory of round is going to make the gunner confident to aim at such things at different ranges depending on the tank he is in.
 
Ok, provide all that suggested data, then think about the work to put that all into the programming and to keep it accurate.
And you wonder why they just programmed center mass.  I dont.
 
Can the game be created to do this - Yes.
You have proven to some extent what the game does, well, that has been known for along time. So you show what the weaknesses of the game is.
 
What I am asking, is figure out how to answer all my questions and then suggestions as to how best to implement it.
Plus I am sure I have missed other factors that we should be implementing.
Like the fact  that the game does nothing to reflect viewing issues. Presently a tank on the skyline is as hard to spot as a tank in the shadows under a thick tree canopy.
There is no factor for any viewing issues other than a number added to make it harder to spot for certain terrain types that your line of sight passes through.
 
There is no adjustment to spotting for a target on the move compared to a non-moving target.
So if we are going to fix targeting. lets fix these items also.
So lets get a chart going for all the possible values there also that could impact the spotting numbers.
 
In otherwards, where do we draw the line at how much data to try to create and calc to represent this one feature in the game.
Personally, My answer would be very simple. Just have the game target the turret 40 percent of the time, hull 60 percent.
If the tracks are in view, then maybe aim for them 20% on a tank that has armor past your likely penetration ability.
 
But it would be a discussion of what the game should be doing, with the realization that the present game engine will not ever do that, but if the concepts are good, maybe it will impact the next game engine. I just think the focus needs to be helping to try to make the next engine better, than the concept that there is going to be programming changes to a present engine that it was not likely designed to do.
So providing realistic numbers on what we would like to see the game do would be a much better discussion.
 
 
 
 
 

Personally, I think center mass was used a majority of the time in the real situation.
The only time I think gunners in the war did anything else was  when they knew they had no chance of a kill doing such a shot.
 
That would mean the gunner would have had to have the knowledge that he needed to do that. (So that means he would have been informed he had to do this from command) or he had experienced it in his unit or from others in his  unit and was still alive to try to resolve the issue.
It also means he would have to be at a range that he could see to take such a shot.
 
But there is accounts of units knowing they needed to aim at weak points on certain tanks.
 
From the writing of German tank aces from 1941, they found they could not take on a kv1 to any extent. word passed quickly and there is plenty of accounts of how they were aiming for the gun to disable it of the tracks to immobilize it so as to be able to out position it.
We also have plenty of accounts from Sherman tankers that knew they needed to aim for the turret ring when possible when engaging from the front, which again could only happen if the range was close enough to do so.
But we also read that they were quickly trained to split their force , with the units from the front engaging and trying to use shoot and scoot tactics  and smoke to stay alive while one or two of their units tried to flank the enemy. All of which only works if you have the numeric advantage to do such a thing. Which at the end of the war they generally did.
Its not that the concept is incorrect for a gunner to aim at something other than center mass. But how and when would it be logical for such a thing to be implemented.
In your test, I can guarantee that a 1000 meters is not when such a tactic would have been used.
 

It would be nice if the game did aim for what is the weaker location of the tank  when it is fully exposed.
But that brings up many questions as to how often should it do this.
Because if it did it all the time, then the results would be more like the hull down results, with all that grouping now on the turret.
 
But all gunners did not always aim for the perfect shot, so if the aiming should be adjusted, then to what.
What percentage of the shots should be aimed at the turret
what percentage at the tracks
What percentage at the turret ring
what percentage at center mass.
How should this be adjusted for the crew experience.
At what range should the crew be allowed to start targeting specific locations of the tank instead of center mass.
Should these factors be adjusted for each tank since optic and trajectory of round is going to make the gunner confident to aim at such things at different ranges depending on the tank he is in.
 
Ok, provide all that suggested data, then think about the work to put that all into the programming and to keep it accurate.
And you wonder why they just programmed center mass.  I dont.
 
Can the game be created to do this - Yes.
You have proven to some extent what the game does, well, that has been known for along time. So you show what the weaknesses of the game is.
 
What I am asking, is figure out how to answer all my questions and then suggestions as to how best to implement it.
Plus I am sure I have missed other factors that we should be implementing.
Like the fact  that the game does nothing to reflect viewing issues. Presently a tank on the skyline is as hard to spot as a tank in the shadows under a thick tree canopy.
There is no factor for any viewing issues other than a number added to make it harder to spot for certain terrain types that your line of sight passes through.
 
There is no adjustment to spotting for a target on the move compared to a non-moving target.
So if we are going to fix targeting. lets fix these items also.
So lets get a chart going for all the possible values there also that could impact the spotting numbers.
 
In otherwards, where do we draw the line at how much data to try to create and calc to represent this one feature in the game.
Personally, My answer would be very simple. Just have the game target the turret 40 percent of the time, hull 60 percent.
If the tracks are in view, then maybe aim for them 20% on a tank that has armor past your likely penetration ability.
 
But it would be a discussion of what the game should be doing, with the realization that the present game engine will not ever do that, but if the concepts are good, maybe it will impact the next game engine. I just think the focus needs to be helping to try to make the next engine better, than the concept that there is going to be programming changes to a present engine that it was not likely designed to do.
So providing realistic numbers on what we would like to see the game do would be a much better discussion.
 
 
 
 
 

If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull.
So yes the game is not perfect.
But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards,  playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter.
In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game.
So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why.
Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes.
But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation
I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is.
 
If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations. 

If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull.
So yes the game is not perfect.
But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards,  playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter.
In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game.
So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why.
Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes.
But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation
I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is.
 
If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations. 

If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull.
So yes the game is not perfect.
But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards,  playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter.
In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game.
So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why.
Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes.
But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation
I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is.
 
If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations. 

If you put two tanks in the open and have a duel. Then your math showing how hull down or not hull down is likely perfect. And I agree, in that case, being exposed and not hull down might be safer since more enemy rounds will hit the hull.
So yes the game is not perfect.
But what you guys seem to forget is that when playing. I am not wanting to challenge the enemy in such a manor. I will be rolling my tank up on the enemy flank, in hopefully a hull down position. Wanting to get the spot and first shot off before they can spot me, then if they do spot me, I hope for the hulldown position to help in their first shot being a miss. In otherwards,  playing smart has nothing to do with where the enemy round hits and relying on my thickest armor to save my butt. That concept is for those that are focused too much on one aspect of the whole matter.
In my example, the imperfect targeting mechanics of the game does not impact the outcome nearly as much. What is a bigger factor in all this is how good is the game at representing getting a hit or a miss on target and how realistic is this in the game.
So I could sit and complain about first round hit and misses at different distances, but I dont. Why.
Because I am smart enough to understand that its a game, with many limitations and as a whole it does a good job of representing what is real. Could it do better, heck yes.
But I sure am not going to be a jerk and go on month after month, year after year about some of its short comings. Like that is helping the situation
I hope that when a engine 3 system does get developed, that it will be even better at these concepts, but until then, I can accept this game for what it is.
 
If you want to be of any value on this forum. Come up with data and calcs as to what the game should be trying to represent in different situations. 

Well considering every military in history has trained to aim for center of mass, this seems like the nitpick of all nitpicks. If anything, its an indication the game is behaving correctly. Absurd. Aim does not get magically thrown off target just by firing. This is why recoil mechanisms exist. And if we are going to nitpick and say "the ground is shifting" well as it turns out militaries are actually competent and train for this eventuality. Weapons crews, gun crews, tank crews, etc all take this into account and make micro adjustments while firing to ensure they are compensating for these small variables. Though I know some here will refuse to accept it, I think it is clear that the game accurately models a crews overall competence depending on its veterancy level, and that is more than enough to cover this "issue." Yes, and the sky is blue. Seriously, what is the point? This is known in the real world, yet there is not a single military out there that advocates for fighting tanks out in the open opposed to hull down positions. Again, it turns out that militaries are pretty competent when it comes to this stuff. Yeah, the driver can't see anything in a hull down position. That's why the job of spotting targets is the commander and gunners job, the two people with the best optics that can see over the hull down cover.  Not true. Spotting is 1:1. If less of a vehicle is visible it is harder to spot. There are tons of anecdotal examples of this on these forums alone, people complaining that their tank can't see through some bush or through some smoke or dust, etc. The more obscured from view a vehicle is, the harder it is to spot initially.  The obvious answer is stop getting your tanks shot at. Regardless of what the tank is or what is shooting at it, it is never a good thing to be directly engaged. Again, this is a nitpick. Soft systems on the outside of a tank are more vulnerable than the best armored parts of the tank. This isn't rocket science. And we all know that if BFC were to introduce some form of "center mass deviation" where there was some random chance applied to shots to be off their aimpoints to varying degrees, you would likely be the first to start complaining about how unrealistic that is because ballistics are a well known and quantifiable science.  Mantlets are a historical weakspot on tanks, both in WWII and the modern era. Anywhere you have a gap or disconnect between otherwise solid parts is going to create structural weakness.  This is objectively false. I already know the thread where this hysterical myth first gained infamy, and I don't feel the need to restate the obvious. If you think standing in the open is more conducive to your own survival, then more power to you.
Finally, its a game. It simulates combat pretty damn well. And its fun too. No game is perfect. No sim is perfect. Hell, some argue reality isn't perfect. If you can't get over that, and you really think the game is so terribly flawed in all these micro ways that add up to ruin the game, then just don't play it. Life is short. I'm sure there are better things out there than spending years constantly trying to prove the already known quantity that nothing is perfect. 

Excellent
You have done a great job.
I played through the 3 first battles tonight. really enjoyed the premise.
It does a good job of making one feel like they are dealing with what the Soldiers' are dealing with over there.
 
Just to let you know, its done a number on me also, always like it when it gives a good challenge, or shows me I can screw up.
Without giving anything away I will only say I lost way more equipment than I should have in the 1st battle, that alone will likely impact me , at least it has so far.
 
The loss was 5 men and 6 Hummers, you likely will know how that happened.
 

I am going to host a Tournament over at "A few good Men" site and just wanted to post here to give others who might not use that site a chance to get involved.

The format will be new, in that you will be given a selected force. Your mission will be to do the best you can with the situation you have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle.

So in otherwards, your side could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and you have won and will be given a point value as to how you have done.

Winners will get a score of somewhere between 80 to 100 points per match depending on how they have performed to each other. so best player will receive 100 points, lowest winner will receive 80 points, and everyone else is somewhere in between.

Scoring in scenarios will be your score minus your opponents score (as to how you will be selected for the top 50%).


Each round you will be in charge of a different Nations forces, so skill with all forces will be a factor.


The first scenario is ready, a Marine excort team with additional elite units attached are in a small town for a pick up when they are attacked by a Syrian mech recon company bent on their distruction.

quick and intense (battle will be 10 -15 minutes in length.)