Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Content Count

    3,124
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    6

Reputation Activity

  1. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from IanL in PBEM game without any cheating   
    as a noob I would suggest you just play the battle yourself, both sides which you can do very quickly and that will let you understand many things that are possible or not possible in the game, then use that knowledge to play a real opponent.
    In h2h matches which I have a few going at all times. If I have a match up or situation that I am not sure as to what the results likely will be, I just set up a test map with the similar condition and run it and see what the result are when running it enough times to get a sort of a average outcome, that helps me decide for my real battle. I have done that so much over the years I don't ever use charts or stats, I just know in my head what most situations will likely do because of seeing them play out so many times
  2. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Ales Dvorak in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Or you all are not accounting for the fact that BF has been producing and the reason it seems like there is a slow down is that they are producing products that are not us.
    With the fact that we now know they have a couple of government projects is likely a big part of why we see the amount of finished projects we now have.
    BF is actively producing, we just are not the beneficiary's of it.
  3. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Vergeltungswaffe in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Or you all are not accounting for the fact that BF has been producing and the reason it seems like there is a slow down is that they are producing products that are not us.
    With the fact that we now know they have a couple of government projects is likely a big part of why we see the amount of finished projects we now have.
    BF is actively producing, we just are not the beneficiary's of it.
  4. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from IronCat60 in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Very well said Vet 0369
    That is basically how I looked at this thread.
    We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered.
     
    So this thread is a perfect example of that.
    Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster.
    Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else.
    Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much.
    They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs.
     
    The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company.
    But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration  with life is constant.
     
  5. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Very well said Vet 0369
    That is basically how I looked at this thread.
    We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered.
     
    So this thread is a perfect example of that.
    Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster.
    Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else.
    Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much.
    They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs.
     
    The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company.
    But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration  with life is constant.
     
  6. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Pete Wenman in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    Very well said Vet 0369
    That is basically how I looked at this thread.
    We live at a time where there is people that have no patience and all of their thoughts are self centered.
     
    So this thread is a perfect example of that.
    Person likes the game, wants more of the game and is not getting more of the game fast enough for their personal wants. - Thus there must be a problem and that problem must be from the source of who makes the game. They need and must do it faster.
    Never in the process of their thinking is there a care or concern about that source or how it would impact that, the thought is focused on getting more faster, nothing else.
    Never does the thought cross their mind that the method presently being used is what is already creating the thing they enjoy so much.
    They have no respect for the efforts of others if it does not meet their perceived needs.
     
    The sad thing is, their view does impact things and how people view this company.
    But what is even more sad, I am sure this trait is impacting their life in more aspects than what we see here. I am sure their frustration  with life is constant.
     
  7. Upvote
    slysniper reacted to Vet 0369 in Here is What I Dont Understand about BF?   
    “Patience is a Virtue”
     
    I recently listened to a news report that said how societies are becoming less “virtuous” because many have no patience. The study attributes it to our modern “conveniences” such as cell phones, laptops, tablets, computers, and most importantly, the internet. “We’ve” (notice the apostrophe that indicate this is a contraction for we have) become so used to instant gratification, that we get stressed when we have to wait for a stop light to change, or for a walk light to cross the street. I grew up in a time when the F-51 Mustang and F-4U Corsair were still front line fighters, and the P-9 Panther and F-86 were developing jet fighter tactics in the Korean conflict. If you wanted to read the “latest” book, you walked or rode your bike to the library. I was a teenager when jet-powered commercial flights became viable for the masses, so we developed patience. I remember setting for one or two hours, patiently untangling a bird’s (notice in this case, the apostrophe indicates possession, the nest of the bird) nest tangle in my fishing line because the the only alternative was to cut the line and lose half my line (as an impatient person would do) that would mean that I’d have to buy a new line, which I couldn’t afford.
    What has this rambling have to do with the thread? The BFC staff and owners are patient. They are not rushing pell mell to create content for sale, not caring if that content is correct, accurate, or as free from bugs as possible. While we are all free to “suggest”changes and “improvements” to the BFC business model, NONE of us know anything about the specifics of their decisions. “We” are nothing more than the children who constantly whine “Are we there yet?”
    Take a break, sit back, and play a scenario that you haven’t played yet. BE VIRTUOUS!
    A previous poster sardonically questioned some word usages;
    Loose - the opposite of tight (My trousers are so loose that they fell down in the middle of the mall.)
    Lose - the opposite of win, or to misplace something (I hope the New York Yankees lose the next game to the Boston Red Sox. They might if Mookie Betts doesn’t lose his edge)
    Whose - generally used as a possessive for a group (The council, whose responsibility is to manage ....)
    Who’s - possessive for an individual (That loose woman who’s dog peed on my trousers on the floor of the mall ....), or the contraction for “who is” (who’s going?)
    While a spellchecker can be a buddy (I actually consider it a crutch for the lazy), a dictionary is your best friend. I was a technical writer for more than 30 years, and used a dictionary for that entire time, unless I knew that the spellchecker was correct.
  8. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from sburke in RPG reloading   
    Aurelius is correct and he has it down to perfection on his times as to how to get a shot off and then run back into cover.
    And his proof was how he managed to keep one ATGM team alive after multiple firings on my American force that I could not get a lock on him with.
  9. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Aurelius in RPG reloading   
    Aurelius is correct and he has it down to perfection on his times as to how to get a shot off and then run back into cover.
    And his proof was how he managed to keep one ATGM team alive after multiple firings on my American force that I could not get a lock on him with.
  10. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from IanL in What would a WW2 battalion typically be expected to achieve?   
    Well, it all depends on what is wanted from the design.
    For those here that are wanting a feel in the game that seems realistic. Then any design done with that 3 to 1 ratio, will likely get it. No matter the size.
    For no real life commander is going to order a attack with infantry unless he believes he has at least that type of a advantage.
    ( but as to the challenge of game play, there is hardly any at that ratio unless there is some great defensive terrain advantages.) thus boring to many players.
     
    Where as, to create a battle in CM that gives the chance of the battle to swing either way in its outcome generally requires that ratio to be 3 to 2 and limiting the time so that the offence cannot take its time to dismantle the defense piecemeal.  (which none of these things are realistic to as to situations that commanders would want to commit there troops to.)
    But when the goal of the design is not to portray history as much as it is to create a situations where a player decisions will either bring a victory of defeat type results. Then that is where the design for a single scenario goes. (So I would not expect that to change in many of the scenario's that get created)
     
    Just feel fortunate that you do have campaigns that you can have as one sided battles as you like and that there is interest in the fact in that you are wondering if the losses you do suffer will cost you down the road as battle upon battle adds up. (That is how the interest is created) 
    But no matter what you design, there has to be a way to create a interest as to your decisions making a outcome as to the results.
    I personally hate most campaigns, why, because after investing way too many hours into them , I find most, even when making poor decisions allow me to go on from map to map, continuing to give me the impression I am doing a good job and rewarding me. Where as in truth, there is no real punishment towards me for bad choices.
     
    I don't care how the designer creates the battles, what I care about is has the designer made a situation that I feel my decisions matters - that is the key to a good design.
  11. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Bulletpoint in What would a WW2 battalion typically be expected to achieve?   
    Well, it all depends on what is wanted from the design.
    For those here that are wanting a feel in the game that seems realistic. Then any design done with that 3 to 1 ratio, will likely get it. No matter the size.
    For no real life commander is going to order a attack with infantry unless he believes he has at least that type of a advantage.
    ( but as to the challenge of game play, there is hardly any at that ratio unless there is some great defensive terrain advantages.) thus boring to many players.
     
    Where as, to create a battle in CM that gives the chance of the battle to swing either way in its outcome generally requires that ratio to be 3 to 2 and limiting the time so that the offence cannot take its time to dismantle the defense piecemeal.  (which none of these things are realistic to as to situations that commanders would want to commit there troops to.)
    But when the goal of the design is not to portray history as much as it is to create a situations where a player decisions will either bring a victory of defeat type results. Then that is where the design for a single scenario goes. (So I would not expect that to change in many of the scenario's that get created)
     
    Just feel fortunate that you do have campaigns that you can have as one sided battles as you like and that there is interest in the fact in that you are wondering if the losses you do suffer will cost you down the road as battle upon battle adds up. (That is how the interest is created) 
    But no matter what you design, there has to be a way to create a interest as to your decisions making a outcome as to the results.
    I personally hate most campaigns, why, because after investing way too many hours into them , I find most, even when making poor decisions allow me to go on from map to map, continuing to give me the impression I am doing a good job and rewarding me. Where as in truth, there is no real punishment towards me for bad choices.
     
    I don't care how the designer creates the battles, what I care about is has the designer made a situation that I feel my decisions matters - that is the key to a good design.
  12. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Shorker in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
    But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
    So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
     
    But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
     
    But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
     
     
     
  13. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Freyberg in Gearing up for Rome to Victory   
    Had not played much CMFI lately so decided to mess around.
    Set up a QB against the AI on a very small map and selected Italian infantry as my force against a AI attack using forces of its choice.
    Normally I hate these things as to what they create.
     
    So the battle starts and I quickly see I am against Canadians with Sherman V's and a little bit of supporting infantry.
    I have MMG's and 45 MM mortars,  well perfect stuff to take on Armor, oh I did have two tanks, if you want to call them that. But hey, at least they had a chance of taking out the armor.
    But I started this thing , so lets see what I can do with infantry and having to use them in close assaults verse armor.
     
    It came out it had 8 Shermans, and about 20 men in brems and such.
    I started hiding all my men behind walls, hedges and in grape vines.
     
    Since the map was very small the AI kept the armor together as it moved to its objectives.
    Thus doing a good job of covering its own units if and when I let the infantry attack.
     
    But this turned into one of the funniest battles I have played in a long time. .
    My armor only accounted for one enemy tank.
    My infantry destroyed 3 Shermans and immobilized 4.
    The MMg's kept what little infantry there was at bay.
    I used the mortars on the tanks trying to help immobilize them. they accounted for one immobilization and maybe aided in one or 2 others.
     
    In came down to swarming infantry on the armor and close assaulting (Too bad there is no graphics other than HG's flying. but they were busy doing that.)
     
    It cost me 110 Italians, literally using ammo support troops on the mmg's as part of my attacks.
     
    Bloody and fun - sometimes this game really delivers.
     
    When I was done, It was like I started thinking, this would make a great scenario. What a mismatch .
    (and amazed that what is or should be the weak side did have strength in only one thing, numbers, the number of men I had to throw at those tanks).
     
     
     
  14. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from IanL in Gearing up for Rome to Victory   
    Had not played much CMFI lately so decided to mess around.
    Set up a QB against the AI on a very small map and selected Italian infantry as my force against a AI attack using forces of its choice.
    Normally I hate these things as to what they create.
     
    So the battle starts and I quickly see I am against Canadians with Sherman V's and a little bit of supporting infantry.
    I have MMG's and 45 MM mortars,  well perfect stuff to take on Armor, oh I did have two tanks, if you want to call them that. But hey, at least they had a chance of taking out the armor.
    But I started this thing , so lets see what I can do with infantry and having to use them in close assaults verse armor.
     
    It came out it had 8 Shermans, and about 20 men in brems and such.
    I started hiding all my men behind walls, hedges and in grape vines.
     
    Since the map was very small the AI kept the armor together as it moved to its objectives.
    Thus doing a good job of covering its own units if and when I let the infantry attack.
     
    But this turned into one of the funniest battles I have played in a long time. .
    My armor only accounted for one enemy tank.
    My infantry destroyed 3 Shermans and immobilized 4.
    The MMg's kept what little infantry there was at bay.
    I used the mortars on the tanks trying to help immobilize them. they accounted for one immobilization and maybe aided in one or 2 others.
     
    In came down to swarming infantry on the armor and close assaulting (Too bad there is no graphics other than HG's flying. but they were busy doing that.)
     
    It cost me 110 Italians, literally using ammo support troops on the mmg's as part of my attacks.
     
    Bloody and fun - sometimes this game really delivers.
     
    When I was done, It was like I started thinking, this would make a great scenario. What a mismatch .
    (and amazed that what is or should be the weak side did have strength in only one thing, numbers, the number of men I had to throw at those tanks).
     
     
     
  15. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Gearing up for Rome to Victory   
    Had not played much CMFI lately so decided to mess around.
    Set up a QB against the AI on a very small map and selected Italian infantry as my force against a AI attack using forces of its choice.
    Normally I hate these things as to what they create.
     
    So the battle starts and I quickly see I am against Canadians with Sherman V's and a little bit of supporting infantry.
    I have MMG's and 45 MM mortars,  well perfect stuff to take on Armor, oh I did have two tanks, if you want to call them that. But hey, at least they had a chance of taking out the armor.
    But I started this thing , so lets see what I can do with infantry and having to use them in close assaults verse armor.
     
    It came out it had 8 Shermans, and about 20 men in brems and such.
    I started hiding all my men behind walls, hedges and in grape vines.
     
    Since the map was very small the AI kept the armor together as it moved to its objectives.
    Thus doing a good job of covering its own units if and when I let the infantry attack.
     
    But this turned into one of the funniest battles I have played in a long time. .
    My armor only accounted for one enemy tank.
    My infantry destroyed 3 Shermans and immobilized 4.
    The MMg's kept what little infantry there was at bay.
    I used the mortars on the tanks trying to help immobilize them. they accounted for one immobilization and maybe aided in one or 2 others.
     
    In came down to swarming infantry on the armor and close assaulting (Too bad there is no graphics other than HG's flying. but they were busy doing that.)
     
    It cost me 110 Italians, literally using ammo support troops on the mmg's as part of my attacks.
     
    Bloody and fun - sometimes this game really delivers.
     
    When I was done, It was like I started thinking, this would make a great scenario. What a mismatch .
    (and amazed that what is or should be the weak side did have strength in only one thing, numbers, the number of men I had to throw at those tanks).
     
     
     
  16. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Well a new one on the top of my list is.
    Sleeping troops.
    I was playing some different night scenarios at one point and I was trying to infiltrate enemy lines with elite units that were unknown to the enemy.
    It dawned on me how unrealistic it was, every enemy unit on the alert , all watching and waiting to ambush my men.
    Where as, this is the farthest from the truth.. If no enemy are known to be in a area, most men are in a state of sleep. listening post are set, a percentage of men are on watch and the rest are either trying to get needed task done or needed rest. (And this is not just at night, even in the day, during down times, commanders are trying to make sure their men are getting rest.)
     
    So it crossed my mind, the designer should have a feature to put a certain percentage of men to sleep at the start of the battle, providing only a small portion of each squad to be active.
    This is the state they remain in til enemy gun fire is heard or friendly troops spot enemy units or things along these lines. Then they awake depending on how close they are to the event and then a little time of not full ability as they get their act together to be able to fight and figure out what is going on.
     
    Anyway, as someone that has done this for real, I know for a fact its only because of this that we were able to do such feats. Literally were able to get right inside enemy camps.
    I knew of one sniper team which actually waited in some scrubs for hours near a commanders tent for them to go to sleep and snuck in and obtained planning documents right of the tables in there and then managed to get out of there in time before it was noticed, which was at about 4:00am, then it was like a ant bed. that has been stomped on.
    They had every troop on that mountain side patrolling and searching, their commander was pissed and he was willing to risk his men to try and catch  who did it.
  17. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    I like your thinking.
    I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment.
    I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan.
    Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book)
    So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
     
     
     
  18. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Well a new one on the top of my list is.
    Sleeping troops.
    I was playing some different night scenarios at one point and I was trying to infiltrate enemy lines with elite units that were unknown to the enemy.
    It dawned on me how unrealistic it was, every enemy unit on the alert , all watching and waiting to ambush my men.
    Where as, this is the farthest from the truth.. If no enemy are known to be in a area, most men are in a state of sleep. listening post are set, a percentage of men are on watch and the rest are either trying to get needed task done or needed rest. (And this is not just at night, even in the day, during down times, commanders are trying to make sure their men are getting rest.)
     
    So it crossed my mind, the designer should have a feature to put a certain percentage of men to sleep at the start of the battle, providing only a small portion of each squad to be active.
    This is the state they remain in til enemy gun fire is heard or friendly troops spot enemy units or things along these lines. Then they awake depending on how close they are to the event and then a little time of not full ability as they get their act together to be able to fight and figure out what is going on.
     
    Anyway, as someone that has done this for real, I know for a fact its only because of this that we were able to do such feats. Literally were able to get right inside enemy camps.
    I knew of one sniper team which actually waited in some scrubs for hours near a commanders tent for them to go to sleep and snuck in and obtained planning documents right of the tables in there and then managed to get out of there in time before it was noticed, which was at about 4:00am, then it was like a ant bed. that has been stomped on.
    They had every troop on that mountain side patrolling and searching, their commander was pissed and he was willing to risk his men to try and catch  who did it.
  19. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from BletchleyGeek in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    I like your thinking.
    I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment.
    I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan.
    Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book)
    So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
     
     
     
  20. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from General Jack Ripper in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
    But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
    So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
     
    But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
     
    But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
     
     
     
  21. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from IanL in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    I like your thinking.
    I agree with you on all three areas. ( I construct 3d models for a living and that is exactly how you can improve the map making ability for the game) what could be a easy start to that is providing the ability to split screen, meaning two views, one for the 3d view and one for their present 2d systems. Then they could take their time getting abilities to do thing directly in the 3d environment.
    I love your concept to programming battle plans for item 2. I think AI scripting is very unnatural in its present forms. But a system of memory that repeats moves of what a person shows for each unit would be a interesting way of approaching it. (still would need trigger overrides and such) but I would love to just show how I want the units to move and where to exactly locate and have the machine try to carry out the plan.
    Freedom to create is always on the top of my list also. (any restrictions is always a negative in my book)
    So I don't even like it when they try to limit it to just the historical units present at only certain times (that's great when you want a historical set up but why not allow for a button option where that can be removed. basically any unit available for any time or any army). It would allow crazy stuff but also some interesting things that are historical also.Like use of captured equipment .
     
     
     
  22. Like
    slysniper reacted to Heirloom_Tomato in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Here are my top 3 choices for CM3:
    1. The ability to place terrain tiles, trees, buildings, roads all in 3D view. I would like to build the entire map, including laying out AI plans in 3D.
    2. The ability to create an AI plan for a map or scenario by saving a play through. For example, I create a scenario and layout the AI plans for the defence but no plans for the attacker. I send out the scenario to several players who try their best to defeat the defenders. Each of those playthroughs is saved and imported into the scenario as an attack AI plan. This will also allow players to swap AI plans with other players. A sort of single player, H2H mode if you will.
    3. More of everything EXCEPT graphics. My kids are growing up in the generation with the best graphics processing available and some of the most visually stunning games ever made. Guess what they love to play the most? Minecraft. Anyone take a look at the graphics on Minecraft recently? It is the freedom to do what they want in the game that is appealing and not the graphics that keep them playing. I want a true sandbox mode where I the freedom to put any unit from any title up against each other. I want to see more tanks, more infantry, more experimental equipment that almost certainly never saw any action, airplanes, helicopters, larger maps, brigades vs brigades, you name it, bring it on! Keep the mod abilities in the game so those of you who do want to see every rivet and screw in every gun, the inside of every tank, right down to the grease zerts, can have the ability to mod to your hearts content. Just please dont give us 6 amazingly rendered vehicle models, 3 for each side, and then call that a game. If the graphics don't get any better than what we have now, but we have more freedom and more choice, that is a win for me.
  23. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
    But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
    So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
     
    But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
     
    But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
     
     
     
  24. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from benpark in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
    But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
    So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
     
    But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
     
    But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
     
     
     
  25. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from sburke in What I'd like to see in CM3...   
    Blame the Scenario designers, you are correct as to how seldom some units are used.
    But blame yourself also, I am not afraid to make my own set ups with those units that you claim are never used.
    So I have enjoyed them included in the game, where as I am so sick of Tiger tanks that I could not play with one for years and still be happy.
     
    But in general, don't expect someone else to create and meet your needs, CM gives you the ability to set up and create what you want . (That's the best part about the game, So removing options as to units would be a poor decision in my book.)
     
    But hey, I would still be playing CMX1 because of having so many units to choose from, but  game play in CMX2 was so much more realistic and  graphics that were not outdated made me accept the fact I am limited as to time periods I can now only play in. (So CM3 would have to be a massive improvement in play before I would accept the fact I was limited even more by fewer units to being able to create different match ups with.
     
     
     
×
×
  • Create New...