Jump to content

slysniper

Members
  • Posts

    3,915
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    10

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Bud Backer in Does Soviet tactics work in Combat Mission?   
    Running said tournament and having the ability to watch the battles, you are correct in the statement, that use of NATO type tactics just is a good way to get your head handed to you. At least in that battle anyway.
    But learning how to move in mass and using Russian type tactics is also not a easy skill.  Its a situation of understanding that you have no advantage other than numbers, so finding a method to close in on the enemy and getting into a knife fight is your only good option on how to win the fight. And in knife fights, the losses are generally equal, thus the larger force wins the day. But its never pretty.
    So in my mind Soviat doctrine has alot of that built into it.
  2. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from George MC in Add something new please.   
    oh, here we go again. Another thread with the same old, same old.
    Most of the same cast of charectors jump in and add their comments.
    And then at some point the whole original discussion is long in the past.
     
    Let people make their comments as to what they think needs to be improved in the game.
    It hurts no one.
     
    And as to the views of the original poster, likely much of it will never happen, that is his problem to deal with not mine.
     
    But for all those out there that want change and something new and refreshing, if that is what you think will make you happy, have hope, some day CMX3 will come, and when it does. Just remember you were the ones that really wanted it and needed it.
    because I recall how that played out when they went from engine 1 to 2 and how many of those that wanted all sorts of changes, many were not so happy when they actually received much of what they requested because it did not play out as they expected.
    So when that day comes, just be prepared to understand, it will not meet your visions of the perfect game. It will be the third effort to make a engine even more capable to reflect the battlefield and thd combat that takes place on it. it will have new methods to reflect the same things, to some it will be great, to others they likely will complain, and thus we will see threads like this still and nothing ever really changes as to how we deal with each other on these forums.
     
     
  3. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Add something new please.   
    oh, here we go again. Another thread with the same old, same old.
    Most of the same cast of charectors jump in and add their comments.
    And then at some point the whole original discussion is long in the past.
     
    Let people make their comments as to what they think needs to be improved in the game.
    It hurts no one.
     
    And as to the views of the original poster, likely much of it will never happen, that is his problem to deal with not mine.
     
    But for all those out there that want change and something new and refreshing, if that is what you think will make you happy, have hope, some day CMX3 will come, and when it does. Just remember you were the ones that really wanted it and needed it.
    because I recall how that played out when they went from engine 1 to 2 and how many of those that wanted all sorts of changes, many were not so happy when they actually received much of what they requested because it did not play out as they expected.
    So when that day comes, just be prepared to understand, it will not meet your visions of the perfect game. It will be the third effort to make a engine even more capable to reflect the battlefield and thd combat that takes place on it. it will have new methods to reflect the same things, to some it will be great, to others they likely will complain, and thus we will see threads like this still and nothing ever really changes as to how we deal with each other on these forums.
     
     
  4. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Opening Artillery in Scenarios   
    its should be simple, arty should be allowed but there is just too many players that cannot handle playing against arty. Thus many house rules are too restrictive
    The rule started coming about because there were players that would use it and strike set up areas of their opponant which is totally gamey, thus a good reason for not wanting to allow it. But other than that, there is no reason it should not be allowed.
     
    I recall one battle where I preset my arty to land where I antisipated my opponant to be on turn 3 then did some tricks to make it happen.
    He moved right into the location anticipated, he screemed and whinned and said I cheated.  we started over and I still kicked his butt. 
    But the original move was not incorrect. he should have moved knowing and thinking about possible arty strikes. But as I said, most players do not want to have to play or think about what it takes to deal with it.
    So in general, they have made house rules that really hurt game play if you are playing with a country that has real slow arty times to call in and there is no way to use it in the initial stages of the attack.
     
    It is a area that players should discuss with each other. but you have my view on it. Other than targeting set up zones at the start of a battle, you cannot justify any other restriction as far as i am concerned for the attacker or the defender.
  5. Like
    slysniper reacted to Combatintman in !983 British training film on fighting the Soviet MRR Advance Guard   
    Ok … so let’s start with what ChuckDyke said:
    “Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”
    He posted a video about the Battle for Binh Ba in South Vietnam 
    Let’s see what I said in response:
    “Binh Ba was hardly Hue, Fallujah, Berlin or Stalingrad though was it?  This was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties. The Australian Army lacks the size and experience to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village so MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
    For those not familiar with Binh Ba, this is a contemporary map.  The grid squares are 1km so the total mapped area is 4km². 

    Note that it does not fill that area.
    Moving on then to the Australian Army’s own doctrinal publications as an example:
    According to Land Warfare Publication-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments,
    The urban environment is classified into the following zones:
    a. the city core,
    b. the core periphery,
    c. commercial ribbons,
    d. residential sprawl,
    e. industrial areas,
    f. outlying high-rise areas, and
    g. shanty towns
    This is just one reason I stated that Binh Ba was not an urban environment as it only has one of those characteristics.  The same publication cites the battles for Fallujah, Grozny, Hue and Stalingrad in its examples of urban combat.  That publication makes one reference to Binh Ba as the preface to Chapter 7 – Building Clearance as follows (my bold):
    The battle was triggered shortly after 8.00am when a Centurion tank travelling through the village was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade. Initial intelligence suggested there were two Viet Cong platoons in the village. From the strength of the fire met by the company sent to deal with them, however, it was apparent that the enemy presence was much greater. There followed several hours of devastatingly fierce fighting. Twice tanks swept through the village, returning enemy fire by blowing open the walls of the houses. Then each house was cleared room by room by the infantry. By nightfall the village was still not secure and fighting continued in the area the following day. When the battle was finally over the enemy toll was 91 – at a cost of just one Australian life and eight wounded.
    The battle of Binh Ba posed the perennial problem of the war in Vietnam – how to separate the enemy from innocent civilians. The occupation of towns and villages by the Viet Cong was a deliberate tactic designed either to ambush the relieving troops or to cause the Australians to use an excess of force.
    Now ChuckDyke initially said (my bold):  “Here is something for house fighting and the difficulty of maintaining command and control during MOUT operations.”  My response said:  “MOUT is certainly not the appropriate descriptor here.”
    Taking my argument that the Australian Army lacks the capability to do offensive operations against a well-prepared enemy in anything larger than a village let’s go back to LWP-G 3-9-6, Operations in Urban Environments.  Its Combined Arms Scenarios section (Chapter 8 refers) shows a Company Team attack in the context of a Battlegroup.  The example imagery map for that scenario has the Battlegroup boundary covering three streets and 22 buildings.  Hold that thought …
    The Australian Army is basically capable of deploying a division of three combat brigades.  This would be war of national survival stuff as its more recent deployments where the usual premise of ‘to deploy one, you need three’ comes into effect has been to deploy nothing bigger than a brigade.  Australian Army brigades sit in the three to four battalion range.  Being generous let’s say four battalions which gives you four battlegroups.  Keeping one in reserve, because it is good practice to have one then according to the example in the Australian Army’s official doctrine on urban operations, a brigade can conduct an offensive operation comprising nine streets with 66 buildings.  If we go for the war of national survival then, assuming one brigade is the divisional commander’s reserve, then that is 18 streets and 132 buildings.
    Here is a map of Hue where some of the calculations above have been applied to illustrate the point:

    The image below is the zoomed area that I have marked as a green rectangle in the overall city map.

    So in simple terms, according to the Australian Army's own doctrine, a brigade can conduct an attack on a small corner of a city.
    My point about the capabilities of the Australian Army is based on having served in it and knowing what it can and cannot do which I think the argument presented above demonstrates.  It is no more an insult than saying the Australian Army cannot deploy a parachute battalion.  Why?  It doesn’t have one.  Facing up to reality and knowing your strengths and weaknesses is an important discussion to have.  Nations/militaries that overestimate their own capabilities and don’t challenge them generally end up coming second in wars.  I recall that the British Army claimed (and bored everyone to death) that they were the masters of limited war/COIN because of Borneo, Malaya, Northern Ireland and the killer tactic of wearing berets/soft hats only to end up having to eat humble pie in Basra.  There are few people in British military circles and veterans who served there who disagree with the assertion that Basra was an utterly miserable performance on the part of the British Army.  One of my friends was killed there by the way so I have little interest in denigrating the sacrifice of those whose lives were changed there.
    On then to impugning the courage and sacrifice of veterans … Recalling that ChuckDyke said that my comments would not be welcome in an RSL (Returned Services League – a veteran’s association) I pointed out that I have been a member of it for 10 years.  Later ChuckDyke changes his position on the RSL and decides that it is not such a good thing after all because of the way it treated Vietnam Veterans.  A claim I don’t dispute, it is well documented, and it was not the organization’s finest hour.  Anyway – I think we can agree that his position on the RSL is inconsistent.  Whatever the argument, my membership subs help Australian veterans and while serving in the Australian Army I collected in Brisbane and Sydney for Legacy ... a veteran’s charity.
    For my part, I have been and continue to be a member of the RSL.  I am also a member of the Royal British Legion … you’ve guessed it … another veteran’s association.  This month I have given the equivalent of three full working days (in addition to my day job and my hobby ‘job’ for Battlefront) collecting for the Poppy Appeal plus assisting with the organization of, and attending, a cross laying ceremony at the town church as well of course as attending Remembrance Day itself and participated in the RBL committee meeting at which this most important appeal and other issues affecting veterans were discussed.
    One of those issues was our disgust that the County level RBL have decided that organizing the ANZAC service at the Commonwealth War Graves Cemetery on Cannock Chase is ‘too difficult.’  My branch is now taking it on and I am one of the lead members in this initiative.  The majority of the Commonwealth dead there are New Zealanders.  A country whose army I have never served in but the people commemorated there are fellow ANZACs.  Most of them died of Spanish Flu which the more ungenerous might say wasn’t a war death.  However, the Commonwealth War Graves Commission rightly designates them as war deaths and, incidentally, many of them had fought some hard actions on the Western Front before being brought back to the UK.  Hardly the behaviour of someone with no respect for the fallen.
    Nowhere in the phrase "this was a skirmish over a non-descript village which didn't even fill a grid square in Vietnam involving no more than 500 combatants on both sides and 100 casualties," do I denigrate veterans.  Non-descript village is a fact is the number of casualties and participants on both sides. 
    Anyway, I think I’ve made my point.
  6. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Kinophile in Khrizantema blindness   
    Ran at 2.5 Km and the same results , 4 US tanks destroyed in the first minute.
    No spotting issue until some evidence with some real info is provided.
     
     
    Tanks are actually much more blind as to things which are close, so again, its hard to say its always incorrect when the game does not spot a close danger.
    But I agree, its the up close and personnal contacts that when they are not spotted, can drive one crazy. I have had my share of those that it makes no sence as to why the unit is not spotted.
  7. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Agenda / Handguns.   
    Semmes
    I think everyone that plays the game has opinions on ways that the game could be better.
    And I do beleive the guys that work on the game and the company itself is constantly working on ways and want to make the game as realistic as possible. It is a part of the goals they have in general.
    But they can only do so much, they already have list of many items they would like to see. That list is full of items placed from high priority to low. 
    Some times, items on the list cannot be addressed. The programming in the game engine is just not there to do it.
    Sometimes its not addressed because the amount of programming for what is gained in the game is just not worth the amount of effort needed to make it happen.
    So one needs to understand that only those people doing the work will be the ones that will decide how and what the game will ever be. So we need to keep that in mind.
    What we as users can do, is try to make suggestions with logical data or historic facts as to items that might be improvements in the future.
    But so many players get upset when they dont see the items they would like to be improved happen after doing nothing more than making the request here on their site.
    But I wanted to just let you know that, yes, some of your issues have good points and yes they could be done better and no the game does not have it right presently. but what level each issue has to how the game plays and where it fits in the endless list of possible improvements for the future. Only the designers of the game know and its out of our hands. And no one that has commented in this thread has the power or understanding as to if it matters to the designer.
    Some of us Beta testers do know what they are focused on improving for the near future and that is about it and we get to make suggestions and such to those efforts, and what we read on the forum helps us remember things that could be improved but it still comes down to the people writting the code and making it actually happen. And being people, there is limits as to what they can do.
    But I personnaly respect the BF team and all the hard work they have done and what the game is and what they have adcheived. Others do also. That does not mean anyone thinks the game is the greatest thing ever and that its perfect or that it cannot be improved. What it means is that they have done something no one else has done and so yes, they are the best option that is presently available, but if someone else could do a better job and make a better product. I am sure the loyal following would drift away onto those better things. But for the time being, I think they need not worry, because there is nothing out there pulling people away because it does a better realistic job, that is for sure.
     
    So in that sence, yes there is a attitude as to the game being Great because what else has adcheived the same.
  8. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Sgt.Squarehead in Agenda / Handguns.   
    Semmes
    I think everyone that plays the game has opinions on ways that the game could be better.
    And I do beleive the guys that work on the game and the company itself is constantly working on ways and want to make the game as realistic as possible. It is a part of the goals they have in general.
    But they can only do so much, they already have list of many items they would like to see. That list is full of items placed from high priority to low. 
    Some times, items on the list cannot be addressed. The programming in the game engine is just not there to do it.
    Sometimes its not addressed because the amount of programming for what is gained in the game is just not worth the amount of effort needed to make it happen.
    So one needs to understand that only those people doing the work will be the ones that will decide how and what the game will ever be. So we need to keep that in mind.
    What we as users can do, is try to make suggestions with logical data or historic facts as to items that might be improvements in the future.
    But so many players get upset when they dont see the items they would like to be improved happen after doing nothing more than making the request here on their site.
    But I wanted to just let you know that, yes, some of your issues have good points and yes they could be done better and no the game does not have it right presently. but what level each issue has to how the game plays and where it fits in the endless list of possible improvements for the future. Only the designers of the game know and its out of our hands. And no one that has commented in this thread has the power or understanding as to if it matters to the designer.
    Some of us Beta testers do know what they are focused on improving for the near future and that is about it and we get to make suggestions and such to those efforts, and what we read on the forum helps us remember things that could be improved but it still comes down to the people writting the code and making it actually happen. And being people, there is limits as to what they can do.
    But I personnaly respect the BF team and all the hard work they have done and what the game is and what they have adcheived. Others do also. That does not mean anyone thinks the game is the greatest thing ever and that its perfect or that it cannot be improved. What it means is that they have done something no one else has done and so yes, they are the best option that is presently available, but if someone else could do a better job and make a better product. I am sure the loyal following would drift away onto those better things. But for the time being, I think they need not worry, because there is nothing out there pulling people away because it does a better realistic job, that is for sure.
     
    So in that sence, yes there is a attitude as to the game being Great because what else has adcheived the same.
  9. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from ratdeath in Agenda / Handguns.   
    Semmes
    I think everyone that plays the game has opinions on ways that the game could be better.
    And I do beleive the guys that work on the game and the company itself is constantly working on ways and want to make the game as realistic as possible. It is a part of the goals they have in general.
    But they can only do so much, they already have list of many items they would like to see. That list is full of items placed from high priority to low. 
    Some times, items on the list cannot be addressed. The programming in the game engine is just not there to do it.
    Sometimes its not addressed because the amount of programming for what is gained in the game is just not worth the amount of effort needed to make it happen.
    So one needs to understand that only those people doing the work will be the ones that will decide how and what the game will ever be. So we need to keep that in mind.
    What we as users can do, is try to make suggestions with logical data or historic facts as to items that might be improvements in the future.
    But so many players get upset when they dont see the items they would like to be improved happen after doing nothing more than making the request here on their site.
    But I wanted to just let you know that, yes, some of your issues have good points and yes they could be done better and no the game does not have it right presently. but what level each issue has to how the game plays and where it fits in the endless list of possible improvements for the future. Only the designers of the game know and its out of our hands. And no one that has commented in this thread has the power or understanding as to if it matters to the designer.
    Some of us Beta testers do know what they are focused on improving for the near future and that is about it and we get to make suggestions and such to those efforts, and what we read on the forum helps us remember things that could be improved but it still comes down to the people writting the code and making it actually happen. And being people, there is limits as to what they can do.
    But I personnaly respect the BF team and all the hard work they have done and what the game is and what they have adcheived. Others do also. That does not mean anyone thinks the game is the greatest thing ever and that its perfect or that it cannot be improved. What it means is that they have done something no one else has done and so yes, they are the best option that is presently available, but if someone else could do a better job and make a better product. I am sure the loyal following would drift away onto those better things. But for the time being, I think they need not worry, because there is nothing out there pulling people away because it does a better realistic job, that is for sure.
     
    So in that sence, yes there is a attitude as to the game being Great because what else has adcheived the same.
  10. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in Agenda / Handguns.   
    Semmes
    Some how your attitude seems to be more about complaining about aspects of the game that you dont think does a very good job as to being realistic. 
    And to tell you the truth, I agree that many of the items on your list the game does do poorly, there is other things that I have no clue as to why you are complaining.
    But you need to understand, complaining is not going to get people to take your comment seriously.
    You need to discuss your reasons  with some logical facts that show how the game if falling short and then also its helpful as to suggestions as to how to make it better.
    You did try that with pistols at the start of the discussion, but you only evidence was that of the work of another player that you could not explain as to what he had done to get his numbers.
    Once it was looked at, still does not show a issue that seems to need addressing. 
    So then you went on to attack every thing you dont like about the game.
    Lets talk about a few.
    Units not taking cover (which I agree, the animation in the game does not show men going for cover as fast as you would exspect if it was a real person in the same situation. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it)
    AI pathing issues, all units are subjected to this, not just trucks.  No question, sometimes when the AI takes over the pathing instead of leaving it in players hands it does a terrible job as to what it decides on. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it) My last view of this was a AA truck I had as a key unit deciding to ignore my commands and I watch it drive onto a foot bridge and get stuck for the rest of the game.
    Ai use of Arty, yes this is a weak point in the game programming and has been a known weakness for a very long time. (could it be improved, sure would be nice, up to the programmers to ever improve it)
    Suppression has been discussed many times on the forum, again is it perfect, no. I think it is been shown pretty clearly that units recover from it way to fast compared to what it would be like in real life. But then again, everything in the game is happening way faster than it does in real combat. So how do you fix that and what is the correct fix. First, its a game and the blasted thing is already slow and boring as far as I am concerned. I sure dont want to make it more realistic so that it takes me twice as long to play and just that much more boring. but a discussion as to what is appropriate times for suppression should and could still be helpful for improving the game. How long should the effects likely last?
    As for the comment that the AI is targeting certain important units (Leaders and MG"S and such) maybe it is and if I was the programmer, I would have designed it to do it also. Becase in real life, it sure is done. So the question should be is it programmed in the game and do we have evidence that the incorrect units are taking and using the programming in its targeting. The only units that should have it programmed into them is when its a person looking down a sight and the enemy is close enough that they can tell who is the high priority target. But presently, I dont see anything that sticks out as being unrealistic, and that is again after just finishing a game where my MG's were consistantly the first or second man to go down in almost every fire fight. But in my view they should be. And guess what, I still kick the enemies butt, because I overwelmed them with fire power and I recrewed those MG's with other men and almost evey MG I had is still in the game and is working. Just as I was trained to do in real life.
     
    So just stop with the attitude and stop trying to act like you are the victom, you came to troll, if you want to make some real effort to discuss ways to improve one of these aspects, great.
    But we have seen the list of why the game is just a game and how the hell are we accepting the fact it is not perfect to the list makers standards. it gets old. because guess what. because its a game and its not going to be perfect, ever, do you understand. ever.
    But good discussions, might, just might get the programming gods to think about improvements if there is enough factors that can show the value of doing it.
     
  11. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Agenda / Handguns.   
    well, the part that just made me laugh, was it takes 135 rounds to do it, 
    Now how many times will the game let me do that any more
    I do not have that many pistol bearing men wanting to shoot that many rounds which they dont have at targets that far anymore.
     
    At one time, the game did have pistols way too accurate, they adjusted it and now I hardly ever notice a problem.
    I do think they are still a little too lethal, but not compared to most everything else in the games.
     
    Feed the troll, he is wanting a reaction. but no one is really taking him on, it sounds like this troll has proven to be of no true interest to most and that he is just once again making a fool of himself.
  12. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in China vs Russia vs USA Recruitment Video   
    My thoughts exactly. 
    Which countries are training the type of soildiers that will be mentally tough when a harsh conflict does come.
     
    But the sad thing is, I am no longer beleiving in countries and values of countries meaning much. Our political leaders are no more than puppets and the wars we are ingaged in has nothing to do with just conflicts between countries, there seems to be hidden agenda's. 
    When will we have lost enough trust of our Leaders to question what they are doing and where are they leading us to to say enough of this.
    To sacrifice for ones country should and was at one time a thing of honor, but if as a soilder you are supporting a corrupt system, then is there honor in it.
    We are living in times where we should be looking closely at those that lead us.  We look at history and can say a Nazi leader was part of a evil system and it was good they were stopped. But are we falling into the same problems of supporting evil also that pretends to be doing good in our behalf. (and this falls under many countries and leaders of the world, not just a few). 
    So watching this and seeing how countries pull at their people to support them in their armed forces and knowing the system and knowing what their militaries are likely to be used for brings me no happiness at all, I am at a point where I cannot understand why we as humans cannot see the wickedness of it all and just stop supporting it and those that use it. 
    I have no hatred for people of any country, I do have a great hatred for those that lead their people to do evil.
     
  13. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Chibot Mk IX in Khrizantema blindness   
    Ran at 2.5 Km and the same results , 4 US tanks destroyed in the first minute.
    No spotting issue until some evidence with some real info is provided.
     
     
    Tanks are actually much more blind as to things which are close, so again, its hard to say its always incorrect when the game does not spot a close danger.
    But I agree, its the up close and personnal contacts that when they are not spotted, can drive one crazy. I have had my share of those that it makes no sence as to why the unit is not spotted.
  14. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Khrizantema blindness   
    OK, I just ran a test to see how blind Russian armor is just over 2km.
    Hmmm,  4 destroyed american tanks in one minute, Now it is T64b1's  but this is why it gets old listening to these type of comments unless you are going to get some data as to what you are really seeing as being wrong.
    There was spotting confirmed within the first 10 seconds of the battle.
     
     
     
     
  15. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Khrizantema blindness   
    How many times must one say there is bias spotting in the game mechanics before it becomes true. 
    well, you have 330 post, I sure hope its not 100 times already
     
    I understand why it seems that way, but if there is any proof to it other than unfounded claims I really would like to see it.
     
    But I will counter with the comment that the system seems pretty accurate. Why, where did the bias go in CMCW. 
    What, there is Russian units that out spot US counter parts in that period of play. So did they just forget to put their bias calcs to that game or is it the engine does what it is entended to do and it kicks out pretty good results.
    For a game that tries it best to put every aspect to a mathimatical output from what data and infomation that is available. Its amazing how many will wish that they just throw in unreal numbers to suit threir bias wants. (what sence does that make in any way, oh I know---propaganda, that must be it)
  16. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Vergeltungswaffe in TURMS-T variants armor?   
    Calm down, its a good error that you have pointed out.
    And a tester by no means represent the company. 
    Now they generally are more  in tune as to how to get the information to the company so they can make corrections if they see fit.
     
    Attacking them is a good way to not get your item any attention.
    But I also have to admit, looking at a ui image is surely not a way I am deciding what a tank has for capabilitys, as long as it functions correctly in the game, its not much of a issue. But yes it would be nice to get the image right. 
    Now to understand how and when such things happens.
    BF focuses on a few projects at a time, they do not go back to other games and fix minor issues at that time, only when they are at a point where they are working with that game engine once again will they address items that have been brought up through all the time they have been working on other projects. 
    So even posting you issue will not have the company jumping on it to make your world better at the moment. But getting it listed as items to fix will be good for when the time comes that they are back to working on this game.
    You are wanting the item to be added to a mantus report, if a tester has done that for you, its all that can be done.
  17. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in TURMS-T variants armor?   
    Calm down, its a good error that you have pointed out.
    And a tester by no means represent the company. 
    Now they generally are more  in tune as to how to get the information to the company so they can make corrections if they see fit.
     
    Attacking them is a good way to not get your item any attention.
    But I also have to admit, looking at a ui image is surely not a way I am deciding what a tank has for capabilitys, as long as it functions correctly in the game, its not much of a issue. But yes it would be nice to get the image right. 
    Now to understand how and when such things happens.
    BF focuses on a few projects at a time, they do not go back to other games and fix minor issues at that time, only when they are at a point where they are working with that game engine once again will they address items that have been brought up through all the time they have been working on other projects. 
    So even posting you issue will not have the company jumping on it to make your world better at the moment. But getting it listed as items to fix will be good for when the time comes that they are back to working on this game.
    You are wanting the item to be added to a mantus report, if a tester has done that for you, its all that can be done.
  18. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Lethaface in Field Warrior Tournament - CMCW   
    I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested.
    Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play)
     
    This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less.

    Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum.

    Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they 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 one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%).
    Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills.
    Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.).
    A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1).
    Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them.
    No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him)

    If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent.
     
     
    This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.
  19. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from holoween in Field Warrior Tournament - CMCW   
    I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested.
    Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play)
     
    This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less.

    Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum.

    Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they 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 one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%).
    Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills.
    Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.).
    A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1).
    Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them.
    No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him)

    If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent.
     
     
    This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.
  20. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from CaptainTheDark in Colorized German pics (many unreleased) from Market Garden   
    The photo is shot from the deck of another ship.
  21. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from George MC in Field Warrior Tournament - CMCW   
    plan on seeing you there.  I have 15 commited at present and another 11 that said they would be signing up when the time came. So we should have a good size group when its all said and done.
  22. Like
    slysniper got a reaction from Monty's Mighty Moustache in Field Warrior Tournament - CMCW   
    I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested.
    Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play)
     
    This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less.

    Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum.

    Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they 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 one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%).
    Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills.
    Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.).
    A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1).
    Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them.
    No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him)

    If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent.
     
     
    This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.
  23. Thanks
    slysniper reacted to A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Field Warrior Tournament - CMCW   
    Anyone reading this looking for a challenge join this. @slysniper's CMBS tournament was really good. Very different and challenging. Totally worth playing. None of this balanced scenarios stuff - this is way harder.
     
  24. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from A Canadian Cat - was IanL in Field Warrior Tournament - CMCW   
    I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested.
    Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play)
     
    This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less.

    Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum.

    Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they 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 one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%).
    Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills.
    Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.).
    A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1).
    Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them.
    No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him)

    If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent.
     
     
    This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.
  25. Upvote
    slysniper got a reaction from Heirloom_Tomato in Field Warrior Tournament - CMCW   
    I am running this at "a Few Good Men" site and if you are not a member, there is no cost to join if you are interested.
    Below is a general discription of the format (and yes it requires you to mail turns through dropbox to play)
     
    This Combat Mission Cold War tournament consist of 5 rounds; one battle for each round, each battle lasting 30 minutes or less.

    Players are required to do approx 5 turns a week at a minimum.

    Format: Players will be given a selected force. The mission will be to do the best they can with the situation they have been given and the scoring will be given out to the top 50 percent from each side of the battle. In other words, the side given to the player could be very challenging, but perform better than 50 percent of the players playing that side of the battle and they have won and will be given a point value as to how they 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 one's score minus the opponents score (as to how they will be selected for the top 50%).
    Each player will be in charge of a different Nations forces throughout the 5 battles, so skill with all forces will be a factor. as well as both offensive and defensive skills.
    Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 30 minutes or less.).
    A dropbox folder is to be maintained with a invite to the Tournament master (Slysniper), This will provide me access to the game files if for any reason we need to replace a player or verify slow play issues. Please name the dropbox files in a method that I can tell who is vs who (exam: Jtimo vs grunt match1).
    Game files shall stay in the dropbox folder and not be deleted until the Gamemaster (@SlySniper) has copied and removed them.
    No surrender at any time is allowed. if you want to end a game early, then use cease fire with both players agreeing to those terms, if one player wants to play on instead, allow him to do so until he is satisfied. It is in your own best interest to put up the best fight you can no matter what. (No one wants to be that guy that has the best score posted against him)

    If for any reason a player needs to drop out of game play, just contact me and let me know of your intentions and I will make sure any non-completed game will be finished for the remaining opponent.
     
     
    This format has been received very well and this is going to be the third Tornament under this format.
×
×
  • Create New...