slysniper

You really need to read some books on the subject. 
But American snipers have many task that they can perform, I find that in CMBS I am able to pretty much do anything I was asked to do in RL.
 From scout to spotter, to recon, to delaying tactics. to combat fire support , to designated target missions.
In the WWII titles, they are not as flexible or as powerful. but they still can be a important factor in your force.
 
In CMBS when it is a buy your own force situation. I find that my snipers are my most important infantry asset. Armor, arty, then infantry.
With snipers doing more damage than any other infantry units I use, MG's, grenade launchers and such.
My sniper teams that get used normally will have kills in the teens and will be my units to create the most casualties on the enemy.
For two or 3 men teams and the cost, that is a good trade.
 
I will not write a book for you on how to use them, but everything mentioned is good.
But I will give one comment on a tactic not mentioned.
You do not need to baby them or keep them back in a battle if you want them to be killers on the battlefield for you. if you want them to kill, they need to be at the range they can do that. to keep them doing that they need to in a area where your normal infantry units has fire suppression on the enemy. While the other units can pin the enemy, Sniper units can eliminate them.
Learning to use them in the game for this might change your view on how snipers work.
Keep in mind, A sniper never puts himself in a fair fight, he always wants the advantage, and if he cannot keep that advantage, he always has a escape route to get  out of a bad situation and to set himself up at a new location where he has the advantage once more.
Gaming and losing snipers is no issue, these are not real men, risk reward actions is worth trying in the game, its not like losing someone in real life.
 
 
 

The original data is good info. 
Its not like common sense lets you know most of the ones that matter. But its still nice to see a number as to which ones are enough to focus on during play.

The original data is good info. 
Its not like common sense lets you know most of the ones that matter. But its still nice to see a number as to which ones are enough to focus on during play.

The original data is good info. 
Its not like common sense lets you know most of the ones that matter. But its still nice to see a number as to which ones are enough to focus on during play.

I figured out the problem, the only people that can be happy are the ones that really enjoy any period of time as to the wargaming periods provided.
Because BF really does not have the ability to support the 6 different games they are presently marketing, to keep adding to each has created way to much time between when they can add on and make additions to any one. The interest is lost because of the big time gap.
Only those players that can be content with each and every release until the next one seem to be somewhat content.
If CMBS was the only game that mattered to you as a player, you would be in hell as to how long it takes to get a add on.

I figured out the problem, the only people that can be happy are the ones that really enjoy any period of time as to the wargaming periods provided.
Because BF really does not have the ability to support the 6 different games they are presently marketing, to keep adding to each has created way to much time between when they can add on and make additions to any one. The interest is lost because of the big time gap.
Only those players that can be content with each and every release until the next one seem to be somewhat content.
If CMBS was the only game that mattered to you as a player, you would be in hell as to how long it takes to get a add on.

just add these issues with all the other things that disappointed you in 2020

Well the size of the battle does have a great impact on what type of tactics might be used.
But it really comes down to the amount of troops in a given area as to how scouting and probes are to be used.
But no matter what, scouting is a art in every battle, For most CM battles, it might not be sneaking through enemy lines, but I have found a few where I have done just that.
 
For most, its more of being the lead point, finding out the hard way where the enemy is, being shot at and possible killed , to allow the main group to not be ambushed  and to learn safely where enemy forces are located.

Well the size of the battle does have a great impact on what type of tactics might be used.
But it really comes down to the amount of troops in a given area as to how scouting and probes are to be used.
But no matter what, scouting is a art in every battle, For most CM battles, it might not be sneaking through enemy lines, but I have found a few where I have done just that.
 
For most, its more of being the lead point, finding out the hard way where the enemy is, being shot at and possible killed , to allow the main group to not be ambushed  and to learn safely where enemy forces are located.

Well the size of the battle does have a great impact on what type of tactics might be used.
But it really comes down to the amount of troops in a given area as to how scouting and probes are to be used.
But no matter what, scouting is a art in every battle, For most CM battles, it might not be sneaking through enemy lines, but I have found a few where I have done just that.
 
For most, its more of being the lead point, finding out the hard way where the enemy is, being shot at and possible killed , to allow the main group to not be ambushed  and to learn safely where enemy forces are located.

Well the size of the battle does have a great impact on what type of tactics might be used.
But it really comes down to the amount of troops in a given area as to how scouting and probes are to be used.
But no matter what, scouting is a art in every battle, For most CM battles, it might not be sneaking through enemy lines, but I have found a few where I have done just that.
 
For most, its more of being the lead point, finding out the hard way where the enemy is, being shot at and possible killed , to allow the main group to not be ambushed  and to learn safely where enemy forces are located.

What did you expect, he is Dutch, they say everything backwards.
Oh, wait a second, I am 1/2 Dutch. So maybe I do also.

bits of sound like the issue I reported with mortar rounds sometimes penetrating concrete type pillboxes at any angles. Always hard to tell where a shell penetrates anyway. Similar to buildings it´s not a WYSIWYG affair. Hit or penetration areas can (and most likely are) much larger than actual geometry (windows, fire slits) suggest. I´d found some meta data in MDR files very likely related to that, but it´s too much work and time consuming to investigate any further. At least not by trial and error methods. I´d still vote for a different approach when it comes to more realistic pillbox types. If not in current game engine then at least in next one.

If you are playing a really good scenario, maybe there is truly no weak point. Then you are forced to attack the strength of the enemy.
But even then, there is always a possible weak area even as to a strong point in the defense.
Always coming up to the best approach to any task will bring about the best chance for success.
 
In otherworld's, Always look for any weakness available, whether large or small.
 
I never like to see complaints about scenarios not giving players enough time. You are correct in that it forces the player not to be able to dismantle the AI defense.
But that is exactly the point of time restraints. The AI defense cannot react as if its a real commander, there is a very amount of reaction that can be programmed to selected guesses as to what a player might try to do. The AI is very handicapped as is. Limiting the time forces the player to take the defense on as intended. In otherworld's to take the scenario on as intended.
So if you are one that is always wanting more time in your game, all I can say is, you are not testing your skills against the game as intended.
As far as I am concerned. Too many battles have given way more time than is needed to be successful.
 
In truth, the game would be much better if the battle time could be set by the designer to test the player. If at that point, instead of the game ending no matter what as it does now. The player could just hit a button and extend the game as long as he wants. Thus providing a method for those that want to be slow and precise. but also providing the scenario designer the ability to truly test and create limited time situations.

You all need to take a little chill pill on balance and what that means.
having messed around for a very long time with creating scenarios, I learned one thing.
Take my creation, give it to 10 players - look at the results. 2 players crush it playing side A, 4 players manage a win with side A and 4 player lose with Side A
For the First two players, the battle is too easy, for the next 4, the players will say the balance is perfect, for the last 4, they will complain about all sorts of things that need adjusted. 
But in truth, this sounds like a pretty good scenario playing from side A, since that is the results.
Its likely very unbalanced from side B in that it will be easier for most to win the AI and likely not balanced for H2H either.
 
The truth is, the player impacts the result way more than a good design.
 
I have felt for a long time that maybe the answer should be that each scenario has multiple designs. One for Side A, One for side B, One for H2H, also they could have a easy or hard setting. But BF provides methods to adjust that presently by doing the percentage troop setting that can be used.
So never take it too personnel if there is balance issues, its a hard thing to get correct, and even when you do, there will be a percentage of players not liking it.
Learn to listen to the comments about the design, think it through, they might have good points on how to improve your work and be willing to be open to good and bad imput. When its all said and done, you create what you want, if you are pleased with it, that is all that really matters. Take suggestions you like and enjoy the learning process.
When you are done with it, let it be, others will love it or hate it, but generally there is always some of both.
 
 

You all need to take a little chill pill on balance and what that means.
having messed around for a very long time with creating scenarios, I learned one thing.
Take my creation, give it to 10 players - look at the results. 2 players crush it playing side A, 4 players manage a win with side A and 4 player lose with Side A
For the First two players, the battle is too easy, for the next 4, the players will say the balance is perfect, for the last 4, they will complain about all sorts of things that need adjusted. 
But in truth, this sounds like a pretty good scenario playing from side A, since that is the results.
Its likely very unbalanced from side B in that it will be easier for most to win the AI and likely not balanced for H2H either.
 
The truth is, the player impacts the result way more than a good design.
 
I have felt for a long time that maybe the answer should be that each scenario has multiple designs. One for Side A, One for side B, One for H2H, also they could have a easy or hard setting. But BF provides methods to adjust that presently by doing the percentage troop setting that can be used.
So never take it too personnel if there is balance issues, its a hard thing to get correct, and even when you do, there will be a percentage of players not liking it.
Learn to listen to the comments about the design, think it through, they might have good points on how to improve your work and be willing to be open to good and bad imput. When its all said and done, you create what you want, if you are pleased with it, that is all that really matters. Take suggestions you like and enjoy the learning process.
When you are done with it, let it be, others will love it or hate it, but generally there is always some of both.
 
 

You all need to take a little chill pill on balance and what that means.
having messed around for a very long time with creating scenarios, I learned one thing.
Take my creation, give it to 10 players - look at the results. 2 players crush it playing side A, 4 players manage a win with side A and 4 player lose with Side A
For the First two players, the battle is too easy, for the next 4, the players will say the balance is perfect, for the last 4, they will complain about all sorts of things that need adjusted. 
But in truth, this sounds like a pretty good scenario playing from side A, since that is the results.
Its likely very unbalanced from side B in that it will be easier for most to win the AI and likely not balanced for H2H either.
 
The truth is, the player impacts the result way more than a good design.
 
I have felt for a long time that maybe the answer should be that each scenario has multiple designs. One for Side A, One for side B, One for H2H, also they could have a easy or hard setting. But BF provides methods to adjust that presently by doing the percentage troop setting that can be used.
So never take it too personnel if there is balance issues, its a hard thing to get correct, and even when you do, there will be a percentage of players not liking it.
Learn to listen to the comments about the design, think it through, they might have good points on how to improve your work and be willing to be open to good and bad imput. When its all said and done, you create what you want, if you are pleased with it, that is all that really matters. Take suggestions you like and enjoy the learning process.
When you are done with it, let it be, others will love it or hate it, but generally there is always some of both.
 
 

Ok, I will be closing sign ups after we get one more person or at the end of the day if not.
We have 29 and thirty is a good starting number.

Thanks for the Support George

Just a notice that I am again hosting another tournament over at "a few good men" this time we are using CMBS.
The last Tournament was very successful , we managed to have 5 rounds and did the whole tournament in 4 months.
So come join the fun, sign ups are now available.
Here is somewhat a description of how it works. if more info is wanted, go over to "a few good men" for more information.
 
Scoring Format

The format is 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. as well as both offensive and defensive skills

Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 25 minutes or less so far.)

If you are new to this, go review previous tournament as to how this works if you have any questions

Just a notice that I am again hosting another tournament over at "a few good men" this time we are using CMBS.
The last Tournament was very successful , we managed to have 5 rounds and did the whole tournament in 4 months.
So come join the fun, sign ups are now available.
Here is somewhat a description of how it works. if more info is wanted, go over to "a few good men" for more information.
 
Scoring Format

The format is 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. as well as both offensive and defensive skills

Battles are designed generally to be short and intense ( I have been keeping all battles at 25 minutes or less so far.)

If you are new to this, go review previous tournament as to how this works if you have any questions

oh, so very true. But since its been at least a few years, with my old man memory and that fact that I have done so many other things  since then, it all did a pretty good job of clearing my memory of the battle other than I remember it as being hard and that I needed to make sure to clear the enemy before tying to move up.
I know it is easier to some extent, no matter what, But the fact still is in place, I did not game the defense to get a good result, I used good tactics to show that the mission can be accomplished and that losses can be kept down.
And in that battle, 3 of my men I lost was my fault, thinking I could rush them forward to the wall and make it without taking losses from fire through the gap in the wall. Not even close, all 3 men in that fire team was gunned down in the matter of 2 seconds from each other.

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.

I have been thinking for years, is there a need for a tank type weapon system anymore.
As the battlefield  changes with technology, what should the future weapons be.
 
One thought I have had, over and over. How long will all the high tech weapons last. It would seem that if a conflict lasted any time, they would use up what stocks they have and will they be able to produce enough fast enough to keep up with needs and be able to keep funding the cost of them.
I could see the lack of high tech supplies if a prolonged conflict happened. Then more conventional weapons would gain some strength if they were still available.
 
I have thought for awhile, that mobile units should give up on heavy armored units of any type. Its not a defense anymore on the battlefield.
Drop all that weight and use it for other gains.
I think the future of mobile forces should be to make them as light, small and fast as possible with a powerful attack weapon and minimal protection to counter small arms fire only.
Defenses should be high tech options that counter incoming high tech weapons  before they make it to the target.
Second  -  crews should be able to control the unit remotely and not have to be in the machine. (but this needs to be flexible, where they can be in it if needed, close by or at great distances. (because jamming signals can and will be a factor in all modern fighting. ) Manning units will still need to be a option. But if you are controlling the communication battle, why not protect the crews by unmanning them.
So my concepts of what the future should bring and what I am seeing in development is not the same exactly.
I see new machines that are huge as to size. You can see them and hear them from way too far. They are too big to maneuver  and it also cost them speed. 
It just blows me away at the size of some of these machines and they are to transport troops.
The size of the unit should be no larger than the platform needed for the main weapon and the ammo supplies wanted and the defense measures that will be added.
As far as I am concerned, get them troops outs of those machines and lets get them in these independent machines that will enhance the troopers abilities.  (star troopers are on the way)