Childress

Fallschirmjagers moving on Quick: Could be improved but calling it 'single file' is a bit of an overstatement, imo. This behavior has, I believe, been refined since CMBN 1.0.

Don't think a brisk jog- which Quick simulates- is the best or prescribed way to sweep an area. Not enough awareness. But, yes, I agree they could spread out Quick a little even if the majority of WW2 battle photos tend to show men advancing in rough single file.

That seems a reasonable request. The Quick moving troops would default to single file when moving through a gap or crossing a foot bridge. Now, in order to get spread with this command, you need to give the men multiple waypoints.

Please provide anecdotes or photographic evidence that WW2 units actually resorted to these formations- during combat. It's a controversial topic: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1412563&highlight=arrowhead#post1412563

Troops will currently spread using Hunt. Or do you mean implementing formations?

You're right, no battle was ever intended to be 'interesting'. A good CM-type contest results when the planners- the higher ups- rely on sloppy recon or make errors in judgment. Additionally, 'Meeting Engagements', in the sense of two forces with precisely the same combat values colliding on the battlefield don't exist- and never have. They exist like unicorns cavorting in some magical forest in the minds of certain ladder players.

Welcome to the forum,Skwabie. You'll fit in perfectly!

Try Rick Atkinson: http://www.amazon.com/Day-Battle-1943-1944-Liberation-butTrilogy/dp/080508861X/ref=sr_1_4?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1371431768&sr=1-4&keywords=rick+atkinson Excellent overview but not much battle minutiae.

Fantastic, Vein.

I don't get it! In this video your Brits assault- and take- several Fallschirmjager infested buildings with no windows: What went wrong? Pull yourself together, man! When CMBN first appeared seizing enemy structures was a piece of cake. Then, in a patch, BF beefed up the defensive properties of buildings. Next they vastly enhanced the suppressive power of machine guns, which are pre-eminently defensive weapons. Now it's tough. Life's unfair.

Yes. The odd thing was the high Wounded to Kill ratio for the Germans. This stat, typical to all battlefields, seems reversed from common CM2 results which supposedly omits minor wounds.

I ran your test three times each for the 251 and the KW. Results: 251, Killed/Wounded Allies: 24/9 Germs: 15/48 KW, Killed/Wounded Allies: 10/9 Germs: 17/26 Kübels are safer for passengers. 251s kill more Allies. But not a single 251 was destroyed versus 6 KWs.

Thanks, Umlaut. These backgrounds are essential. Not only are the photos copious, varied and interesting, but also artistically formatted for the game. Well done. I'm assuming that Battlefront would have run into copyright issues had they tried this.

Great minds think alike: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=110043 Leave the player-on-defense scenarios to H2H, I say.

Here's an alternative walk-through: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1441071&highlight=POSTIMAGE#post1441071

Good grief! There's ten years of psychotherapy right there.

I thought this thread was going to be about John Lennon. :mad:

Or simply make 'AI on defense' scenarios which already work pretty decently. But trying to make credible battles starring the Artificial Intelligence on the attack is a lost cause. Which several of the battles from the, otherwise excellent, GL campaigns attempt to pull off. That was a very intricate response, Womble.

Wouldn't that render scenario making more complex? There hasn't been an avalanche of user created battles in CM 2.0 despite the vaunted overlay feature.

Spoken like a current or former small business owner! Hiring MBAs will cause Wall Street pros- and yours truly- to short the stock of your company. If it's listed.

You forgot to mention one survivalist principle which applies even more strongly to small, niche companies: never hire MBAs.

So I heard. Never owned one of their games but downloaded the demos. But comparing them to the CM series is like comparing apples to Buicks. In CO the player directs his square counters from a god-like elevation over a grand-tactical battlefield. Terrain is simplified, units flow like water over enemy positions. It's all very abstracted but convincing in its way; good command and control is essential, the player experiences realistic delays, etc. But it doesn't require the precision and careful positioning of individual vehicles and squads within a detailed environment that CM imposes. It's simpler to mount an AI attack in the former.

I played Barkmann 2-3 times. I've won and lost crushingly. There's a considerable element of luck present in the battle re the survival of the Panther and/or its components. Yes, it's really a defensive situation. It works well because it's small and the Sherman wave attack is not without plausibility. The AI runs into trouble coordinating masses of armor, infantry and artillery in an offensive posture. CM shines, like any wargame, in player vs defending AI setups or H2H (where it rules) . This was not a QB, but a scenario within one of the CMFI campaigns. And not the only one of its ilk.

But not in combat power. Note the destroyed tanks. Yes, the AI needs overwhelming, no, make that ridiculous numbers to pull off an attack in single player.

What's the point, really? No dig whatsoever on CM or the authors but it's just not possible doing it right given the complexity of sims like this one and the current state of the art in AI algorithms. It's too hard. The number of computer games in which the Artificial Intelligence can mount a coherent attack are few and far between. As a matter of fact I can't think of a single one. Maybe the pricey Panther series? Panzer General (if one considers that a 'wargame')? So arriving at the next Scenario in this campaign we find ourselves in defense mode. I plotted some artillery, re-arranged some units then pressed the GO button until the end. Result: Believe me, I'm no great shakes as a player. Maybe if and when 'triggers' arrive this will change. The computer opp on defense can prove challenging in CM given good positioning. But for now, if you enjoy playing the defending side, only take on another human. Unless you want to role play an Aztec god ravenous for blood.