Felix_45

After getting your feet wet playing scenarios against the AI I suggest that you try playing against human intelligence. That is where the game really shines.

Luke, I think you may be missing the point of the entire thread. The point is what is more important, the graphics of foot splashes in water or fog of war. "Graphics" that magically appear (like splashing water, broken walls etc.) far away from any hope of your men having LOS to it is really bad when you are playing against a human in PBEM. Someone said (I forget who) on this thread that it is not a "game killer' like seeing tank tracks but it is still not good. For example, how does one make a sneaky flank attack on the enemy when they can see crossing water and whatnot? It's not about the graphics its about FOW. What Toblakai is saying is that he would rather see FOW preserved than fancy shmancy graphics (that are not that good anyway) :):)

As long as I stick to running in the woods you'd never find me.....but if I should happen to cross a stream.....:):) My footy prints will give me away.

LOL at your reply but........ Is this an issue that is known by all or only those who are fortunate enough to be members of a secret inner circle? Ha ha Is there a document that lists all "known issues" for an average player like me could read? That would even out the playing field I think.

thanks panzermike for the quick reply and for creating scenarios for this great game. I plan on downloading it this weekend and giving it a go and look forward to Von Saucken

is this suitable for h2h

I did not pre-order and started to download pretty well as soon as the "download only" link became available, took about 20 minutes, no problems and I am running RED THUNDER now. This done from central Canada. Just started my first PBEM match against a buddy who lives in Germany, he had no issues with downloading either. Good Hunting everyone.

+1 to that. I think a lot of us enjoy the blind aspect of a scenario that is why we play scenarios with tried and true friends that one can trust. It seems that those who insist on only playing QB's may (some not all) have trust issues because they themselves have a hard time from "peaking" so they naturally think their opponent will. There is a recent thread over at The Blitz about someone telling his opponent that he played the scenario once already. He was okay with that and proceeded to play knowing that his opponent played it out. During the course of the game the player who played it out once before set up his mortars to direct fire on a reinforcement area where reinforcements came in during the middle of the game to help with a counter attack. Needless to say the counter attack failed. What kind of fun is that? Anyway....lesson is to pick your playing partners wisely. :D:D

I think that if you tell your opponent that you are playing the scenario blind and then go on to play vs AI or have played it before then that is cheating. But if you tell your opponent before hand that you will do this and he is aware of it and then can do the same then by all means I would consider that a fair battle.

Hello my friend how are you? I don't recall the "trouncing" but do remember squeaking out a narrow victory in a very hard fought and violent battles. They were fun to play. For those interested to watch an AAR of me vs. MJ just click on my youtube channel link. It's the 4 part series.

I would love to have a "Move Quick" command where your troops automatically slow down before they get tired. I hate micro managing between "quick" and "pause" when I have to move my men quickly over a long trek.

Umlaut Thank you for your post. I never really considered to rate or put my input to a scenario I downloaded from the repository but I will do so from now on. The scenarios I play are often ladder games over on the Blitz and they have a rating system you can use when posting a ladder match. That's where I put my input in and thought that was good enough. Quite honestly I never considered to rate or post comments on the repository because it is such a pain to use. Some have mentioned the Scenario Depot. That was a great place for designers to get feedback, find play testers and whatnot. It was also a great place to find and search for scenarios for the gamer. Why is there no CMx2 games there? Anyway, I do appreciate the time and effort designers and play testers put in. :)

Womble, in my situation the kneeling fascist with arms in the air was on the other side of bocage. It was at a T intersection of bocage where I had a rattled squad only yards away so I could see what was happening. The said "surrenderer" had LOS to a machine gun team on the other side of his bocage. In hindsight I should have sprayed the bocage with area fire from my MG but being a moral soldier wanting to follow the Geneva Convention I ignored him and paid the ultimate price. I was just kinda kidding around with this thread but I've learned a thing or two. No more prisoners.....especially if they can spy on you.

LOL the smiles were to lighten things up so no need to think I'm looking for some kind of perverse thrill. Tactical value.....well since soldiers who surrender in CMx2 can pick up their weapons and kill you there is some tactical value in that. :)

Will we get the option to shoot prisoners since we are playing the Russian front? I was just playing out a scenario the other day where a German soldier was kneeling with his hands up after a few turns picked up his rifle and started to spray bullets and my merciful men. Would have like to have the option to shoot him first. :) Decals are nice for tank hits but watching a T-34 blow it's top would be cool.

PM sent, check your mailbox.

I don't know if it would work on a tank on the other side of a building but a wall would be the same I think. I'm not the kind of guy to test things out....I lack the time to do it...so I rely on others to post their results. For me I was in PBEM game and I knew some kind of vehicle was on the other side of bocage so I sneaked an engineer team to that other side of the bocage and ordered a blast.....the jeep on the other side was destroyed. I suppose if it worked on a jeep it would work on anything else. I suppose one could blow up infantry hiding in a building that way too....sneaking up on a wall without windows that is.

To YD and RB Those are excellent tips that I will use. I often forget about being able to give commands to waypoints. Good to know about the demo charges being used by soldiers albeit using Tac ai only. I was under the impression that it did not happen. I loved the good old days where you could command your men to throw a demo charge and watch an entire building blow up.....I suppose with CMBN the resulting explosion would kill the throwers he he. One hint about using demo charges on vehicles. If you know there is something hiding on the other side of bocage, you can order an engineer team to "blast" a hole in the bocage and take out the vehicle (or anything else) that is on the other side.

Are you talking about in a RT game or PBEM game? I can see myself doing that in RT but how do you do that in a PBEM game? In a one minute time span often that infantry is dead from HE fire. Have you actually seen units throw a satchel charge in CMBN? I haven't yet so far....can it actually be done in the game?

This is why it is good news that the Russian front is going to be the last game coded. Urban warfare is not simulated realistically at all in the CMx2 games for all the reasons mentioned. Too bad because the company should have learned a thing or two from CMSF.....seems like most of the complaints have carried forward to CMBN. I suppose the question is, is it a lack of coding or is it a fault of the game engine/concept of the 1:1 representation of infantry. Maybe a programer can answer that one. With that said, I'm playing an urban scenario, one of Fredrocker's Das Dorf (something or other) and I'm have a great time against my PBEM opponent. So scenario designers are able to deal with the engine creatively. The game is new so I'm sure the more scenario designers play with the engine the better urban warfare will become. As far as QB's are concerned....the city maps kinda suck right now.

They are also not listed in alphabetical order, Panzer Corps is listed first for some reason

Thumbs up for that. CMBN still has a lot of things to sort out, but this is well said. I have finished all my BB/AK pbem games and now just play BN. To the original poster, I suggest that you try out the demo and see for yourself:D

Okay Sergei, I followed your link and read this! The US 82nd Airborne Division captured some Panzerfausts in the Sicilian campaign, and later during the fighting in Normandy. Finding them more effective than their own Bazookas, they held onto them and used them during the later stages of the French campaign and even dropped with them into the Netherlands during the Market-Garden campaign. They captured an ammunition dump of Panzerfausts near Nijmegen, and used them through the Ardennes Offensive to the end of the war. [7] So are allies going to get to play with captured panzerfausts in future modules....Hmmmmmmmmm? On a more serious note, I'm finding that I'm googling this kind of stuff more and more when I'm making purchases for QB's or trying to figure out what caliber of ammo is used by what and who so that I don't "acquire" the wrong stuff or buy something utterly useless. :D:D

Okay, yes of course if you look at both sides then you know exactly what is up, I thought you were referring to something else other than that by your wording in your original post.

How is it that you know exactly what your opponent has in a canned scenario?