user38

I think success could have been possible, but for the Germans.

I have been reading this thread and wondering why everyone considers 73% to be such a bad score. Every PC Gamer magazine publishes an explanation of its scoring system. For those who are interested: I haven't read the review yet (it will be another 6 weeks until the December issue of PC Gamer reaches Australia) but in the context of the PC Gamer scoring system 73% is a pretty good score. It is on the cusp of Fair and Good, and even the rabid CMBfN fanboys would admit the game needs more polish. As far as criticism of the reviewer not understanding the genre, I refer to an earlier post in this thread: I have listened to Zacny's podcast on Combat Missions: Three Moves Ahead Episode 129 – The Combat Missions. From this podcast alone it is clear Zachny has a wide experience and interest in the wargame genre, which includes extensive experience with the Combat Missions series of games. Game reviews are opinions, and they are necessarily the opinions of the reviewer. If we assume Zacny followed the PC Gamer review methodology his review represents a fair assessment of his experience with the game. Aparently he didn't consider it was a bad game, just not great.

This may be off topic, but as I understand the LOS rules in this game, LOS is calculated to the centre of the target. Therefore, if a target is mostly behind cover the firing unit has no LOS and cannot fire. However, I maybe wrong on this: and perhaps this behavior isn't a bug but a feature:

Is this turning into a Michael Dorosh thread now? When I (posted my Michael Dorosh post earlier ) I was making a joke (admittedly at slysniper's expense). But Michael Dorosh was banned on this forum in 2008 and you guys are still talking about him. It seems that posters on this board have some sort of fascination with Michael Dorosh. It is like some sort of man-crush gone wrong. He doesn't like the game. He has his reasons. You disagree with him. Fair enough. But Michael has been gone for three years now. I know that when you lose someone you grieve, but surely it is time to move on.

I note that killroy wrote: Well, if you follow the premise that everyone who doesn't hate and vilify Michael Dorosh is part the Michael Dorosh gang then Michael Dorosh and killroy are in the Michael Dorosh gang. Of course, on that premise I am also in the Michael Dorosh gang. On the subject of my membership in the Michael Dorosh gang I am not going to admit whether I am in the Michael Dorosh gang or deny that I am in the Michael Dorosh gang (the first rule of the Michael Dorosh gang is that you don't talk about the Michael Dorosh gang). However, slysniper, even if Michael Dorosh has formed a Michael Dorosh gang (and I submit there is no good evidence that Michael Dorosh has formed a Michael Dorosh gang or that a Michael Dorosh gang exists) then how is it inappropriate for Michael Dorosh or members of the Michael Dorosh gang to post comments about CMBfN. Please note, I am not suggesting that Michael Dorosh be permitted to post his views on the game in this forum. But the internet is free and logically there is no such thing as an invalid opinion. If Michael Dorosh or members of the Michael Dorosh gang choose to air their opinions of CMBfN on other forums (and in the case of members of the Michael Dorosh gang "their opinions" of course would be the opinions of Michael Dorosh rather than the personal opinions of the individuals who are members of the Michael Dorosh gang) that would appear to be entirely consistent with the object of the internet. Of course, there is an argument that the object of the internet is to facilitate the publication of ill informed and half arsed opinions. One may extrapolate from this that, give Michael Dorosh was a beta tester on CMBfN, the opinions of Michael Dorosh on CMBfN are, by definition, not half arsed or ill informed: therefore the opinions of Michael Dorosh on CMBfN are not consistent with the object of the internet and it would be inappropriate for the opinions of Michael Dorosh to be to posted on the internet (and this anti Michael Dorosh opinion theory would hold true whether the opinions of Michael Dorosh were posted by Michael Dorosh personally or whether the opinions of Michael Dorosh were posted by members of the Michael Dorosh gang). It is a thorny problem. On the one hand the opinions of Michael Dorosh (whether expressed by Michael Dorosh personally or expressed by members of the Michael Dorosh gang) are internet inappropriate because they do not meet the half arsed ill informed opinion test. On the other hand the opinions of Michael Dorosh (as expressed by Michael Dorosh and members of the Michael Dorosh gang) are internet appropriate because the internet is free and open to the ignorant and enlightened alike. Regardless of which theory of the internet is true, I consider the opinions expressed by slysniper on Michael Dorosh and the Michael Dorosh gang to be internet appropriate.

Actually, if you are Catholic you can't unscrew a woman. To a man brought up as a Catholic the consequences of screwing a woman isn't solely related to pregnancy. Sexual congress with a member of the opposite sex implies a commitment. That is, if a Catholic man has sex with a woman (Catholic or otherwise) he would feel obligate to attempt a relationship with that woman. I myself have had two disastrous relationships with women I had accidentally slept with. I should also point out that sburke's joke about unscrewing light bulbs is another blatant example of American parochialism. If Americans had a more global perspective on illumination technology they would realise that light bulbs are not seated via a screw everywhere in the world. It has been my observation that most American's assume light bulbs have a screwed cap like this: Whereas in Australia light bulbs have a plug cap like this: In Australia light bulbs don't screw in, they plug in. So while it is correct (albeit sexist and demeaning) to say that you cannot unscrew a woman, the "joke" implies that you can nevertheless unscrew a light bulb. And in Australia you can't. This so called joke fails on a number of levels. It is not only sexist and parochial, it is also dated in that it is premised on light bulbs being of the incandescent variety, whereas the international standard is compact fluorescent. So the joke would more accurately stated thus: Question: "What is the difference between a light bulb and a woman?" Answer: "Women have no sense of humor (and I am hilarious)."

Womble, LemuelG makes a valid point when he says "Wouldn't it be easier still to just get all the waypoints in the right place first-time?" And if you think about it for a minute, it is a suggestion that has applications far beyond a trivial computer games. Human error causes billions of dollars of lost revenues and destruction of property each year. Not to mention countless lives lost to mistakes. For example, earlier this year Brisbane suffered a devastating flood which was exacerbated by poor management of the flood mitigation dam. One wonders, rather than poorly managing the dam, would it not have been a better idea to properly manage it? Rather than make a mistake which causes a traffic accident would it not be a better idea not to have made that mistake? It is really quite a brilliant suggestion. (Rather than wasting hundreds of thousands of dollars on a wife and children would not your utility have been maximised by spending that money on alcohol and prostitutes?) The problem is not that the interface prevents you from moving waypoints. The problem is you putting the waypoints in the wrong place to start with. LemuelG never makes any mistakes when he plays this game. Rather than wasting your time arguing with LemuelG, should you not direct your energies into emulating his error free play style.

My military experience is 100% peace time so I never had to fire my rifle at another person. However, I did train as an infantryman and I did participate in military exercises. Even in the thick of battle I rarely fired my weapon. The reason: its a lot easier to clean a rifle that has never been fired.

I had this problem with a machine gun team on one of the tutorial maps. I was supposed to moved my machine gun to a particular overwatch spot. I tried several times and each time the machine gun set up behind a tree with no line of sight to the target. In real life the machine gunner would have set up next to the tree. Of course, my guy was just ones and zeros and didn't know any better.

Is the subject matter of this thread now making jokes about JG11Preusse's bad English? JG11Preusse brought up a valid point about snipers firing against tank commanders. It has been confirmed by a few posters to this tread that there is a problem in this area. It is, of course, enjoyable to make fun of foreigners, but I am sure JG11Preusse is doing the best he can to communicate in a difficult language. I take no issue with posters who wish to debate the ideas raised by JG11Preusse. A silly idea is a silly idea and we should all be free to say so. But attacking someone's ideas by attacking the person does nothing to advance the debate.

I am emoticon challenged.

akd, thanks for posting the test ranges. I did some testing on your ranges. I gave the tanks short cover arcs and turned them 90 degrees to face the snipers. I used v1.01 on a PC. Here are my results: Real time - 100 metres 35 minutes - no tank commander casualties (reset after 15 minutes as the snipers run out of ammo) Turn based - 100 metres 40 turns - no tank commander casualties (reset at turn 15 as the snipers run out of ammo) Real time - 50 metres 5 minutes - tank commander casualties 9, 8, 8, 7, 8 (reset each minute as the tanks run out of tank commanders) Turn based - 50 metres 10 turns - tank commander casualties 6, 5, 1, 4, 4, 6, 4, 5, 4, 4 (reset after 1 turn) Analysing the data 50 metres The mean tank commander hits after one minute of play was 4.3 in turn based and 8 in real time play. The standard deviation for the real time data was .63 so on this test one would expect 7 to 9 tank commander casualties 95% of the time. The standard deviation in turn based play was 1.35. On my data the single hit on my third test falls 1.7 standard deviations under the mean (which gives it a 5% probability of occurring). If we recalculate the mean and standard deviation without this data point we get a mean of 4.7 and a standard deviation of .81. As such, on this test on would expect either 2 to 7 or 3 to 6 tank commander casualties 95% of the time (depending on whether we include or exclude the 1 hit data point). The above analysis assumes a normal distribution of results (and why wouldn't we). On this basis there is a statistically significant variation between results in real time play and turn based play. It gives one pause. 100 metres On my data elite snipers in this game (v1.01 on a PC) cannot hit a head sized target at 100 metres. (It is open to debate whether this is realistic or not.) I note akd reported hits on tank commanders at this range in real time play. If so, it further supports a hypothesis that the game engine is doing something different with snipers in real time and turn based play. Conclusion On the basis of the above tests the game is fundamentally flawed and broken. We should all play Achtung Panzer while we wait for the game to be fixed.

JG11Preusse, I think the problem here is that you expect snipers to be able to hit targets. As Steve from Battlefront pointed out, there is nothing special about snipers and in real life snipers were chosen at random. The game models real life. The fact that your snipers can't kill tank commanders is not a bug but a design feature of the game.

Fraps is the only way to go for screenshots. Infranview is fundamentally flawed and broken and needs to be fixed. I only use Infranview to view images, crop images, resize and edit images, save images from clipboard and to add text to images. Other than that Infranview is a pile of poo and is useless.

Weapon2010, if you had done your homework and read the thread you would have realised that the issue raised by you was dealt with in that thread (not the issue of your genius 10 year old, but the issue of ww2steel's complaints about the game). If you had bothered to visit his website you would have realised that ww2steel is a seriously obsessed grognard: so obsessed that I am tempted to tell him to get a life. If you had bothered to try to step into his shoes and see his point of view you would have realised that his complaints are perfectly valid and come from an intense love of CMx1 and an intense disappointment that CMBfN did not meet his expectations. Now I reaslise that your intention in posting was to refute ww2steel's criticisms and inform potential customers about the true nature of CMBfN. But I don't think that publicly attacking ww2steel or stabbing him in the back is the best method of achieving this aim.