Georgie

Good morning John, I read all of Heinleins' books many years ago, some phrase of his must have been lurking in my subconscious. Glad you liked the video. There was a video that I watched years ago on gun movement competition that involved , if I remember correctly, cadets from a Southern US military school. They moved the guns over obstacles at a run. Wasn't a modern AT gun but it did show what could be done with teamwork and a well trained crew. The Germans in the videos that you linked were very impressive. Shows that they could move 50 and 75 mm AT guns pretty fast over rough ground and they moved them wheels first.

Good news indeed Steve. I know that when I first started playing CMBN the LOS vs LOF issue gave me a lot of trouble. I finally learned how to cope with it most of the time and since I was already hooked on CM I took the time to do it. Some players that are new to CM and are trying out the demo might not take the time to figure out how to cope with it and and give up on an already difficult game. Very good news.

Currently this game doesn't have triggers and without them , in my opinion, the scenario designer can't include an effective dynamic response to the attacking forces penetration of the defenders defensive line. They can guess where and when the line will be penetrated but its just a wag and in my experience in attacking a computer defense is that any dynamic response by the defender just provides me with some juicy targets.

One thing that I think is a "Battle Breaker" is that tanks in general are too effective at short range. Their situation awareness, which in some ways rivals that of modern tanks, and their response time and accuracy, even with a conscript crew, makes infantry support for them less vital than it should be.

Who says its hard to move a field gun?

No I'v got a new computer but was wondering if a lot of burning vehicles would add to the OOM problem? And its beginning to look like I should have got a Mac.

As far as the toxic smoke goes I'm pretty sure that it wasn't as toxic as an 88mm explosive round exploding in the room. So if a shreck team and an infantry team was in the same room with a tank outside gunning for them and the shreck team wouldn't take a shot at the tank because it would break somebodys rule I'll bet you that the infantry team would take the tube away from them and do it themselves.

In a large or huge battle you can wind up with ten or so burning AFVs on each side. This, it seems to me, eats up a lot of processing and graphics power. How about letting an AFV burn for say five turns and then stop burning?

Hi agusto, the thread title is "Battle Breakers" not game breakers. There are no "game breakers" as far as I am concerned but there are some "battle breakers" especially in small battles or urban battles. Some times, in my opinion, the outcome of a battle or a fire fight in a battle is altered from what it would be IRL by a bug or restriction of weapon usage. I doesn't always occur but sometimes it does.

Hi George MC, I certainly don't mind loosing a battle but some of the games that I have won I feel were won or won too easily because of the defensive set up faults that are caused by the LOF uncertainty problem and the AT gun targeting bug and I do mind winning if I think its because of a game fault. The LOF uncertainty and the AT gun targeting bug sometimes occur for a single gun emplacement making it too easy for a tank to get thru the area that the gun is covering. I am attempting in the huge scenario that I am making to "fudge" my way around the targeting bug and to make every effort to minimize the LOF problem. I can't eliminate the targeting bug but I can reduce its effect by careful placement and screening of guns and tanks. I can do this because the scenario that I am making will be played as a human attacker against the computer defense and it uses a fictitious map so I can design the map contours and the vegetation to mitigate at least a portion of the problem. People playing the defensive in a PBEM game don't have this option and it will hamper their defense considerably if it depends upon AT guns for a lot of its defensive firepower and if they try to "key hole" their tanks. This is especially true with a small or medium sized map because of the fast angle change of a tank crossing the field of fire of the AT gun and the increased possiblity of the LOF not matching the LOS. http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=109011

Nice word Childress, I had to look that sucker up.

The intent of this thread is for players to list game bugs and or arbitrary limitations to equipment function that they feel have changed the outcome of a battle or battles. Hopefully BF will read this thread and consider it a constructive commentary on items that would make the CM2 games even more fun to play. In which case I would probably have to bribe my wife even more than I do now. OK you go first.

That may also work for an AT gun or MG. Just look down the barrel and then reverse your view 180 deg. and then be careful to note things that could block the LOF. A problem is trees in the way, sometimes they block LOF and sometimes they don't. Your technique will certainly help till BF provides us with a LOF tool which will be faster and more precise.

The problem with positioning an AT gun or a MG or a tank using the "target" command is that the "target" command shows the sum of what the entire crew can see. Some in the crew may see the entire view that is displayed but some may not and if the gunner is one of the "may not" crowd then your positioning of the gun or tank could very well be faulty. We need a command that will select the view of the gunner as seen thru the gun sight. Just like IRL.

The same thing applies to AT guns. Pointless. Having LOS different than LOF in the game makes no sense to me. IRL the gun crew knows beforehand that the gun can't target every thing that Max, who is standing on a big rock with the binos, can see. In the game you don't know that Max was standing on a big rock until the gun fails to fire at the tank you thought you cited it to target and it gets knocked out by that same tank that Max can see but the gun can't target. Pointless. Come on BF help.

Hello again womble, or a 4th alternative. If as in the real world, at least world war two, a tank cant shoot straight up then the squad or team on the 8th floor isn't in a bad situation the tank is in a bad situation since all it can do is shoot into the 1st floor if its too close and if its that close then the troops on the 8th floor drops things on the tank till it leaves. That's why in city fighting if the garrison of the city is supplied with close range anti tank weapons the tanks are at a distinct disadvantage. Of course that's in real life and I would like it if the game reflected real life city fighting a little more realistically. I think that the CM1 series reflected this balance much more truthfully.

Hi womble, or a third alternative where your unit is "treed" like a racoon, your tube guy who was waiting in the back yard could sneak into the building and take out the tank thru a window. My uncle took me coon hunting when I was a kid, in the middle of the night of course, and the only thing I accomplished was to fall into a creek.

That would be useful, what would you do for AT guns? It is unclear to me where the LOS vs LOF is comming from.

When I am using the targeting tool to see what my tank can blow up and then I target something and the tank doesn't fire because the tank commander sits higher than the gun and the gun is blocked it would help if there was a warning similar to the "hull down" notice rather than wasting a few turns trying to figure out why the gun doesn't fire. Either that or, and this would be very cool, be able to select the gunners view to verify a valid target.

If I remember correctly a tank can fire at an enemy in a building where the action spot is blocked but can't area fire at the obscured building. But now that you brought it up, to me its just one more problem with urban fighting that screws up an urban scenario. No way around it till BF figures out a way to make things work the way they should. Why is shooting straight up a red herring?

Hello sburke, I hope you can too. Urban combat was a blast, no pun intended, in CM1. I hope you can make it so with CM2.

What it boils down to to me is that there isn't really anything a map maker can do except to make the towns all single story to offset the fact that the tanks can shoot straight up and provide hidey holes for the tube guys in the middle of the street to offset the fact that the game won't allow the tube guy to launch a rocket from a building. Both which would be much more unrealistic than the tube guy being able to fire his rockets from a building to off set the tanks being able to shoot straight up. This would make the urban fighting fun. Right now it simply isn't. In fact it is frustrating. I am really perplexed as to why this condition still exists after several years of complaining by the players. I avoid any scenario that involves urban fighting.

Works very good. Thanks

The Shreck team is in trouble even if it disables a tank and the crew abandons it. The Shreck team is usually close to the tank and the single k98 isn't much use at close encounters against grease guns , thompsons or a 45s and its not a good idea to keep an infantry team with the Shreck team for cover as they make it easier for the tank to spot the Shreck or at least to be alerted.