Georgie

Don't be discourged MOSwas71331 by the first part of Steves post. In the old days when a new player was breaking in to war gaming he was usually playing with a veteran player. The veteran player was able to coach the new player in person and address the particular area or areas that he was having problems with. The manual itself for CMBN is daunting and dry. I suggest that you download the demo for CMBO if it is still available or if it isn't then buy the game. Play it and see how you do. It isn't the same as CMBN by a long shot but it is a fun game, I played it for thousands of hours, There is in game information about the weapons that you and your opponent are using that can be accessed with a click of the mouse and is available rite when you need it instead of having to go to desk top and look it up which will break the immersion. This will give you a good basic understanding of the forces that are portrayed in CMBO and CMBN and the strategy. The portrayal of these forces has changed a little between CMBO and CMBN but they are for the most part the same. CMBO is in my opinion the best way compared to CMBN to break into war gaming. Obviously you have an interest in war gaming or you would not have gone so far as to attempt to learn the game and then post about your discouragement. As I said before I'm having a devil of a time learning CMBN but I'm not giving up. Hope this helps.

Hang in there MOSwas71331. I played CM1 for years and this game is still kicking my ass. If you didn't play CM1 and learn the relative capabilities of the US and German equipment, or learn it some where else, then you have an added disadvantage. But if you like ww2 games that portray combat , minus the sad loss of life, in a realistic manner then you will probably enjoy CMBN once you learn it. My advice is, if you don't already know it, is to learn the capabilities of the US and German tanks and guns and small arms. Your knowledge at first dosen't have to be detailed, just which weapon is better in what circumstance. Hope this helps.

I tried aiming with "smoke" to the same area that I was able to aim with "target". I also tried panning all around the "target" aim point with the "smoke" cursor but got "no line of sight".

I agree with gunnergoz. I'm having a slow slow start but I like it that way and when I become proficient at this game I don't want it to be because the AI has been dumbed down. The challenge of the game is the attraction for me.

Up date. Upon further testing I found that the tank that I at first thought could not target smoke actually could. Here is what happened, I targeted area fire with no problem and then changed my mind and tried to target smoke, actually WP, and found that I got no line of sight to the same point that I had just targeted area fire with HE. It appears that the line of sight isn't always the same for target smoke as it is for target or target lite. Usually it is but in this instance it wasn't. A bug? If it is it's a minor one and shouldn't cause a problem very often. In fact it won't even be apparent unless you change your mind like I did and it just happens to be one of those times that "target" and "smoke" line of sight are not the same. Murphys Law at work.

A Panther is holding up my advance and flanking him is going to be very difficult in his present position. Non of my tanks, Shermans, can target him directly in their present positions and if I move them into a position to target him then my Shermans will come out second best as it would be head on. In and effort to get the Panther to withdraw I tried area fire with three Shermans and got four hits out of twelve or so rounds fired. The Panther shrugged off the hits and stayed in place. If these hits had been AP then maybe a spalling hit or other minor damage would have caused him to withdraw. In other possible encounters where the Panther would be flank on or rear on to my Shermans then area fire with AP could destroy him without exposing my Shermans. This, I think, would be a very valuable tactic for Shermans or PZ IVs. Any thoughts on this from other Forum members?

This is a Sherman with 6 rounds of WP on board.

I am trying to target "smoke". I get a "no line of sight" indication. I switch to "area fire" and I can target OK. I can also target "lite". Any body else have this problem. This may be an isolated incidence as the other tanks in the scenario are able to target smoke and regular area fire, but I have noticed a reluctance to fire smoke in other instances. Save file available if needed.

Being able to area fire with AP. During the scenario that I am playing there is a Panther holding up my advance. I can't directly target the Panther, which is head on so to move to acquire him would be stupid. I have indirectly targeted him with several Shermans. The result was three or four hits out of a dozen or so rounds fired and these hits did not have the desired effect on the Panther or the crew because the Panther did not retreat. If they had been AP projectiles that hit the Panther they probably still would not have penetrated but maybe would have caused him to retreat. The Panther was head on to the Sherman fire but there will be instances where a Panther will be side on or rear on to the indirect fire and a hit could well penetrate. Are there any other forum members that feel that this would be a good added feature?

In the scenario that I'm playing I have had two instances where a Sherman received penetrating hits to the turret front. The TC closed the hatch popped smoke and retreated in both instances. After close examination using replay I was able to determine that the fire in both instances appeared to come from a light machine gun. There does not appear to be any vision slits in the turret so the "penetrations must have been bullet ricochets from the hatch rim. Still not a good idea to fire on a tank with a rifle or machine gun but it did have an effect and more often than I thought it would. Now the machine gunner is targeted.

Excellent test Lt Bull. I hope that Battlefront will use your templates to run their own tests. This is already a remarkable game and if this,in my opinion,"flaw" can be corrected it will be, in my opinion, an even more remarkable game. I am looking forward to seeing the results of your upcoming lateral movement tests.

The penetrating hit was a 75mm from a Panther at about 750m.

I'm playing "The Crossroads at Monthardrou" and one of my Shermans took a penetrating hit from above and left to the front upper hull. The Sherman didn't explode as in CM1 but instead it rotated left 90 degrees popped smoke and backed out of harms way. What a pleasant surprise. It makes the game much more fun to play. I played hundreds if not thousands of hours of CMBO, CMBB and CMAK and it's taken awhile for me to get into CMBN but I think i'm finally there. Excellent game.

Thanks dieseltaylor for the links, read them both. In one of the links Captcliff gives a link back to the year 2000 and it was interesting. A much milder Steve, I'm sure that if you are an administrator these forums will wear on you, of Battlefront made several posts and they were interesting and informative to read. I read Steve's post in this thread but he didn't address the "firing on the move" question.

Has Battlefront posted concerning the issue of tank accuracy while firing on the move? If they have could someone please direct me to it. I have searched for it but can't find it.

I have been reading many posts expressing doubt about tanks firing on the move and hitting their target. I haven't read a response from Battlefront concerning this. Maybe I missed it. I have read a response from Battlefront concerning accuracy of the tank guns but not about accuracy while moving. It seems to me as a layman that it would be next to impossible for a gunner to keep his eye or eyes to the gun sight while moving over a plowed field or even a meadow at ten mph or so while traversing the turret, adjusting elevation and choosing the exact moment to pull the trigger. Maybe I'm wrong. Is this issue being addressed as an item in the upcoming patch or has Battlefront decided that it is a non issue and is correct as presently programmed.

Thanks for the reply Jaws. The fact that the defensive AI does change in its responses is good news to me. It makes replaying the same scenario fun as I learn the game.

I have been learning the game by replaying the same scenario over and over. Each time I play it the AI defense seems to change a little bit. Are these changes in the AI defense due to the difference in the timing and method of my attack or does the AI script change a little each time the scenario is played?

Thanks for the tips. I'll "sit for a turn" every other move or so. May be able to spot something that way and there is the bonus of resting between "hunts". As I understand it you can't hear an enemy that you have not already spotted visually. Hopefully I'm wrong on that.

I posted this on the "things I would like to see thread" but decided to open a thread and see what other players think about it. Rite now we can select a scout team but all you can do with them is to order them to walk over there and get shot. The "hunt" command tires them out too quickly to allow them to scout to a useful distance. If the "move" command is used they get into a gun fight as soon as the enemy is sighted. I think a "move to contact" type of command would be very functional in the early part of a battle. Maybe it could be written to where the scouts upon first contact would immediately go to ground and withdraw out of contact. This contact should cause an enemy icon to appear and would be equivalent to the scouts reporting back and saying " hey sarge there are some Krauts just over this hill" Does anybody else think that this would be a useful command?

A "move to contact" command. "hunt" works ok for AFVs but troops tire quickly in the hunt mode. If the "move" command is used for scouting the scouts tend to get into a gun fight when they spot the enemy and usually get killed or wounded. A "move to contact command" that would program the scouts to "go to ground" as soon as they make contact without engaging in a gun fight would be a good command. They could in fact withdraw and break contact. This I believe would still leave a contact icon. It would be saying "hey sarge the Krauts are right over this hill".

Sounds like some good is going to come out of this thread and others like it. We will get a black on white PDF manual with the first patch. Hooray!

LeadMeister, The method that you explained is a very good tool , it solves the problem for players that are having trouble making a high contrast manual and needs its own thread, possibly a sticky.

crsutt, I understand where you are coming from. Try "MinimalBasesUltra" The bases are smaller and very bright.

I have installed and activated CMBN. I back up my internal hard drive weekly using an external hard drive. If I experience a computer crash severe enough that I have to reinstall the operating system will the game activation be saved on the external hard drive or do I have to use one of my spare activations?