Zels77

This reply from a "senior member" makes my point for me and outlines where the CM series is headed: all-action, no substance and appealing to kids.

Great reply Glenn! Points well made and taken on board. I grew up playing SL and then ASL, and I was STOKED when I discovered Battlefront, and blown away by CMBO and CMBB. I'm not denying any of your valid points about how much work goes into making what is, by default, the ONLY game that makes a credible stab at being a strategy wargame (that isn't on a one-hex-equals-one-galaxy scale). And it's for exactly this reason that I hold CM to THAT standard. Tank commander vulnerability is one of several major issues with the game that alter its fundamental purpose - conducting a battle along historical lines. My guess is that a good chunk of the blokes on this forum would be thrilled with having Zombie-driven T34's firing lazer-guided muffins at Jabba the Hut. I'm after a simulation of WWII infantry combat as it actually happened. So when an LMG hiding 400m from unbuttoned tank can hit the commander with a snap shot (frequently), I lose interest. I don't expect everything to be perfect, but I do expect the desire for real-world physics and historical accuracy to trump the quest for superior graphics, and flamethrowers. Thanks again for your reply and happy hunting!

After spending countless hours playing CMBO and CMBB it turned out that the best part about CMBN was uninstalling it, which I did early last year. In a fit of blind optimism I downloaded the CMFI demo this week to see whether any of the many fundamental flaws had been addressed. It's still laughable how vulnerable unbuttoned tank commanders are to small arms fire from 100s of metres away. The Madden series will never come close to realising its potential because EA Sports are quite content selling gallons of "snake oil" to 12 year olds who don't know any better - Red Thunder will be a glorified "roster update" with 95% of resources wasted on visual appeal. Thanks for the demo chaps, you saved me the cash and time I would have wasted on Fortress Italy, Gustav Line and Red Thunder. (cue the BF Denial Drones!)

Mate I queried the issue ages ago and was told it was on the agenda to be fixed. I resumed playing when the patch came out and since then I've had very few issues with the same problem. Not doubting that the game would cease to exist without your input, just putting two and two together. On the list of fixes was something along the lines of: "more realistic dispersion from mortar shells".

I think there are a few blokes who might disagree with you!

1. Same as you bud - pulled back behind front line providing covering fire or ferrying troops to better positions on the flanks. 2. There most certainly was a propensity for leaders to get hit from exploding HE that had nothing to do with they "but they're usually at the front of the charge" argument. It has improved a lot since patch.

Message received, thanks for the response.

Cheers, I haven't played CW mate so I can't give any opinion on that.

Point taken, but then do you agree that there should be a similar (if not higher) rate of casualty for stationary troops firing from behind a wall? A wall is obviously thicker than armour, but the gunner is in a moving vehicle and - though it's not depicted graphically - he would be doing everything possible to limit his exposure?

Thanks for the reply Yankee. I'm not disputing any of the above, all I'm saying is that if there's one guy on a gun in a moving halftrack, it seems odd to me that almost EVERY time the HT - which is moving - takes fire, the gunner gets tagged. I'm not surprised the HT gets hit, or that it draws fire, what I'm questioning is how it's possible that enemy troops, themselves under fire, are able to hit the gunner in a moving (lightly armoured) vehicle with such precision?

I did the opposite - caused a stalemate in the middle with infantry and used the HTs to cover the Germans exit routes. Also used HTs to ferry platoon to woods on right in a bid to outflank German positions. Throughout, HTs at various ranges, at various speeds etc would come under fire and either suffer gunner casualty in first or second instance - pretty much if an HT got hit by small arms, the gunner copped it.

Spot on mate - seems like everyone except the unit with the perfect covered arc knows the enemy is there.

Yep agreed, that's what I'm talking about. Buildings are better, but at times they're a kill zone, imo.

Fair enough.

Play A Strange Awakening as US. Empty the HTs, split the squads, and load the teams into the vacant HTs. Play around with the HTs in your assault in fire support of the main infantry force. Good luck keeping those boys alive!

It's not science that a moving target is more difficult to hit a stationary one? Well then we've got no basis to argue because we're obviously stationed on different planets.

Nope, it's happened often enough - from front, side, back - for me to be sure. I'm not talking about driving the halftrack through enemy lines and expecting the gunner to be fine. I'm saying that exposed gunners in moving halftracks, that are a prudent distance (ie, they are not within range of panzerfausts etc), from the enemy, are canon-fodder for small arms fire - this is not the case in similar situations with troops behind a wall. And your "but troops behind a wall are ducking and diving" argument applies to the halftrack gunner - it's not like he's standing up with a peacock-feathered headdress begging to be shot.

In my experience, leaders have become less vulnerable since the patch.

Against the fact that hitting a partially concealed moving target is more difficult than hitting a partially concealed stationary target. It's science buddy, not history. A soldier behind a wall in LOS of enemy units is, in my CMBN experience, significantly less prone to being wounded or killed than he is if he mans the gun in a moving halftrack that is also in LOS of enemy units. Womble: "Yes, but you can't expect BFC to address the issue unless they know the exact angle of the terrain all of the halftracks, in each of the scenarios and instances, were travelling on, what the wind conditions were, what the morale levels were etc. Basically, unless you are able to replicate the problem in BFC's offices, I'll have to assume you're lying."

You're right bud, I'm making this all up. You caught me. Well done Matlock.

As per my previous posts, and a number of posts from other members, there is lots that needs to be looked at, such as: - gunners in moving HTs (and unbuttoned AFVs) being picked off like sitting ducks - there's too big a disparity between vehicle-to-vehicle spotting and vehicle-to-infantry spotting (how does a tank commander spot a truck parked behind bocage 500m away but fail to notice the MG team 50m away, in the same cone of vision, that is firing on him?) - generally, buildings are a poor source of cover - covered-arcs are unreliable with regards to spotting - imo, the covered-arcs armor command should be reinstated Is that enough Jon? Or is this the part where you ask me to furnish BF with forensic evidence of each gripe?

Hi VA, Look, I'm sure you get a lot of arbitrary posts from kids who would prefer the game if the halftracks fired lasers and the infantry could morph into zombie wolves. But we're not all like that. CM started out as the wargame to end all wargames based on an unapologetic drive for realism. Heck, the original game listed the various armour factors and angles for each AFV!? That's what got me - a former ASL man - hooked. Nobody expects you guys to get it right first time round and there are variables common to all simulators that will require BF to shape what is strictly realistic to make for a more realistic simulation - like the effect of HE indirect fire v infantry having to be downscaled to allow for CM's more condensed troop movement. However, there seems to be an unwillingness from BF to accept criticism unless it's proven in a court of law. Ultimately, BF needs to decide whether they still want to make the ultimate wargame, or just one more realistic than the competition has produced. It's a bit like deciding whether you want to be the fittest obese man in the world, or the fittest man in the world - there's a big difference. The most frustrating thing for me is not that there are glitches, but that BF seem to spend more time denying there are glitches than addressing them.

Well said.

Hi Yankee Dog, I'm know I'm coming into this a little bit after the fact, but I'd like to make a statement and ask a question. First, thank you for a well considered and presented reply free of the usual "don't dare question the game" approach. Second, let's just say you're right, and this was just an extreme case of bud luck. Let's assume that this HQ squad was just lucky, and tough, and somehow managed to survive the heavy indirect fire and suppresive fire (in the open from what I understand). But what are the chances that all this good fortune struck the German HQ at exactly the same time that he pulled off an amazing feat of marksmanship to KIA the US platoon leader in a two-storey building?

Hiya Mike, I very seldom read these forums, but on the few occasions that I have posted concerns, frustrations etc, I've been amazed at the skirmish line of lawyer defenses that are thrown up to deny a valid complaint. You clearly state that a German HQ unit, slammed by indirect fire, not only repulsed an assaulting squad, but also picked off your platoon leader in a second-storey building. And yet the reply you get from Culliton is "Are you saying that units in a treeline should be unlikely to survive five minutes of 60mm / 105mm fire, let alone direct fire from two full squads of infantry?" or "that units assaulting positions that had been heavily doused with indirect fire, were rarely repulsed?" No Phil, what Mike said is in black and white - read it again if you didn't understand the question the first time.