Purchasing M10's/odd command chain?

[JonS]

Do you feel the visible foliage gives a more accurate visual representation of LOS? That has not been my personal experience.

My experience is that the foliage reliably blocks my LOS, while remaining porous to my opponent :mad:

Jokes aside, LOS through trees is - in my experience - complex. Sometimes things work the way you'd expect and hope when orders are plotted. But sometimes it doesn't - LOS which you'd hoped would be blocked isn't and you lose a tank, or what you thought would be a super keyholed spot turns out to be as useful as the inside of a closet.

And, really, that makes sense. LOS through trees is complex.

[Michael Emrys]

Overall, it just seems that everything's harder in CMBN. I freely admit that I find the learning curve very steep indeed...

This was certainly true for me, especially right at the start because you have to learn a whole big bunch of stuff just to get going (the tutorials on the disc helped some here). After that, it got easier, although maybe that was because I was willing to settle for sub-optimal play. If I were after getting perfect play, I would doubtlessly have beat my brains out on the wall. This strikes me as a pretty accurate representation of what it's like to command troops in war; whether it makes a satisfying gaming experience may be another matter.

Michael

[Childress]

Frankly, I find some of the Demo scenarios downright intimidating.

For God's sake, JK, buy the damn game. Support the hobby, you've posted enough. Need financing? Maybe Battlefront can configure some interesting buy-in options for you.

[Chek]

Been playing pretty much from release day and have only got to the point recently where I'm finding the AI fairly easy to defeat.Still learning things though.It models chaos well and I can't think of anything more chaotic than a fire fight.

Btw nice find on the TD site Mr Kettler,that's going to absorb many an hour.

[John Kettler]

SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT! SPOILER ALERT!

My experience is that the foliage reliably blocks my LOS, while remaining porous to my opponent :mad:

.

JonS,

On that we agree! Even finding a good place from which to shoot is an achievement in the Au Faucon(?) scenario on the Demo, for it seems like everything blocks LOS--unless there's incoming fire. I suspect that when I play the attacker, I'll be shot to pieces by unlocatable weapons, but in last night's latest attempt to defend effectively weapon after weapon was knocked out. Bombardment got a carefully sited ATG before it could fire a shot, the other killed an AC and also succumbed to bombardment. The HT lost the .50, and I got one, count 'em, one fire mission off with the FO. Part of the problem was traced to some mishap that debussed the team, but left the radio on the jeep, which simply wouldn't stay put. But even after I got that sorted and had good LOS, I kept gettiing Denied when I called for fire. The one mission chewed up empty ground and blocked LOS from my TDs and a tank.

That Panther to the right rear of the board was a nightmare. Even with optics damage, buttoned, immobilized to the point where it should've listed so badly it couldn't shoot, pounded turn after turn from front and as much flank as I could get, pierced at least twice through the track skirts, armor spalled repeatedly, not only couldn't I kill it, but it destroyed three Shermans, two TDs and caused 18 casualties! Am guessing the fact it was the platoon leader's tank had a lot to do with the incredible staying power, but it was the combination of angles that stopped even my TDs from killing it. After my Tactical Defeat, further insult was had when I found it had zero crew casualties. Someone, I forget who, killed the TC of the other Panther, taking it out of play for the duration. Oh, how I hate that ridge!

Regards,

John Kettler

[John Kettler]

Chek,

I'm playing at Basic Training level and find the AI positively unholy compared to CMx1. I think, though, it's much better with armor and fire support than in handling infantry. I can generally beat off the infantry attack, but everything falls apart when I have to advance to the objectives. That's when my losses in that scenario go through the roof, for I simply can't protect my maneuver element properly when so many potential hostile locations are blocked by intervening trees or buildings. In effect, I can see only a few things, but the Germans on the ridge can see and stop ANY move on the objectives. Have the burning armor and panicked crews to prove it!

Michael Emrys,

Since all kinds of bad things happen to my forces and I miss them despite multiple replays, I haven't the faintest idea how anyone can play this game in RTS. I think it was MUCH easier to maintain situational awareness in CMx1. Speaking of that, do we have a +1 button to make our troops easier to find? The level of visual clutter makes it very easy to lose people. And why do so many of my tanks wind up butt first to the foe--and dead?

Childress,

Before I plunk down scarce moolah for the full game, I want to be able to play the Demo with some degree of proficiency, i.e, much better than Basic Training. Last night, I lost ground in terms of combat performance. I have yet to play the hold the exit scenario or bust the bocage, so have a long way to go here. I do take your point, though.

Regards,

John Kettler

[womble]

I'm playing at Basic Training level and find the AI positively unholy compared to CMx1.

The difficulty levels of CMx2 have little or nothing to do with how hard it is to win against the AI, and everything to do with how obtuse the interface is. All the restrictions applied to the player apply to the AI as well, so on Basic Training, its arty call times are slashed, making it a devil to keep inside the enemy FO's reaction curve. Knowing precisely what you are up against is a help, but playing through once or twice on BT should give you a feel as to the reactions of the enemy.

I think, though, it's much better with armor and fire support than in handling infantry.

It's far better in defense than in attack. It can't attack for ****; there's no real point playing scenarios against the AI as defender: if you site your defense in the "right" place, it'll just march, largely obliviously, into your kill zones. If you anticipate wrong, or misread the terrain, you'll have to scramble, but once you regain your balance, against an "even" AI attacker, they're toast. Basically it can't maneuver.

That's when my losses in that scenario go through the roof, for I simply can't protect my maneuver element properly when so many potential hostile locations are blocked by intervening trees or buildings. In effect, I can see only a few things, but the Germans on the ridge can see and stop ANY move on the objectives. Have the burning armor and panicked crews to prove it!

I can't comment on the precise scenario, but I've found, in general, that there are always places where more of mine can see him than his that can see mine. You just have to slice your ambition to what you can cover, and concentrate on that one ambition. If you've got to advance a long way without cover, smoke often helps slice up the battlefield into manageable chunks. And sometimes you just have to play WW1.

Since all kinds of bad things happen to my forces and I miss them despite multiple replays...

Um... how? Don't try and watch everything. Close your view down to what you can take in and view the battle in chunks. You'll see units react, even if you don't see what made them do so. If you want to find out, you almost always can. Go back to the beginning of the turn and select the unit you are interested in, hit "FFWD" til something changes its state, then go back a couple of 5s chunks and watch. Repeat until you see the effector. At least then you'll know they lost a man to small arms fire they can't locate.

...do we have a +1 button to make our troops easier to find?

Double-click on a member of a formation, and the whole formation at their level will be highlighted yellow. Or shift-drag a box over the area of interest.

...why do so many of my tanks wind up butt first to the foe--and dead?

Couple of things I've seen cause that:

• Mistaken orders in multiple waypoints. I know that I've intended a vehicle to reverse away from the foe, and for some cack-brained reason I've selected a forward movement mode, probably while trying to add an extra leg to the end of the move order while having the first, reversing, leg selected.
  
• Difficult pathfinding. If your vehicle is having to struggle to find a path round an obstacle, it can sometimes present an unwise face to the enemy.
  
• Panic. Most of the time they'll back away from whatever threat made them decide to get the Hell out of Dodge, but that can either mean they encounter obstacles as above, or reverse into the FOF of other enemies.
  

If you watch the unit through the turn where they died, you'll see why. While you're learning, I'd recommend you save the game before you press "go" and when the replay has been generated. That way you can go back and watch turns until you find the one where the vehicle died and you didn't notice. Then you can go back to the order phase of that turn, if necessary, to check what you told the unit to do. It's a fag, sometimes, but you learn from seeing it.

Before I plunk down scarce moolah for the full game, I want to be able to play the Demo with some degree of proficiency, i.e, much better than Basic Training.

As I said, and it bears repeating, Basic Training is possibly the hardest AI opponent. All the others make its arty easier to avoid and make the interface harder to navigate.

Last night, I lost ground in terms of combat performance.

From the sound of it, you're trying to play games that are too large to learn from at the speed you want to play. Getting the full game will allow you to start smaller and learn the basics before you have to handle a larger scenario.

Bombardment got a carefully sited ATG before it could fire a shot...

Chances are, that was mostly luck. Unless your care was misplaced. ATGs can be hard to spot if they're properly sited.

...the other killed an AC and also succumbed to bombardment.

Basic Training makes their arty more effective. One AC for an ATG isn't a bad return. Many ATGs are killed before they kill anything.

I got one, count 'em, one fire mission off with the FO.

Then you are doing something wrong. FOs don't just die. FOs just don't die. Slap a 10m covered arc on them at game start and leave it there. Think sneaky with them and never put them where they'll get shot at.

Part of the problem was traced to some mishap that debussed the team, but left the radio on the jeep...

With a US FO, there's a radio with the team, as well as on the jeep. Your 'mishap' was probably enemy fire that killed the radio operator (who was instantly buddy aided out of existence cos they were in a vehicle) and paniced the team into dismounting.

But even after I got that sorted and had good LOS, I kept gettiing Denied when I called for fire.

Then the 'mishap' had also killed the team leader, leaving you with a security trooper who's not got the authority or radio to call in a strike.

[Erwin]

Doing well in any game means playing well vs "the system/engine" and it takes time to learn/understand what the "system" is likely to do in all/most circumstances. In CM1 players developed massive lists and charts of how units would act, what their LOS is in various terrains etc. CMSF nerfed that and deprived us of that sort of info to make it appear more realistic so it could potentially be used as a milpro training tool. (And now we're stuck with that policy in CMBN.)

(Ok, I'm off traveling for a few months now heh...)

[Childress]

It's far better in defense than in attack. It can't attack for ****; there's no real point playing scenarios against the AI as defender: if you site your defense in the "right" place, it'll just march, largely obliviously, into your kill zones. If you anticipate wrong, or misread the terrain, you'll have to scramble, but once you regain your balance, against an "even" AI attacker, they're toast. Basically it can't maneuver.

The number of computer wargames that have featured an AI opponent that can develop an attack- without an artificial boost in numbers- can be counted on the fingers of one hand. You're better off lowering expectations and defaulting to the offensive role. One hears that the Command Ops series constitute an exception.

[akd]

CMSF nerfed that and deprived us of that sort of info to make it appear more realistic so it could potentially be used as a milpro training tool. (And now we're stuck with that policy in CMBN.)

(Ok, I'm off traveling for a few months now heh...)

That is not true. In fact, that is really silly.

[Sublime]

Kettler - if you select any units, you can + and - to cycle through them - just like CMx1.

for god's sake try the other scenarios! You're missing a lot of fun! One scenario does NOT do the game justice.

Dont play at basic, play it on veteran or warrior. trust me. It'l be the same, artillery will just take longer to realistically appear and spotting will be more realistic. As stated above though, this will help you greatly since the enemy wont have super fast reactive artillery screaming in.

[sburke]

Doing well in any game means playing well vs "the system/engine" and it takes time to learn/understand what the "system" is likely to do in all/most circumstances. In CM1 players developed massive lists and charts of how units would act, what their LOS is in various terrains etc. CMSF nerfed that and deprived us of that sort of info to make it appear more realistic so it could potentially be used as a milpro training tool. (And now we're stuck with that policy in CMBN.)

(Ok, I'm off traveling for a few months now heh...)

That is not true. In fact, that is really silly.

yeah that is the second time that rumor has been tossed out here recently. Not sure of it's origins, but I have yet to have seen anything to give it any substance. Frankly I think BFC has enough with all of us always breathing down their neck to ever consider contracting to the gov't.

As to the "massive lists and charts", damn I don't want to go back to tables and charts and all that from boardgames. I want to use tactics not odds modifiers. That I think is more BFC's goal and overall I'd say they have done really well at it. CMSF didn't "nerf" LOS. If anything CMx1 nerfed it by applying one standard to all units and all terrain in a given action square. You could try to recreate those lists, but frankly the variables now simply make it not worth your while.

LOL traveling doesn't get you away from the forum Erwin, just the game as I am learning...sigh

[John Kettler]

Sublime,

I may've cited the wrong CMx1 command, but I was referring to the one that magnified the size of the men and vehicles. Your suggestion to play at higher difficulty levels strikes me as highly counterintuitive, because under CMx1 it meant the AI opponent got more toys, but I guess that isn't the case anymore.

womble,

Do unhorsed AFV crews disappear after a time? I couldn't find the ones who fled their burning beast when reviewing the battlefield after the fight was over. One of the reasons I was looking for a magnify command! The FO didn't die, but in fact emerged from the battle with most of his initial ammo allotment intact, much to my frustration. Shall have to keep a close eye on FO teams in the future. Pretty sure I took no casualties, but maybe the Walkie Talkie got hit. Is supporting artillery ever "busy," generating the Denied response?

Regards,

John Kettler

[Aldaros]

I may've cited the wrong CMx1 command, but I was referring to the one that magnified the size of the men and vehicles.

There is no magnify unit size command in CMx2 games. As I recall, the explanation is that the visible unit models in the CMx2 engine are also used for the hit calculations. In other words, making a unit appear bigger would also increase the "physical" size of the unit in the game, making it much easier to hit.

[c3k]

John,

Difficulty levels do NOT change enemy equipage (or friendly). Instead, it affects artillery delay, command and control, and many other characteristics of the units. Read the on-line manual to get a more accurate description. However, the best way to find out is to select the different levels and see what happens.

The TacAI plays at the same level as you. If you play at easy (or whatever that's called), there is very little, if any, artillery delay. The enemy gets the same benefit.

As you're finding out, the learning curve does have a steep slope: at first. The full game will allow you to try some tiny battles, a platoon per side.

Buy it. You won't regret it!

Ken

[womble]

Your suggestion to play at higher difficulty levels strikes me as highly counterintuitive, because under CMx1 it meant the AI opponent got more toys, but I guess that isn't the case anymore.

Which you'd know if you'd read the manual, or gathered the faintest glimmer of what's involved in creating a scenario.

Do unhorsed AFV crews disappear after a time?

No, unless they're killed or there's an "Exit" map edge.

I couldn't find the ones who fled their burning beast when reviewing the battlefield after the fight was over.

Just click on infantry or HQ icons that you're not sure about til you find them. Or find another member of the same unit and double-click their icon, which will light all the unit's icons up yellow.

The FO didn't die, but in fact emerged from the battle with most of his initial ammo allotment intact...

Ammo doesn't mean he didn't die. Unless you've found a special bug with "For John Kettler" on it, the "Denied" message means that the FO team leader is dead/incap. Simple as. FO-capable units don't, unfortunately, need to have a radio working to still be able to call in arty. It's just a property of the unit.

Pretty sure I took no casualties...

Pardon me if your previous messages make this statement carry very little weight.

Is supporting artillery ever "busy," generating the Denied response?

No. When it's busy it will give the "Busy" response. It will also usefully offer a "Go to spotter" button so you can see which FO has prior claim on the resource. Fire support assets are never "claimed" by units other than ones in your OB. That would be idiocy.

[Michael Emrys]

The TacAI plays at the same level as you. If you play at easy (or whatever that's called), there is very little, if any, artillery delay. The enemy gets the same benefit.

This surprises me. I would have sworn (wrongly, as it appears now) that the enemy AI always played at the hardest level regardless of the one chosen by the player. In fact, I have this notion that Steve himself once said so.

Ah well...

Michael

[altipueri]

Which page in the manual tells me that on Basic Training the AI gets quick artillery as well as the human player and that therefore you should, as a beginner, not play on Basic Training level because it is actually harder?

As far as I can see page 60 says quite clearly "Basic Training: This is the easiest setting."

[womble]

This surprises me. I would have sworn (wrongly, as it appears now) that the enemy AI always played at the hardest level regardless of the one chosen by the player. In fact, I have this notion that Steve himself once said so.

I have never been shelled as rapidly as in the scenarios I played on "Basic Training". It was near instant delivery. That was in the demo, mind, so the code could be different in the release game, though I thought the game code was identical.

[Michael Emrys]

I have never been shelled as rapidly as in the scenarios I played on "Basic Training". It was near instant delivery.

And this could not have been a bombardment called during set-up? I've run into quite a few of those. The AI can be quite good at guessing what avenue you will use in your approach marches and laying arty on them. I've since learned not to use obvious routes or to wait until I see where the shells are falling and go some other way.

Michael

[womble]

And this could not have been a bombardment called during set-up? I've run into quite a few of those. The AI can be quite good at guessing what avenue you will use in your approach marches and laying arty on them. I've since learned not to use obvious routes or to wait until I see where the shells are falling and go some other way.

Michael

I don't think so. By "rapidly", I meant "from my troops arriving at a place and announcing their presence". I've not since encountered AI pre-planned bombardments with delay in arrival; they all seem to drop starting turn 1, somewhere you might be expected to run through while trying to make a swift approach in the first minute.