Demo charges: A soldier's best friend

[UglyElmo1]

I was getting my posterior handed to me by the AI, until I learned how to use demo charges to blow up sections of the Bocage. What a difference it makes! No longer am I forced into bottlenecks with little or no means of flanking the enemy.

So if you are not aware of how to use demo charges on the bocage, learn so. Your success rate in battle will go up quickly.

If your unit has demo charges (like the pioneer unit), there is a command called "Blast". Click on it, then click on the bocage section you want to blow up and "BOOM" You have a new access point for both your infantry and tanks. If the little circle for the blast command is on the opposite side of what you want to blow a hole in, then your infantry demo unit will walk through the hole after it blows. If you keep it on your side of the bocage your infantry demo unit will stay put.

I have played all the old Combat Mission games and have been playing this for approximately 2 days. It took me a bit to get used to . . . no tweaking waypoints, new mortar/artillery commands, along with the slightly different interface . . but I am enjoying this game. I would like to have a bit more control over my units, but the AI is fairly competent if you make short movements instead of long movements with many waypoints.

Overall, I would say this game has the potential to be the best of the combat series. I was burned out on CMBB and CMAK, and CMBN is just different enough to get me interested in the series again.

Well done.

[GreenAsJade]

There is absolutely no need to tweak waypoints.

Just delete the ones you don't like and plot again. There are no command delays, so there is no penalty for replotting, hence no need for moveable waypoints.

GaJ

[UglyElmo1]

I am mostly having problems placing Machine Gunners in the exact location I want them at the end of their movement. Especially when next to the Bocage. Plus, controlling where my spotters set up when they go into a building.

Maybe the AI does a good job of placing them, but I am not used to it, and it is a feature I used continuously in CMBB and CMAK. I never mentioned a "need" to have them put back in, I just stated it took me a bit to get used to the way it is currently programmed.

I did notice the old "time delay" figure missing and wondered if it was still implemented, but just not shown. Thanks for the info. Saved me from asking about it in another post or having to play with it in-game.

[G. Smiley]

I am mostly having problems placing Machine Gunners in the exact location I want them at the end of their movement. Especially when next to the Bocage. Plus, controlling where my spotters set up when they go into a building.

Maybe the AI does a good job of placing them, but I am not used to it, and it is a feature I used continuously in CMBB and CMAK. I never mentioned a "need" to have them put back in, I just stated it took me a bit to get used to the way it is currently programmed.

I did notice the old "time delay" figure missing and wondered if it was still implemented, but just not shown. Thanks for the info. Saved me from asking about it in another post or having to play with it in-game.

When setting up your spotters in buildings, use the 'Face' command, if you do not already do that!

[GreenAsJade]

I am mostly having problems placing Machine Gunners in the exact location I want them at the end of their movement. Especially when next to the Bocage. Plus, controlling where my spotters set up when they go into a building.

Yeah this can be frustrating. The "face" command is your friend, here, or judicious choice of covered arc equally controls facing...

GaJ

[__Yossarian0815[jby]]

I am mostly having problems placing Machine Gunners in the exact location I want them at the end of their movement. Especially when next to the Bocage.

Don´t deploy (but use "face") if you want the HMG to be able to fire from behind bocage.

[Michael Emrys]

;1317615']Don´t deploy (but use "face") if you want the HMG to be able to fire from behind bocage.

You might confuse him with that advice. If he doesn't Deploy, his MG won't fire. So a combination of Face and Deploy are advised.

Michael

[Amizaur]

There is absolutely no need to tweak waypoints.

Just delete the ones you don't like and plot again. There are no command delays, so there is no penalty for replotting, hence no need for moveable waypoints.

GaJ

There is no "need" to tweak waypoints just like there is no "need" to play the game at all.

I find tweaking waypoints VERY usefull in many situations, and I miss it very much.

Would the game be WORSE for you, would it kill the immersion, if there was a possibility to move the waypoints ?? Instead of deleting the whole line and plotting it again - just to correct one point at the beginning ?? What a waste of time...

I could also plot a general movement order for a group, and then just modify the destignation points for individual units in a comfortable way. And many other things. I would prefer having this (movable waypoints), than having ANY single additional vehicle in the game (even if it was a KT).

You could just not use this feature, if you don't want too. I need it.

[womble]

Would the game be WORSE for you...

Yes it would, because something else pretty major wouldn't have been done.

Waypoints, in case you hadn't noticed, are rather more complicated objects in x2 than they were in x1. Moving them would need to accommodate additional knock-on effects like LOF/LOS calculations.

Yes it would be convenient to have movable waypoints. It'd be convenient to have a detailed and effective inventory system rather than the halfway house that we currently have. It'd be convenient for text handling to adhere to commonly accepted standards in the UI. Lots of stuff for BFC still to do. But there remains no need for it.

[ChrisND]

Yes it would, because something else pretty major wouldn't have been done.

This. This. A thousand times this. I continually point out that development does not happen in a time vacuum. For every hour and day you spent on one feature, you are *not* working on another, potentially more worthy, feature. Now, obviously everyone has a different measure of what is more important, and that's fine, but remember that having *your* feature included does have consequences. Think about it this way - what is in the game right now that you would give up for your feature?

[GreenAsJade]

I too find it irritating when someone says that they don't want something I want

Sorry about that.

I just found it hard to imagine why you'd want tweaking when it is so quick to delete and replot. I also thought I wanted my tanks to be smarter about going smoothly around corners, but I have surrendered the idea that they will work it out themselves, and now I just draw the path I want them to take. It turns out OK, just many more waypoints than I used to plot ... but actually no slower to do! In fact, I like the finer control now...

GaJ

[UglyElmo1]

Thanks for the hints about using FACE and then DEPLOY to get my MG's better situated on the battlefield. Makes sense now that you mentioned it.

Just to state again: I was not asking for changes to be made to the system to accomodate any of the items I mentioned. I was only saying it took me a bit to get used to the new interface, commands, and the inability to tweak waypoints. I just have to be more thoughtful as to how I first place them now.

@Normal Dude: You've been around a long time my friend. I remember back in 2007 I was asking about Strategic Command 2 and you and a few others said my father would love the game. I bought it on your suggestions and he is still playing it today at the age of 82. Here is the thread: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=65677&page=2

@GreenAsJade: I just read your post about the H2H helper program. Nicely done. You are very talented. I will have to try it out when I start playing MP more. I do have a question though: What does H2H stand for? I know it is a form of PBEM or type of MP, but I cannot for the life of me find any mention of its meaning. Any help would be appreciated.

I don't post here much, but when I do, I always learn something valuable and find it time well spent.

Thanks again everyone.

[Kanonier Reichmann]

I do have a question though: What does H2H stand for? I know it is a form of PBEM or type of MP, but I cannot for the life of me find any mention of its meaning. Any help would be appreciated.

H2H = Head to Head.

Regards

KR

[noxnoctum]

There is absolutely no need to tweak waypoints.

Just delete the ones you don't like and plot again. There are no command delays, so there is no penalty for replotting, hence no need for moveable waypoints.

GaJ

I dunno about that, it can be a hassle to replot a whole carefully conceived path.

Thankfully I think it's on "the List"

[Michael Emrys]

I dunno about that, it can be a hassle to replot a whole carefully conceived path.

Plot shorter paths. Playing WEGO, I prefer to plot only one or two turns ahead anyway. So much can change in a turn and I don't want my guys walking into an ambush just because I forgot that I had them crossing that open space next turn.

Michael

[GreenAsJade]

I dunno about that, it can be a hassle to replot a whole carefully conceived path.

I used to think this, strongly. Then one day something clicked and I realised that plotting paths is so easy if you use lots of points and just click where you want the thing to go, the whole way. Like tracing the path. For me it's now clickclickclickclickclick along the curved route the unit should take. If I change my mind, I hold down backspace and do it again. The work of seconds. It used to be "click, look, think click" for each point where the vehicle should turn. But since there is no cost to waypoints, this is not necessary.

It'd be fascinating to look over each other's shoulder as we do this ... it might be something that can only be appreciated when you see what the problem is.

If it would help you to have moveable waypoints, I can certainly appreciate that. I'm not arguing against them per-se. I'm just sharing that I used to wish for them, then realised I don't need them, so maybe this might help you too. I might post some pics when I have a chance...

GaJ

[Erwin]

"I dunno about that, it can be a hassle to replot a whole carefully conceived path."

+1 to that. This whine is completely understood by those of us who issue orders at each waypoint (as I often do). Change facing, a PAUSE, fire at a location, back to a covered arc... all this can be in a 60 second WEGO turn.

And it's a time-consuming PAIN to have to redo it all cos of one error, or a change. Especially when one has several units to coordinate.

This is one of the reasons I find playing a CMBN scenario takes me at least 2 to 4 times as long as CM1 used to take me. It's exhausting work sometimes. Rewarding and mostly fun, but exhausting.

[LongLeftFlank]

Off topic, sorry

[GreenAsJade]

"I dunno about that, it can be a hassle to replot a whole carefully conceived path."

+1 to that. This whine is completely understood by those of us who issue orders at each waypoint (as I often do). Change facing, a PAUSE, fire at a location, back to a covered arc... all this can be in a 60 second WEGO turn.

And it's a time-consuming PAIN to have to redo it all cos of one error, or a change. Especially when one has several units to coordinate.

Wow. I never do that! The most I do is move some units to some place and face them in the right direction, to see what happens next...

GaJ

[Erwin]

CMBN gives one the opportunity to give so many orders in the course of a WEGO turn that I take advantage of the features. But, man it has really slowed down my play, and it's taking me a lot longer than even in CMSF to do a turn.

Am trying to complete the final LA HAYE scenario in the xnt COURAGE AND FORTITUDE campaign. But, with all the US units on the map with 45 minutes to go, I can barely do one or two turns before I have to break due to mental exhaustion (and dealing with RL issues).

In a large scenario, trying to accomplish mission goals while keeping one's guys alive in the highly lethal CM2 environment is sometimes more like hard work rather than fun. I am a fan of large scenarios and didn't have too much trouble in CMSF. But, am starting to realize that large CMBN scenarios may simply not be as much fun to play simply due to the complexity.

However, I feel obligated to complete the C&F campaign before I go off and try some easier scenarios.

[c3k]

Hmmm, just a thought. If I give a face command at a point, then I move the waypoint (in a future game which allows movable waypoints), should the face command stay? Should it drop? If it stays, should it stay with same angular setting? Or, should it stay pointing at the same distant point? Add the same questions for any of the other combat commands allowed at a waypoint.

[Sgt Schultz]

I miss being able to grab a waypoint and drag it over a wee bit, especially with roads and vehicles. I plot points, then look from another angle and see an error. Instead of a quick tweak, it is back to the start.

Not a major concern, but if it can be put (back) in without too much trouble, I would like it.

As Erwin stated, one can put a LOT of orders into a 60 second WEGO turn, and as the battle size increases, small annoyances like this tend to become larger impediments to the fun of watching cr@p blow up.

[Animal_Mother]

I am mostly having problems placing Machine Gunners in the exact location I want them at the end of their movement. Especially when next to the Bocage. Plus, controlling where my spotters set up when they go into a building.

Maybe the AI does a good job of placing them, but I am not used to it, and it is a feature I used continuously in CMBB and CMAK. I never mentioned a "need" to have them put back in, I just stated it took me a bit to get used to the way it is currently programmed.

I did notice the old "time delay" figure missing and wondered if it was still implemented, but just not shown. Thanks for the info. Saved me from asking about it in another post or having to play with it in-game.

When placing a FO in a building you want to use a short cover arc command, 50 meters or less, facing towards your artillery target. If you use the Face command instead your FO will engage any target within range with small arms, giving away their position...not good.

I found this out the hard way during my early days.

[Michael Emrys]

... am starting to realize that large CMBN scenarios may simply not be as much fun to play simply due to the complexity.

A conclusion I arrived at as soon as the game was released.

Michael

[Erwin]

Am starting to consider that CMBN is akin to the ASL cardboard game series whereas CM1, (and even CMSF surprisingly) are more akin to the PanzerBlitz series.

It depends on what level of play one enjoys the most.