Welcome to The Few Good Men

Thanks for visiting our club and having a look around, there is a lot to see. Why not consider becoming a member?
Register

Round Two

Lethaface said:
No, they should when I get back from work and adhere to my timezone! :D
Click to expand...
Many years ago, I enlisted in the Reserves. At that time they told me that my warrior duties would only take place on weekends, and only 1 weekend per month. Oh yeah, and two weeks each summer. So, I don't know where you are getting all this hour-a-day, or early morning stuff. Weekends, once a month, two weeks in the summer, that's it.
And all of this is in MY time zone. :2draw:
 
JTimo said:
Many years ago, I enlisted in the Reserves. At that time they told me that my warrior duties would only take place on weekends, and only 1 weekend per month. Oh yeah, and two weeks each summer. So, I don't know where you are getting all this hour-a-day, or early morning stuff. Weekends, once a month, two weeks in the summer, that's it.
And all of this is in MY time zone. :2draw:
Click to expand...
Didn't you get the active duty notice to be available on call at any time to your disliking? :LOL:
I'm in rather active duty now workwise although not military stuff; the good thing is that somehow I've found moar energy from the snafu fubar situation lol (took a while though, plus some grey hairs).

Anyway I'm liking this game, @Stafford has the best turn pace anyone can dream of; whenever I have CM PC time there is a turn waiting. Although we are probably exactly on the other side of the globe so unless either of us is doing some turns at a crazy time compared to the other (it happens lol), we're out of sync.
Without giving away spoilers I can say that as the US side in this battle I've build some new appreciation of the US halftracks or rather the firepower they can dish out.
 
Here is the present standings, still early to mean much.
the best scores are listed first

For the USA it is
Lethaface, Hilts, and then Jolly Olly

For the Germans
Bleskaceq, then kgpanther and then Guardsman

All I will say is that, putting up a hard fight on defence does pay off. ( but we need not say anything to give anything away to those still playing)
 
Last edited:
pfft, my battle just finished as a draw thanks to a last minute gamey land grab. WTF does Battlefront allow one man on the VP to count as it gained when that unit is surrounded by enemy units.? Should need to be a percentage of a force total. He would have been toast the very next minute along with his other 6 men who got gunned down trying to rush it for the VP points but the battle finished bang on time. :cautious:
Was a great tough fight the whole battle, against overwhelming firepower, but endings like that really p*ss on my chips after putting up a tough defence. Maybe we should make it an un-offical rule of the tourney.
 
Guardsman said:
pfft, my battle just finished as a draw thanks to a last minute gamey land grab. WTF does Battlefront allow one man on the VP to count as it gained when that unit is surrounded by enemy units.? Should need to be a percentage of a force total. He would have been toast the very next minute along with his other 6 men who got gunned down trying to rush it for the VP points but the battle finished bang on time. :cautious:
Was a great tough fight the whole battle, against overwhelming firepower, but endings like that really p*ss on my chips after putting up a tough defence. Maybe we should make it an un-offical rule of the tourney.
Click to expand...

well, its all in how you want to look at it, but there is not going to be any un-official rules or scoring.

As for if you win or lose this round, hard to say, since you are in the middle of the scoring, it could go either way.

As for the point of view that matters, it is mine. first, all battles will end on a set time and yes that leads to gamey rushing the objective moves by players on the last turn and to do just what just happened to you in this match, why am I staying with that decision.

Because having a variable ending time will not be fair as to comparing battles to other battles since that is how it is determined to how well you did. Becase if one battle ends on turn 31 and another on turn 35, how would you like to be the german player that had to try to hold out for another 4 turns. So end of this discussion. (all battles will end on a set time.)

Gamey play is just playing the game, everyone knows the situation, if one person on a objective can cost you points , so be it, that is how the game is designed. Dont like it, well neither do most of the rest of us either. But deal with it.

You did what you could to hold the objective and almost did, except for one guy that would die given another turn. but thats like being up by one in a basketball game and the other team has half a second left in the game and shoots a shot from 3/4 length of the court and it goes in.
Should they win, some might say no, but it does not matter, they do.
 
Last edited:
Oh, by the way, Guardsman you played a very good battle and did a major hurt on a good opponant. You know it, he knows it and that is all that should matter.
If you need any more validation than that, you need to think about what really matters and why you do this.

This is really to test your skills and to have fun. From what i saw, you did well as to your decisions. and it was one heck of a fight that seems to have been a good challenge.

That is all that should matter and hopefully when we wrap this round up you get the win, but no gareenrtees there.
 
i agree with all you say Slysniper. I have just always hated that option in CM. Makes me laugh, we spend hours arguing over weapon accuracy, unit abilities etc like good grognards/ww2 buffs yet something as daft as this is a perfectly viable option within CM battles - makes a mockery of any attempt at realistic battle simulation. It wouldnt have hurt BFC to make it a force percentage for objective grabbing. or something more tangible like having a tank sat on a crossroads....assuming there arnt 4 enemy tanks sitting on the same crossroads!
 
Guardsman said:
i agree with all you say Slysniper. I have just always hated that option in CM. Makes me laugh, we spend hours arguing over weapon accuracy, unit abilities etc like good grognards/ww2 buffs yet something as daft as this is a perfectly viable option within CM battles - makes a mockery of any attempt at realistic battle simulation. It wouldnt have hurt BFC to make it a force percentage for objective grabbing. or something more tangible like having a tank sat on a crossroads....assuming there arnt 4 enemy tanks sitting on the same crossroads!
Click to expand...

There is a way around this (sort of), make the capture points SMALL, as in the size of a house, so you have to control that building in order to hold the point.

I've always thought it rather silly that with the CPs on some maps being the size of a village or town, I can sneak a broken, exhausted, sole remaining crew member of a knocked out tank onto the CP and deny it to my opponent who might have parked an entire Battalion there.

I do wish BF would take a year off from developing new titles and concentrate soley on bug fixes and minor improvements to the current games.
 
Stafford said:
There is a way around this (sort of), make the capture points SMALL, as in the size of a house, so you have to control that building in order to hold the point.
Click to expand...

I tend to agree, but this also can lead to gamey situations. I think - in general - having more smaller objectives is the design answer.

Also, the flip side is true - if you cant control the objective well enough to prevent a rush, then you havent really controlled it. That is from a game point of view of course. Not a WW2 simulationist POV (which i recognize is where Guardsman was coming from).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top