Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bulletpoint last won the day on December 11

Bulletpoint had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Bulletpoint

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location:


  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

4,262 profile views
  1. I'm just some half-baked hack, but... ...I'm pretty sure the first is the correct. I've played through several campaigns where I won some missions, and lost others, but at the end of it, I still got the message that I won. Which is a bit funny after actually losing the final, climatic battle.
  2. I've been thinking a lot about how to design something like that. Now I can play one and get some inspiration Thanks @theforger
  3. I suspect its almost entirely do to with AI problems. TacAI is only reactive and there is no strategic AI whatsoever so it would certainly cause a ton of problems in any scenario that wasn't a flat plain. But in scenarios, it's the designer who places enemy tanks and guns. Good designers check LOF to make sure the guns can target the areas they need to target. If elevation were modelled, the designer would just see a little "out of elevation" under the target pointer for certain locations. I'm not saying Battlefront are stupid for not including elevation. I'm sure they have their reasons - all I'm saying is that I personally don't really understand why. Edit: I should also in all fairness say that I don't have much of a problem with lack of elevation restriction. It's extremely rare that I see situations where it looks silly (like in the video above). I'm just curious about the design decision.
  4. The rest of the game doesn't work like that though. If you want a hull down position, you need to place the tank very precisely. Same with keyholes - if you're not at the exact spot, you won't get line of sight. It can be done, and then you get an advantage. But when it comes to gun elevation, the game works differently...
  5. I wouldn't either. Not a good place to be in. But in a competition between a squad behind the tracks and raised gravel bed on one side, and another platoon without any cover at all, I would expect the first group to have at least a small advantage.
  6. I went back and updated the test scenario. First I tested raising the rails 1 metre, then after that, i tested raising it 1 metre with ditchlock. Results were the same - the raised elevation means nothing for cover at the actual square where the railroad tile is. But it allows troops to slink back and duck out of sight when they take fire, so casualties decreased. Even without manually raising the tracks, the graphics show that they are slightly raised. Together with the steel rails, I think that should provide a small defensive bonus. Not a great fighting position, but at least something compared to troops that have absolutely no cover at all. But the problem is that the game doesn't give any micro terrain bonus for railroads, and that it doesn't let troops fire from a prone position. Probably I'm the only one who cares about this stuff. But at least I answered my own question Also I learnt the true meaning of "embankment" - thanks @Warts 'n' all
  7. Oh dear, have a glass of eggnog. It's the season to be jolly I didn't raise the tracks in the test, because I assumed the slightly raised bed of rocks under the tracks, together with the tracks themselves, would offer some protection for a prone soldier. People are not that tall when lying down. However, what really happens in the test seems to be that the railroad guys line up against the tracks like against a short wall, so they get closer to each other than their opponents who are prone on the ground and spread out more. Also, the railroad team doesn't go prone much, so they are more exposed.
  8. I always wondered if infantry could find a little cover along railroad embankments, and I finally decided to test it. So I made a symmetrical situation of 4 US rifle squads shooting at 4 US rifle squads at apprx 285 metres. One side was on flat pavement, the otther side was behind a railroad. Troops lined up along the side of the railroad like they do along a wall, so it looked like there might be some cover there. Flat terrain, no heavy weapons, and all regular experience +0 soft factors. My expectation was that troops behind a railroad embankment would gain a small cover bonus But the results after 3 minutes of shooting surprised me: The side behind the railroad suffered 17 casualties and 17 wounded. The side lying on flat pavement suffered 2 killed, 2 wounded. So not only does it provide no cover to place troops along railroad tracks; it actually makes them much more vulnerable. Should this be the result we see?
  9. @wadepm That sounds like the game is running on the Intel integrated card. Do you know if your laptop also has a dedicated card (like a GeForce card or somefink) in addition to the integrated card? If you do, use the video cards software suite and set it to run on high performance graphics and the blurry text will go away. Did you read this thread? Might fix your problem:
  10. Each individual soldier has his own soft factors. So even in a green team of cowards, there might be a veteran fanatic. The squad's visible rating is the average. Source: an answer I got from BF support once.
  11. I've seen the same happen. But I think that's perfectly realistic to happen, as long as it's pretty rare.
  12. Thanks. I am quite surprised that the Germans were able to hit peak production as late as 1944 and crank out 35,000 planes. But I still wonder why they did not ramp up plane production before starting the war. Also, with those dismal production numbers in 1939, I wonder how Germans thought they would ever be able to win. Again, it leads me back to my hypothesis that they simply underestimated how big a role air power would play.
  13. It's not about making a self aware machine intelligence, but about adding a few more lines to the TacAI surrender code. There is already code that determines if a unit surrenders or not. Maybe it could be something like this: IF (low on ammo) THEN surrender chance +1 IF (out of C2 to higher level) THEN surrender chance +2 (This one is probably already in the game, but haven't tested it) Checking to see if a unit is surrounded would be more tricky, but I think it could be done. Units already have awareness of where their buddies are (as we see when playing iron mode). So basically you could do checks to see if the "weight" of enemy presence (number and strength) of enemy contact markers is much higher than the friendly presence within, say, 150 metres, and then also check if enemy presence is all around the unit. Then the unit could get a big extra risk of surrendering, but could choose to fight on if highly motivated/experienced/well led/plenty of ammo/rested/etc. In practice: 1: draw a 150m circle around the unit doing the surrender check. 2: count all enemy and friendly markers within the circle. Enemy markers that are closer towards the unit's friendly map edge than the unit doing the surrender check counts double (they block the way to friendly lines). Each marker is weighted by contact strength (if a contact marker is solid visible or fading away) 3: If the enemy contact marker score is significantly higher than the friendly presence, unit is considered surrounded. @Kaunitz, what do you think about this way of looking at it?
  14. So many parts of the German defeat seem to come back to lack of air superiority. I wonder if Germans simply underestimated how much airpower had developed from WWI to WWII and failed to take it into account in their strategic planning until it was too late?
  15. Or if Native Americans discovered gun powder first and/or perfected the art of producing high quality steel first. Much has been made of the tech difference, but I think the important thing was that the pox crushed Aztec society, and that they had made lots of enemies, whom the Spanish skillfully rallied to their cause.
  • Create New...