Jump to content

Bulletpoint

Members
  • Content Count

    4,092
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by Bulletpoint

  1. Browning machine guns, the M2 mortar, the BAR, and the bazooka are all still organic to the formation. Those weapons are the chief tools of an American ToE in reducing an enemy position. So you mean players rely too much on the firepower of the Garand, and with the Brazilians, they will have to learn to use the support weapons better?
  2. ?? You want scenarios that are easy? Ego - nope. Who wants to design a cake walk? Who wants to play a cake walk? Nobody said anything about cake walks. Or easy scenarios. I'm saying that many scenario designers make extremely difficult scenarios, and I think the reason is they don't want to feel the player "beats" them. I know this from my own experience designing a couple of battles. I kept telling my tester that I didn't want to do a cake walk, so he just had to try harder. Then later I tried to play it myself and found I couldn't beat my own scenario! Next scenario I did, I started out making it really easy. A tester asked me "is this all? I already won after 15 minutes" and I got red in the face and added a lot of stuff that - once again - made the scenario too difficult. The reason for that was ego. I felt he had somehow beaten me. Also, the scenarios people talk about are usually the ones that are super difficult. Who doesn't want his battle to be the talk of the town? So my philosophy is: Let the player have some fun. If you design a big Soviet assault, give the player a battery of rocket artillery to use as he wants. If you make a Peiper scenario where you know he had King Tigers in real life, don't tell the player that unfortunately they ran out of fuel just before the scenario starts. Etc. You can still balance the mission in other ways.
  3. You don't have these moire patterns in the fields?
  4. Scenario designers are often way too afraid that the scenario might get too easy. I think it might be an ego thing.
  5. Only if the human scenario designer has used the new features.
  6. I haven't read anything about better performance or fixed graphical glitches, so my guess would be that the game still stutters, swirling patterns appear in plowed fields, shadows still flicker on and off as the camera moves, and that shading still appear on the terrain facing the sun 🍄😵
  7. I think it might actually mean the unit is not in contact using a vehicle based radio?
  8. But if you don't really use the Garand anyway, why is an american-style OOB without the Garand so interesting? Genuine question, I'm not trying to be annoying here. Just curious.
  9. Don't. There's a bug where your guys do suicide runs towards the enemy. Wait till that gets fixed.
  10. Yes, sometimes units just magically spot opponents through a whole jungle of trees..
  11. I also tried that mode once, and it didn't fix the crashes. The only thing that helped for me was to toggle off the shaders.
  12. My experience is very different. The Garand is great until about 150-200m. The LMG42 could be expected to dominate the Garand from 300-600m, but it doesn't, really, as far as I can see. It's very imprecise in this game, and only becomes really dangerous at ranges where the Garand also shines.
  13. What kills you only makes you stronger 🙂
  14. Looking forward to it. If you need an opponent for it, let me know.
  15. Nice catch. I must say in the examples I have seen, the unit does not show aiming/firing at all. So maybe Josey's example shows a different behaviour type. In my examples, I believe they just show "spotting". I think will be able to confirm that when looking at my savegames.
  16. In my experience, morale states/experience/C2 seemed to have nothing to do with it. I saw it a couple of times when playing scenarios (various morale states) but only recently had loads of examples from a scenario I was building, myself. So I was sure these AFVs were OK.
  17. Hi Josey, thanks for participating and making the video. It does look exactly like the situations I have been seeing. I've witnessed it with both infantry, light AFVs and tanks. But it's not only the Soviets doing it. My cases have been with German units in CMFB. My personal hunch is that it's some TacAI change that's been introduced in v. 4.1, because I've played for years with previous versions and cannot recall seeing it before 4.1. Just 20 mins ago I sent some savegames for @MOS:96B2P to take a look at.
  18. It also happens with tanks and other AFVs. I have several saves that show armoured cars just looking at targets they are actively spotting, that are close (2-300m range) and that are not in much cover (a bit of forest). They don't open fire. But I can order them to fire, and then they have no problems engaging.
  19. Your issue sounds a lot like the one I posted about recently here:
  20. To the best of my knowledge, the wait command only delays affects movement commands. It doesn't delay firing commands, facing commands, or smoke commands. So 'face + smoke + 30sec wait' will change facing first, then pop smoke, as soon as the squad is finished changing facing. Meanwhile, the timer ticks down. In total, they will wait 30 seconds, then move to next waypoint, if they have one, no matter if they managed to throw the smoke grenade or not.
×
×
  • Create New...