Skinfaxi

sburke, why do you have such a negative approach? Let's assume you are correct and there was the need for a recon vehicle class and that class doesn't exist and everything. I doubt that, because it would make the introduction of new units with new capabilities extremely difficult and they seem to have no problems to introduce new units with new capbabilites (see CMBS), but let's assume that's the case. Instead of your negative approach a positive approach maybe would make you think: if it's not possible for recon vehicles only, could it maybe even be a good idea for other vehicles?

Did you really just equalize denying the Holocaust with questioning the claims of one side in the Ukrainian conflict? You claimed the separatist's offensive failed. Why is questioning this statement going off topic? Why are you acting so aggressively? All I ask for, is that you support your claims like I do. Here is a screenshot from a news program in the German TV ZDF from yesterday evening - this means it was broadcasted BEFORE the agreement in Minsk was reached. Additionally one cannot say the German state TV was not a pro-Western propaganda outlet. That's what it showed: Frontline in September: Current frontline: Despite the fact that they explicitly said that the rebels made progress against the Ukrainian army, does that look like a failed separatist offensive? And this image, although shown many hours before the agreement, fits with the agreed demarcation line of today nicely. You banned me for four days with very shady claims. But your new accustions or conspiracy theories cannot paint over the fact, that you make claims, but when I ask you for evidences, you become aggressive and threaten a customer to be banned. In my opinion this would be already bad behaviour from a moderator, but for a company it is totally unacceptable. I am wondering why you are acting that way? Do you think this is good for your business, if you attack customers or everyone who is not blowing the propaganda trumpet of NATO? Do you believe it is good for your company - for ANY company - if it raises severe accustions against a country (Russia) and it's president? Why are you doing this at all? If you would be paid by the Pentagon, I could understand this. Could it be that you are funded by the Pentagon or the US government? I am asking because such a behaviour from a small independent game developer does not make sense business wise. Or are you really that unprofessional, that you use Battelfront for your political agenda? You repeatedly claimed Crimea was "annexed". Don't you know that the right of self determination is one of the main principles of international law? Why is a small software company making such severe accustions? You are making a fine simulation, why are you playing NATO-politican? Why are you posting your political judgement about foreign countries and their governments, instead to give customers a short feedback, when they have discovered a bug which would take only a fraction of the time? If the Minsk agreement will hold, it is not too far fetched that the US claim, that Crimea was annexed will be dropped like a hot potatoe. Don't you remember what the USA argued when in Yugoslavia several regions declared their independence? Russia knows it. The EU knows it. The world knows it. But Battelfront not? So why are you exposing your company without any need? The claim, this was an annexation of Crimea was made for obvious political reasons, but doesn't hold the facts: It was the free will of the Crimean population. Any repeat of the vote would deliver the same result. The correction of the mistake of Chrustchev was long overdue. The Crimeans claimed their right of self determination. But your company calls that annexation? I think it is not good if companies are used for personal political agendas or if they are exposed that way. Like the failure of the separatists offensive and the advance of the Ukrainian army.

But this article does NOT claim these soldiers were fighting. Not even the Ukrainians nor the Western media claimed they were fighting. Why do you claim what not even western media claimed? Battlefront claims Russian troops were FIGHTING in Ukraine and that there were numerous evidences. I want to see these evidences. You not?

You asked me if I had a 1/10 of a brain. May I ask you back, if you really believe, if Kiev would have captured Russian soldiers, that they would not show the whole world this evidence? But I guess questioning your statements is against the rules. Whatever your sources are, they are not good:

and then a recon vehicle should retreat, not try to fight a Tiger.

Ok, ok, I understand that you want SOPs. You want them so badly that you even argue against a straightforward solution of the recon vehicle problem. That's a interesting attitude.

IanL, is the HUNT command a SOP, too? Is a covered arc a SOP? The HIDE command? The DEPLOY command at the end of a movement path? But that's not what I suggested. My suggestion is a very precise ans dedicated behaviour for certain kind of units.Just like infantry seeks cover by going down, the affected vehicles would no longer commit suicide once they recognize a threat when this function was enabled, but reverse where they came from. Thinking about it, maybe even the HIDE command and button could be used to activate this behaviour? Vehicle moves + threat = current behaviour. Vehicle moves + HIDE activated + threat = reverse. I used the example of the DEPLOY command to show that certain units have special buttons, functions and behaviours which other units do not have. Normal game behaviour. Infantry squads.This function and the button even vanishes when the size of the unit is beyond a certain threshold - same unit. The game is full of these things, well it is good, BECAUSE it models units realistically and gives them their own capabilities. My suggestion would fit to existing game mechanics and has nothing to do with SOPs or engine limitations.

If the developers have the time to post long comments about their opinion on the Ukraine crisis, then I expect that they find the time for a short feedback on a discovered bug. And if the developers do not, I have read several threads, where beta testers endlessly discuss minor things. So to answer your question: I expect a reaction.

What are SOPs?

Wittmann's gunner Balthasar Woll reportedly used the 800 m visor as standard.

Hellooo?!

The ENGINE does not allow that? Are you kidding me? Can you Deploy a tank or only special units? Even infantry units have a unique Attack button and can do special movements, while vehicles do not have this special ability and they also do not react the way infantry does. The whole program is about giving units unique functionality and behaviour.

A co, yes, I had noticed that, too. In the other thread where I reported a bug with German recon vehicles I also raised this topic for the developers. I make the suggestion, that the recon vehicle class could have a special option to be enabled: when enabled by the player, that the vehicle would behave differently than it does now and when it recognizes a threat simply drives backwards where it came from.

The German recon vehicles with their reverse speed as high as forward speed and with a rear driver only have normal reverse speed! How do I know that? Because I used the editor for the first time! :cool: I want to use the opportunity to raise this problem to the attention of the designers, if they read this thread because of the bug: But that's not the only problem: it's the behaviour of recon vehicles torwards tanks/guns in general that doesn't fit to the vehicle/weapon class at all (a problem affecting all sides in the game). Please Battlefront, give the recon vehicles some love! Their implementation compared to the usual amazingly high standards I find very poor. In the manual it is stated that victory points could be collected for spotting certain units. I begin to understandwhy I haven't found spotting scenarios yet! They would also need recon vehicles that act like recon vehicles. Programming the AI to react intelligently is certainly a difficult, time consuming thing. But maybe this could be avoided if the player would have the ability to decide, how recon vehicles should behave when they face a threat? If this "retreat" behaviour is activated, then they do not engage a threat but retreat in the direction they were coming from. Problem solved.

A co, is there a reason why is that? I mean other weapons also behave differently and remarkably intelligent according to their special functionality. Good idea! A workaround is better than nothing.