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.

Kevin, I am not sure if I understand you correctly. I tried a reverse command preceded by hunt and other commands, with or without cover arc. The hunt command is the only command that is not unconditional - but the reverse command is never executed if it spots something. All other commands work unconditionally.

No.

Yesterday I finished my third CM scenario ever and overall I am delighted and very impressed. But there are also a few things that raise my eyebrows when it comes to realism. One of the strange things I couldn't find a solution for in the scenario: Is there a way to use recon vehicles in a manner that they do not stop and stupidly engage enemy tanks/guns, but retreat into safety?

Interesting how long lasting the interest in BN topics was. Compared to all later releases. They seem to create shorter and shorters peaks of interest and then quickly wane off. If forum activity is positively correlated with sales, then I believe this inidcates that new releases create shorter spikes of sales. If this is correct, then they maybe should ask themselfes, why is that. I know that I am interested in a new software release the more new useful functions it offers and therefore the more it differs in FUNCTIONALITY. For example I am not interested in new infantry, since the difference is mostly only a texture and probably a bit in firepower. And if the short range or long range firepower is different, I can easily adopt to it. But it probably doesn't change my gaming experience. But as a potential customer I am much more interested - for example - if the campaign system can simulate battles that endure several days on the same battlefield, or if I would be a realtime player, if the game would offer replay for a few seconds, or if units can be selected by clicking on their movement paths. Gamewise I am not interested if the German infantry battalion differs from the one to the last release, or if a tank variant differs from another by 10 mm at the turret front. The impact of these changes on the gaming experience seems minimal, compared to other changes. And the bigger the changes I'd guess the bigger the interest. The more shallow a release is, the shorter the spike of interest.

I am wondering how many customers stop playing CM because they become frustrated? I mean most games are just an insult for the intelligent person. They please the stupid mass. I personally LOVE that finally I have found a game which punishes bad tactics and also offers unpredictability. If something goes wrong, I ask what did I wrong, or what could I have done better? But most people don't function that way. Maybe Battlefront should offer game levels, that give the player some advantages, but without calling it that way (even the most stupid people love to be called intelligent, wise and clever...) and the current level being renamed to something like "super duper harder than life level"... ps: I must add, that I am totally amazed how the individual soldiers behave when they receive the appropriate orders (i.e. how they are placed along walls, hedges, how they shoot at different targets,...)

Interesting topic. Did some analysis:

ASL, I didn't say the game is weak. I said that in my eyes it has a weak area. And that weak spot I identified is the CM2 campaign system. You can't claim that I did not write why in my opinion it is weak, because I brought examples what it can't model and what I would expect from a campaign system of a tacical simulation aiming for realism. Can it be more specific than: damage to the map, unit statuses and their positions may not be lost if several parts of a battle should be modelled? After I have played my first campaign maybe I can be even more specific.

I agree, but I want to emphasize that you are talking about a SPECIFIC situation. There are many other situations, where such informations are not present. This is even more valid for armies, where commanders have a high degree of freedom and flexibility. Have you ever heard about the term "Auftragstaktik"? It was used by the Germans and it means, that there are not given orders, but tasks. It is up to the local commander to fullfill the task. If there is no reconaissance available, he must act accordingly - but he must try to fullfill the given task. In the meantime I have bought CMRT and as you know, it's timeframe and geography is around Bagration. The tasks without any useful reconaissance infos maybe even were the majority then. A very good example that supports my point of view: regimental or divisional commanders often didn't even know where their neighbouring regiment/division had gone and they often only received informations like: the enemy was seen at City X. "Oh damn, that's 50 km behind our lines! So we can expect another encirclement." "Take your company, a platoon StuG IV will be placed under your command and open the street torwards City X." That's a typical task. The commander knew NOTHING and it was comepletely on his own, how he achieved it. Purely tactical, nothing operational. I can only repeat myself: I have not argued nor do I want a development torwards an operational game. All I argue for is better tools for more realism instead of storytelling as the only way to simulate whole battles. What I don't understand: why are you suggesting I would want something absurd or completely new?! The old CM1 system obviously was quite close to modelling whole battles. That it maybe had shortcomings with drawing frontlines or other things does not mean that an implementation in CMx2 must repeat the shortcomings. The not so good things - ofcourse - should be avoided. What do you guys have against improvements in areas where the game is weak?

Lucas, Sburke, ok, but then this must be valid for ALL. Rules that are only applied selectively are no rules. Rules must be valid for all participants. Why is this always and only raised when I post and not when others do the same, when they attack Russia or suggest that Putin wants to annex Ukraine and much more? I think this behaviour is highly unjust.

One can set his clock after it: As soon as a good initiative brings progress, the USA is becoming extremely active to sabotage it. This time Kerry immediately jumped into a plane, flew to Kiev and is now even offering a bancrupt country direct weapon deliveries, while this good initiative is gaining momentum. What a ruthless politics of destabilization in such a phase! I still remember well what had happened hours before the Ukrainian persident was ousted: an agreement with all involved parties, all opposition parties signed - the ink was not dry, the members from the meeting had not yet returned and the agent provocateurs already had started shooting. For almost 18 months I observe this evil scheme now and I hope, that this time the European vassals have enough courage to reject the devastating US politics for Europe. A little hope may be that they no longer accept the US being part of their initiatives.