Jump to content

semmes

Members
  • Content Count

    31
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About semmes

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. So I tried this... And I cannot post the pictures because I cannot delete the old attachments because I cannot edit them. So... I dig actual trenches in the front-line areas where I think a player would -or could- deploy troops. One line of squares surrounded by squares 1m. higher; you cannot use Ditch lock, you would get no LOS. First I was using sand terrain for them, it looks nice but everybody can see it, so I now I use the surrounding terrain but with an objective line -0 points- that only the owner can see. It works... they can fire and most of the incoming fire goes over their heads. True, you cannot move them around like the parapets nor place them in every location you want but you are modelling the terrain so you just need to adjust the slope a little and dig enough of them.
  2. True. I thought about saying "teach" instead of teach, my fault. A few more shots -from the AI- is not like keeping an area under fire for ten minutes like a player would do. Pity... Congratulations for your groupies. We must have peace without victory. Wilson, 1917.
  3. No, the answer to my question - Are you going to repair the building's invisibility cloak around buildings ? is... No. By the way I didn't say anything about giving orders to the AI, units under AI control can decide to Area Fire instead of only Target Fire or no fire at all. It is not our duty to doubt Admiralty's wisdom. Response to a British cadet.
  4. To make myself clear, what I mean by rear sight... You need two points to calculate LOS -being a line and that, so you use the tile in front of the weapon, as you move the pointer it gives you a distance area fire, even a wild one. Then, like in indirect fire, you correct the aim, you are going to see the tracers. You have to pay attention? yes, but I read the word frustration many times and there are a lot of small actions where people seem eager to use it. Certainly I don't know the code but you've got the two points, it's "only" the CPU guessing where the loose bullets are going to hit, like grazing fire somebody said.
  5. Sorry, in my search I couldn't find those buildings threads. "Area fire requires LOS to the centre of the action square" is this one of those things that has to do with the "mesh"? I read something about you cannot teach Area Fire to the AI... Well, you can target the icon so you just need to make the blurry icon a target... and tell the AI to use Target-Brief maybe. So you can use "icons" for buildings -easier I guess, they don't move. Maybe 12 for a two-storey, two-squares building, maybe one if the grid knows what to do with that "floating action square". You can cycle through Alt-I or use a different shape or colour... Maybe a "Wild Area Fire" for crops? If you hit the invisible icon -to call it something- on that tile... congrats, you can fire. True, an Area Fire button/order would be better. Instead of "T" and you see 300m, press "AF" until the mark is 300m... but adding a rear sight and teaching ballistics... maybe a bit too much. Next engine, hopefully. Thanks. ...six VCs won before breakfast. Cape Helles.
  6. Are you going to repair the building's invisibility cloak around buildings ? I know I will go to heaven because I have been to hell. Nam.
  7. It is hard not to go on... because I must say I am confused now. By IanL: " My own opinion is that realism could be improved if spotting was taken down an order of magnitude - I mean you see way way less enemy soldiers - and if soldiers pulled back much sooner when loosing a fire fight. But that would make the game not very interesting. " Realism is not very interesting? Or is it that... how do you call that game?, you've got a hammer and there's a box , from time to time a head pops out, if you hit the head you get a point... is that what we -happy few, wargamers are interested in? I think in that topic somebody was complaining graphics are not good enough, so... maybe it is and I am in the wrong business. Quintili Vare, legiones redde!
  8. Without any intention of starting all this again and by accident... I was deploying one MG in a wood, the Pl commander was outside in the open 60m away, the MG couldn't see him, actually couldn't see beyond 31m but the commander could see the MG all the 60m, some blue, some grey, some reverse slope. Nobody was hiding. I went to the Experiment map and depending on the trees, orientation or individual soldier -but mostly following the command line- they cannot see outside but you see them inside; not always. Maybe everybody could test this while deploying, I had enough.
  9. Still... after all those topics about "spotting is overly generous", "concealment is under represented" I was hoping for some kind of... maybe, as the LOS for a squad level (WWII) combat simulation it is no that superior. Let's see the next game. Regards.
  10. We agree to differ. Great, but the next game is going to be TacOps with graphics or a shooter? Nobody plays chess because it is... difficult? Iron Level is there because... it is more realistic? or just because it's not a ton of work? not nearly as good ... that's an opinion isn't it? or can it be proven?, a test? the theme that runs through it is you hardly ever see your enemy *at all*, real footage maybe? a truly realistic spotting system would be like... I think we get the "game" part, at least I don't expect my laptop to blow up with every explosion. Ah, no worries. You were too subtle for me. Acknowledgement and acceptance are not at all alike. There are two kind of people, first those who can draw conclusions from incomplete data. This is starting to sound personal, it's only business. There's pro/cons to the way foxholes and trenches are in game: and the pros outweigh the cons. Yes I was reading those ones and again I'm afraid I disagree. The mound stays there, so I have a target, I don't care how beautiful the target is -or the terrain under the target. If a guy in a foxhole takes cover he disappears and the foxhole with him. near a house?... I don't think I used the word "near". An ATG actually touching the house, half of the gun protected and hidden by it, with a 90ยบ firing arc? 200m... I am scared to ask but have you been looking at a wood from 200m away, even on top of a ladder?, because I am sure you have seen pictures of those sharpshooters. the at all part ...I thought that was the whole point of the topic. What can a tank commander see? Let's say you've got a market study and a decision was made... this is not the same as: this LOS -meaning concealment/LOS/LOF/spotting- is superior, the most balanced between playability and realism, between a rewrite and Legolas as an individual soldier. All this is just an opinion -maybe not those 200m. I like TacOps I don't like shooters. This is a good game, I was playing something call... maybe... "Operation Star", if that is were this is going I do think it's a mistake, we've got that already. The original idea was great. That decision, has been made? Expectations tended to outrun execution. S. Foote.
  11. Trenches are parapets, rifle pits are mounds, I cannot deploy an ATG hiding behind a house in a shooting position, is this "superior"? Being able to see a sniper hidden in a wood 200m away has anything to do with "like"? We'll meet some sunny day in the next game.
  12. Sorry, you mean like the silliness of playing veteran level or warrior level? "I don't think" that one step closer to CMBB LOS is going to make the game unplayable and I disagree, this LOS is not superior, even if this is subjective. You are right, a lot more people buy zombie-shooter games... but let me guess, a decision was made to get this game closer to a 1to1 game and all this talking is irrelevant. I wonder if the acknowledgement of how it is is not the acceptance of how it is. Any fool can obey orders. Fisher, R. N.
  13. If only they had made a game or two...in all those years.
  14. Were're thinking along the same line. About the test... I have tested that my impressions were correct, posts have confirmed that, how unreal the spotting is going to while moving or to the side... we know is unrealistic, hugely.
  15. I have tried less tanks, more trees and bushes and lower quality crews, it doesn't work. I'll try even less tanks, more ATGs and even more foldings in the terrain but I am not optimistic. My impression is that CMBB is a lot harder for tanks. LOS through trees was limited, concealment was effective and spotting was difficult. CMRT solved the huge (IMO) mistake that when something was spotted it was spotted for everyone, this is why I bought this game. My impression is that rules are different for spotting beyond 400m. MG/ATG shooting at 800 or 1000m don't receive direct fire -what about muzzle flash? If so, can't they be implemented all along? Can LOS/LOF/spotting from CMBB be implemented with this graphics? I cannot remember any shock and horror from TacOps, even if graphics were... well... you know. As a friend of mine was saying, we were able to put a man on the Moon, can we get a bit less of graphics and a bit more of concealment? Somebody said that there are 2 levels: easy is when you play against the AI. Well, don't teach Area Fire to the AI. You have to wait for 10' to receive the artillery support you requested, 3' at least, that's 3 turns. I would say player's interests are high. What about another tab in options: -fantasy spotting -spotting -realistic spotting/concealment. This sound like a wish list now, sorry. This game is as it is, the only thing is to acknowledge how it is.
×
×
  • Create New...