Pike Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Well done BF I may become a fanboy if you countinue like this... from a Troll to a fanboy! Isn't that amazing... He he... BTW when do you put in AA guns and flamethrowers? I think it would be superb. If not I gonna be a troll again.... Just kidding... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Thanks! Believe me when I say we are as interested in flamey stuff as you guys are The new shaders/rendering improvements in Version 2.0 were a step in that direction. Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 The new shaders/rendering improvements in Version 2.0 were a step in that direction. Steve Is that half a promise Steve? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bil Hardenberger Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Is that half a promise Steve? I would rate that as a wink. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I would rate that as a wink. A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat, eh?! (I have no idea what I'm talking about) 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster88 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 AA guns I look forward to, flamethrowers not so much. I think they had limited tactical value and I don't understand the fascination with them? Is it just the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan where they toast the pillbox something people want to duplicate? From what I understand they were much more useful on the Pacific side. Not saying I don't want to see em' just since CMBN there seem to be lots of threads about them...or maybe that's just me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 CM fans are pyromaniacs for the most part, that's why. They want to set buildings on fire. And people. And your dog. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster88 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 CM fans are pyromaniacs for the most part, that's why. They want to set buildings on fire. And people. And your dog. Awesome, at that rate we can then put the dog on a catapult and fire it at the enemy and call it Total War: Something 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rocky Balboa Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I'm not necessarily interested in playing with the flamers but adding them pretty much necessitates adding the probability that buildings, fields and wooded terrain be combustible as well. When I see buildings or woods burning as a result of an arty strike or the use of WP, this will greatly enhance the realism of the battlefield for me. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SlowMotion Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Maybe not very common IRL, but in the game parts of the map on fire works also in defense. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Agua Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I want to recreate my only CMBO scenario styled "flame wars" - 5 flamethrowers v. 5 MG jeeps on a 200m square map of dry forest with dirt trails. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
c3k Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Flame fougasse, ftw. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sburke Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 AA guns I look forward to, flamethrowers not so much. I think they had limited tactical value and I don't understand the fascination with them? Is it just the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan where they toast the pillbox something people want to duplicate? From what I understand they were much more useful on the Pacific side. Not saying I don't want to see em' just since CMBN there seem to be lots of threads about them...or maybe that's just me. For urban close combat and assaulting bunkers, they are a huge bonus. Just reading the action in Arnhem and plenty of references by both Germans and British on their use. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dadekster88 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 For urban close combat and assaulting bunkers, they are a huge bonus. Just reading the action in Arnhem and plenty of references by both Germans and British on their use. Oh, I can believe that they got plenty of coverage and that they served a great tactical purpose. That actually makes me wonder how much of a psychological impact having a flamethrower will be on units holed up defensively in game? If a unit is close to wavering will the approach of a flamethrower unit cause them to surrender? Seeing that game mechanic alone would be cool to see imo. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chek Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Must have fire http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z61tlxcqaVE&feature=related 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rocketman Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 Awesome, at that rate we can then put the dog on a catapult and fire it at the enemy and call it Total War: Something Total War: Dogs of War perhaps? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Broadsword56 Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 AA guns I look forward to, flamethrowers not so much. I think they had limited tactical value and I don't understand the fascination with them? Is it just the opening scene in Saving Private Ryan where they toast the pillbox something people want to duplicate? From what I understand they were much more useful on the Pacific side. Not saying I don't want to see em' just since CMBN there seem to be lots of threads about them...or maybe that's just me. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me fire became a real issue -- not just a "nice to have" -- when CMBN Commonwealth Forces came out. Flamethrowing "Crocodile" Tanks were an integral part of British armored support in Operation Epsom, and elsewhere. So for the first time we had a significant realism gap open up in the normally accurate OOBs and TO&Es for the game. The other specialized armor "funnies" like Crab flail tanks, etc., can more easily be overlooked by just having some mines pre-cleared in a scenario and pretending, say, that they were swept before the battle started. But the absence of Crocs was and is a disappointment. I don't blame BFC a bit for it, though, because I know they would have included Crocs if it had been possible to solve the issues and add them to the game in a reasonable length of time. Otherwise, we'd likely still be waiting for CMBN-CF to be released. I'm happy to think that we might yet see those fire-breathers some day. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sublime Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 I feel that the AA guns are a very needed addition. The animation or interaction with the airplane doesnt have to be done, but at least have them be able to 'drive off' the planes. In CM:A this would have been a huge boon that was also a huge deal historically when the stinger was introduced. Of course this is all WW2 but the Germans often have a lot of light flak on the battlefield and the US too - and I just think in some ways it sucks to have a weapon that you can use and have it not be shot back it. Not game breaking but since we.re all striving for the perfect CM.. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted August 7, 2012 Share Posted August 7, 2012 CM fans are pyromaniacs for the most part, that's why. They want to set buildings on fire. And people. And your dog. I definitely don't want my dog on fire. Simmered slow is just fine. AA guns - YES. The M16 Halftrack with Quad 50's. That's what I'm talkin' about. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leakyD Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I'm happy to think that we might yet see those fire-breathers some day. Upgrades, baby. I long for QB's of Wasp's vs. SdKfz 251/16's...and a bunch of burnable infantry running around.... man, those were FUN! 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Battlefront.com Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I'm not necessarily interested in playing with the flamers but adding them pretty much necessitates adding the probability that buildings, fields and wooded terrain be combustible as well. Yup, that's the nub of the problem right there. We either do things right or not at all when it comes to stuff like this. Having flamethrowers in the game without decent visuals and game effects is worse than not having them at all. Well, at least from our standpoint. I can't speak for anyone else, but for me fire became a real issue -- not just a "nice to have" -- when CMBN Commonwealth Forces came out. Flamethrowing "Crocodile" Tanks were an integral part of British armored support in Operation Epsom, and elsewhere. So were landing craft, DD tanks in water, Rangers, etc. Things which, I will add, CMBO didn't have either. We never said our games would allow you to simulate ANY battle of your choosing. That would be insane. Well, again, from our perspective The importance of flamethrowers is VASTLY overstated because, well, let's face it... they deserve completely disproportional attention because they are so cool to watch. Having actually used a flamethrower I will state that they aren't so fun to use. So for the first time we had a significant realism gap open up in the normally accurate OOBs and TO&Es for the game. To be technical for a sec, there is no realism gap. We simply didn't include it. A realism gap would be us including something that was incorrect or omitting something basic (like the entire family of PzIVs, mortars, infantry, etc.). It's an important distinction because flamethrowers are a "nice to have" thing, not a necessary element. But the absence of Crocs was and is a disappointment. And a common one, so no disagreement there. I don't blame BFC a bit for it, though, because I know they would have included Crocs if it had been possible to solve the issues and add them to the game in a reasonable length of time. Otherwise, we'd likely still be waiting for CMBN-CF to be released. Nah, you would have had it by now. But not too long ago and definitely no Fortress Italy. Personally, I'd rather have a totally brand new game than a narrow focused (and very overused/overstated) unit type for a game I already have. I'm happy to think that we might yet see those fire-breathers some day. And better looking now than they would have been if we introduced them last year. Looks don't matter? Some might say that, but I think we all know... the BEST part of flamethrowers is watching them in action. Unless they are aimed at you, then not so much fun as dread Steve 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futon river crossing Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I can still remember the first time I got flamed in CMBO in a PBEM - all those years ago !! Thankfully crocs etc will now be retrofiiable to CMBN. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vanir Ausf B Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I would think that AA would be easier to implement than fire, and tactically more important, IMO. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sergei Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I would think that AA would be easier to implement than fire, and tactically more important, IMO. Everything is easy until you start thinking of how to do it The main difficulty with AA is that you will need to add new elements to the game. Ditto with fire, but the changes fire would require are probably simpler: some new graphics, new properties for terrain and buildings, proper AI reactions to being burninated etc. For AA you also need to model some sort of flight profiles for the planes and helicopters even if they're not visible, and this can be challenging. For WW2 propeller planes it probably shouldn't be too difficult, although for realism's sake you'd probably want a different flight pattern for dive bombers than for fighter bombers - but you could just ignore that. Then you have to consider how terrain - a mountain 900 meters high on map edge, for instance - would affect the low flying planes. For modern stuff you have to distinguish between jets and choppers, long range missile shooters, short range rockets and guns. The AA also needs its own LOS model to track if the gun can spot the flying targets through buildings, trees and hills or not, which adds another LOS check to the game. I'm only guessing all these things, but my point is that there are quite a lot more complications in it. I still think that it's worth it all, given how it could affect battle planning, but I have no illusions of it being a simple job. Even the super simple air support model in CMSF had its own crop of bugs, like air to ground missiles hitting unexpectedly tall hills on map edges! That should give an idea of how much work you need with a more refined modelling. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lt Belenko Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Yup, that's the nub of the problem right there. We either do things right or not at all when it comes to stuff like this. Having flamethrowers in the game without decent visuals and game effects is worse than not having them at all. Well, at least from our standpoint. Steve Concur with the statement having "realistic effects" is important - we like that. But I disagree with the part about "decent visuals" are required. Remember most of us were STILL playing CMx1 LONG after is visuals and 3 man squads were stone age in the computer world. When FTs and Crocs are introduced will hits on the fuel tank result in a violent explosion taking out the FT dude, nearby troops and starting a fire? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.