Improvement suggestions

[Xorg_Xalargsky]

You have to consider that a tank in a forest has a line of sight emerging from all the various vision devices on the vehicle. An enemy in the field can see it from any part exposed to its LOS.

[A Canadian Cat]

On 6/15/2019 at 10:46 AM, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

That's a fine list of suggestions, but some of them are outsized in scope compared to others.

Yes, lots of good stuff...

On 6/15/2019 at 10:46 AM, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

For example "random map generation" would take extreme amounts of difficult programming time in order for the algorithm to generate anything more than a barren grassland with random specks of trees and other ground types. The complexity is magnified when you have to consider that each game offers multiple types of geographies. 

Prioritization means that some things are likely to just never be done - by BFC. I have no idea if random map generation is one but like that. It is one that could be side stepped by letting other people do it. Whatever way you slice it there needs to be a decent map authoring tool but what if the map format could be opened up a bit (either as a file format or special simplified input options or an API - I'm not fussy which) then BFC could never create a random map feature but someone else could. And someone could create a tool for supporting campaigns that sliced parts of a larger map and someone else could create something that none of us here have though about yet.  Etc.

[BornGinger]

2 hours ago, Xorg_Xalargsky said:

You have to consider that a tank in a forest has a line of sight emerging from all the various vision devices on the vehicle. An enemy in the field can see it from any part exposed to its LOS. 

The tanks were only an example and a tank can also have an open turret which gives it a better view of the surroundings. The units which may suffer inside the woods can be of any kind and not only a tank or an armored vehicle.

[BornGinger]

When an MG-unit is losing the soldier manning the MG another one steps up to take his position. But when the whole unit is whiped out the MG is viewed as abandoned. Moving another unit to that spot doesn't change that and the MG is still abandoned. Wouldn't at least one man in a nearby unit prefer to use an abandoned MG instead of a rifle? 

 

A change of the game which allows men to man an abandoned MG, and even to carry it with him to another position, would be a good improvement.

 

Another thing which would be good is if units of soldiers where able to reverse, like tanks, instead of slowly turning their backs to the enemy before moving away.

 

That could be good if an MG-unit where shooting and wanted to crawl back to hide behind a crest. Using the hide option doesn't always work when tanks sometimes have a magical line of sight over several hundreds of meters. Could also be good when units fall back but want to shoot at the enemy so they don't get shot in the back while turning before falling back.

 

Edited August 17, 2019 by BornGinger

[Bulletpoint]

When you hit a tank and it blows up, sometimes the explosion will dig a crater under the tank. Looks a bit silly, I think. Did it ever actually happen in reality?

I think the energy would escape through the turret, blowing it off, rather than to dig out a crater.

So my suggestion is to toggle off cratering for explosions caused by vehicle ammo storage blowing up.

Edited August 18, 2019 by Bulletpoint

[Warts 'n' all]

21 hours ago, Bulletpoint said:

When you hit a tank and it blows up, sometimes the explosion will dig a crater under the tank. Looks a bit silly, I think. 

Just shows how we are all different. I enjoy it when it happens, gives me a chuckle.

[BornGinger]

I sometimes wish there could be different kinds of mud in the editor - deep mud and shallow mud. The vehicles often get stuck and immobilized a bit too easily. I understand if a vehicle gets stuck in the mud on a field or a dirt road if it has been raining or is a very rainy day. But when a vehicle gets stuck and later on immobilized in a little splash of mud which lies beside a tarmac road it feels a bit too much.

Edited August 25, 2019 by BornGinger

[Warts 'n' all]

But, I bet that you cheer your head off when enemy vehicles get stuck, making them a sitting duck for your own troops.

[Combatintman]

1 hour ago, BornGinger said:

I sometimes wish there could be different kinds of mud in the editor - deep mud and shallow mud. The vehicles often get stuck and immobilized a bit too easily. I understand if a vehicle gets stuck in the mud on a field or a dirt road if it has been raining or is a very rainy day. But when a vehicle gets stuck and later on immobilized in a little splash of mud which lies beside a tarmac road it feels a bit too much.

I disagree - I've lost count of the number of times in RL I've seen vehicles needing REME recovery in often fairly benign conditions. Another reason might be the underlying ground conditions for the map, if they are set to anything other than dry then that will have an impact whether it is raining or not. Being an AFV crewman is a different PITA altogether, your wagon will throw a track or break down more frequently than a lot of people seem to think.

[Sgt.Squarehead]

I'd say CM is actually quite forgiving TBH:

 

[danfrodo]

must be a sheet of ice under that snow

[Anxel Torrente]

On 8/25/2019 at 2:03 PM, Warts 'n' all said:

But, I bet that you cheer your head off when enemy vehicles get stuck...

I think it depends on where they get stuck. If they are far away from the battlefront or somewhere on the front where they can't be seen only the other player or the AI will lol to how it is possible that a tank got stuck at a certain spot.