Looking forward to next patch

[antaress73]

I love CMBS and i'm really looking forward to the next patch which could solve many existing issues and add some tweaks or tactical behaviors  which would again vastly increase our enjoyment of the game. Any idea when this could be expected/ hoped for ?

[Ivanov]

I also love this game but please fix the Oplot tank. In my current game my Oplot got immobilized with a few shots from the BMP-2 cannon. So far the performance of my Oplots has been abysmal. They got killed by BMP's and rarely are able to hit anything with a first shoot. T-72B· are much better.

[Kinophile]

That constantly rotating commander bug rears it's ugly head once again.... 

[Abdolmartin]

I second all this. It's time to give some dev love to this awesome game.

[TheForwardObserver]

If ya'll had the power to make tweaks/upgrades/fixes/additions, what would they be?
 

[VladimirTarasov]

3 hours ago, TheForwardObserver said:

If ya'll had the power to make tweaks/upgrades/fixes/additions, what would they be?
 

Infantry stuff first, for example squads peaking corners tossing grenades into rooms before storming it, squad formations. Second, MLRS please. I'd love to flatten a town before sending my troops to take whatever is left of it.  

[Kinophile]

Bugs,  Id fix Oplot's commander constantly rotatin. 

Tweaks, I'd add "bail all but one"  to the  BMP/BTR troops exit commands. I.e. keep a commander in the goddamn IFV. 

 

 

 

[Ivanov]

I'd also look at the IFV SOP - they too often fire cannot at tanks, instead of ATGM. Russian BMP-2's now fire ATGM's but Ukrainian BMP's and BTR's still don't.

[Kinophile]

1 hour ago, Ivanov said:

I'd also look at the IFV SOP - they too often fire cannot at tanks, instead of ATGM. Russian BMP-2's now fire ATGM's but Ukrainian BMP's and BTR's still don't.

Oh Gods yes this, THIS. 

A toggle for:

1) Separate fire arc each for ATGMs or Main Gun,

or

2) Combined fire arc (ie both, as it is now). 

Edited September 7, 2016 by kinophile

[TheForwardObserver]

15 hours ago, VladimirTarasov said:

MLRS please. I'd love to flatten a town before sending my troops to take whatever is left of it.  

Bog Voyny!  Would be interested to see MLRS as well.

[cool breeze]

The Oplot rotating bug is the worst.  The BMP2m LOD issue bugs me way more than it should, and it would be cool if the IFV's besides Bradleys would shoot missiles more.

[cool breeze]

And BTW I know the UKR BTR4 will sometime shoot missiles but it should be more and they should volley fire more.

[Gamma]

I would like to see the Oplot bugged fix. I would like a lowered unpack/pack time for the Mt-12 crews. Russians need helmet mounted NVGs, Ukraine needs NV scopes at least. Units using terrain better. 

[Kinophile]

3 hours ago, cool breeze said:

And BTW I know the UKR BTR4 will sometime shoot missiles but it should be more and they should volley fire more.

BTR 4 fires ATGM for me all the time. . decimated many a RUS spearhead with them.

Rarely volley fire though, I'll give that. In the same breath though,  I'm  happy with that -  I never like blowing my ATGM load on a target that still has 10-15 seconds to escape. 

[TheForwardObserver]

There are moments-- when I'm not dreaming of my FOs being able to see, that I imagine my infantry rolling around with Charlie Gs lobbing what-for and it's glorious.

[Kinophile]

@TheForwardObserver  I'm gonna take a stab in the dark and say.... Carl Gustavs? 

[TheForwardObserver]

@kinophile You got it.

[SlowMotion]

I don't know if units spot enemy based on sound, but it would make some things more realistic.

Now it sometimes happens that a tank is moving in forest very near, let's say within 20 meters.
And an infantry squad does not spot it at all. Even if they cannot see it, I think it would be cool if the infantry turned towards the sound of the tank so they are ready to spot it quicker. 

Another related thing which has puzzled me, not sure if it's a bug or not: if infantry has anti-tank weapons like RPG7 and the tank is too close to use it (within 10 meters), would it help if they used hand grenades? I'd think it would be better to use any weapon or run to cover rather than stay in same place and let the tank slaughter the soldiers.

[JUAN DEAG]

6 hours ago, SlowMotion said:

I don't know if units spot enemy based on sound, but it would make some things more realistic.

Now it sometimes happens that a tank is moving in forest very near, let's say within 20 meters.
And an infantry squad does not spot it at all. Even if they cannot see it, I think it would be cool if the infantry turned towards the sound of the tank so they are ready to spot it quicker.

Sound contacts exist in the game and on occasion units will face perceived sound contacts but it is not perfect and sometimes they will not.

6 hours ago, SlowMotion said:

Another related thing which has puzzled me, not sure if it's a bug or not: if infantry has anti-tank weapons like RPG7 and the tank is too close to use it (within 10 meters), would it help if they used hand grenades? I'd think it would be better to use any weapon or run to cover rather than stay in same place and let the tank slaughter the soldiers.

The RPG has a minimum range in which the rocket will not detonate.

[SlowMotion]

11 hours ago, JUAN DEAG said:

Sound contacts exist in the game and on occasion units will face perceived sound contacts but it is not perfect and sometimes they will not.

The RPG has a minimum range in which the rocket will not detonate.

1. I would think that the closer the sound the more likely your soldier would be to turn towards it.

2. I know that RPG has a minimum range. That's why I wrote that below that minimum range they could use whatever weapons they have, like hand grenades to defend themselves if the enemy has spotted them. Or if no hand grenades try run to cover (tanks pop smoke and reverse when they notice enemy is aiming with laser).

[rooibos]

1) as mentioned, the atgm/cannon fire select. this has caused a lot of grief from me. 

 

would also like to micromanage weapons/ammo fire as it is. would like to tell vehicles to change ammo if need be (If I know there's a certain threat type approaching) and tell infantry to only use certain weapon types.

 

2) better multi-order commanding. way points and firing arcs are easy enough. but try to set up something complex like having a vehicle back up to an area, having a unit walk up to it, have them re-arm and the do something else is usually an exercise in frustration. often If i'm trying to get a unit to dismount, and then the vehicle rush off elsewhere I usually bung it up and half the squad or the whole squad is still on it.

 

3) los. los. los. 

I hate trying to maneuver FO teams or snipers in tall grass or bushes. If they made the camera actually flat to the ground instead of hovering 10 feet off the ground, that might help.

 

Yes, you can see that building. You're looking right at it. 

4) campaign map.  'nuff said about that.

 

 

[A Canadian Cat]

All of those things you listed are more additional features you would like to see.  While BFC have done a few things in patches that might rise to the level of an additional feature it is pretty rare and I cannot recall a single one off the top of my head.

Just trying to set expectations...

59 minutes ago, rooibos said:

2) better multi-order commanding. way points and firing arcs are easy enough. but try to set up something complex like having a vehicle back up to an area, having a unit walk up to it, have them re-arm and the do something else is usually an exercise in frustration. often If i'm trying to get a unit to dismount, and then the vehicle rush off elsewhere I usually bung it up and half the squad or the whole squad is still on it.

There are techniques that can work to make some actions smoother.  Can you give an example of something your are trying to accomplish?  It could be that you can get close to what you want already.  There certainly are limitations to embarking and disembarking vehicles so it is possible there is no help too.

 

[rooibos]

I'd say its interacting with vehicles mainly.

 

Often if it's a situation of: run the hell out of cover, grab more ammo, and run back to the front to shoot it just never works that smoothly. Takes multiple turns. 

 

Same with embarking/dismebarking. I do a lot of kamikaze style runs with FOs and stuff where I rush up to cover, have him leap out and run into some woods (or vice-versa) and it's not a smooth process. I find things like jeeps or any vehicle that can carry infantry (especially in WW2 titles) immensely useful and I'm constantly using vehicles to ferry people around but unfortunately the transition between dismounted/mounted/dismounted is never smooth and the vehicles/infantry can be tricky to get the right timing down.  

[A Canadian Cat]

I see.  Yeah the reality is that ammo acquiring takes multiple turns. There is not much that can help with that.  Embarking / disembarking is inherently a do one or the other in a turn and you can only have passengers disembark at the beginning of a set of move orders or at the end but not in the middle.  Embarking sometimes works part way along but usually is smoother if you restrict it also to the beginning of the end of a vehicle movement.  Which means you cannot have a vehicle drive up behind some trees, have the passengers jump out and then have the vehicle back up again all in the same turn.  You have to time one of those transitions to occur at a turn boundary.  Which as you say is tricky.

Patches have never tackled changes to things like this.

[Muzzleflash1990]

I agree with you @rooibos on the LOS issue. Instead of constantly moving around waypoints and doing careful LOS checks to key positions until I get  my uber hull-down position right, I would prefer just moving my camera to a "good enough" position. But the 10 feet limit is really annoying. For many modern tanks like in CMBS, the gun barrels are too low for the camera. For infantry you also have to resort to using waypoint-los. But it often uses uses walking height; so then you units arrive, they cannot see anyway because they go prone.

I'm not sure of BFC viewpoint on this, but I seem to recall that the height limitation is intentional. But in terms of whether such a change warrants a patch or feature, my guess would be that the height limitation is simply a number to be changed in the code - Limbo, how low can you go :).

Edited September 28, 2016 by Muzzleflash1990