Rinaldi Posted June 28, 2017 Share Posted June 28, 2017 A fair point; and I don't think the rarity system would seriously offset it. It would an almost decisive advantadge for the Allied player at the tactical level. Besides, it was a rare thing indeed for a Rifle company leader to be able to have a direct line to a L-4 or something similar. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shorker Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 (edited) Regarding a more strict spotting system: Battlefront could create a "real iron" mode (or transform/adjust the existing "iron" mode) in which the player can't see the enemy units in general anymore but only when he clicks on a friendly unit and when this friendly unit sees (or hears) an enemy unit. An exclamation mark in the unit's icon shows the player that his unit sees or hears something and that he should click on the unit for more information. By sharing the information between the own friendly units, more and more units are getting an "idea"of what lies ahead. For to avoid firing (cheating) with tanks into that direction without the tank commander having any information about a target we would need a new button called "blind fire" for example. As long as a tank commander (and crew) has no concrete/specific/spotted (or heard of) target, the regular/official aiming/fire button is "blind" (deactivated) and can not be used by the player. The tank can only use "blind fire" and that means that you can shoot in a direction but there is only a hit rate/chance for hitting of 5% in that mode. So it would be a pretty waste of ammo PLUS an extra risk of 15% of causing a cannon jam/temporarily stoppage of gun or even a barrel burst - just in order to sanction that kind of cheating/godmode play. Later when a tank crew has an information about a possible target (enemy position) but still can't see it by itself, the player still can't use the original aiming/firing button but only another button called "area fire" which is a bit more precise than "blind fire" with a hit chance of 30% and no risk of barrel burst. As I said only in this special gaming mode "real iron" which is extra desigend for realism fans. Other names for this extreme realism mode could be "super iron" or "hardcore" ... When the battle has ended, the player can watch the whole battle again as a movie, with replay function of the single 1 minute time segments (each is selectable like movie scenes on a DVD min001, min002 etc.). It can be watched either with all units visible or from the perspective how the player saw the battle (resp. his men). Viewer can switch between these modes and so you can see what you couldn't see during the battle. So, in summary, you could say that we need different kinds of aiming/firing buttons for every unit and these better/more precise buttons are only enabled when the unit can actually see or hear a target. A wider variety and harder restriction of aiming possibilities and hitting chances brings more reality to the game. Edited July 1, 2017 by Shorker 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Canadian Cat Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 51 minutes ago, Shorker said: Regarding a more strict spotting system: Battlefront could create a "real iron" mode (or transform/adjust the existing "iron" mode) in which the player can't see the enemy units in general anymore but only when he clicks on a friendly unit and when this friendly unit sees (or hears) an enemy unit. An exclamation mark in the unit's icon shows the player that his unit sees or hears something and that he should click on the unit for more information. By sharing the information between the own friendly units, more and more units are getting an "idea"of what lies ahead. Now that is starting to sound good. It is feasible and puts you in the commander's seat of the unit you are currently acting as the commander of. 51 minutes ago, Shorker said: For to avoid firing (cheating) with tanks into that direction without the tank commander having any information about a target we would need a new button called "blind fire" for example. Yeah less enthused about that... 51 minutes ago, Shorker said: PLUS an extra risk of 15% of causing a cannon jam/temporarily stoppage of gun or even a barrel burst - just in order to sanction that kind of cheating/godmode play. Yeah, no. It sounds like moving away from a simulation at this point. 51 minutes ago, Shorker said: Later when a tank crew has an information about a possible target (enemy position) but still can't see it by itself, the player still can't use the original aiming/firing button but only another button called "area fire" which is a bit more precise than "blind fire" with a hit chance of 30% and no risk of barrel burst." ... I don't know how well this part would work. But l like the idea of trying to slow down out reaction times. That is a lot more controls and user steps. Not sure if it would be worth it. Just my opinion. 51 minutes ago, Shorker said: When the battle has ended, the player can watch the whole battle again as a movie, with replay function of the single 1 minute time segments (each is selectable like movie scenes on a DVD min001, min002 etc.). It can be watched either with all units visible or from the perspective how the player saw the battle (resp. his men). Viewer can switch between these modes and so you can see what you couldn't see during the battle. That would be sweet. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 3 hours ago, Shorker said: ...PLUS an extra risk of 15% of causing a cannon jam/temporarily stoppage of gun or even a barrel burst... There is no logical, realistic reason in the world why this kind of damage should occur more often blind firing than with a spotted target. Not the slightest. On the contrary, it might even be assumed that with blind firing there would be less urgency and therefore less likelihood of the crew doing something that might damage the gun. Michael 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 1, 2017 Share Posted July 1, 2017 This seems like complexity for the sake of complexity. Go play Grigsby's WITPAE if you like complexity. And how much work would it take to do vs spending the same resources on new product? or more critical updates. People forget that BF has limited resources and has to very very carefully determine what is the "best bang for the buck". 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Emrys Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 (edited) 5 hours ago, Erwin said: People forget that BF has limited resources and has to very very carefully determine what is the "best bang for the buck". Certainly. I trust BFC to calculate that to the last penny, so we can leave that side of the matter to them. Meanwhile, I think it is okay if we brainstorm a little as long as we don't expect BFC to drop everything and rush to fulfill our fantasies. My point is that we should argue each proposal on its merits or lack of them and leave the final decision to BFC and the playtesters. Michael Edited July 2, 2017 by Michael Emrys 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Erwin Posted July 2, 2017 Share Posted July 2, 2017 Is tru, dat... 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.