Opinions of 1.05?

[Hev]

Im realy impressed with the path finding of the troops, its almost intelligent, with the (very) occasional soldier who cant tell his arse from his elbow (which is great for laughs when one guy goes rambo)

Im still getting issues when trying to send squads from one building to another when the buildings are close together, i have a save of this in progress if anyone from BFC wants to look at it.

And to end on a possative, how cool is it to have your guys toe to toe with the bad's during MOUT ops.

I had a 6 man team get pinned down rushing in a building, after a minute of fire ive lost three guys and the squad is pinned, but as the tangos reload the squad rallies and dish's out payback M4 stylee

Ive said it once and ill say it again........ This game gives me wood

[H.W. Guderian]

. . . go to sleep Steve! You deserve it mate!

I'll hassle you about these issues again in the morning

Luckily you created such great games in the CMX1 series we can wait for CMX2 1."whatever it takes - whenever it's out"

[Cuirassier]

Well I haven't tried it yet, but I'm sure excited to!

[orwell]

I have read the change list and I have a concern which I hope can be answered here.

* Vehicles are not shielded by hiding behind knocked-out armored vehicles.

If your hiding behind a piece of armor that's just sitting there, even if it's been damaged in some way, wouldn't that protect you in some manner? it may not stop it, but I would think it would reduce the damage you take. Is this modelled, or is my interpretation of either how damage works, or what a knocked out vehicle really means, off?

[Hev]

I think what its saying is you can now "taget" the vehicle, wether the shot hits or not is another matter

[SgtMuhammed]

Just tried a quick run through with my Hohenfels Scenario. 2x2km map, lots of trees. Formerly unplayable now it runs nice and smooth.

[GSX]

Originally posted by Battlefront.com:

Thewood,

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />I am still not getting Strykers to react at all to being slaughtered by tanks. I have six Strykers sitting behind some woods. A T-72 comes up on them 400 meters away and proceeds to plug each one over a two turns (two minutes) with only one Stryker crew going to nervous when its the last Stryker alive. No smoke, no evasion, no retreat, no anything. 5 of the Strykers were dead before the first turn ended.

Sounds like the other Strykers didn't spot the T-72 before they were killed, therefore they didn't react. This is working as intended. Let me explain what I mean by that before anybody thinks the wrong thing

There is a big difference between a unit sensing danger to itself directly and indirectly. Directly covers a range of things such as getting plinked, seeing a threat before it does something, etc. Indirectly is perceiving a threat based on a threat to someone else. They are two entirely different things.

CMx1 and CMx2 only have "direct" threat assessment, neither have "indirect" threat assessment. This is because indirect is a HUGE ball of wax with tons of potential problems that would have to be coded around. For example, one Stryker sees a Stryker killed by an RPG hit. Should it bugger off or stand its ground? Should it even know that what sort of enemy may be responsible, or should it just presume the worst and take off? Or maybe it knows it is in a safe spot and doesn't have to worry about the threat at the moment as long as it stays still? And if it does move, where should it move? I mean, if it doesn't see the thing that shot at the Stryker, how can it intelligently avoid getting shot at? It just keeps going on and on and on like that. Even worse, what if the vehicle indirectly sensing danger is an Abrams and the vehicle shot up is a Stryker? Now danger has to be relative to what possible damage may result from acting/not acting.

In short, indirect threat assessment is not an easy thing to code successfully. Which is why in 10 years we've never even tried to do anything about it Will we do something in the future? I wouldn't rule it out, but it isn't on the front burner.

Steve </font>

[SlowMotion]

Originally posted by orwell:

I have read the change list and I have a concern which I hope can be answered here.

* Vehicles are not shielded by hiding behind knocked-out armored vehicles.

If your hiding behind a piece of armor that's just sitting there, even if it's been damaged in some way, wouldn't that protect you in some manner? it may not stop it, but I would think it would reduce the damage you take. Is this modelled, or is my interpretation of either how damage works, or what a knocked out vehicle really means, off?

I saw this in my quick 1.05 test. A enemy BRMD? recon vehicle was behind a destroyed BTR-60. My Stryker was able to target the vehicle behind the BTR. It also destroyed this target quickly with MG fire.

[Taki]

My First Impression. Hmm.. Looks good the Dynamic Light and adds some Atmossphere to the Game.

I played the Campaign again cause my old Savegames wont Work anymore. The LOF/LOS works good so far. But the Tanks dont Fire on Enemy Targets as they should.

I got 4 MBT and all are looking on the Line of Infantry near that HQ on my Left Flank (you know the First Campaign Mission. I order them Arc of Fire on that Aere but they

a) Dont Spot the Enemy INfantrie in this Area

Dont Fire HE Rounds on the Enemy. I always have to manually assign the Target and have to do it all over again. A Group of 4 MBT should Take them out or make them Broke over 10 Minutes but they dont. Its to much Click Fest to make the Tanks do what they should do by them self.

[SlowMotion]

My first general impression of the game now:

infantry is much more intelligent and useful now. Scenarios where those little men would just die in 1.04, can be played in a totally different way. Might cause tweaking to some existing scenarios as well.

Several useful little changes like the radio sound when reinforcements arrive etc.

And here some things I noticed after playing after a short pause, not sure if these were in 1.04 already:

-Hunt command for infantry

-if a cannon shell explodes near a tree, leaves are ripped off.

[thewood]

On my Stryker exammple, after two Strykers went up, the rest all had spotted the T-72. They still just sat there.

I am going to move the 72 closer when it open fires and see what happens, they are only 400m away now.

I am also going to try having the T-72 pause between shots and see if having longer to react makes a difference.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Originally posted by thewood:

On my Stryker exammple, after two Strykers went up, the rest all had spotted the T-72. They still just sat there.

I am going to move the 72 closer when it open fires and see what happens, they are only 400m away now.

I am also going to try having the T-72 pause between shots and see if having longer to react makes a difference.

That's odd, as the defensive firing of smoke has been in since 1.02, I believe, and I never saw issues with it.

In your example, have the Strykers perhaps fired smoke a few times before? They could simply have ran out. Or perhaps been exposed to a lot of small arms fire? That can very easily disable the smoke dischargers.

[thewood]

I drove the 72 to within 150m. It got its track nailed by a 40mm heat round that immobilized it. It did not fire a shot. All Strykers with .50s openned up at around 350m. Never once deplyed smoke, retreated, got nervous, nothing. At 150m I had the 72 open up. After two kills, one Stryker got rattled. The rest just sat there until death do them part. I did notice one odd thing, the .50 armed Strykers all stopped firing at 72 when it went immobile at 150m. Never openned up again.

Weird replay issues though. Ammo counts got pretty screwed up on the 40mm Strykers. Also tracer animations stoped replaying on all Stryker weapons on about the third turn in replay.

I could have driven the 72 right next to the Strykers and they would have kept plunking away with no other reaction. Even the infantry scattered around the Strykers never seemed to be very concerned about the carnage around them.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by SlowMotion:

</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by orwell:

I have read the change list and I have a concern which I hope can be answered here.

* Vehicles are not shielded by hiding behind knocked-out armored vehicles.

If your hiding behind a piece of armor that's just sitting there, even if it's been damaged in some way, wouldn't that protect you in some manner? it may not stop it, but I would think it would reduce the damage you take. Is this modelled, or is my interpretation of either how damage works, or what a knocked out vehicle really means, off?

I saw this in my quick 1.05 test. A enemy BRMD? recon vehicle was behind a destroyed BTR-60. My Stryker was able to target the vehicle behind the BTR. It also destroyed this target quickly with MG fire. </font>

[Other Means]

...and hell, it's nearly Crimble.

[orwell]

Thanks for the explanation, I'm still getting into the game and didn't know what it was that needed fixing.

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by Other Means:

...and hell, it's nearly Crimble.

In north america, I am not sure if "Crimble" is good?

Is that a dessert and does that mean its almost done to perfection?

[DzrtFox]

So the frustrating part of the game before was that you could "hide" a friendly AFV behind a dead friendly AFV and target opposing AFV's with impunity while the opposing AFV's could not target your friendly AFV through the dead friendly AFV, this could be considered a "gamey" loophole and it was closed with the fix that lets the rounds fly both ways now.

Wouldn't a more realistic way to fix this be to have the dead AFV block shots both ways rather than letting shots fly through both ways?

[handihoc]

QUOTE]

Is that a dessert and does that mean its almost done to perfection?

[/QB]

[aka_tom_w]

OK, yes I was thinking of Crumble and thanks I did not realize Crimble was slang for Christmas

Thanks for the prompt reply.

[ December 15, 2007, 07:41 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[aka_tom_w]

Wouldn't a more realistic way to fix this be to have the dead AFV block shots both ways rather than letting shots fly through both ways?

Note:

I did not say it was perfect and Steve or Charles may need to answer that specific question

BUT if you think about it if AFV's start blocking rounds both ways, and you want to do it with accurate ballistic physics then an intervening M1A1 in the LOS would need to be treated differently then an intervening BMP, (depending on the shooters and the type of weapon and the range and the weight and velociity and kinetic energy of the round, think about it

So the question you have to ask yourself is:

"Did I want a v1.05 patch before Christmas that levels the playing field in this area or, do I want to wait another 4-6 months (I'm just guessing as only Steve or Charles could tell you if this is even remotely possible ) for the mother of all patches that models ballistically accurate shoot throughs for all possible rounds with all possible armour penetration combinations for every vehicle in the game modeled with realistic armour penetration values for shoot throughs and subsquent (follow on) hits (where possible)??? "

But only Steve or Charles can really answer your question for certain.

[ December 15, 2007, 05:55 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[DzrtFox]

Yeah I wasn't trying to stir up a can of worms over what is (to me) a minor issue. I was just curious after reading your explanation if the better fix would be to have the rounds blocked.

My initial 1.05 impressions soon to follow...

[aka_tom_w]

Originally posted by DzrtFox:

Yeah I wasn't trying to stir up a can of worms over what is (to me) a minor issue. I was just curious after reading your explanation if the better fix would be to have the rounds blocked.

My initial 1.05 impressions soon to follow...

Unless accurate shoot throughs are correctly modeled for realistic physics and ballistics, both solutions are equally unrealistic in my opinion.

Solution #1:

All AFV's in LOF block all rounds.

Solution #2:

All AFV's in LOF let all rounds shoot through

I think I should add that if you test this in the game it will feel even more realistic then just, "all rounds pass through all dead AFV's" (that is NOT the case with this fix)

I think if you test this one out (if you are interested), dead AFV's will not block rounds only if the round was aimed at another vehicle.

(LOS and LOF are granted both way through dead AFV's for the purpose of both sides targeting opposing AFV's equally)

Meaning also, that if you are aiming at something else like an area target the dead AFV WILL block the LOF so it is a fairly discreet fix. I think you will find.

[ December 15, 2007, 07:40 AM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

[DzrtFox]

That's cool, thanks for the explanation. I've actually never experienced this issue in the game, but I'm glad it's been "fixed" either way...

[SlowMotion]

Yes, thanks for the explanation aka_tom_w. I remember I saw this "can shoot through friendly tank" situation in older versions, so it's good it works the same way in both directions.

Maybe this cover issue will be developed more towards what you wrote about at 08:32. More variety to tank damage modeling would be nice when the bigger things have been coded. Turrets blown away etc.