Other Means
-
Posts
4,319 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Other Means
-
-
This would actually be pretty nice. If the sound was randomly played from even the neighbouring action squares it would make locating the gun much harder. Not quite as good as crickets' defense mechanism but close.
Yep, that sounds like a great solution. The sound contact icon should vary in its position quite a bit (maybe with a relationship with the the wind direction) and that's also where the sound should be played from.
-
I wonder what the penetration of h2hh is in the user base? Everyone I play uses it, so a change to help it be better would effect everybody who PBEMs.
-
What superior optics does the commander have that he can't use while unbuttoned? Buttoned up he lacks all peripheral vision, so spotting new targets should take longer.
That was kind of my question Sergei. Modern AFVs I'd keep buttoned but did WWII era ones have anything similar.
So would we have a situation where if you expect long range contacts to the front of the AFV would it be worth being buttoned, whereas if you have no such expectation you're better to be unbuttoned so you have better all-round SA?
With the front door situation, I'd just use my short range porch mortar - why take chances?
-
Seems counter productive. Up gives you the best SA, but surely buttoned means you have access to better optics?
-
Commander up or commander buttoned?
-
WynnterGreen - I agree with your position 100%. Turning & moving speed far too slow, set up and pack-away time far too high.
I also think crew should be allowed to take cover - as in leave the gun - and re-crew it. Wasn't Soviet doctrine to have each man dig a slit trench and only be exposed when actually doing his job? That's abandonment and recrewing.
I've never actually abandoned a gun - there's nothing to lose by not doing so except the lives of the men: if there's men I want them to keep firing, if there's not there's no-one to abandon.
A tweak BFC could put at the end of one of the mammoth To-Dos is that guns can be captured in the same way prisoners are, with an effect on the score, unless they are abandoned in which case they are considered spiked.
JasonC - 1 tank = 10 guns. Aren't you comparing tanks killed by ATG with guns lost to any means?
-
Guys, James has discovered what would be regarded as a corner case in most software development houses http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corner_case
I think we all accept that the bundled grenades etc are abstracted, but basically what James has described was probably not intended to happen - the bocage is impassible. Which means it is not part of the abstraction.
However, whether this corner case is worth the dev resource to fix is something only Battlefront can answer.
But it is, in software terms, probably a functional defect.
Loving, and stealing, the terminology.
-
Para - JonS has emailed me them. PM me an email address and I'll forward them to you.
Cheers.
-
Where do I write to? I'm owed, dammit, OWED.
-
Have a look in the folder you shared - they've been there since yesterday
How weird - I can't see it. Are you sure it's not a pending upload?
To be honest I'm a bit of a Dropbox n00b, could you perhaps share a link to it?
Cheers.
-
Sent a few days ago Jon - possibly in your spam filter?
-
If it could be done with the current engine it would be.
I have targeted walls before, so I know it is possible. The target line may look like it is on the ground, but rounds will hit the wall knocking them down if enough H.E. is used.This is a...well, hack is such a horrid word - let's say perversion of the engine
Personally I'd like to be able to fire wherever needed and not have to target the ground so you could set up fire-lanes etc. as needed.
The interface for that could become tricky though.
-
Hi you clever people.
As I'm constantly getting disoriented when mooching round, is it possible for one of you with the know-how to paint "N....NNW....NW....WNW....W" etc. on the skybox? That way I'd always know which way I was pointing.
Ta very much.
-
Have you tried CMMODS site?
Years ago - cheers for the reminder.
Sorry I totally spaced on the link. I had it on the clipboard and everything...http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=105660
Wow, I admire your dedication - especially as the options should be built in.
-
WynnterGreen, that map is amazing.
Is there anywhere other than the repository to put these things? I'm setting up a User Experience department for a company I'm working at and I might give that as an example of how not to do things - it's bleedin' awful.
-
In deed more point options would be fun. But it can be done if you are playing with a trusted opponent. The first post from my 20 000 point "QB" DAR has a link to a 2km by 2km map by Pete W that is really good and instructions on how to setup a QB with arbitrary points.
Sorry, do you have a link? Ta.
-
What good are these maps, when QB is limited to only 7000 points? And why won't battlefront add the option of defining points for each side...more than 7000?
Yes, a good point. Just a points drop down instead of a size choice - why make everything the user has to do a guess?
-
-
WynnterGreen - the bocage-less one would be brilliant, thanks. Do you have Dropbox or I can share a folder I think?
Anyone got anything else? Maybe something along the 1x1k line?
Cheers.
-
Cheers Jon - any more for any more?
-
Would anybody be able to recommend me some?
Thanks.
-
Rack em up BadgerDog - email sent.
-
What it's supposed to mean is if it ain't broke, still improve it.
No where do I say or imply that you have to believe everything I wrote - a long winded response to your query, by the way Michael, that you didn't have the manners to respond to.
-
I don't think this is that intelligent at all. You do realize I hope that many of the things you listed are diametrically opposed to the design intent of Combat Mission from the very beginning, yes even the first iteration whether some of that stuff was present or not? Agree or disagree, it's not that hard to see the path taken. That was why it was and is such a revolution for most.
My take - Whatever happened to learning by doing? Seriously. Is it BFC's fault that a generation has an attention span of 45s and can't be bothered? No, it's their loss and I don't just mean CM.
It's not. The intent of CM is the make the best company-level combined arms tactical simulator, as stated multiple times by Steve.
There may be a wish to not present the information I've talked about but it's not the underlying aim of the product.
Plus this information not being there by the real-life nature of the sim means it would take resources to abstract and display.
Saying you shouldn't create a product that's approachable because look at these damn kids with their zero attention spans and their hippety-hoppedy-get-off-my-lawn helps no one. CM creates it's own world but has to exist in the real one and to do that successfully - meaning there's more resources to improve it further - we need to show what's great about it.
Otherwise, you get Metacritic scores like we have now and a small (shrinking? I don't know) population of players, simply because the joy of the game can't be grasped without playing it for a while.
I only played through my initial "meh" of BB because of my interest in WWII history and the sparkling reviews. BN et al doesn't have the latter of those drivers so is leaving a lot of players behind.
AT Guns: Problems and How to Solve Them?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
The major thing for me is the setup and pack-away speed.
Steve, I was reading the cliff notes for Counter attack at Son". In there, there is an AAR of the American units where a veteran states that a Jeep-pulled ATG came, setup by his position and knocked out a "Tiger".
He is then under a tank that parked on his foxhole for a few minutes (if that's what it felt like, it probably seconds) and when he was out the gun had packed up and gone.
Guns should be far quicker to deploy and pack up. Maybe if the ammo carriers need to setup and pack away and they take ages, as they have to shift the ammo, that would make sense?