aka_tom_w

you should be playing now with the latest v1.04 patch right? and if you can hold on just a bit longer the v1.05 is rumoured to be released soon. Welcome! What a great AAR! (Very cool info about using your brother's real world military tactics, excellent way to approach the game and the tactical challenge presented to you!) Many thanks for the post and sharing or fun and pleasure with the game with the rest of us Cheers

Yes for sure, they are like small, man portable, tactical, fire and forget nukes in the game! (for scenario balance purposes this one weapon is THE most unbalancing factor IMHO especially because the TAC AI when the Computer AI is the US player cannot acquire and shoot them, but that is a WHOLE other issue.)

This is not an unreasonable list of requests. Reposted here from the Scenario design forum

This is just a fog of war (FOW) level and Elite vs Basic is mostly about who can see what and when. Basic FOW means you can see all the units all the time (I think) Elite means for spotting sometimes even your own friendly units cant' spot each other, and so spotting and finding opposing units is much more realistic. there should be no RPG accuracy issues at either FOW level (basic or elite, the same percentages and accuracy should apply to all RPG's fired) try it again, play some more and see how it feels to test try this find a smallish scenario you are familiar with and play as the side you are most familiar with (usually blue) in Basic Training, play the same scenario over again and do everything the same in Veteran FOW then do it all over again (everything the same) in Elite FOW. The things that you should notices changes in would be the more realistic spotting, and the time it take casualties to "heal". Everything like calling in arty or air support is longer slower and harder in Elite FOW (more realistic) Accuracy of all shots fired at all three levels should stay the same. (If I am not completely correct about this you can check the manual or someone will correct me here in this thread I said that because I may have missed a few things.)

Thanks! for those that are interested that is a VERY informative thread.

its an OLD thread but its worth a bump as the game engine even after 5 patches still works the same way..

I have used General in the past to flatten buildings because I did not know (until now) that General meant a mixture of air burst and ground burst. the label "Mixed" would be a better choice then "General" I agree.

this is not an unreasonable request..

interesting I don't recall seeing any airbursts (and they are hard to miss) when requesting the general selection for arty? I did not understand Inf Armour Or general either, until now, but I am not so sure you get some air bursts and some ground explosions from "general". hmmm :confused:

nothing short of mind boggling.... just a hint in RealLife when an authority figure says its time to lay down the law, there is usually a follow up to that action that results in someone's mistake or actions being made "an example of" if you catch my drift..... So hands up.... Who would like to be made the first example of "how to get banned" ? :eek:

are there other games that feature the RealTime play back you are asking for? I wonder about this. Seriously, I have always wondered why games like Myth for the Mac that were 3D realtime RTS games (no resource collecting and no building) had the capacity to be replayed. Myth is an OLD game but at the time 7-8 years ago it was a ground breaking ballistically realistic 3D RTS and you could rewind it (but not while playing real time) so I have always sort of wondered about that I agree with OM's RAM comment if we all had 16 gigs of ram on board the game could probably be made to rewind in real time and it would magically all happen in RAM.

um I might suggest Steve WAS reading all those posts, the only absence was from posting not from reading.... (maybe the more he read the less he was inclined to post... that sort of thing) so... make of that what you will

"Your milage may vary". In a forum enviroment it means that your opinion may not nessesarily be the same as the rest of ours. </font>

I think there is something here that should be looked and and reviewed in the game mechanics and survivability code.

But right now Huntarr and the other beta testers are the only ones even vaguely representative of BFC posting information on these forums. They are part of BFC's customer service model whether any of us like it or not. You have to learn to see this from the POV of the customer - they ain't always right, but they are always the customer. Do you get that? -dale </font>

wow thanks! great work

this is still a good suggestion, but I think the part about "coding would be a nightmare on stilts" is particularily appropriate here...

I am hoping something like "triggers" or events or reactions or something will be on "the list" to work on later in the game engine.

oops wrong thread..

"Has anyone ever seen the AI use a javelin at all? " A: No "Currently (1.04) i dont think AI has the ability to take from cargo." A: It is impossible, at the present time, for the AI to do that, I believe that is correct.

In Real Life is the really possible? Its an interesting idea, but the CLU and the missile might not actually physically fit up through the hatch. (but I am only guessing about that part) :confused:

sorry "Does anyone know what is done in RL in this situation? I would assume that AT team dismounts to kill the enemy tank" NO in the game as it stands now in v1.04 it is unrealistic to expect the TAC AI to have the dismounts acquire the Javelin and dismount and Aim and engage and fire the missile against and armoured threat without human player intervention. The code is just not there yet! (AND if it was "easy" to do it would already be in the game and as you have mentioned it is not! so don't expect it any time soon!) sorry [ November 14, 2007, 08:53 PM: Message edited by: aka_tom_w ]

Well there you have it In my response I did not factor in WEGO play, to be honest I have only been playing realtime so it had not occured to me. My answer was based upon thinking that the player was playing the Red Side and the AI was controlling the US strykers. It might be A LOT to ask for the Tac AI to have the Stryker based dismounts aquire the Javelins and dismount and deploy and fire the Javelin in response to an armoured threat (without player intervention). To be fair to the game and BFC I'm not sure that is possible. (Even it would be desireable, which might be up in the air.)

"and how bout a Stryker force not only retreating behind cover at the first sign of serious Red armor . . . but maybe the AI could even take the bold move of then deploying boots with javs to actually do something about such a threat?" OK I could be wrong about this but I think the clever scenario designer can script or program the Blue side AI to dismount troops at a certain time or location, but not really in response to a Armour threat directly. That would be nice, yes. This is therefore more problematic in Quick battles where no human brain has scripted the AI response like in a planned or designed scenario. It might be really hard to make the AI do what you have requested but it is not really an unreasonable request. (I think)

Yup! AND that's why I bumped it up.