Oddball_E8
-
Posts
2,871 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Oddball_E8
-
-
For me it is an important part of a game that uses the WEGO system.
For one full minute i have no control over my units. During that minute it could be crucial for one (or more) of my tanks to move to position A for my attack to work.
In that case i want it to move there even if it encounters enemy infantry while moving (at a distance of course).
BUT, if a tank or AT gun shows up on its flank, i want it to stop, engage the threat, and then move on.
Currently there is no way to do that in-game unless you play real time (which alot of us really do not like).
Now, this might very well be the reason for why some feel no need for the order.
If they are playing in real-time mode, there is no huge need for the order, but in WEGO i feel that there is definately a need for it.
The current hunt order does not fulfill this need. And using a standard move order will endanger the tank in alot of situations.
Standard procedure for tanks during WWII was to stop before engaging a target (IIRC).
Hunt works for that in real-time, but in WEGO, it is severely lacking sometimes.
Please, please, please give us the old hunt command back Battlefront
-
and you do not want to better optimize the (unfortunate shadows), flame-throwers, etc.? in the future, better AI, better graphics, physics, model, vehicle damage, etc.?
Every player out there would like everything ever invented to be put in the game at some point.
But not every player out there cares if it never gets put in.
Personally i dont care if they put in flametrowers or not.
And optimizations, better AI, better graphics, physics and so on is not something that you should be "pushing" battlefront for since they have proven to provide that over and over again without players having to push for it, so you pushing for it is just arrogant.
Especially if you are doing it for a module and not an actual game.
So don't assume that everyone wants the same as you since some (well most) of us are more than satisfied with the current pace of development with the game.
What you are doing is pushing for a much faster pace of development. That is the difference.
-
well, I hope that I am wrong, and the series is going in the right direction, although I do not agree that it was just a few malcontents, because we all want the same thing, except that we are more impatient and less forgiving;)
ps. I hope though that you are doing the best game in the segment gives you a little joy;)
Actually, you should never assume that others want the same things as you.
-
Who decided which maps went where when the game was made?
Because me and my friend tried a couple of QB's yesterday and felt that the maps didn't correspond to the landscapes we had picked to fight in.
So today i went through some of the QB maps (only small so far since we prefer smaller skirmishes) and most of them do not correspond to their names.
for example:
Asslt Small Forest QB-087-089 does not seem like forested areas to me. Yes, there are small patches of woods in them but they mostly look like farmland.
Asslt Small Hills (water) QB-044 seems hardly hilly to me. More like a fairly open village with one or two tiny tiny hills.
Asslt Small Open (bocage) QB-027 feels more like a village with some bocage and farms around it. Not very open in general.
Asslt Small Open (bocage) QB-068 This should be under Hills if you ask me! Its a valley with bocage and forested areas! Perfect for a "hilly" map...
I could go on, but i think you get the idea.
So who decided which maps would go where?
And is it the same in CM:FI?
My OCD and Autism are starting to kick in and i might actually sit down and rename all of them to the right categories :/
-
Try hunt with a long 180 target armor arc...that will at least keep you from stopping for infantry...or real short move waypoints with said arc.
Mord.
I was under the impression that you would still stop if infantry was spotted, you just wouldnt fire on them.
I will have to test this.
-
Then you have the option to not use Hunt. I tend to use it only for very specific instances where the Hunting unit won't be in danger if it stops early due to spurious contacts and where the unit I'm Hunting has been localised so that I know it'll have a good chance of being spotted first. An example was sneaking a TD into a very narrow keyhole LOS between 2 buildings where it could shoot at a tank. It took 3 turns before Hunt let it get far enough along that it had LOS, but it was behind the buildings it was trying to keyhole between (and had defilade to the enemy to left and right) so was safe from other AT assets.
For my money, the old Hunt command is more like "Rampage", and the new one is more like I'd expect tanks to operate in Real Life .
Of course i have the option to not use hunt. Just like you would have the option to not use the old hunt command. Doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game.
In Real Life ™ I would expect a tank that is advancing to halt and engage if an enemy tank appears.
But i would not expect it to keep staying in that same position for up to 55 seconds once that enemy tank was destroyed.
Thats my point.
It seems that it might have been abstracted a bit to make slow move work as if you actually stopped to engage targets, but I still want my tank to actually stop, engage a target until destroyed and then move again.
Since that is how i would expect a tank to operate in Real Life ™.
But since you used an example, i should do the same.
It cost me a panther tank once because i used the hunt move to advance and try to engage a group of shermans on the other side of a village.
But the panther stopped because it spotted an enemy scout squad some 6-700 meters away to the left.
It then stayed there behind the village for the entire turn. And it wouldnt move up the village to engage the shermans unless i used a different move command. I did this, and the tank moved too far and got killed because it spotted a sherman on its right when trying to move past the village, but instead of stopping to engage it kept moving... and subsequently got destroyed by that sherman...
If i could have used a "move until threat" type of move the outcome would most likely be different.
The Panther would have stopped to engage the sherman, but ignored the pesky scout squad 700m away. AND it would have kept moving to the other side of the village once the sherman was destroyed too.
But if you are satisfied with the current hunt command, then thats great. But does that really man that those of us who want it shouldnt have it?
-
It's not necessary in the same way that mods are not necessary. It's a purely cosmetic way of displaying the information that is already visually displayed by the base of the unit. Sure, it'd be nice, but it won't add anything to the total of data displayed.
OI! Stop using logic and reason!
This is a games forum for crying out loud!
Logic and reason has no place here, we use hyperbole and straw man arguments!
-
Don't blaspheme, heretic! They should be right up there next to fire and no more guys disappearing when they are shot on vehicles...oh, and flame throwers!
THAT'S right...I said FLAME THROWERS!
Don't be eyeballing me...
Mord.
I need a flamethrower!
I cant tell you why, but I really really need it
-
you can trust me, when you add the gun bren add 0-8 files, the game does not use the original sound - I spent with my mods for more than a month after 6-8 hours a day and I've never heard the original sound after adding a few sounds for one weapon, explosion, penetration etc.
I was hoping to get that answer from you since i know you did numbered versions of almost all the sounds in the game.
-
I hope that the people complaining about the MG module will come on the forums and give Battlefront a public apology if they deem the MG module "worth it" after it comes out.
If they don't, then they have lost all their respect in my eyes.
-
I've made a number of detailed posts about this topic over the years, going way back to CMx1 days. Eastern Front is not a wargamer's first choice for a wargamer. It is, however, the first choice for a grognard's first choice. Wargamers are a larger audience, grognards a smaller subset. And yes, it has a lot to do with the game not having US or British forces. It's a complex topic, that is for sure.
As I've said to people for a long time... CMBB sold significantly fewer copies than CMBO, despite being a higher quality game and much larger in scale and scope. This is not limited to CM either. Other game companies have said the same thing.
I am an Eastern Front grog and I don't really understand this either, but it is what it is.
Steve
Yeah, I'm an east front grog myself and I just dont get the uninterest from others. It's definately one of the most interesting fronts to play on.
Not to mention that the russians have the coolest toys! (ie. tanks)
-
I don't doubt that this is so. The experience of playing CMx2 is significantly different from playing CMx1. I don't know who would dispute that. That being the case, there are going to be people who loved x1 but don't find x2 to be their cup of tea. I seriously doubt that lowering the price of the game would bring many of them back into the fold. For some, you couldn't pay them to play the game.
So they are gone and may not ever come back. The question then is, are they being replaced by new players who are quite happy with x2? I don't know, but Steve has recorded in these pages that they are quite happy with the volume of sales. You can draw whatever conclusions you like from that.
Michael
Not only that, but some are sure to be like my friend who played CMSF and never returned to battlefront until yesterday when i convinced him to play H2H against me in CMBN-CW...
He had such a poor experienc in CMSF that he gave up on the CMx2 engine completely and moved on to other games, never looking back.
The problem is that CMSF suffered from the teething problems of the CMx2 engine at the start.
That, combined with the "shock" of getting used to a new engine, meant that he just didn't like the game.
I was the same, but i returned to try out cmbn when it came out and noticed the progress.
I'm sure quite alot of the old CMx1 players that gave up on CMx2 had a similar experience.
-
OH MY GOD I LOVE THIS MAP!
You need to do more maps umlaut!
I'll never play on the full map, but I'm definately going to divide it into sections and have battles over different parts of the city
The details are amazing, the pictures don't do it justice.
-
I used the wrong word, it should be "the least financial cost" and also like you never felt cheated by BF.
happy to hear it
-
It's my understanding that the standard principle for firing on the move for most tanks during WWII (even shermans with gyros) was to stop when engaging a target, and move whilst reloading.
Maby something like that could be implemented and that way it would only apply to enemy targets that are spotted by the tank crew itself, and the relative spotting mechanic wouldnt matter as much.
And if you only wanted them to do that with enemy armour, you would have the target armour arc up.
Maby that would be possible?
-
Ah, that explains alot then Zeb... thanx for the (very quick) answers guys.
personally i dont like the idea of having a vehicle stop at a precarious place for an entire turn if i happen to spot an infantryman moving in a woods 500 meters away...
I would have loved a hunt command in the style of the old one where vehicles (and im only talking about vehicles with cannons here) stopped to destroy enemy vehicle contacts but then moved again afterwards.
-
Im not sure how it works if you introduce a numbered version to a non numbered one tho.
If you just add the gun bren 0-8 files, the game might still use the gun bren file that is in the original.
Best to use one to override the original sound too (if you are thinking of adding more variations to a sound without variations i mean)
-
I'm quite happy with stock sounds.
Buuuuuuu!
Hello to all,I'm using waclaw's sound mod, I'm happy with it
but oddball's mod seems good as only small arms, at guns etc. Waclaws artillery, mortar and ricochet sounds are hilarious as additionally
regards
Well im using the vehicle and soldier movement sounds from waclaws mod, as well as the penetration sounds and flames from the SFX 1.25 mod (as i mention in the read me).
Waclaws explosions dont work well with my mod i feel, since his explosions even drown out the cannon sounds in my mod. Im thinking of putting some of the larger explosions back in tho.
-
Not necessarily. You may be underestimating Battlefront. Part of the game's challenge is not always knowing when an AFV has been KO'ed.
Yes, but sometimes its pretty easy to see: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Destroyed_T-55_tank,_Bosnia.JPEG
What im talking about is a texture to show when tanks have been completely destroyed. Not just knocked out by a well placed shot but actually blown up, if you know what i mean.
A tank that has had secondary or tertiary internal explosions would be easy to spot as destroyed.
And those could have a texture to show that.
One would have thought that a generic damage decal that overlays the vehicle textures shouldn't be too difficult to implement. Though I doubt that they would be at all very aesthetically convincing - merely better than what we've currently got.Implementing real model damage is an altogether different undertaking. Each model would need to be modified with a damaged type, and where appropriate, visible damage effects implemented with a physics animation sequence. Without animation, it wouldn't be too convincing. Then there's the shot modelling; which area of the vehicle gets struck would need to be tied into the right animation and damage model. For example; it would be no good having the turret fly off if it was the track that was hit or a skirt.
Anyway, I think you get the idea - to do it right (as BF no doubt would wish, as we would), it's a substantial undertaking all of its own. Considering what else could be done instead with that effort...
Despite that, it would be great to think that BF might get round to adding full battle damage at some point way down the road. Effects might only be bells and whistles but still...
Well, World of Tanks has some sort of overlay that adds "bullethole" decals to tanks (and also riccochet decals) so it shouldnt be impossible.
Maby not with the detail that they have, but something similar maby?
(not saying that its a good game, just that i liked that feature when i tried it)
-
after all, I think we should put pressure on the battlefront, in the end, we stand on the other side of barricade, we as consumers want to get the best product at the lowest price, and the battlefront to sell the game at a profit with the least effort, and possibly (I'm pretty sure) as best quality.
I understand the problems related to the cost, lack of time, a small team, but just understand
little pressure shall not hurt them, and they can stimulate a better job with the benefit of us all.
Trust me, Battlefront is NOT trying to sell us a game at profit with "the least effort" in the way you seem to think.
Of course they will try to streamline their production, but as they do they always put more into the games.
I have never felt cheated by Battlefront in any way, and thats saying alot since almost every game out there have left me feeling cheated in one way or another.
You seem to view Battlefront like you would any larger company (like EA games or Activision) but this is not some large corporation trying to make a profit from selling games at a huge margin.
This is a small, dedicated team of people designing and selling games to a small dedicated group of gamers. The fact that they can make a living out of it at all is pretty amazing, and is no doubt connected to the higher than average prices on the products.
If they tried to compete with larger corporations by lowering their prices, they would all have to get second jobs to get by.
-
I might be wrong, but wasn't there a movement command for tanks in the old CMx1 engine where they would move until they saw another tank, then stop and engage that tank until it died or dissapeared and then move again?
What happened to that command? Was it deemed unneeded?
Because i really could have used it in a mission i played today against my friend...
-
Nice idea to get implemented, though..
Agreed.
I wonder how much coding it would take tho.
Since i know nothing of coding it would be nice to hear Battlefronts comments on this.
To me it sounds kinda simple, like a toggle that is switched when the vehicle is destroyed (not just knocked out) to switch the skin... but that could be as complicated as programming a rocket launch for all i know.
-
Cool, thanx
Glad you liked them
-
Nope
10/char
Where did the "move until contact, engage, move again" command go?
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I get the distinct impression that you didnt play the old CMx1 games much.
Im not asking them to change hunt because its not working how i think it should work.
Im asking what happened to the old hunt command that worked the way im describing.
They had the current hunt command too back then, but it was called move to contact (IIRC).
Using paused stops between short movements with slow still doesnt mean that the tank is moving the way it should (ie. move to contact, engage contact, start moving to target again).
And you also (in CMBN) get a movement penalty for firing even if you are paused between move commands.
In other words you are telling me to use a halfway-working and convoluted way to approximate a feature that was in the old game just because... actually... i dont know why you think its so bad to introduce this feature.
What do you have against the old hunt command anyway?
As for the "its gonna take 30s or more" comment... how many times have an enemy tank brewed up on you on the first shot? (especially when playing as axis)
Do you still think your tank needs 30 seconds of shooting at a burning enemy tank to be satisfied?