Reverendo

I only have a little problem with AT guns, Bazookas, Schreks, Fausts and tank main guns: -My AT weapons ALWAYS miss -The AIs AT weapons ALWAYS hit Even under the same conditions. You always talk about AARs in which a Stug takes like 3 or 4 shermans out. Ok... Whenever I try it, my Stug is knocked out at the first shot, while if I try it with the Americans, the Stug DOES kill the three Shermans, even if all three are firing at the same time. Is that a bug or just disastrous luck? Will the 'Hack the Reverend's armour' string be removed from the final game's code? P.S: I once saw one of my Panzerschrecks knocking a Sherman out, but it seldom happens. I remember once I told a Schreck to fire at a Ronson's rear from 10 meters. Nobody was shooting at the Schreck, he wasn't even fatigued, since he hadn't moved on the whole battle... and he missed. Twice. Even three times, till the Sherman shot him down. :¬(

The same the good old Odball bought? P.S: COOL film (even the soundtrack from Mike Curb Congregation was good!)

I surely vote no TCP-IP. Many wealthy and famous software companies ship 'incomplete games' and post patches later. Activision even released MechWarrior 2 without 3D acceleration for the Mac and never released the patch... Activision made a major mistake with this (they would surely be damned forever in hell) but this would be a minor sin (perhaps we'll just darn you for 15 minutes in heck) :¬) The most important thing is that I want to play the full game right now. My pre-order is placed, and I want it today (well, actually I wanted it long before) so do anything you have to do to release it as soon as possible (I would even accept the Commonwealth troops to be a patch!!) Now, I have seen in the poll results that we no-TCP voters have won an overwhelming victory over real-time net game worshippers. So, when does the poll end and, most important, when will the game be installed in my iMac? ------------------ Regards Reverendo

Heh, now I ken why the lad didn't die when I bombarded him with my shermans... Does he actually use the 88 gun or just tosses the shells?

Are we going to see tanks with multiple turrets in the final version of CM, like the Grant or Lee? In this case, how will the AI handle them? May they track separate targets? And one last question. Do you know of any battle appearance of the Soviet T-35? I read about this tank yesterday, and I just couldn't imagine such a colossus. Do you have any stats for it? The only thing I know is that it had 5 turrets, 10 crewmen, a 76,2mm gun, two 45mm guns and five machine guns (this is the firepower of a Panzer IV and two Panzer III!)

Aye! I'm with you all lads! (A scenario with british troops perhaps...)

I have seen AFV crews 'shaken' when a direct hit killed a crewman. But, can they 'panic'? In CloseCombat (don't ken if this is realistic) I saw a Jadgpanther crew routing. The tank's main gun was damaged, they were almost surely low on MG ammo, and they were surrounded. So they just bailed out and started to run. The tank counted as 'captured' when I read the debriefing. The Germans actually captured many tanks during the war. And I have saw a captured French tank for the Germans in your vehicle list. Can you actually do that in battle? In campaign mode, it would be cool to ride a captured Jadgpanther from the last battle. Well, the allies didn't have many reasons to capture tanks, but the Germans did. German Stuarts? :¬) ------------------ Regards Reverendo

Wouldn't it be a lot more interesting if reinforcements were a bit more random and/or tardy? I always know 3 hellcats are arriving at turn 10, and so does my opponent. I would love to find 2 hellcats arriving at turn 12 instead (for example), perhaps 4 shermans arriving at turn 9, perhaps no reinforcements arriving at all... Who knows?

Take a Scotsman's advice about fair play: Never play with a lad who isn't close enough to behead him with your claymore if he cheats... :¬) ------------------ Regards Reverendo

Thanks for your reply Fionn... We're always glad to hear from you. First, I have to say I made a small mistake, since the way I used the word 'Soldier' may have caused some misunderstanding. I ken the computer only renders three soldiers per squad. Guess that leaves us with 1 soldier rendered per 4 soldiers represented. What I wanted was exactly the same, that is, 1 dead body per 4 actual casualties. This won't hurt framerate, and It will be more pleasant to see than a dead soldier for each actual casualty (not from an emotive point of view, but the ground would be carpeted with dead bodies and you wouldn't be able to see anything). About production time, the graphic for a prone soldier is already done, we all have seen it, so I do not think it would be too hard to set it as a casualty marker. I'm not a programmer, but the thing would be something like 'Whenever a soldier -that is, 4 actual soldiers- is ordered to disappear due to casualties, just draw a prone soldier and don't move it for the rest of the battle'. To improve the graphical aspect, an animation could be done, but it is not required. And finally, about Germany, remember I'm asking about 'prone soldiers', not blood. The way Close Combat was produced, it accepted the sight of blood, but blood in CM would be absolutely tasteless (don't ask me why, I just can't imagine it). So, is there anything against that? If there is, please tell me... :¬) Again thanks for your reply.

Aaaaah, ok. Sorry lad, sometimes I'm perhaps a bit slow... :¬)

Ok then... flame me brother for I've done wrong, but... Many people have complained about 'Lack of feedback'. Steve's reasoning about the 'Spreadsheet' thing is quite easy to understand, and I do think having a 'unit overview' window would be a crime. This is not hardcore wargaming. This is natural. And that's why I love it. The 'dead bodies' thing was quite a mess, since half of the forum wanted them and half of the forum didn't. The bad thing is that none of them gave any reasons, and if they did, the other side didn't listen. Some even wrote ironic threads about it. It was wrong, and I ken we are all sorry. As far as I ken, dead bodies would mean a mess with framerate and a disrespectful behaviour, disregarding wargamers and combattants' feelings. That's what I read in the threads anyway. The thing is that having 'blood spots' or depicting animated violence would be terrible. If somebody did that, I would regard it as blasphemy and I would call the Inquisitors Hotline. A wargame should NEVER become a dismemberfest, not in any way. But let's not get too extreme. Remember when we were young and we played with toy soldiers? We represented battles and, whenever we wanted to simulate a casualty, we just made a toy soldier lay over the floor. It is quite an innocent thing to do, I don't think it hurts anyone's feelings. Just a prone soldier, nothing else. Some will say 'What about frame rate?' At the beggining of every CM game, the computer renders EVERY single soldier we have, and doesn't seem to have any 'horse power' problem. Drawing those soldiers prone would be exactly the same (with this exception: the computer can actually forget about them, they're not going to move anymore). Others will say 'Why to depict casualties anyway?' There are many possible reasons, and 'Feedback' is just one of them. Just think about your troops' morale. It SHOULD lower if they entered a house (p.e) full of friendly dead soldiers. That's what happened in Close Combat 2 (almost the only good, realistic thing you could find). It would also make you remember which zones are covered by heavy fire, where did your assault go wrong, which part of your waypoints is more exposed to gunfire, etc. And if we talk about enemy dead soldiers, it could tell you if there ACTUALLY was something firing at you in that wood before you ordered mortar fire... Lots of things could be done. It wouldn't be hard to add a hotkey to hide dead soldiers either (there's one for hiding vehicles, why not soldiers?) Now, I would like to hear any arguments against that in a way as peaceful and tranquile as possible. I don't want a 'Go to hell', I don't want a 'You don't have feelings', I don't want a 'We won't add them cause we don't want to'... :¬) You guys at BTS are perhaps the best game producers ever. And quite friendly people for what I have read. Please trust us users, at least one more time. Sincerely ------------------ Regards Reverendo

Before flaming me to death, let's write an introduction to this thread, FAQ style: Q- Is this a thread about Lack O' Feedback? A- No Q- About knocked out tanks then? A- Nope Q- Dead bodies! It has to be about that! A- Guess again Q- Then what the hell is this about? A- All of those topics, actually! Now, my reasons: I have been writing on many message boards for a long time, and I do ken some people get a bit too nervous. Peaceful and respectful discussions are hard to drive sometimes. But the thing is that previous threads about the above mentioned topics have been closed, and I'm yet to be heard. I'm not asking for special attention. I just want another chance for us respectful people who want to have a chat with BTS about some suggestions of ours. I'm posting my arguments on another message (Please, don't close this thread yet!) ------------------ Regards Reverendo

Anyway, BTS... Here's a jolly good fellow who wants to discuss in a way as friendly and respectful as possible. Please allow me to be heard. I do not ken how other subscribers of this board have acted before about this topic, but my intention is not to disturb anyone. I would just like to have a peaceful discussion with Steve about this topic (not only about infantrymen but also about AFVs). Could it be? Can we respectful speakers be heard? :¬) P.S: great game indeed... ------------------ Regards Reverendo

BigAlMoho, Aye, the mortar's CURRENT HQ should fit... :¬)

We have had problems with the dead bodies thing in other threads, and they all happened because some people weren't respectful with other people's arguments. I'm sure we could attract BTS' attention on the topic if we were to talk about it like the gentlemen we are. I do not think framerate is a problem for dead bodies and/or vehicles. At the start of the battle, every single soldier and tank is rendered by the computer. Wether the soldier is alive or not will NOT change that. I don't think dead bodies take more 'horsepower' than living ones... And the fact of the offensive nature of depicting violence could be easily overridden by assigning a hotkey to hide/show battle debris. Special note for BTS!: Dead bodies AFFECT realism for the AI. That's perhaps one of the only good things CloseCombat2 had. Making your infantry advance over their mates' corpses should really lower their morale. Making dead bodies disappear removes this important factor of war... in my humble opinion, that is. So remember, I'm not talking about a good graphical environment, I'm talking about realism and playability... :¬) P.S: for BTS and everybody else: all of my messages have some kind of smiley face, because I seek not to argue but to discuss. I don't want any yelling. I don't want people to talk, but to speak. I don't want people to hear, but to listen. I don't want facts, but opinions.

But... Let's see. I understand the Forward Observers thing, since that kind of artillery is usually 'off-board'. But I think mortars should be able to use other unit's line of sight, let's say, HQ units'. It is a bother to need direct LOS with mortars, since the big advantage mortars are supposed to have is to fire over obstructions... The only thing I get with 60mm mortars in CM are long ranged, low accuracy, low penetration bazookas...

But it should! Just try to imagine the amount of smoke generated by a burning wheat field. It should obscure LOS for units trying to shoot through the whole area...

The FTs ting is fair enough, but what about burning areas? P.E: burning wheatfields (my tanks may LIVE in them without noticing any problem) And what about smoke? I feel the amount of smoke generated by burning terrain is far smaller than it should be. The game only draws a small column protruding from the middle of a fire 'box', while it should be smoking the whole area. If fire happens so seldom, it should have far more interesting effects... ------------------ Regards Reverendo

No Russians??? Not even an expansion pack??? WE WANT RUSSKIES!!!

A pair of suggestions about fire... a) (Graphical aspect) :¬) Fire is fairly well rendered when tanks and other vehicles burst in flames, since the square shape is small enough to look round, as it should be. But when a land square burns, it doesn't look too good. Specially because the smoke screen is not big enough (this is not too realistic, a burning wheat field should make a hell of a smoke screen, not a tiny column from the middle of the square) (About effects) I have never seen an infantry squad enter a land on fire, but I have seen tanks doing so. I heard tanks attacked by flamethrowers turned into bloody ovens, and I think it SHOULD be so. We should remember that tanks' armour is generally made of steel (at least during WWII) and it should get damned hot when surrounded by fire. Shouldn't tanks suffer losses on the crew when standing on a fire hex/area? ------------------ Regards Reverendo

Now, does anybody know when is the game being released? Ya guess we'll have it by 2000? ------------------ Regards Reverendo

aradigales@mad.servicom.es I'm interested. E-mail me and we'll choose the map.

Whoa, I always forget something! :¬) If the problem is plainly technical, then leave it out. I'm not going to get upset if I can't run over soldiers. Actually, I only tried to do it twice. About realism, I ken it is extremely hard to run over a man with a tank. But I have to say this game simulates long range combat perfectly, but I see flaws (perhaps just lack of feedback' in close combat. Tanks aren't the only unit to have problems about this. Infantry makes some weird things while assaulting. And I have seen a full squad of veteran panzergrenadiere fleeing from half a squad of american riflemen. So, when I try to scare 1 or 2 soldiers who are under fire and have lost their whole squad, and I get a tank close, why don't they flee? Actually, why do they kill my tank? Hell, I would be far more scared if I saw a steel box with 2 MGs and a gun than if I saw 5 jerks running through open ground... Specially because I can shoot the jerks down with my rifle... Oh, and one more thing. Panzerfausts kill tanks, that's true. And they do it veri good indeed. But, why do grenades (I mean hand grenades) kill my buttoned tanks?!. You see a guy swinging his arm, a black dot flying on an arc and falling over your tank, a huge explosion and the crew running away... Isn't that a bit strange? ------------------ Regards Reverendo

I do not think the fact this tactic is often used or not is important. I don't play wargames to recreate history, but to rewrite it. It would be absurd to say 'Hey, I found a great tactic to take Riesberg, but I'm not going to use it because the Americans didn't take Riesberg that way'. The important fact is that if a Stug ran over me, dying would be quite a smart thing for me to do. It would be the ONLY thing to do, actually. It is not that it was used by the Russians or not, it's the fact that being ran over by a tank is bad for your health. During the occupation of Spain in 1812, throwing pots to French soldiers from windows wasn't a 'Commonly used tactic', but hell, go and tell that to the French soldiers who died this way! We have seen infantry squads going THROUGH tanks. Not only in CM, but also in CC and C&C. So, why not making YOUR troops go through tanks, while ENEMY troops die if ran over? The AI in CM is extremely advanced, probably the best AI I have ever seen, ok, fair enough, but sometimes it does weird things. And our duty as subscribers of this newsgroup is reporting them. I have seen a SINGLE volksgrenadier blow a Sherman tank up... from the INSIDE. That's not realistic. And don't talk about violence, since I think if we do so we will have the same problem we had with the 'Dead bodies' thing. I'm not asking for blood, guts and brains. I DON'T want the game to be a dismemberfest. But neither I want war to be simulated in a way so neat and fluffy. Running over soldiers is cruel, ok, but being shot down isn't either my idea of a good day, and people in CM actually shoot each other. If I wanted blood, I would play 'Unreal' or 'Quake'. If I wanted an innocent game, I would play 'Barney the Cute Purple Dinosaur'. So let's not mess things up. I'm not pro-dead bodies, but I'm not against them either. The objective of a simulation is to... simulate. So, when personal conviction masks reality, we're no longer simulating. ------------------ Regards Reverendo