TeAcH

Chupacabra: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'd much rather see improvements like a larger polygon count for infantry units or more terrain tiles than really niggly eye-candy like smoking craters or moving wheels.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Niggly? Niggly?? Ahem..no comment. Ataru: Thanks! I appreciate it. You made an excellent point in the face of Chupacabra's post. Oddball: The bridge..yeah, I still have it I believe and will email it back. Im not home at the moment. David Aitken: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>I'm sure this kind of graphical realism will make it into BTS's games eventually, but it's not exactly a priority that would merit inclusion in CM 1 or 2.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well, maybe they hadn't thought of it until it was brought up. Not to say that this falls into that category, but Im sure there are things in the game now that started with a request...eh David? Not in CM1 or CM2 you say? Well, maybe and then again maybe not. It was a request afterall, not a demand. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>As for fog and night visibility - I'm rather glad it's not entirely realistic, because those scenarios would be a pain to play if you couldn't see anything, and I'm sure a lot of people wouldn't bother.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Well I'm not. Imagine this David. If the fog was thicker, wouldn't it add to the FOG of war? I mean, if you went to level 2 or 1 and it was foggier, wouldnt that make it a bit more atmospheric. I can't understand why you say you like it easy here. And to top it off, you say that most people wouldn't like it. Overly presumptuous of you if you ask me. Besides, couldn't you use your SHIFT+W key and tone it done if that realism bothers you? aka_tom_w: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Yes but then you could HAVE all kinds of fun with your recon units then. Not being able to see so much "shuld" be the way it is so you ahve to actually use your soldiers eyes and ears to figure out whats happening on the battle field. Sounds like fun.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Yes! Exactly! Excellent! You got it!!

Hi BTS. In the continuing effort to see this game get better both in terms of gameplay and graphics, I have a small request . I'd like to see you all consider adding small wisps or clouds of smoke that linger in a bomb crater for a very short time (10-20 seconds) after a barrage hits. Won't do anything gameplay-wise, but I think it would be a nice touch. Maybe the larger the caliber, the larger the cloud. And Im only talking about enough smoke to fill the crater not obscure vision in any way. Purely cosmetic. Also, Id like to see heavy fog heavier when in view 1 or 2. It seems as though the air in the immediate vicinity in that level clears up although off in a far distance, the fog is visible. I guess it seems to me that it would be mistier or a little foggier at that level than that presently shown. GREAT Game!! Thanks! TeAcH

Throwing in my 2 cents worth real quick. I for one stand right with BTS on this one. Fionn, although a wealth of knowledge when it comes to WW2, has more than once been rude and curt with many people here. I hate to see anyone get banned, but he asked for it and BTS had given him another chance. We dont need flamewars here and attitudes galore, however, some people post like that and they need to be held accountable. You made the right call BTS, albeit a difficult one. Regards, TeAcH

Hi Drifter. I too had a similar problem and voiced my concerns (and request for a Defend Arc) in the forum. I suggest you read the following posts: http://www.battlefront.com/discuss/Forum1/HTML/007263.html Take care. TeAcH [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 09-02-2000).]

A very interesting and well written and prepared piece! Certainly worthy of BTS consideration if you ask me. Steve and Charles have said many times that it can be proven to them, they fix it in the game. The only setback I could see is that they are busy tweaking other issues. TeAcH

Thanks everyone for your input thus far. Fang: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>After all I believe that historically that it was (and probably still is) difficult to move a column of troops and tanks especially under fire.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> True, its difficult but not impossible. Correct me if I am wrong but tanks did operate in formations from time to time. Moreover, were talking about a follow command that might be broken and overidden by a unit that tries to seek cover or take evasive action as they do now under the move or hunt commands. <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>If this command is implemented will it make it too easy too move columns? To a certain extent shouldn't it be difficult.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Too easy does not equal bad. I agree. It shouldn't be as difficult as it is now. As I mentioned earlier, I tried to move a line of vehicles down a back road during a PBEM and not only had to spend a crazy amount of time trying to get them to do so in line, but one crash and bash caused me to lose several turns trying to play traffic cop.

I frankly cannot see how someone who has played this game enough can shoot this idea down. Again, this does not only have to apply to vehicles. It could apply to soldiers as well. I could plot out lets say a half squad giving them a string of waypoints, and the rest of the platoon I could click FOLLOW and click the half squad. Movement Done. Of course, still the primary reasons remains...that is to help in directing a large string of vehicles.

Tiger, thanks for your opinion. I disagree. No amount of tweaking to this game WILL EVER make it a RTS clone in any regard. Dont look at a FOLLOW command like that. Sure you can drag a box around units, but I suggest you try that. Try to get a column of units down a road single file making turns all the way. Cant do it. Besides, just because something works in one genre (RTS games) doesn't mean it is wretched and evil for this one.

The fact that German crack tank crews miss against more inexperienced crews has concerned me too. I am very willing to accept the notion that sometimes rare events do occur. (i.g. a green Stuart tank defeats 3 veteran or crack panther tanks). Thats how legends are born and things like that happen. But, I think the real question here is whether those sorts of occurrences are too common as a whole. If they are, then perhaps there is something in the game that needs tweaking, which I am all for. Adversely, just because a rare sequence of events takes place, that isn't call for a repair of the game's engine. I would say that in looking at the whole, that is, playing the game since day 1 and engaging in scores of tank duels, I'm of the opinion that crew quality needs to be adjusted to allow for more experienced crews to not only have increased accuracy, but a better rate of fire, and better selection of not only which target to shoot at but what part of the tank they are aiming for. Thus a crack light tank crew might aim for a spot on a larger tank that gives it its best location to kill. Perhaps all of this is already factored into the game by BTS. They have done an outstanding job to date...virtually unequaled in the gaming industry. Just because German guns are more powerful, does not mean that is all the advantage they had nor is it all the advantage they are going to get in this game. My two cents.

The other day I was playing a scenario against a buddy and wanted to shuffle all my troops to the other side of the map via a back road. Try as I might, It was a mess. The endf result was a major loss of turns trying to get these vehilce laden with troops to move at top speed (as fast as the slowest could go).

In regards to WW2 magazine, did you guys at BTS ever consider running an ad for this game there? TeAcH

Compassion: I have the ELSA Gladiac GeForce 2 GTS and am using the det 3 drivers (618). To which driver are you referring to? The beta 616? Is it better than 618? TeAcH

Exactly! Thanks Apex. You know, some people try to be so cute and then WHAMMO..it backfires on them. =)

I have the ELSA Gladiac Geforce 2 GTS card and I have a question. When I run it in 1024x768 16 bit mode with FSAA cranked all the way up, I notice that the unit data screens (ENTER KEY) are distorted and unreadable. Anyone else see this? I am using the Det 3 drivers (618) TeAcH

Forgive me if this has been asked for and discussed to death. If it has, you are excused, but I'd like to see a follow command that I can issue to units. As it stands now, getting a column of vehicles (of different speeds) down a road all together can be a nightmare. Faster units bump into slower ones and cause a backup that looks like the traffic in Seattle. A FOLLOW command would tell that unit to follow the selected unit at whatever distance they are at that point, regardless of their speed. Thus, you could set up columns not to mention saving time since you wouldnt have to plot out 10 vehicles. You could direct one to a location then the rest follow. You could then break the follow command by issuing a MOVE command during the plot by selecting an area for that vehicle to break off and head to OR you could stop it altogther at the next movement phase. With respect to infantry, you could plot a course for one unit using multiple waypoints and other could follow him with one click. Whadya think? TeAcH Im wishing for acceptance in a CM1 patch or CM2. Thanks ------------------ "Ah-ah, I know what you're thinking. Did he fire 6 shots or only 5. Well to tell you the truth in all this excitement I've kind of lost track myself. But being this is a .44 Magnum - the most powerful hand gun in the world, and would blow your head clean off, you've got to ask yourself one question, do I feel lucky. Well, do ya punk?" [This message has been edited by TeAcH (edited 08-29-2000).]

I dont know about you all, but I like to see a map first (devoid of the units of course) when deciding if I want to play that scenario. Some of the cool CM scenario sites out there (ASL MAPS for one) how you the map with a brief description. This would be nice to see in CM1 or CM2. As it stands, I cant really see a map until I choose a side and go through the briefing. Thanks TeAcH

Yeah. I hate that too. I can get rid of it by using my FSAA though.

I have noticed that when I crank up the FSAA on my card to 3x or 4x, the unit data screen (the one that pops up when you press enter) gets all whacked out. Anyone else see this?

Well, the 1.05 patch readme says this: <BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Units area-targeting a building which collapses and has no visible surviving enemy troops in the resulting rubble will cancel their area target.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> The key is no visible units. If on the subsequent turn, you wanna dump rounds into rubble where there isnt a hint of a unit, be my guest. You know, the only part of you last comment that gave me gas, was when you insinuated that those of us who favor this fix must be dumb and you'll be happy to play our inept butts all day. Whatever. BTS fixed it. Im outa here.

So is that game worth getting? Panzer Elite?

Ahem. David, you totally miss the point. Think about the patch and what I said. An aesthetic point of view? Hardly! Why is it so hard for some folks to understand that once the building collapses, the tank will now be released from the rubble fire (locked area fire) to target enemy still in the rubble OR enemy fleeing from the rubble. Why is this bad?? Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Fixed in 1.05!@!! YAHOO. Damn! You guys at BTS do listen. I already knew that from other comments and fixes, but this one was close to my heart. Perhaps this issue was already on the table before I brought it up. Either way...THANKS!! TeAcH

I hope this wasnt asked a ba-jillion times before, but: If my infantry is sneaking as opposed to running when it stumbles into a minefield, will they take less casualties or more? I would think less since they are able to take evasive action, but I suppose if they ran through it, they would be past it sooner and maybe use fewer footsteps to do so. TeAcH

Yeah. I have tried every driver I can think of and every possible setting to no avail. Thats a bummer cause this is a helluva card. Well, I am selling the card to a friend and getting a GeForce 2. Poor me. hehehe If anyone has a solution, let me know cause the purchaser is a CM player too.

<---Voted