sebastian

I want to see a more efficient user interface: - When it comes to displaying information, the GUI of the Close Combat series is still the unreached reference (everything color coded, live mouse reporting). - Camera control by buttons at the bottom of the screen is a HORROR. I want to zoom the camera with the mouse-wheel. I want to rotate the camera by holding the mouse-wheel down and moving the mouse. [ July 22, 2004, 12:50 PM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

My idea: Cursor-LOS When activated, all uninterrupted LOS between the current mouse-cursor position and known enemy-units are displayed. This would be very handy while ploting waypoints.

hover tanks ... cool

won tutorial as germans. the AI send out tanks as scouts just like in CMBO. even conscripts wouldn't act like this. hope this will be improved.

right from the start: splited squads running foward, spread in a broad line (no C&C usually), from cover to cover, until the point where you expect first contact. than more carfull. don't try to be stealthy. try to make it look like an assault. you want to provoke the enemy to open fire. on contact: seek cover or try to go around.

It is not a documantary-movie. It is a game. There is also no historical documentation about all the QBs I've played, I guess. It still was fun. It is realistic that turrets fly around somtimes. And if they happen to land on something damageable(houses, people) they schould damage it. I like details like that in games. It is fun to watch. I hope BTS will make the new engine flexible enough to include such stuff.

Can you cite me any examples from the actual war of people getting hit by falling turrets? </font>

That was a cool feature in CC. You had to stay away from burning tanks, because they could explode and kill your infantry. I hope this will be included in CM3 just like flying turrets falling down on somebody... [ July 28, 2002, 05:18 PM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

There is a similar problem with the general space needed by a squad. It seems to remain constant, even if there is only one man left in the squad. I hate to see the routed remains of a squad trying to hide in a house, where another fresh squad is hiding. The fresh squad starts to move around, to make space for the cowards, and gets spoted themselfs.

will vechicle wrecks stay on the map too?

AFAIK the first us-units to hit the beaches on d-day were completely unexpierenced national guard boys. exactly for the reason named above.

The expierence of enemy units also schouldn't be displayed at all.

cool. if you have much time and want it to look even better you could adjust the shading even more on the basis of the slope. for example: in 3275.bmp the bottom-part(facing down a bit) schould be even darker than the top-part(vertical). here it doesn't make much sense, but in other cases it could.

this is the first vechicle-mod, that makes any sense to me. i never saw the point in adding hi-res textures and more detail to objects wich almost never occupy more than 100x100pixels on the screen. even a plain olive-green texture with this shading would look better than any texture without shading.

i had the same with both HT knocked out, by an 75mm AT-round

speaking of "funny things happen": i had a tank kill two halftracks with one AT-shell.

i had 'none' chance with a daimler against a wooden pill box. bur after 3-4 penetrations they abondoned it.

It looks better now but still could be improved: less saturation for background colors. I will be flamed for this, but the colors in the G.I.-Combat forum are better...

updating the postion in a fraction of a second has to be done anyway, to make the vechicle move. and CM is not simulated in real time anyway. the simulation is done in the background, and then visualised. currently this takes much less then the simulated time (60sec). with a realistc LOS, you would have to wait longer for the blue progress bar to fill. that's all. the problem is that the postion of a infantry unit is abstracted to a single point. a tank would block the sight to the unit completely, or not at all. just like the houses do already. i would prefer to use the cover-model of the stone walls: if infantry hides behind a stone wall, you still have LOS to it, but the exposure is low. a tank schould decrease the exposure of the unit behind him. [ May 07, 2002, 06:03 AM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

yeah. that's what google came up with for "kugelpanzer":

collapsing stone bulidings in reality create larger clouds, than dozens of smoke grenades. but this was never modeled, neither in CC nor in CM. in steel panthers it was. [ May 07, 2002, 02:39 AM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

if i could split 2 men from a infantry squad, i would use them as scouts instead of AT-teams. IMHO the prevention of using crews for fighting, was solved in the later CC-games in a much better way. after bailing out they ran for cover and hide there. they ingnored movement orders but defended themselfs.

well, as a gamey bastard i use them as scouts anyway. an AT-team with no AT-ammo a no other weapons is usless. it provokes me even more to send them on sucidial recon-missions. even vechicle crews have pistols, and can defend themself. but AT-teams waste their AT-ammo against infantry. but i guess this all has been said before. [ April 18, 2002, 05:14 PM: Message edited by: sebastian ]

is it realistic, that AT-teams or arty-spotters don't have any rifles, SMGs or even pistols? or is this an abstraction? will this be different in CMBB?

you could take the - distance between the last-seen-marker and the new position - the age of the marker into acount, to determine if the marker gets removed. if a tank pops up only 20m from where he was last seen, it is natural that your units consider it to be the same one.