Jump to content

sebastian

Members
  • Posts

    113
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by sebastian

  1. 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 ]

  2. Originally posted by Michael emrys:

    That means, among other things, that they don't include anything for which no historical documentation can be found.

    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. smile.gif I hope BTS will make the new engine flexible enough to include such stuff.

  3. Originally posted by aka_tom_w:

    You are correct, it would seem CMBO does not model the delayed explosion of HE and AP ammo cooking off after the crew has bailed, no doubt about that.

    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 ]

  4. No vehicle can transport more than two units.

    If these units happen to be sharpshooters then that's it.

    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.
  5. Originally posted by Capricornelius:

    Green troops, he goes on to say, serve better than vets in direct frontal assaults because of their youthfully naive zeal and daredevil nature.

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

    this would need a lot of computer power because the game should update the position of each vehicle in the battle in a fraction of a second.

    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 ]

  7. Originally posted by Pak40:

    I agree about the dust cloud issue. I am amazed how massive artillery barrages in CM dont make any dust/smoke that hinder LOS.

    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 ]

  8. 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.

  9. No, it's not realistic, but it was done by BTS because they felt that it was neccessary to prevent gamey use of these specialized troops as ad-hoc combat teams and scouts after they expended their primary mission ammo.

    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 ]

  10. In those cases, having the last seen marker disappear when an identified unit pops up in a position that a positive id can be made (wheater that's a tank with specific markings, or a platoon of men with the paltoon sgt. with the weird bloodstain the shape of Rhode Island on it or whatever)

    ;)

    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.

×
×
  • Create New...