thewood

I gotta ask...or what. Are you moderating now? I am confused.

Huntaar, it may be a good idea to back off the thread police thing a little and let the debate go. Sometimes the threads aren't really related and it is not necessarily a bad thing to let them go. It can be difficult to search through a thread with a hundred responses and search doesn't always bring the right thread to the surface. [ October 15, 2007, 11:41 AM: Message edited by: thewood ]

I think Flanker is talking about the AI moving out of danger.

Still doesn't answer the question about reversing automatically.

I have also done extensive testing on Strykers reacting. Every now and then, I get a stubborn one, but mostly they react well. I have found that they tend not to fire on thier own over around 500m. between 400 and 600 it almost seems random, but closer than 400 and you will get hosed by a Stryker.

Hey, I'm not saying do it. I am just saying that I seem to be having less of the LOS issues than a lot of people... 2 difference: 1) I don't play the campaign at all and I only have played a few user made scenarios. I build my oen scenarios for my own enjoyment and play hotseat WEGO almost exclusively. 2) I have reinstalled recently. Don't jump on BFC or me. I just let people know I have less issues and a hypothesis on why.

This question has been asked quite a few times and have seen no response. Any chance of whether BFC even considers this an issue?

I hate to say this because I hate when I am told to do this, but... Try a fresh install. I had to move my game to another machine right after 1.04. I am still having a few of the usual bugs, but no where near we what some people are seeing. The reinstall might help.

It seems like Reverse Slope is a catch all phrase. I was a little surprised at Huntaar's response about it being descriptive enough. Even soemthing clearer, like partial LOS, but no LOF.

I agree. With a number of people complaining about LOS/LOF and clearly not getting it, I'm surprised more time hasn't been taken to help people sort out what is a bug and what is something that is just how it is.

I think it would go a long way towards cleaning up the noise. People who ACTUALLY play the game need questions answered on how to play and what its doing. The manual is somewhat incomplete and out of date already. I bet half the bugs people are talking about here would go away if we had some kind of reference, designers notes, FAQ. It would seem to save a lot more time than for someone to have to keep coming on the board and answering the same questions. If BFC is not reponding because of the negative posts, they could at least not abandon the rest of us who are trying to enjoy the game by making it a heck of a lot easier to get answers. After 1.04, its not the bugs that are frustrating, its the lack of knowledge and understanding of how things are supposed to work. Now my question is do you work for BFC. Are your answers actual official answers or guesses from being a beta tester. I have seen too much guessing from people acting like they know the answers only to send people down the wrong path. How much time should I alot to digging through thousands of posts for an answer. Customer Service at some point would say, take all those answers and put them in one place. Then again, why make it easy for your customers when you can be annoyed at them for asking questions.

I think its about time someone from BFC put up a FAQ. These questions keep coming up and searching through a thread with 200 responses is a little unreasonable. Can someone official finally come up with explainations in one concise place. I feel I spend a quarter to a half of my game time coming to these forums looking for answers to game questions.

To me its a matter of the squads not knowing what to do with its members when the are moving. It is just trying to get the center point of a squad to the waypoint. It just drags the members along in whatever default formation it is coded with for a move, regardless of the cover or threat.

So you never pause? I play RT in smaller scenarios and have to pause constatntly in Mout scenarios.

But I think I remember it being said that the center point of the squad must line up with the action spot in the end. That is why there have been so many issues with squads running around at the end of movement.

I believe the action spots also play a role in locationing on the map. I thought I read into that in one of Steve's posts. Look at the long dicussion about building corners. The whole focus of that was that the unit was trying to reform around an action spot at the end of its movement. Maybe Steve can clarify.

While only conjecture, it may be obvious what the problem is. The squad is trying to maintain a formation around an action spot. I wonder where the action spot is relative to the trench and waypoints. This is forcing some or all members to move outside the trench. The priority of the squad is to maintain organization around an action spot vs. logical movement and self preservation. You can rationalize it all you want around how movement commands are issued, but it is once again obvious that the waypoints followed the trench. The solution that no one wants, but may be easiest is to only allow waypoints to be on the action spots. It will allow the orders to synch with the graphical representation. This would allow you to better control unit movement in trenches and built up areas. It would also key in scenario designers to only put certain terrain in certain places to line up with action spots. I do think this would not be a good solution from a realism perspective, but would alleviate a lot of frustration.

Great Tag...Who said that? On topic...I am superstitious. I don't even like to re-write my own QBG maps from attack to Meet. All the techs in the world can't convince me NOT to start with fresh, correctly defined maps. This editor is fantastic and what it can do with the AI is a dream. But it can produce a nightmare scen for those who don't learn to use it properly. The How or why of the original game maps I'm not certain of...mostly I think the problems will be found and fixed in the AI plans and orders. I've saved all of mine and do plan to look at them...Hate to see good designs go to waste. </font>

Someone could take a canned map from a scenario that is having a lot of issues and see if duplicating it from scratch helps. I'll try it, but I am nowhere near a detailed map maker. Maybe shooting in the dark anyway, but it seems we see a lot of problems on a limited number of maps. It may be that people are just playing those scenarios a lot or certain maps showcase the issues.

I don't think you understand my question. I'm asking if during the development and testing process something broke those scenarios. I am saying something may be inherently wrong with them that a save in a newer version won't help. I don't see a lot of these issues in newer maps used to create scenarios.

That is a scenario design issue. Not really what I'm talking about.

This is probably too much of a generalization, but could the canned scenarios included with the game be causing some of the bugs/issues we are seeing. I see issues like TOWs not firing, blue on blue incidents, LOS/LOF inconsistencies, floating units, etc. all the time in canned scenarios. When I try to replicate them on maps from the QBG group, I don't see them as much, or sometimes at all. Could it have something to do with all the chamges made to the game engine and canned scenarios not being updated or just plain broken by the updating process? Its just a thought that has been in the back of my mind and saw a couple of threads talking about stuff happening in specific scenarios.

You don't care about any of the gameplay improvements?

T55, T62, T72, Stryker, etc. None will retreat under self preservation. There is no way anyone can tell me a Stryker will stand toe-to-toe in rela life with a T72. Any comment from BFC on this. It has been asked a few times now...

I thought someone mentoined that the lower hull of the M1A2 might be vulnerable to latest 125mm sabot rounds.