Tontoman

Haven't followed battlefront that closely as RL got busy and haven't liked lots of the latest games (didn't like TOW's feel for example) but have been waiting for YEARS for CMC. Got a TOW3 notice in the mail and suddenly CMC popped into my head, haven't checked on progress in a looonnnngggggg time..... And so I log in to see this. Man CM was my number one game for so long, and I love strategic warfare also. I had lots of fun with CloseCombat 2 and it's dual style even though it was very simple. So CMC was going to be pure gold.... Oh man it hurts.

Oh yes, sorry if I hadn't mentioned it enough in my post but I agreed with your tank spotting point entirely, it is too much. Periscopes while they work basicly are a tool of last resort, there's a very valid reason so many tank commanders rode with their heads outside the hatch (and the drivers). One of the best things you could do is to get tank to button up as it hugely cut down their spotting capabilities. My points were more just on how effect such a change would show up in a full game due to ToW real time orders... and if even a 'fix' will be done because of that. T.

Yep, but as soon as you get other spotters on the map, the two cases I mentioned kick in and you're back with the same problem anyway. Remember if you can instantly pause and tell the tank to turn around an kill sneaky inf, the AI should also be able to do it. With LOS being so easy and concealment undercoded, I don't see much luck for now. Would be impossible to tell if it's the tank uber spotting or some other unit... which is maybe why it wasn't picked up on and we have uber tanks. FYI in case you hadn't spotted it, I read in another thread that a moving tank doesn't get a spotting penalty either unlike CM (not sure if that's confirmed or not). I guess they had head straps to tie their heads to those viewing slots as they bounced around T.

As PFMM said, it's always a problem with strategy games and CM had it. Even if it didn't apply to units (inf sees AT inf, but tank doesn't get informed) it still applies to you as you're the eye in the sky seeing all and can issue orders right away. I believe when they talked about CM2 (new engine, not SF) it would partly be taken care of by making the unit you ordered to still undergo spotting checks before direct fire. Eg. Tank doesn't see inf in trench and bushes 300m away, close by inf does spot them.. but as in rl can't instantly tell tank. But you do order tank to fire on them as you can see everything. Tank rotates but only 'area fires' until it successfully spots the target and then does direct fire. This issue does bring up a drawback of the real time game system. What's the difference between - a tank spotting the inf, turning around and killing the inf - another unit spotting the inf which means you also do, then you pausing the game (or just quickly clicking) and telling the tank to kill the inf. At least in CM there could be 60 seconds of an ambush on your troops before you could do anything, now it's always instant. As soon as an AT inf or anything is spotted, you can call everything around onto them, in CM you had to sweat that time. Ambushes, rushes or flanking are going to be harder in general. BTW jh_morneau, 'nads' is short for 'gonads' (you can google that ). 'nade' is short for grenade. I never heard nade being used vocally, I think it got used in text chat due to the speed of typing T.

TOW needs lots of work before it get to CM level. On top of the minor (major?) things like tank AI (no reverse), spotting/suppresion/LOS balance, troop micromanagement due to AI quirkyness etc. you got some major things like smoke and enterable buildings to get done. Hell the whole house to house combat aspect is missing. I loved the demo charge, flamethrower or heavy house busting direct fire arty to clear houses Or the MG setup truck I used to do, a quick truck run with 2 HV MGs to get them setup quickly in heavy houses.. muahahaha. In a close view individual troop game like TOW you would think that would be priority, it would look so cool. But as it isn't, and how tanks see to rule/spot so easily, it makes it feel more like a tank orientated game like CC3 and on (as 3 was when the tank uber spotting started). T.

I'd go even further and say that in the vast majority of scenarios, infantry is unneeded. Go ahead and try this in any scenario where you get some armor: park your infantry in the rear and order them to 'Hold Position'. Finish the scenario without your infantry, only using your armor. You can nearly always manage just fine without the infantry, even when assaulting hamlets and villages. Your uberpanzerinfanterielazer can handle any enemy grunts that venture into LOS. Seriously. At least this solution does away with having to micromanage infantry (one of my pet peeves). And before someone gripes and says that I need to spend more time with the game, I have spent many hours playing it, trying out differenct tactics, hoping that I'm missing something here. The learning curve really isn't that steep once you realize that rapid pausing and micromanagement of orders can get you the results you are seeking. The game really isn't that difficult, guys. The fact that you can beat many of the scenarios with a few tanks shows the flaws in the game balance. IMO, reducing the spotting ability of tanks and the ability of infantry to take advantage of cover and concealment would go a long way towards fixing the imbalance - and restore a lot of the fun that I can see lurking beneath the surface of this game. This game is so close to actually being fun that it's frustrating. So much potential squandered... </font>

Cool discussion. The only way I can see a HEAT round being less effective due to range is the angle to the armor. At short range it's going to be a flat trajectory and maybe more chance of deflection or the charge not being so effect due to the angle. At longer range with the arc of the shot you actually get a better angle on sloped armor and the reduction in velocity (due to the range) is not a problem as it would be with an AP shot. T.

I think HardRock, that part of the problem is not the fact that they don't understand the explantion, it's that they don't like it. ToW was marketed a bit like a tactical war game from the first person view, hence the camera angles, the individial units and stats, prerelease vids etc. So to find it doesn't work that way is disappointing, maybe not to you but to some. Just personnal taste. I find it a little similar to CM for me because it's not first person. I kinda looked forward to the idea of individually hiding ATGs and such for a more close in combat to CM, but only to find it doesn't really work that way. That and the non enterable building. T.

Yeah, there's a line between realism and gameplay. But the comms issue they talked about sounded pretty good for the next gen CM engine (it that's still around). Basically if one unit spots an enemy, he gets marked on the map like usual. But if the player targets that enemy with another unit, the targeting unit has to respot the target (with an increased chance) before engaging. Make it more of a "there's an enemy 50 M ne of your pos" instead of a "there's an inf hiding behind the fourth bush from the left" type comms. Or you can do an area fire right away also. So a dose of realism without making the game more complicated or less playable, but also reducing gamey tactics like the suicide scout. Anyone who has been swamped by 4+ jeeps in CM know all about that, added realism for added enjoyment. T.

Err.....nothing to stop anyone from marking with a filttip pen on the screen though. </font>

Why standard issue carrier pigeons, of course. </font>

Just for the sake if nit-pickiness, how is it done instantly (as chazman already pointed out)? It's not like we see a grunt run back to the radio man (where are the radio men anyway) tell him the report, the radio man transmitting it, all the receiving radios call in their men to pass the news and then these guys going back to the field and engaging the new targets . I think most of us have read WWII battle accounts and know that getting orders out was hard enough, individual spotting like that was much more rare. Buddy to 20m away buddy, or inf to tank using the tank comms maybe, but not squad to squad for picking out individual targets. So he's got a point But it's the same problem CM had, you the player are god in the sky as anything your trooper sees, you see, and thus instantly all your troopers see since you order them. Remember all the jeep zerging with people sacrificing jeeps to charge the line to insta-scout the enemy. They talked about that in a new CM engine where if one unit spotted it, you could targeted it with another unit but it's hit % would be low until it aquired the target itself. The fact that one unit spotted it didn't automatically apply to all units. T. [ May 02, 2007, 09:54 AM: Message edited by: Tontoman ]

Hehe, I know I know, just lazy as most of the people don't bother to differentiate between the two and 'cover' is shorter to type T.

No prob Elvis . A LOS tool could easily include the scouting ability but I don't think it really has too. And I don't think that most people will be annoyed if they don't find units even where they have LOS, any combat game vet is used to spotting being involved just as there was in CM, ATGs and inf being the most easily hidden (we all remember those Pfaust, bazooka teams ). Also used to reduced spotting if moving fast, if in a tank or inf under suppression... it's all old news. And if anything, it's the fact there is too much spotting, not too little. You've seen the 'can't do ambushes', 'how could I be shot behind that' comments. Well, some might and have been complaining about not spotting units in LOS, but they're rookies and will have to learn like we did for CM and other games. Seeing cover effecting LOS with a tool should make people more happy. But still won't fix the disconnect between what you see in game and the LOS results which is a pity and my disappointment. Cheers T. [ May 02, 2007, 01:25 AM: Message edited by: Tontoman ]

Yep, Dudes got it. No painted crosshairs in the middle of the screen that shows where the bullet going to go even with the weapon at your hip while you move (usually then just an increased dispersion around those crosshairs, eg. DoD), have to use iron sight of the weapon or the scope if you've got the sniper rifle. T.

For the LOS issue, think more CM style, even though the graphics and camera here look like a first person shooter game. In CM the visable trees and stuff were there to make things look nice and show where the cover was.. but they never were actually used to determine LOS or LOF. It was just a table with, you pass through so much cover, your LOS degrades by so much calculations. I think ToW works the same way EVEN though it looks and has camera angles of a first person shooter (FPS). Unlike a FPS where if you can't see through a bush, you can't see through a bush, bushes and trees in ToW just seem to indicate some cover without actually being there and just degrade LOS instead (same mechanics as CM). Makes sense at it's way cheaping on the CPU usage to do that type of calculating instead of bascially ray tracing all LOS from all units to enemy ones past trees and bushes etc. So hiding behind a huge bush does not give you total cover as it would in a FPS, it's cover like you would get in CM even though graphically it looks like you're fully hidden. IMHO a bit of bad design (if they had a choice) as it defeats the purpose of the individiual unit, unit eyelevel camera angle and all the distinct cover (as opposed to CM tiles). T.

Double post

Hello Elvis, see my post in the AI thread. I think it's the other way around... that trees or bushs in ToW ARE representing patches (although smaller ones than CM due to the overall scale) and not what you actually see, thus what looks like a totally blocked view due to a big bush (as we've seen in screen shots) is only degrading LOS because it's based on LOS tables like CM and not what you see in game. Not much of a shock in CM where it's stated the trees/bushes are there just for visual pleasure and the whole game is more abstract (no individial troops, birds eye view, LOS tools etc.). Much more of one in ToW where things are not abstract as everthing is represented, and with all the first person viewpoint usage (even the special quick camera lock), you get to expect 'what you see is what you get' as you would get in a first person shooter using the same perspective. Just the fact that you would save so much CPU power this way (instead of having to trace every LOS through every tree using real ray tracing) makes me think it works this way... and from the weird LOS effects we see in ToW. T. [ May 01, 2007, 01:55 PM: Message edited by: Tontoman ]

God I hope not, CM and ToW are two different beasts with different scales. I'd want my CM3 for larger and more tactical battles. And just from personal experience, I always find the coolness of graphics/animation always wears off the quickest. Plus I like the E-mail aspect of CM, never liked RT tactical as too much mouse running around instead of enjoying the combat BTW if you like the first person viewpoint of ToW and you play first person shooter games, give Red Orchestra a peak. Best FPS WWII game out there, iron sights only, no lame crosshair bunny hopping rifle fights. T.

Yeah, I think the problem is ToW uses the same system as CM when it comes to LOS (just averaging the LOS blockage), but as it doesn't give you LOS tools, it relies on graphics that have NOTHING to do with LOS. In CM your LOS would get degraded depending on how much cover you looked through (but you could still look through it), it even modeled different trees, coniferous being worst than decidious due to having more lower branches. But this was easy to determine with the LOS tool. I'd bet ToW works the same way, it doesn't trace LOS using raytracing and taking into account every branch and leaf, it just has some formula that says so many bushes, so many trees, equals so much degrading of the LOS. The problem is as they made the whole game to be run using graphics (no LOS tools, first person camera angles), people are trying to use the graphics to determine LOS (as it's all they have) exactly as they see it, and it has nothing to do with what you see. As in CM the trees and stuff are there for visual pleasure only, they don't actually exist as individial entites for LOS tracing. Remember in CM you could turn off trees altogether, it just went by tiles and depth. In CM you could drop the angle and maybe not see the target (never HAD to as you had the tools, but I would just for cool watching), but LOS tools would tell you that you had the shot. In ToW you HAVE to as you have nothing else... but then it doesn't work that way anyway. But it does mean the game is a bit borked, if you're going to rely on graphics only, trees and bushes and first person unit views to see LOS, then you have to make it a direct raytracing type of LOS. Otherwise as in CM you NEED a LOS tool if you can't rely on what you see is what you get from the camera. If you're going to design a game that stresses the graphic, first person view, individual units aspect of the game (quite different from the more birds eye view, unit groupings, tile based, and larger scale tactics of CM) you should have the engine work that way and not still the way of the more abstract CM method. It's like being shot behind a solid wall in any first person shooter game, only to find that the wall isn't really a wall but a visual representation of a wallish area that may or may not give you full cover. If it's first person based, have it work in the first person. So it is 'more broken' than CM as CM was always a birds eye view tactical game that had lots of abstraction, so abstract LOS doesn't see wrong for the game. TOW with all it's graphics and individual units, first person camera angles etc. shouldn't have this abstaction, it doesn't go together hence all the complaints. T. [ May 01, 2007, 12:36 PM: Message edited by: Tontoman ]

Right on Miguel. I was told that Training Mission 3 was impossible. But after listening to lots of advice I completed it. The AI was deadly at destroying my two AT teams but not the guns. I had 4 infantry dash over and reman and they then polished off all the tanks whose AI presumably thought that the ATs had been permanently silenced. Humans could easily make the same mistake. </font>

Yeah, the tool is not going to me much use if LOS isn't fixed as it's just going to show good LOS everywhere except through a mountain. BUT at least after that step, then LOS tweaks can be done and thus seen to take effect by the players, instead of more guesswork about how LOS works if tweaks were done and no LOS tool existed. T

Yep, no argument here on the numbers. With the graphics mortars and smoke would be cool too . Hmm I haven't checked but I take it there's no flame throwers either. T.

It should run sweet on your machine. P4 2.66 1GB ram X850 vid (256MB) All good brand name standard parts and home built. Runs smooth(demo). But I also have issues with the combat engine, maybe that will be fixed in patches. Reminds me of CC3 when the tank uber spotting and AI trouble came up. T.

Yeah, thought about the numbers (didn't want to get into a CM VS ToW thing ) but at least in CM you could hide them. I guess the LOS issues is going to pop up now. CM you could bury them in cover and the tank didn't want to get close due to Pfaust and such. It also still doesn't cover the suppression/assault issue. Even with the excessive firepower from your tanks (# of enemy VS # of tanks) in the tutorial and maybe LOS issues, you can't suppress the trench enough to get your inf close to assault? Or another way, if I had the correct balance of tanks (or inf for them) so my tanks couldn't kill them all, how would you have a chance of winning the map if you couldn't come close when you had too many tanks? Might play around with it some more but not impressed to start. The combat engine that is, grapics and stuff look sweet. This is were I'd like to save a movie and then replay it locked onto different units views. T.