sfhand
-
Posts
1,008 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by sfhand
-
-
That's an option too. The downside is that until they spot the tank they will be walking around, which is more likely to get them spotted in return.
I've used the tactic in similar situations before to great effect and have never been spotted prior to getting a shot off so I don't think there is much risk of being spotted during a one AS hunt. Yeah, it's anecdotal, but given the results I've had I have no reason to test it
-
A one AS hunt toward the path of the jaggie, I think the spotting odds would be heavily in your favor, better than just lying in the weeds
-
Great bones, thanks! I'm looking forward to MG and these new changes.
-
A quick question, did you think the red route more likely than the orange route because there were more opportunities to edge hug that way?
-
...
Re. the feedback for player - wouldn't a workaround be to make Blue LoS/LoF lines ONLY if the Gunner/Gun position can see the target and use Grey for other team members' LoS ? At least for crew served weapons it should work.
...
I agree that if a position showed a gray line I wouldn't expect the MG or ATG to have LOS/LOF from there which means my level of disappointment would be much lower - the blue line raises my level of expectation. I have been reading that MG's take longer to deploy in buildings now but eventually deploy with the idea being it takes longer to create as stable firing position in buildings. I would be very happy if ATG's and MG's took longer to setup behind bocage (because of the time it takes to prepare a firing position there) if it resulted in them having a usable firing position with the same LOS the waypoint had.
-
For me the problem is the game reports LOS/LOF is available when it is not (since this report happens before I move the unit to the no-LOS position it is a problem, I would have no problem with no-LOS if the game had indicated there would be no LOS, in other words, I don't expect to have LOS where ever I want it).
-
While there have been frustrating events with spotting from time to time my experience of this aspect of the game has been good. However, and this is only tangentially on topic, where I have consistently had problems with the game's LOS/LOF mechanics is with MGs, ATGs, and bocage. My big complaint is I will plot a movement order to a firing position and check LOS from that position prior to committing to moving the unit there. Once the MG is deployed it will frequently have no LOS/LOF, this is a problem for me since I moved the unit there only after the game reported LOS/LOF was available at that position.
ATG's have revealed an even worse (in my opinion) situation. I have set up ATG's behind bocage with blue (not gray) LOS/LOF lines to a stationary target (think overwatching stug) only to have it refuse to fire (I waited several turns and gave the turn to a beta).
As far as the Firefly incident goes, I was playing a scenario with shermans behind a wall with firing slots in it. One spotted a German tank and had to slew the turret for a shot which it wouldn't take. A close inspection showed that when the turret slewed it rotated the main gun optics behind the wall so that while the gun barrel was clear to fire through the slot the optics were blocked, i.e., the gunner no longer could see the target through the gunsight.
I'm not suggesting there is necessarily a problem, mechanically, with the game based on the anecdotes above, but I think the definite problem for me is the lack of feedback allowing me to understand what is happening so that I can figure out a response to these situations or perhaps avoid them all together (other than quit playing).
-
Features versus behavioral changes...it's a thin line. I wouldn't take anything said previously as an absolute. BF seems definitely to be still finding their way on the new support model and how Modules/patches/upgrades and what not all fit together.
I'm not a programmer nor one who has knowledge of game mechanics, but managing the state of the game, as released, would seem to be a most persuasive argument for a unified game engine with what are now separate titles working as modules currently do.
-
Wow... I wonder why the low bocage along the fence in the top two pics is so different.
-
Thanks for making and releasing this Ian. The only area I find h2hh wanting in is it doesn't play well with using multiple computers playing the same pbem. Is WTII capable of tracking whose turn it is when one or both sides of a battle are being played on multiple computers?
-
...What kills me is some map makers will make maps like that for single play. When it happens I will start it over, and avoid the initial raining of shells on the setup area, or just outside of it. The only time I feel this is acceptable is if it an attack /defend with the attackers preference only to use on set up or not.
As far as the edge goes it is a unique part of this game fighting arena that will never go away just as the cage in the octagon or the ropes in a boxing ring. There are also edges on every island I know of. My advice to anyone who complains about it is to adapt to the unique game environment, as it will not adapt to you. My thoughts on it are if one feels the edge is being used against you it is not the edges fault, but your own. Come up with ways to use it to pin the opponent against it in proactive ways just as the fighter in sport does...
Very well put, my sentiments exactly!
-
I'm glad you are taking the route you are taking; it has led to some very funny c3k commentary!
-
Hmmm... it looks like I thanked you in the wrong thread, Bil. I am really looking forward to studying the material you present, thank you very much for the time and effort you are putting into this.
-
Bil, thanks for the great blog! I am looking forward to learning from the best.
-
... Bil is a gamey edge-hugging bastidge! In a good way! If he's resorted to that tactic, I know I've got him stumped. The next turns will have even more dodgy tactics and tricks...
Ken
Hmmm... that sounds like something I was muttering to myself back in the days of... White Manor! and we both know how that turned out for me
-
Currently playing Smoke em if you Got em in CMFI... Have managed to get a lot of infantry across a foot bridge with no problems... so far, what happens to them after they cross is the problem...
-
the old laptop excuse... again!
(a little revenge for the way you are grinding my guys into a fine powder in Italy)
-
CM:HC
Combat Mission: Home by Christmas
-
I too am giving this a go h2h and will definitely rate when completed. Thanks for putting the time into this, it is very good so far.
-
The most exciting piece is news is the module comes with SHOE STORES! I notice over the KT's left should in one screenshot is a shop sign that reads "Shoenenwinkel".
homage to Dr. Alexandre Manette no doubt...
-
Just off the top of my head (don't worry, it didn't take any of my already scarce hair with it), it occurs to me that a lot of the work that went into MG won't be appreciated by some, e.g., terrain, bridges, etc. But, these people who are complaining (my assumption is they are complaining because they value getting new units over all else) will benefit in later titles (if they buy them) due to features added (I know it is a module, but the ditch thingy is a new feature) moving the feature set of CMx2 forward. So, even if they don't plan on buying MG I am hoping they will at least be happy about the state of the game engine improving, but that would mean being able to defer immediate gratification in the quest of a greater reward...
-
Thanks and I largely agree, with one exception. Remember that our audience is world wide. Yes, the vast majority live and work in countries that have fairly good standards of living. But even within those there's a large amount of unemployment that lasts for years. Then there are all the other countries that have lower standards of living and that means their money doesn't go very far for our products.
With that in mind I do understand people wanting our products to cost less because because they don't have a lot of money to spend. This is very understandable. The problem with this is it has nothing to do with our costs or our pricing. Which means we will lose some customers because they can not afford our products. I'm sorry to know this happens, but it is outside of our control.
Steve
Not to sound like a drooling fanboi, but I have long admired BF because they unabashedly make games they want to play, which for me translates into having a passion for their craft. I have also admired the glimpses of social/political views I've seen you (Steve) reveal from time to time. But this post here is easily my favorite glimpse into your worldview and I thank you for it.
-
...
The biggest problem Imo will be cutting eastern front into as I remember 4 separate(but similar if not almost the same) games with their own 2,3,4 modules...
You may want to read this:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1456940&postcount=508
...
Eastern Front is too massive to do anything but chop it up into major yearly components. The current plan is to have these divided up into 4 Families (as described above), but we're going to play that by ear. It may prove better to have this be an exception and consist of one Base, 3-7 Modules (as defined above), and oodles of Packs. Currently I'm leaning towards the latter, but until you hear otherwise it's still the original 4 Family concept with modified Module/Pack strategy. We have time to figure this out as Bagration (the first EF game) is well along and yet which way we go doesn't really matter at this point.
Steve
So, the biggest problem for you might not even happen...
-
...knowing that gamey players will deliberately drive jeeps into fields to be shot up, catch fire and then cause the field they are in to go up in flames. Yeah you know you'll do it.
...
Well, I wasn't gonna... but now all bets are off!
ALLIED - CMBN-Market Garden - BETA AAR (the better beta beater reader)
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
Hmmm... I wonder if being Nervous should give a pixeltroop a spotting bonus... kind of a hyper-aware state.