Dark Knight

Threads like this make me treasure my ignorance

Oh for goodness' sake. Heard of the rape of Nanking? Dammit, now I'm doing it too.

Come on guys... keep it light.

This has doubtlessly been brought up before, but what would be wrong with implementing the old system for melee where there's a smacking sound and two soldiers fall over dead on one side, then another smacking sound and maybe one soldier on the other side falls over, etc etc until one side gives up or is annihilated?

LMAO that's the funniest thing I've read all day. If you're actually serious it'd be even more funny

Thanks guys, I never read up on the Panzer 1 before. Interesting stuff!

Hey, I thought one of the grogs here would be able to tell me what tank this is in this liveleak video: http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=a56_1327614706 It's at the 2:01 minute mark and I'm curious because it looks so... small.

As a side-note, I find the thread name amusing, as it appears Echo is attempting to directly address the tanks of the game with his plea.

Good god if that's in the game I'll be impressed. Next level of detail would be keeping track of each individual soldiers' bladder and the corresponding reduction in performance as it becomes full.

Tons of other games manage to fit vast numbers of sound effects into memory during gameplay. Is it an issue of compression technology or programming techniques that big-budget titles are able to afford but you guys can't? I honestly mean with no offense with this comment, but I just feel as though it's obvious that other games manage to pack tons of unique sound effects into memory just fine.

Oh is this guy like Yahtzee or something? He didn't seem like he was speaking tongue in cheek at all to me.

Specifically it's these two paragraphs here: So they're moving through hostile territory and one of the guys takes out a guard. Quickly and humanely, no less. OH MY GOD! WHAT A MONSTER!!! They're infiltrating an enemy camp surrounded by hundreds of hostile soldiers, and this guy thinks his character should bonk the sentry on the head or PERSUADE HIM TO LEAVE? Is this guy SERIOUS? And then, after his character offs the sentry, he gets all maudlin about the whole terrible experience, probably suffering from PTSD in real life afterwards. The fact of the matter is that the killing is justified. You're trying to stop a weapon of mass destruction from being detonated in a major urban center, and you're killing mercenaries to do it. He's unable to realize the fact that taking lives in this context is above reprehension. The fact that he couldn't get his mind around this concept is why I think he might easily think that U.S. soldiers are just as bad as murderers for not "knocking them out" or "making friends" or something else similarly infantile. The middle of the review is pretty much standard fare even though it's evident to me he's just pulling stuff out of his ass to support his negative feelings towards the game, but then at the end he projects a whole bunch of his gay fear into the game and ends with this stunning gem: Basically saying that anyone that enjoys this game is a homosexual. A fitting end for a review written by a homophobic retard. What I don't understand is that there's a million other things he could have discussed that would have been infinitely more valid and relevant. The game is a veritable cornucopia of flaws. At one point it crassly portrays a child getting blown up in a cynical attempt to get an emotional rise out of the player, for instance. But he doesn't mention that. He complains about the horrible time he was force to stab a mercenary in the throat in order to save the world instead.

I think it's his childlike inability to understand the presence of killing during wartime that gets to me. He seems like the kind of guy who would spit on a returning soldier because he's a "murderer".

I read that article today, raged, and later saw the new module information on battlefront.com, so I decided to swing by the forums and check things out. I'm always ticked when the different sites I visit somehow interconnect. While I was reading that load of garbage, I was seriously considering signing up for an account and posting an essay on why he's the biggest f*ggot I've ever found online. And that's not a pejorative I've ever wanted to use for anyone before in my life. Of all the countless complaints he could make about MW3, he picks the portrayal of killing during wartime to get all self-righteous about? Normal Dude had a good one, but I think he'd be more likely to churn out something like this: "As the German forces surrendered, did my men cease firing, as any decent human being would have done in such a situation? No, of course not, they kept raining fire down on these unarmed men, killing them all in a heinous act of evil madness that made me wish I could give an order to execute them for their crimes on the spot. All because there was another enemy soldier or two still firing on them! And these are the kind of people I'm expected to want to lead to victory? Later, when my men were breaching a building, they surprised a group of Germans. Did they try to knock them out and spare their lives? Did they try to talk them into walking away? No, they mercilessly gunned them down, shooting them repeatedly in the back. This game is a disgusting travesty and I felt dirtied by playing it and having anything to do with the awful, awful human beings depicted within it. For shame, for shame." The guy also clearly barely played the game since he manages to describe Yuri, a battle-hardened soldier, as an "impressionable young Russian", and projects his own gay fear into every scene of the game he encounters. Crawling behind another soldier = gay? What a stupid, hopeless idiot.

"Ok, I'm looking at it. I still don't see why you wanted me to- Hey, what are you doing with that panzerschreck?!"

Try "fn + delete", which is the PC delete equivalent.

Function+delete?

Wait, so the tanks could aim at those soldiers in real life? I can't even picture the turret pointing that far down.

Not that I think this will make a lick of difference, but here's how you could have gotten the same message across a little differently... I think you must be exaggerating slightly. I personally don't feel that I spend 90% of my time that way when I play the game. Perhaps you could try a different tactic? There are many strategies in this game, and some work better in some places than others. I play RealTime exclusively and almost never pause and am able to do pretty well in my games. There's probably some things that you're doing unnecessarily that are slowing you down. Try plotting a waypoint directly in front of where you want to breach, then another right on the opposite side (not necessary if you're moving straight through). There shouldn't be any pathfinding problems, and it's very fast to do. Keep in mind that with lots of intervening obstacles you're going to have to be a little more specific in your move orders. Bocages are very important to this version of the game as they were ubiquitous in the terrain encountered and vital to the planning of operations. I feel that our rendering of bocages is extremely detailed and many others seem to enjoy them and feel they make a positive contribution to gameplay. I'm sorry that you don't seem to agree, but at least future games will not feature them I respectfully disagree. We've made incredible strides with this game and though I understand your concerns, I feel that they are ones of personal taste rather than being due to true missteps in our development process. I hope you'll be able to set aside your qualms about those aspects of the game that you've mentioned, because there is an incredibly wonderful experience just waiting for you despite them. I'm sure that if you can just put them out of your mind for a couple of battles you'll really be able to appreciate what this game has to offer Hugs and kisses, Steve So there's another option. Everything but that last part is neither kissing ass, nor breaking out the banhammer, and I think it gets across 100% of what you were trying to convey with 0% of the attitude, which does pervade some of your posts, though you might not be aware of it. You would sound much more professional if you composed yourself like this more often imo. Gamemakers have always behaved like this in the other game forums I've frequented. It's just being diplomatic.

Steve, I'm a longtime lurker and I have to say that every single time I've seen you address someone with complaints about the game you come across as very standoffish and combative. While that may be fine for a normal fan of the game, you're, well... the voice of battlefront.com. Would a little more tact be so hard to muster? I worry that anyone that comes by this forum looking for information about the game may feel that it's a very unprofessional operation based on your demeanor sometimes. I understand how frustrating it can be when someone criticizes your work and am usually behind what you are saying 100%... just not how you choose to say it. My 2¢.

Oh my god, I can't believe this thread is already two pages long. I guess that's what a fresh release will do! Thanks for the help everyone, I've got it now. When I was looking at the manual I didn't read quite far enough, haha.

Hi all, I'm having trouble with something that I never could get to work even in the old engine: using mortar teams to fire on a target spotted by their HQ. For instance, in the tutorial battle in the demo, say I have the HQ unit for a mortar team in the second floor of a building able to see into a field that the mortar team cannot, how do I go about getting the HQ unit to spot for the mortar team and allow them to fire at an unseen target? If I select the mortar team and try to target a location that the HQ team can see but they cannot, I get the standard "No line of sight" message and can't fire on it. Can someone help me out with this gameplay mechanic please? It would make my defensive "Closing the Pocket" battle a lot easier

This is probably a dumb question, but how do you get those lines on the ground that give you an impression of where hills and dips in the ground are? I can't find it in the hotkeys menu...

Wow, that's pretty nifty, thanks! Um, hey, even though it imports all the troops correctly, including dead units, it doesn't have any of the casualties from the battle recorded. This heavily skews the battle result. Is there any way around this? [ February 28, 2008, 11:17 PM: Message edited by: Dark Knight ]

I was just doing a battle and had the opposing force on the run after taking my time getting into position. It was turn 33 out of 30, and I definitely had the upper hand. I hit go, and after the simulation ended I was hit with the "the battle was fought to its conclusion" message, and the result was a draw. The enemy's forces were scattered and weak and I definitely could have had at least a tactical victory if I could have continued playing. Anyways, my question is, is there a way to continue playing the game beyond the turn limit? Some variable I could switch off somewhere or something? Many thanks, Dark Knight