Steiner14

The "jump directly to downloads page" does not work here (jumps only to the patch overview page again).

Special Note: MGs now have more effective aiming, rates of fire, and suppression effects. These highly requested changes make combat even more realistic and more challenging tactically. Some players will find their existing tactics may need some adjustments, others may find no significant need for change. We recommend practicing attacks on MG positions before continuing an in progress Campaign or game against another player. Very, very nice! I couldn't stand it anymore, if imagined to sit in a Kübelwagen or Jeep and a HMG opens fire 800 m away, and it would be no potentially deadly threat. Especially with high ROF weapons like the MG42. Many other nice improvements (on paper; have to try first). For a x.01 version, quite good. Thanks Battlefront.

Old and good wishes, long ignored. Honestly i don't understand, why this has no high priority, because multimedia interaction with the player, especially with a complex game, can decide about like or hate. A briefing system with pics and music/vids and messages during a battle and a scenario debriefing with additional infos should be working quite well in getting potential players more interested and involved when giving it a try. Prescripted messages during a game would allow to guide the player through a scenario. (move mortar to location X from direction Y, because that way you can achieve this and avoid that). How many potential players are quitting in frustration because of the complexity and never come to the point where they would begin to understand how the game works?

Therefore the Russians also had red noses?

Gun crews in the game always turn around the guns before moving, instead of immediately moving them backward. At least we would need the reverse command available for guns, too. But in combination with the ridiculous slow movement, even on streets and from the first meters on, in CM this is still not possible. With the bad protection from trenches, the inability to use guns heavily dug in, the outcome of the CM gun model IMO has not much in common with reality. But also the ROF for the german PAKs seems way too low (4 seconds for the PAK 40 with a trained crew).

I find it interesting, that everybody is caring about a single bunker and how it reacts but no one seems to look at the more important fact, that this bunker can easily be spotted from the first second: because the terrain is deformed around it. That FOW with fortifications does not work. :mad:

Gebirgsjäger = Gebirgsjaeger. The ä, ö, ü can easily be written equivalently by adding a simple additional e: ä = ae ö = oe ü = ue

IMO TFOW would not solve the fortification problem, because of the camouflage effect: getting a LOS on terrain does not necessarily mean that the fortifications have been spotted.

Sadly fortifications and trenches are not on the terrain. If a slope is steep enough, you can see exactly this happening now...

Drawing the trajectory of the weapon during setup phase requires the AI?

Steve, with that argument probably every problem can be ridiculed because there will always be an aspect, that is more important. And secondly, a potential solution to the problem, without the need to improve the AI, was presented, too.

MikeyD, why don't you stay quiet, if you don't understand what the problem is?

Definately an authentic "letter"...

The problem are not obstacles clearly blocking the trajectory. The problem seems to occur on the border of blocked LOF to clear LOF, where the projectile is getting close to the ridge/terrain: the engine tells the player that there was still a clear LOF, while the trajectory already could be too flat and already hitting the terrain. Showing the curve with a certain confidence error would solve that.

We have learned, that this is no bug and so unusual on the CM battlefield, that there was no need to make any changes and you dare to write such things afterwards? You will not receive the fanboi medal with such an ignorant behaviour. Btw, I find this unwilligness quite strange, because a simple tool would already be of great help for the player: if the gun's parabolic trajectory would be displayed during the setup phase, the player could decide on his own, if obstacles were in the way or could be too close.

And how should i "adjust my playing style"? Placing the guns on forward slopes maybe because they are so well protected in trenches anyway? :mad: I find it strange that a customer should excuse himself for expecting that a game feature should work as claimed.

BS. Was forbidden to use since 1899 in the Reichswehr/Wehrmacht. But you could ask the USA and their peace nobel laureate, why they are using them in Iraq and Afghanistan right now and why "homeland security" bought a few million bullets...

So the game offers indirect fire for on map guns, it gives the player a wrong information during the setup phase about a clear LOF, but since this is not a "common CM battlefield situation" this is not worth being corrected? :eek:

The argument that the replay would be too resource hungry doesn't convince me: 1. Instead of a fixed full battle replay, 10 minute chunks, or user-definable replay durations, could avoid that. 2. Each single one minute replay needs to load all terrain and unit data. But continuous files would not need that status data, since the previous action has updated the data anyway. Only the first file would need all the data, the rest of the files would only need to contain the updated information (= action). I guess the pure action data is only a fraction of the whole filesize. If a pre-rendering data extraction module could extract the update-data from the savefiles, the resulting files should be of considerably smaller sizes.

Are you talking about the buggy shooting into the ground? :eek:

You are funny. The player get's the indication that the trajectory of the weapon is ok or, if something is blocking the gun's trajectory. The player must rely on this information in the setup phase since he can't ask the gun's crew. But then the real trajectory obviously is somehow too low. This.is.a.bug.

I have two 75mm infantry guns in indirect fire role. Their projectiles are hitting the crest of the hill and they keep firing round after round into the ground.

I would prefer quality over quantity. Instead of pushing out content after content which eats up resources, too, i would prefer to see the engine being improved faster. What is that much content good for, if we don't have ATGs with adequate cover or quick redraw possibilities? If bunkers on steep slopes are eaten by the terrain after setup? If on map guns are shooting into the crest of hills instead of indirect fire? If trenches do not offer adequate protection against mortar fire? If cover arcs hurt the eyes? IMO currently the content is developed too fast while the game development is lacking progress. Since the update scheme makes it necessary that every update is replicated over other versions, i think the updates of the engine should be more significant. Putting out too much content IMO also leads to a more shallow community becoming more and more focused on what is new and what will come next, instead of exploring what is there and what is available. I can imagine this also has a negative effect on scenario designers: it makes a difference in motivation if hundreds of players are downloading a scenario, playing it and discussing it, or if twenty or thirty players give it a quick look but then already the next content is released and the focus shifts away. Big companies release one family title every year and this usually is by far enough to keep the player busy. Here with one engine release we have two, and soon three new games (CMFI, CMBN, CMEF). This makes on average a new game every quarter. With the modules this average timespan for new content is reduced even more. IMO it would be better to lenghten the release durations but to invest more time into the next game version, a more rapid engine improvement but less new content releases.

So Ali, Foreman, Tyson and Klitschko were not the best since two or three or four or ten against each one of them would have won... Incredible.

Where can i send the file?