RSColonel_131st
-
Posts
660 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by RSColonel_131st
-
-
Sounds pretty good and interesting, though what really bothers me are all these round icons floating over every unit. Hope this can be disabled.
-
For me this equals taking a piece of gear that was designed to do X and only use it to do Y. It's not going to be a realistic representation of the gear or what it was designed for.Originally posted by Tarquelne:The other means you can only realistically play games in which the long-ranged German gear was forced to fight up close.
By compressing values, at least every tank could have some of it's historical strenghts and weaknesses back - but then other things like speed, rate of shots etc. also need to be adapted I guess.
-
Sorry for sounding negative, but I really can't see how they will get out of this self-created mess with the too small maps.
If penetration stats and armor values are realistic (like, say, the CMBB data) then at 500 meters or lower the germans will lose all their historical advantage they had with Tiger and Panther, long-barreled StuGs etc.
Like others have said, at 500 meters the faster, more manouverable tank wins, not the one with better optics, better armor and gun. StuGs or other self-propelled pieces will be about worthless if they can so easily get rushed and flanked.
On the other hand, if penetration stats are "compressed", then you have all the other problems with rate of fire, target shilouette & relative size etc.
Either way you turn it, this will be very strange modeling of tank warfare. It may still be fun, but it doesn't sound like it will be detailed realism.
-
Since a large part of realistic WW2 infantry tactics focuses on defending and entering a line of buildings - even a small rural village - I can't see how this game claims to be somewhat realistic but manages to throw this away.
It's not very immersive if you need to place your guys in the open fields between two houses when those houses would offer much better cover against small-arms fire, or would offer much better LOS.
Sorry guys, but the more details you tell us, the more it sounds like this is still mainly a "clickfest RTS" and only secondary a very tactical game. That's okay - but please don't go "wow, the graphics are so cool, you won't mind if it's not realistic" - because slowly that how the sales pitch starts to sound, and I didn't think Battlefront was like that.
[ July 29, 2006, 10:19 AM: Message edited by: RSColonel_131st ]
-
For me, it's important that using different tanks requires different tactics.
So, if the engagement ranges are mostly sub-500 meters, and the penetration values are not somehow adapated, tank combat in here will be a bit too straight I think.
-
I'm actually quite sure that if nothing else comes of it, the community would code something like that themself. As long as the mission files are clear text and somewhat understandable in format.Originally posted by Madmatt:I have already been able to mimic all the actions of a mission editor on my own by direct manipulation of the mission files, but its a little time consuiming and I would love to have a tool that would do all the jiggery-pookery for me and we are going to try and provide such a tool for you, one way or the other.
Madmatt
-
T-34/76 is an extreme example, so is the 37mm PAK.
But the outcome of a T-34/85 vs. Tiger engagement, for example, can vary a lot depending on range. StuG 3 with a 75mm long against T-34/85 also varys with range.
If you read some of the latest posts, this game actually does boost a ballistics system comparable to CM, including the tracking of pentrating shots inside a vehicle and what sub-systems or crew they damage.
I simple don't want to end up with a gameplay style that ends up euqalizing most of the tanks against each other.
-
You don't know for sure if the range given is in meters...but this is one of my concerns as well.
If most engagements are, due to map layout, happening at around 500 meters or less, then with real-world penetration data that would mean pretty much everthing could penetrate everthing.
It would pretty much take different tank designs and their strenghts/weaknesses out of the equatation - a Tiger for example isn't worth much more than a PzIV G if he has to fight T-34 at 500m or less.
So it seems that, if your screenshots are indeed "meters range" showing, the gun ranges and also penetration values have been scaled down to fit the map size. How this would play out for someone used to CMBB with real-world engagement ranges and penetration values remains to be seen.
-
I should like to add:
If the game is done by the same developers as Forgotten Battles, there shouldn't really be a problem - the engine used to be the same originally, and Forgotten Battles uses a simple text format to store mission files in.
-
...from what I gather, this will be a RTS but with the option to pause and give orders anytime you want, if the action is getting too fast.
Any chance you guys could allow us to select our own automatic intervals for these pauses...say...like 60 seconds?
-
Wow. Nice to hear Battlefront will rather soon release a new WW2 game.
Here are the questions that are left over from the last time I heard about this project - sure would like what came of this:
1) Last I heard about this, when it was still WW2:RTS, developers seemed to say there likely wouldn't be a mission editor. Obviously that makes the game a bit-shortlived if you aren't into multiplayer.
Is that still the case - or can we build new missions ourself?
2) Terrain Generator/Editor: What makes CMBB so immensly replayable is the automatically and random generated terrain that always presents a new set of challenges. TOW maps look more polished and more detailed, but they seem to be pre-made. Will it be possible to add new maps somehow, or are we limited to those we get with the game?
3) Back when it was WW2:RTS, there was talk about the maps being too small for many real-world WW2 engagement ranges (1200 meters or more for the large guns). So the developers said they wanted to reduce range on all guns to make up for the small maps. Is that still the case?
Thanks for all answers.
-
This has been a blanket excuses for years now, heard about Afghanistan, Iraq and now the fight in Jenin.Originally posted by oren_m:Yes!
I dont know if you are aware, but in war, this is what happens, civilians get hit when they get in the combat area.
"War is hell - live with it". Well, the Palis decided they don't want to live with it.
And by the numbers stated above, that is insane. 140 houses destroyed for a total of 27 kills?
-
Ouch, that's gonna leave a mark.
-
This is not about an all-out war.
This is about denying Israel the option to use a small strike force of just a few planes in order to destroy the nuclear facilitys Iran has.
Of course you could overcome the air defenses with a mixed package of "Wild Weasels" and Bombers, but then, if you also add the iranian Airforce as a factor, this would turn into quite a large air battle.
-
12km up to 6000m.
One of it's main usages actually seems to be Anti-Missile and Anti-Guided Bomb usage.
The Israelis are not going to like this. Makes flattening any nuclear power plants very uncomfortable.
-
Not-so-on-topic, but I've been trying to code civilian crowd behaviour into some Operation Flashpoint missions for a while.
It's certainly one of the things that makes modern MOUT such a challenge, and I remain a bit sceptical how CM:SF will play without this burden.
-
Now this is ugly.
-
With the old graphics it didn't seem very interesting, but now this is nice progress.
-
Peng threads are a feature, not a bug. So no patches are planned to change this.
And now, sod off.
-
China isn't a market for software. Piracy is rampant there.
You end up with a game that holds no market value to western users, and won't make any money from the chinese either because they'll see $5 copies at every corner shop.
-
Don't you have a 5000 word post to write somewhere in the Tips & Tactics section?
-
Okay, let me be more blunt:
You patronising git can shove it. You ain't getting no images before I damn well please to post them in the shape of an AAR.
At the end of the day, it's none of your business anyway how I play MY_INSTALL_OF_CMBB.
As if anyone with two braincells to rub togehter gives a damn what you think is good tactics or not.
Got that? Fine, now sod off.
-
You'll get something far more usefull. An AAR from my current "cooperative PBEM" with my friend. Including screenshots.
-
Congrats on missing my point made in the first post by a mile. I should also mention that I didn't say "this game sucks".Originally posted by Randal:So instead of claiming that this game sucks, I have changed my OWN strategy and the results are immediately good:)!!!! You have to find out the correct strategy, in each situation, with each nationality. Even me, as a stupid newbie, understand this!!
Blue-on-Blue
in Theatre of War
Posted
Would be nice if missions could be scripted like that for offline play. "What if" and training scenarios.