Exel
-
Posts
716 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by Exel
-
-
Got it confirmed: The US standard issue smoke grenades for Abrams, Stryker and Bradley are infra-red smokes. So they will block the vehicles' own thermals. If some of the US vehicles can fire through their own smoke it should be counted as a bug.
Whether the Syrians use IR smoke or not is a different matter though, however I vaguely recall reading that the TURMS-T upgrade for T-72 would have included IR screening smokes.
-
Originally posted by Battlefront.com:
Jon is correct. The people that are claiming that nobody requested the major feature changes between CMx1 and CMx2 must have been reading different Forums than this one. The call for 1:1 started before CMBO was even released! It is probably the single most consistent request we've had over the years. To say it isn't there is simply contrary to fact.
I don't see anyone claiming that 1:1 was not requested. It certainly was. The issue with that is that the terrain and buildings don't match the 1:1 units.
I'm glad to hear you are going to change QBs. Though I'm a bit alarmed by what you said earlier about it being fixed only for the WW2 module.Design flaws... I don't see any. Things that need to be fixed (bugs), tweaked (rough edges), reintroduced (missing) I do see. I don't see any problems with that happening, though the reintroduction of CMx1 features will be minimal and mostly limited to feedback stuff within the game. Still, there are some fairly significant things that will wind up looking more like CMx1 (QBs being the primary one).Is adding WeGo for multiplayer in your plans? Or making the available commands visible all at the same time?
-
Do the US vehicles use IR smoke? It blocks thermals.
-
Originally posted by flamingknives:
Exel:
Clumsier and dumbed down UI.
That is of course your opinion. Another opinion would be "simplified" Or possible more sensible, considering the number of factors that cannot be covered in a UI in modern combat. What specifically is your issue?
Uh. So the solution to "the number of factors that cannot be covered" is to spread them out to different tabs that you can't see at the same time, instead of having them all visible and easily accessible? And because modern combat requires more functions, it is therefore necessary to reduce the functions to less than what a previous WW2 game had?
All of the available commands to any given unit could easily fit in a mouse context menu, or at the very least in the bottom bar, at the same time. There's absolutely no need to keep most of them hidden all the time. This is something that games over 10 years old did right, so it's inexcusable. It's plain bad design, not "more sensible" and certainly not more simplified.
Disabling WEGO for multiplayerUnfortunate side effect of RT (which was asked for) and being addressed?
How is loss of multiplayer WeGo a side effect of RT when WeGo is still around for singleplayer? Furthermore, both game modes were promised in full in the pre-order marketing; no mention was made of no multiplayer for WeGo. Most certainly dropping WeGo was not asked for by the CMx1 fans.
There's something between the extremes of cherry picking and no customizability. You can have limits to unit selection without removing it altogether. Realism argument is bogus, because real armies, including the ones depicted in the game, use custom task forces all the time - that is temporary non-standard force mixes to accomplish given missions. More importantly though it's not fun and it's not balanced.Force selection
Cherry picking.
Again, while people may have asked for limits to cherry picking, they most certainly didn't ask for computer-selected standard force mixes either.
-
Quote me the numerous requests for a clumsier and dumbed-down UI, pathfinding AI that overwrites player waypoints, disabling WeGo for multiplayer and removing the ability to select ones forces for QBs. Or just one of those. Please, I urge you to.Originally posted by flamingknives:No, Sandy, he is not wrong. Every single feature or lack thereof in CM:SF was asked for by CMX1 players. Every single one.
-
The problem I see with the use of hard limits is that if you lose a unit that's been cut out of supply, you lose the capability to have a similar unit permanently. Lose a tank corps and you're permanently short one tank corps. At least with soft limits you can build another tank corps, just pay somewhat more for it.
And don't argue that it's realistic that way, since the loss of given number of tanks (for example) doesn't impact your capacity to produce submarines, planes or rockets - you just magically lose your ability to produce tanks.
Soft limits make it possible to replace losses but at an ever increasing cost, which is far more logical.
-
So we aren't going to get decent QBs where you can customize your own forces for CMSF?Originally posted by Battlefront.com:QBs are going to undergo a transformation for CM:WW2 that will make them conceptually similar to CMx1 (though not identical).
Steve
-
Too bad it got cut short. The ending is a real let-down as the series was obviously planned to run longer. A real shame since the episodes until then were pretty amazing (if not quite at the level of BoB).
-
AP. Always AP. It at least has a chance of penetrating a weak spot, and it too can damage or take out optics and whatnot. The HE round is a lot less likely to keep the enemy from shooting back.Originally posted by birdstrike:Now, in such a situation if you have to pick between an AP shell which only scratches the paint and an HE shell which has the slightest chance to damage a sensor and thus keeps the enemy from shooting you, what would you pick?
-
Like I said, it looks good in theory. However reality is a bit different. HE shells would barely scratch the paint of the armor, and the only things you could realistically damage with them on a tank would be some optics, external (secondary) weapons, radio antennas, and external equipment (the crew will be pissed). If you're lucky maybe the tracks and main gun. At most you'd achieve a mission kill on the vehicle, more probably you'd just annoy the heck out of the crew and make you their target priority number one.Originally posted by birdstrike:@Exel:
the whole HE vs. impenetrable armor thing means to cause some damage to the outer sensors or other "soft spots" if nothing else works. And there are quite some things on the M1 turret which don't like being hit with an explosive shell.
So unless the situation is absolutely dire to warrant any and all desperate measures available, no sane crew will quick-order a suicide just for the chance to do some minor damage on the target vehicle if they have better munitions available (ie. dedicated AP rounds).
If your AP rounds can't cut it, you maneuver to a better position (flank) to use them from with hopefully better success. You don't expose your position and get your self killed by using something even less effective. Just like you don't charge that Abrams with a spear just because you think your RPG might not cut it.I, for one, prefer my tanks firing HE if nothing works, than to just have them sit there and shrug their shoulders. -
If your AP has zero chance of effecting the enemy armor, you don't fire. HE would realistically have even less chance, and firing that would only reveal your position to the enemy. The only situation any sane tank crew would use HE on an enemy tank would be if they are out of AP and absolutely have to engage (kinda similar to infantry using their assault rifles on enemy helos).Originally posted by MikeyD:I think there was a similar argument with tank gun HE. If your AP has zero % chance of piercing an Abrams front why bother using it? Again, after much discussion the use of AP for tanks was upped too.
The idea of using HE over AP to damage enemy armor is similar to the idea of "aiming for weakspots". Sounds all fine and dandy in theory, but has absolutely no relevance with real life combat.
-
The devs seemed to think that using HE on armored targets would be smart for not just BMPs, but other Syrian vehicles as well. Mind you, no crew in their right mind would fire HE on an armored vehicle unless the situation was really dire.
-
Actually the map would look like 2D if you just changed the sprites (units, cities, resources, some terrain gfxs) to non-isometric. The map itself doesn't have to be touched.
-
Yes, and for some reason the Strykers seem to be the worst in this respect while other vehicles perform a little better on average.Originally posted by Renaud:In a few cases the intra-waypoint AI works out rather well and makes you feel that an actual soldier is behind the wheel (albeit, a very fallible and poorly trained soldier).
Even so I wish the player would not be stripped from the control of adjusting a units movement path the way one currently is, and that the AI pathfinding would only be used when the player's waypoints need adjusting for obstacles or for proximity of friendly vehicles, and maybe some 'smoothing out' of the turns to make movement look more natural. But the latter should really be only micro-adjustments to the path, not replotting it entirely and skipping entire waypoints while at it.
-
I already paid for that in CMSF (pre-order). I'm not going to pay more to get what was promised for my initial purchase.Originally posted by Panzer76:Only thing that would make me buy it would be TCP WEGO added.
-
Much more playable than the previous version? Yes.
Anywhere near enjoyably playble? No.
-
Right now I'm rather looking for the play value, which atm isn't really there with all the issues the game has. Knowing Battlefront I'm confident they will be keep supporting the game for a long time. But that doesn't mean we should stay silent in our confidence - if the issues weren't brought to light, how could they ever be fixed? And it's not just what gets fixed and how, but also when - priorities of the patches are something we also need to influence, so that the most critical issues get solved first and not after 2 years.Originally posted by WW2Wargamer:As i stated before battlefront WILL FIX most problems. This is a game that cost $50. Most of us will play CMSF for a long time. Which means REPLAY VALUE!
-
Or that it would at least be acknowledged that there is a flaw, whether by design or not, and action would be taken to correct it - improve the design if it's a design issue, fix the glitch if it's not.Originally posted by Cpl Steiner:I am hoping that these anomolies are not down to design but are simple bugs that we will eventually see the back of.
-
If movement and terrain is that much abstracted, then I honestly see no advantage in the 1:1 representation of units. If you can't make the terrain be 1:1 with the units, then abstract the units too. This is just too confusing for the player and seriously hurt gameplay - if you have 1:1 unit models then you expect them to act like that too, not abstracted.
-
So another compromise for RT then? It starts to seem like that most of the things wrong about CMSF are directly or indirectly due to the RT mode.Originally posted by Darkmath:The developpers could not stay with the same 1 metres grid location engine from CMX1 ; it would cost too much CPU cycle so the game could not be played in real time.
Therefore, they choose the action spot design for CMX2.
-
What?! I don't want the game to eliminate or "progressively skip" waypoints I have assigned to it at its whim. If I wanted an intermediate waypoint to be skipped, I wouldn't place that waypoint in the first place!Originally posted by Rollstoy:Compare: Toward More Realistic Pathfinding by Marco Pinter
The smoothing algorithm simply checks from waypoint to waypoint along the path, trying to eliminate intermediate waypoints when possible. [...] This simple smoothing algorithm is similar to "line of sight" smoothing, in which all waypoints are progressively skipped until the last one that can be "seen" from the current position.
Or is it referring to the hidden waypoits the computer plots for itself to accomplish a given route? To that I'd say; Don't. If I assign a carefully planned waypoint route, there's no reason for the computer to plot a course of its own unless there are obstacles in the way.
-
1.03. I do have the game saved right after I noticed that.Originally posted by Madmatt:What version of the game did you see this in? Do you by chance still have a save game of this?
We had thought we had fixed this issue in the past, but its possible a certain set of conditions could still trigger it. Whats happening is that the model is reverting to its "default" pose, with no animation being played properly.
Madmatt
-
The problem with WeGo is that the commands were designed with RT in mind, and many important (for WeGo) commands were left out, like Shoot & Scoot. Inability to properly chain commands is also critical in WeGo - if you want a Stryker to move, dismount its infantry, then move again, and have the infantry move after dismounting, you need several turns to do that sequence. At worst you'll be wasting almost three minutes where in RT you could do it in 30 secs.
The problem with RT is that the command interface really is a left-over from WeGo. While decent enough for turn-based play (with the unique hotkeys) it is unacceptably slow and clumsy to use for time-critical RT play (no mouse context menu, all available commands not visible or accessible at the same time). So your success in RT depends more on how fast you can work the interface instead of your tactical planning.
Ironically the cure for fixing these issues with both RT and WeGo is largely the same. BFC only needs to take note of the Close Combat command interface to get it right. RT is no excuse for a dumbed down command system and WeGo isn't hurt by having a more streamlined command system; give the player more options with the commands, but make them accessible faster, and you'll be improving both WeGo and RT gameplay at the same time.
-
The easiest, and in fact the best solution to the pathfinding problems would be to have the vehicles and squads follow their assigned path to the point instead of plotting their own path. That's if there's no obstacles on the path that require evasion.
Let the pathfinding algorithm work its magic when you set a waypoint without much thought about the route (without regard to obstacles in the way), ie. for RT mode, but when there's no obstacles on the assigned path, follow that.
Thermal Imaging
in Combat Mission Shock Force 1
Posted