SlapHappy

I think there was a coin-op game that was similar to Atari Combat.

Nice grass mod. http://www.vectronicsappleworld.com/collection/articlepics/atari2600/combat1.png

I'll have to revisit WEGO again, as I have been playing real-time 90% of my time with CMSF. Despite my lack of experience playing the older BFC games, I did find the newer version of WEGO somewhat disconcerting. Even so, I do understand the differences between the two styles. I think I will probably enjoy the "blue-bar" or "classic" style more. I find it interesting to speculate on how a game designer might implement WEGO in other fashions as well. For instance, one minute intervals has been the de facto time span for BFC when implementing WEGO. But that seems to be a choice made based on what feels right as far as simulation control. One could certainly use 30 seconds or 15 seconds as standard time spans. Or you could allow for setting of the time span by game or by turn even. Or you could move entirely away from time based turn triggers and base it on events that occur during the game, like enemy contact. Did BFC always plan to implement WEGO as we see it today (one-minute intervals)? Or did the design team arrive at this through trial and error during the development process?

eehhh...scale looks tiny....might be a fun game if all the infantry doesn't end up dead 5 minutes into the game. All in all, looks like they have sacrificed troop counts for eye-candy. The eye-candy is nice, however!

Did the "adjoined building creates firing loophole at corner" problem get addressed in time for this patch? I hope so. That is really one simulation-reality killer.

Well, I know that in some incarnation of the game I've had situations where the squad ended up with two launchers.

The displace/bugger off AI behavior was one I was calling for and will hopefully lead to new tactical permutations we haven't seen in the game thus far. The "die in place" behavior of the current AI seems too predictable. Rock On, Battlefront!

I'm still concerned about what will happen to large scenario playability in regards to WWII France environment depiction and frame rates. Steve has already mentioned in one thread they are unsure still exactly how this change will impact the game engine in actual game situations. Hopefully there will be some headway regarding making the game "multi-thread" friendly because CPU's continue to spread out horizontally rather than increase vertically in processing power. At least one CPU-intensive game, Supreme Commander from 2007 was found to be almost unplayable without utilizing the capabilities of Dual and Quad core technologies.

I guess you mean one round per SECOND, right?

Hey, no fair talking about 1.11 gameplay when the patch is overdue!

I have posted about it in at least two threads and can confirm it is a building "adjoinment" issue. It is also a serious case of WYSIWYG confusion as Ken mentions above. It leads to troops being able to see out of the buildings through the joint point and also into the adjoining building. I set up a whole test scenario and proved the affects I mention beyond a shadow of a doubt. The only way to avoid it is to make sure your scenarios do not have buildings that actually touch one another.

Happens to me too. At first I thought I was losing my mind. And then I realized I had, but that had nothing to do with it.

Look for the 51 mm near the end of this video

Well, the specific mortar they refer to in the "briefing" is otherwise known as a commando mortar and there are videos on youtube of British troops firing it in Afghanistan. I guess it is similar to what the Japanese employed when they called it a "knee" mortar.

The problem with spies is they have different spotting rules and don't they tend to rout from the map very quickly if fired upon?

I was going to start a new topic, but found this snippet in this older thread. You are correct. And I guess it is a bug? Upon further testing, I found this was only true when the walls of two buildings are ADJOINED to each other. In my tests, once I had separated the two buildings with even minimal space, the "shoot through the corner" trick didn't work anymore for the AI and I was able to approach the windowless buildings without being spotted. P.S. I am stating with this also that it is not only possible to fire between two adjoined buildings, but also fire out of the buildings using the "secret spy corner" trick.

Except by then he's usually already dead. Along with the rest of the squad in most cases. I don't get....apparently the fire on the move logic doesn't apply once they enter buildings. This makes the attackers job a lot harder. I'm not expecting one guy to move into the room and mow down all opposition like a cheesy war flick, but I would hope they would at least try to defend themselves. It looks to me like some kind of "troop positioning" routine kicks in when soldiers go into buildings and they are blind to all else until they find Their perfect little spot.

Gotcha. Nice work, Steiner.

I really like the new TACAI with the added feature where troops will fire on the move when they come under enemy fire. I've seen it effectively suppress enemy troops and give the attackers some kind of chance when on the move. Granted, it's not foolproof, but helpful to avoid micromanagement. The only problem I see now is that code logic seems to turn off as soon as the units move into buildings. If anything this tendency should be ramped up when in tight positions. Instead soldiers seem more intent on finding the best window position and completely disregarding the enemy units just a few metres away. Even more frustrating is when they think buddy aid is the most important consideration at the moment while under fire and they get shot in the back. If soldiers will fight on the move while on open ground, why would they suspend this tendency as soon as they hit the door of an occupied building? It makes the assault and hunt kind of useless into buildings as is stands now.

So how would the smallest of support units, the 60mm fit into this scheme? Even the improved M224 60mm Mortar maxes out at about 3.5 KM. Do you need another scale layer below 5 KMs or do you just make it an in-hex only asset?

That being said the "damaged" models for buildings and vehicles kinda leave a little to be desired. Most especially the buildings. Looks like somebody carved out an irregular section of the wall using a reciprocating saw.

I guess the impression that many people have is that vehicles will explode when hit by weapons fire because of gas tank penetrations. There simply isn't a high enough volatile compression level for that to happen, however. It's simply a myth. Small parts of the car might ignite from the munition detonation itself, but not a catastrophic explosion ala Hollywood.

Well, there's that, too. Question: Has any wargame ever properly simulated sweeping MG fire? I've never seen it.

Adam: It's interesting to note that BFC backed off ROF for troops that were firing at distant targets, but to my knowledge have not increased that ROF for highly exposed opportunity targets. This could be especially useful for MG's. I've felt for awhile now that the US M240 is substantially less potent than it should be in the game, even though it is technically only a an "MMG".

With the price of books being what they are, remember to take advantage of your local circulating library! Use the link below to locate your books of interest and then have them sent to your library from a myriad of sources. It's called inter-library loan and it's the coolest thing going! Just print out your searches and bring them to the reference desk at the library. www.worldcat.org