dan/california

I would love better multi-player, especially with a decent lobby, and drones, and.... I would pay too, but maybe it makes more sense to move on and let Charles and friend not be to tied their past umm "decisions". But a lobby and better multi need to start moving towards the front of the line.

We aren't greedy or anything.

From Johny FGM in another thread. "AI triggers The way I seem them is a simple leave after command for each order in an AI plan So you'd have Leave after: Contact Firing once Firing for x seconds Time This would allow for half decent fighting withdrawals" This would be an excellent list for the first iteration. Any triggers are a vast improvement over none.

"We have no plans on implementing user controlled/defined SOPs. Sure, at some point it might happen... but our plans are looking roughly 3-5 years down the road, which means it's unlikely it would happen any time sooner than that." Does this mean my 15 page plan for conditional if-then order options is unlikely to receive prompt attention?........

No one said you had to read it. It may be a little silly but the endless back and forth on this board has helped the evolution of the game more than just a wee bit. Those of us with a bit too much time on our hands are at least trying to influence things for the game AFTER Normandy, since all major features of Normandy are reported to be finalized, supposedly. They can release a bone or three to prove that at any time, and then we can pointlessly argue and speculate about that instead.

Can we start another thread to rehash the 5.56mm/M4 debate? It and real or imaginary sniper issues are comepletely different questions.

The issue is always our two little enemies, time and priorities. It has to have a high enough priority to get some of Charles's time. And in this case I am not sure we have convinced Steve it is even a good idea. But, I am certainly willing to keep trying! It probably is worth mentioning that something that was fairly simple to code in a very simple environment, like the TacOps engine, probably would a great deal more complicated in CMX2.

5.56mm class weapons are not the primary subject of the conversation so far. Virtually all true sniper weapons are 7.62mm or bigger, much bigger in some cases. An absolute minimum effective range 600-700 meters. Double plus that for 8.6mm Lapua or .50 cal. there are several endless discussion on the pluses and minuses, and effective range of 5.56 on the board in various places. This , however is the zillionth thread on snipers. Crispy, in the situation in your last post what was the experience and leadership modifier of the sniper in question? It matters, a LOT.

This is purely my own opinion, but I think snipers have tweaked a little for game balance reasons. In real life if one or two people get their brains spattered all over the backside of the room or fighting position everyone else gets VERY careful about sticking their heads out, up, or pretty much anywhere that isn't obviously safe. This does result in effectively suppressing enemy units, but aside from the lowest quality insurgent types the other side adapts rather rapidly, although the adaptation certainly reduces combat effectiveness overall. The lesson after all is rather severe. The AI and spotting routines have difficulty with this subtlety. This is not a criticism, there are limits to how many lines of code can be written and even more importantly, tested. But if snipers had "real life" accuracy against targets that aren't being "real life" careful, a lot of scenarios would be over in ten minutes.

He has also stated that it would make the learning curve for the game even steeper. It essentially creates a fairly labor intensive pre-game step to replace a lot of in game micro management. This not a new player strong point. My personal opinion though is the Mr. Emrys is absolutely correct. At least in this case. Something as simple being able to toggle units between aggressive and and self protective behavior in a general way would be very helpful. A full page of toggle-able ROE options for each unit would be even better. And while it not easy to do, it is surely easier than truly decent AI.

I would think that the unreinforced masonry construction common in most of the Middle East would have a especially unpleasant collapse. Even if the troops inside had individual fighting positions with boards for overhead cover. Having cinder blocks rained on you can't improve your day.

They are going to patch EVERYBODY to 1.31 as soon as they get through testing it. There is no point in releasing a 1.3 patch with known flaws and the time to write that installer takes away from other work on issues with a much better long term return. Like Normandy, for instance.

I am shocked, awed, and humbled. How far out are you trying to give movement orders?

I am not sure a definitive answer to this question was available in 1946, I am very nearly certain one is unattainable now. Unless there is a 1940's document that hasn't come to light yet in this discussion.

Given that it would actually saves them time, I can't imagine they are doing it any other way.

You do realize that 32 vs 32 comment just made people gape like unexpected, really good porn, right. I mean holy &^&$**%##@*! For the love of god get a decent crew of Eastern Europeans, make them take blood oaths, and put poison capsules in their brains with nifty wifi controls, and get some of this stuff done.

So penetration was virtually guaranteed for the Germans top line stuff. Apparently so was a barbecue.

Thank you, AKD

What I am advocating for is movement order system where you pick a speed, then you pick a tactical stance. So for speed you would have crawled, slow walk, quick walk, run, and Sprint. Then you can pick from route march, meaning the troops are not expecting contact and adjustment in ways to minimize their fatigue. Moved to contact, basically the current hunt behavior. A true hunt where they keep going after the contact is dealt with and or disappears. And an assault command. Maybe we could even set an ROE whether or not the pop smoke when fired upon. I vaguely recall that I am stealing this from C3K?

Well yes, but hunt is a slow walk. Why can't I get a sprint, or for that matter a crawl with the hunt logic.

It has always peeved me that we couldn't copy the T34, at least.

I don't have time to look up the references, but it was an explicit decision that quantity has a quality all its own. The engineering was done, the assembly lines were running, it was reliable and maintainable. They figured if one wasn't good enough the next four in line would be. It certainly won the war. It was kind of hard on the crew in the first tank though.

That is one satchel charge. A 155 round has at least that much explosive power and we are talking about five plus of them. Not to mention the shrapnel a 155 distributes around. Yes I am whining because my squad got whacked!

"Was there a Chinese embassy nearby?" The really funny part was every other embassy in Belgrade sending over a detailed packet with their current address, aerial photos, and such. The desire not to be the victim of the second targeting mistake was quite high. Although in the Air Force's defense, certain things are inevitable when you decide to make omelettes.