sburke

Friggin awesome. You guys add so much value to the game it's hard to express the appreciation. Can't wait to see these on the repository.

Beginning? I'd say we were way past that point. The only issue with this request as I see it has to do, as JonS pointed out, to do with that word perceived. The problem I think underlying the perception is hunt in Cmx1 worked as it did because the entire environment was different. Borg spotting had a huge impact in the game and I think that is too easily forgotten in this perception. Your tank knew a helluva lot more in CMx1 than it is going to know in CMx2. It also had no variation between LOS and LOF. In your specific example, I think hunt really was the wrong command. As Vulture so aptly pointed out (sorry to repeat this post the 3rd time, but I think it really hit the nail on the head). This isn't about making excuses, it is a recognition that the game has fundamentally changed in ways that make the former command nigh on impossible to emulate with a single UI command. As to asking BFC to reply, well they have actually on this forum probably several times. I think from their point of view, why should they stop and repeat themselves every time this comes up if we can't be bothered to review what they have already said. Their time answering literally is money (or more importantly time they can be working on whatever the big deal is they hinted at). It is like this guy I know at work. He has a 15 second rule. If it takes more than 15 seconds of his time, he'll just ask me. However long it takes me to find the answer is no cost to him. You can imagine some of the names I have for him. @Lee_Vincent I would suggest hunt is also the wrong command in that situation. What makes more sense is having an overwatch section and a movement section and to advance in bounds. Use smoke to screen your movements etc. Hunt is just going to have you stop in a position where you are now the target. With relative spotting that could very well simply make you an easier target with no additional support to back you up.

Gov't accounting at it's best!

Oh man I hate it when I get drool al over my keyboard.

Interesting point. As the Tiger was considered to be an assault "breakthrough" weapon, after Kursk was that really useful anymore? Granted they were still the bad ass of the battlefield, but was it really going to have as much influence in that role as opposed to focusing production on Panthers. If the logistical train and strategic movement became that much more complicated one starts to wonder if the net effect wasn't really more detrimental than the tactical impact would warrant. A decent example is the relative lack of impact in the Ardennes.

LOL I hear ya. There are additional items at work here that make the old hunt command work not as well in CMx2. Borg spotting in Cmx1 allowed your armor to be aware of ANY known threats, not just what it can see. So while not having that old hunt command can perhaps be considered a weakness for Cmx2, the trick is to figure out what the strengths are in CMx2. One of the primary ones being the way you can detail commands at varying way points. In that sense, CMx1 was actually less flexible than CMx2 and needed to have commands like hunt or shoot and scoot. I know folks are probably gonna roll their eyes at this one considering the number of commands to do what they presume you could do if we had the old hunt style, but here's some things you may want to try. Assuming your previous scenario of infantry behind an obstacle that you want to go around and hit them, but be wary of other threats. Start out with a quick or fast command that gets your armor into position from where you think you can hit the infantry, give them a covered arc in that direction. At the end point of that move cancel the covered arc, put in a pause and then reverse to your previous position. The effect is you race into position with your gun focused on the intended target, at that point the arc is released allowing the tank to respond to any previously unknown threats and then backing away to remove itself from any possible retaliation move by the end of the turn. Granted that won't help if it turns out there is an AT unit on the direct opposite flank, but if you are that unsure of what threats exist beyond the one you are aware of, racing your armor out there is likely a bad move to begin with. Also be prepared to lose your TC if they aren't buttoned up. If you do the TAC AI will take over and lord knows where your armor will go. I'd even suggest giving them a target light order on the terrain the infantry occupies so even if they don't spot them immediately, they will be laying down MG fire to suppress. You can do that by simply marking a way point that has LOS to where the infantry are situated. So your tank roars around the corner and at the moment it hits your desired point it is already spitting lead even if it hasn't identified the target. That should cause the infantry to go to ground long enough for the next set of commands you have set in motion. You couldn't do that in CMx1. The point is to be creative. The UI is actually really really flexible. Imagine your opponent thinking they are gonna have a moment to fire off an AT round and getting suppressed before they can even get a shot off. I suspect they will be the ones posting next time about the unfairness of armor spotting. (Don't tell em you didn't see them when you killed them. It willl only rub salt into the wounds.)

Thanks Vulture, this is actually how I was hoping the discussion would go. I'd also like the armored cover arc for more effective AT ambushes for WeGo so I can relate to looking for more effective commands in the UI. Your points on the impact of certain commands with LOS/LOF functioning the way it does and terrain impacts is spot on. As you'd noted above if our infantry followed that behavior pattern, they'd be popping up and down in that wheatfield like playing whack a mole. I see the enemy, go prone...I don't see the enemy, keep moving , oh wait there's the enemy go prone! In debating the hunt command previously BFC had been pretty explicit about what and how they can model stuff in CMx1 vs CMx2 and they got into the whole question of, are vehicles really moving and firing or not, what is the model showing or not etc. What I took away from that is graphically the visuals aren't always representing the action 100%. There are some things they just have to do under the hood. Hence I tend to use slow versus hunt in some situations for my armor. As you'd noted as soon as ANY of the crew spot something, hunting stops. That may or may not be a good thing depending on terrain. So for example I might use slow to get to a hull down position on a hill as hunt may stop me just prior to being able to fire the gun. In addition if I want to try and replicate the old shoot and scoot, it will fail with hunt. A slow command followed by a pause followed by a reverse will do the trick handily. I am very wary of cover arcs. I do use them a lot, but primarily 360 degree arcs for my infantry to prevent them from giving away positions etc. I rarely use them to confine my fire in one direction especially with my armor. About the only time I even consider it is if I want to move from point a to point b quickly and I know my only possible threats are from a flank, in that case I'd use em to keep the turret aligned to the potential threat. My feeling is the UI actually has quite a few tools in it that I am still learning how to use to get the behavior I desire. To be totally frank (and I know this will turn some people off) I find that to really get the best out of my troops, micro managing them is almost a requirement. They do what I tell them to do (generally) so if I am not explicit, they are liable to get it wrong...kind of like real troops. Does it work all the time, nope, but often enough that I spend more of my time planning on killing the enemy pixeltruppen than worrying about whether the TAC AI will fail me.

I can't see the actual tiles all that well, but just to confirm, the tiles near the tree line, are those heavy woods tiles (the base ground)? If so it is impassable to armor. Just a thought.

sarcasm, check. condescencion, check. okay I'd say that's a wrap. We've hit bottom in 4 pages. Not a record, but not bad. With a little practice I'm sure we can drop a page or two. In his own teddy bear lovable way, JonS was trying to point out the same thing I tried towards the beginning of this thread. We can keep wishing for a command from CMx1 (which may not actually quite work out how you'd like in CMx2) or we can try to understand the depth of what is in CMx2 to come up with a different solution. Personally I am not one for b**ch sessions about how I wish things could be. BFC has heard this enough times they are surely aware there are folks who'd like it implemented in CMx2. What would be more helpful is to figure out how to make things work in the existing command structure. I am sure that would benefit far more players than just repeating "cause that is how it was in CMx1". Funny how sick some people are of hearing, "but that is how it was in CMSF", that bothers me far less than hearing "that was how it was in CMx1". CMAK is almost 10 years ago people. Different game, different engine etc etc. It's time to let it go, change is good. Change is your friend.

There are no landing craft in the game, so you can game the Omaha and Utah landings from the point of troops already being disembarked. To do Sword, Gold and Juno you'd obviously need the CW module, but Hobart's funnies aren't included. Personally the beach landings hold little appeal to game, but there are more than a few who do seem to like it.

This is one of those situations where RT play is better. Until the carrier has no further movement orders, the infantry will not get out. Its like the doors have child locks on them and daddy isn't making any pee breaks. IIRC the reverse is not true, you can pause a vehicle while infantry boards and then take off.

and they're off! It's "they nerfed the game, those idiots, what do they think they know about game design" in the lead followed closely by "you are not yet ready for the great mysteries to be revealed young skywalker"! Have I characterized the two positions correctly from each other's perspective? I think so and I can pretty much guess how the next few pages of the thread will go.

A man walks into a bar with a pig, two chickens and a jar of honey.....

here ya go http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1372

That's exactly the point, we are trying to suggest a substitute. Maybe BFC will consider adding in a different command, maybe they won't, but right now it isn't there. Figuring we have all been over this ground many many times over the past year (dang has it been that long already?) maybe it is time to figure out how to use the tools you've been given to try to achieve the results (or something close) you are looking for. Just a thought as your original post didn't refer back to CMx1 at all.

I know the AI and I'm sorry about it's feelings, but it is a lousy cheatin jerk. Heck even playing cards for pennies it can't help but cheat. I hear it even cheats on it's spouse. Fortunately it is a stupid cheater and as Ranger33 notes, it is still very much hampered by relative spotting even more than we are. At least if I know there is an AT gun around the corner I won't send a second tank down that road, the AI will. Which is a good thing as otherwise it is cheatin lowlife. I think it crashed my computer the other day out of sheer spite cause I was winning.

Might wanting try using slow if your intent is to not stop completely.

technically that isn't "re crewing" as the crew is dead, but it doesn't matter. In either case the answer is no. There are several threads on this particular item and the rationale behind it. Not saying it is worth searching for them as the answer is just going to end up being nope.

I would LOVE to see that in a youtube posting. Damn that must have been funny to watch...until you needed all those explosives.

I think you need to have a talk with that tank crew. I had a little Stuart take out a PzIV and a StuG last night on it's own. Darn thing had to put numerous rounds into both before they were finished off, but it never hesitated.

I admit to being one of those who much prefers the "micro managing" aspect. If you want to perform at a higher level of command with a "stance" capability, there are other games with an AI capability like that. They are not at this scale, are not 3D and are playable only against the AI, but I understand they do a credible job of what you are looking for. I think to expect that in CMx2 would require that BFC actually change the nature of their focus in the game and their programming resources. Not something I nor I suspect a lot of others would like to see.

While I am all for making everything as true to capability as possible, I am not sure that reverse speed will truly make a difference in this specific scenario and am speaking from a PBEM battle I am currently engaged in. All I need is to back off the hedgerow enough for the enemy to lose LOS. Even at slow speed that would occur pretty darn quick. Where I see this as more important is if a defensive position is about to be flanked or overwhelmed and the next position is a fair bit behind. Being able to fast reverse kind of removes the tactical vulnerability of the situation. This may be more an issue with the CW mod as I found constricted terrain considerations to be more important than actual speed in tactical situations in the base game.

To each his own, but I am never going back to CMx1. Relative spotting alone is reason enough to forget that. Borg spotting in a tank battle now would just not work for me anymore.

I just download em all. :-P

Medex I have to say I loved the "reason for last edit" but you know beer up the nose sucks.