Jump to content

*Buzzsaw*

Members
  • Posts

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

    Never

Converted

  • Location
    Vancouver, Canada

*Buzzsaw*'s Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (1/3)

0

Reputation

  1. Would be good to get a reply from the Developers on this issue.
  2. Hello Now that it seems clear that the game will be modified, the inevitable question arises: What cheat protection is available in the standard game, which prevents one player from having a heavily modified game, versus a player having a standard game in Multiplayer? Is the a program in ToW which checks the files to make sure the two sides are the same? Thanks
  3. Salute The standard generated names of the U.S. soldiers should be changed as well. All the names are currently Anglo Saxon. When in fact the U.S. had immigrants from all over the world serving in its army. Should be plenty of Graboski's for every Smith.
  4. I am not referring to Tank Crews. I am referring to Infantry Officers and NCO's. They are armed with pistols, which is completely unhistorical for most of the war. The patch should modify the missions so these leaders are appropriately armed.
  5. If its that simple to provide the officers with weapons, why doesn't BATTLEFRONT and 1C do that? Any study of the facts would tell them that pistols were not used as battlefield leader's weapons after about 1941.
  6. I started off by trying to play the early French campaign, and noticed the officers/NCO's in that only have pistols. I assumed this was because it was early war, and perhaps historical. After many game crashes later, I have been playing with my settings in an effort to get the game to play, and when I selected the American/British campaign as part of that testing, I noticed the officers/NCO's still only have pistols. This is completely unhistorical. All later war German/British/American NCO/Junior Officers were equipped with long arms, either SMG's or Rifles. Hopefully this can be changed.
  7. Hello I have a dual core Intel P4, 3.0. NVidia 7800 GT graphics card, 2.0 Gigs RAM. I am only running the game at 1024 x 768, and I am still getting freezes leading to crashes. When the game crashes, it switches my desktop resolution to 1024 X 768. I have carefully followed the suggestions from this board, including only enabling 1 CPU, and reducing the resolution from my starting point. My Computer should easily have the power to run this game, according to your recommended specs, but I still have this problem. It seems to be getting worse. I was able to run the demo, and then the first mission of the French campaign almost to its close before it crashed, using 1280 X 960, but now at the lower settings, I get freeze/Crashes almost immediately that I start a scenario. This game is so buggy, that I am losing patience rapidly. I have paid good money for the advanced release, and the results frankly have been cr*p. By the way, I have not received my DVD yet. I own all the BATTLEFRONT COMBAT MISSION games, and enjoy them thoroughly. But my THEATER OF WAR experience has made me think twice about ever buying anything from your company again.
  8. With all the framerate issues in Single Player, wondering how the Online multiplayer is? Has anyone tried the game online with large numbers of players?
  9. (have edited this to correct errors) The Sherman's main fire problem was unprotected ammo stowage in sponsons above the tracks. The real reason the Sherman got such a bad reputation was that it was: 1) Attacking most of the time, which requires a tank to expose itself to enemy fire. 2) The opposition, whether it was German tanks or AT Guns, fired shells which were capable of penetrating the standard Sherman's frontal armour relatively easily. When the German Tanks were forced to attack, and thus expose themselves more often to fire, as during the Mortain counterattack, or the Ardennes Offensive, they took heavy casualties too. (and those casualties were 90% from U.S. Tanks or Artillery, not Fighterbombers) The game does not include several models of Shermans which had much heavier armour, and which were much more resistant to enemy armour piercing shells. For example, the Sherman 'Jumbo'. Often these would be placed as the lead tank in the advance, since the lead tank was usually hit first. The Shermans armed with the 105mm gun also had heavier armour. The Sherman 'Firefly', with its high velocity 17 lber gun, was clearly a very potent Tank. The 17 lber had a penetrative power slightly better than the Panther's 75mm gun. Firefly's were normally used in the overwatch role, covering the advance of standard Shermans, and engaging any targets which fired on them. This game should have a Firefly, there was a ratio of 1 Firefly for every 3 normal 75mm gunned Shermans in the British Tank formations. [ May 04, 2007, 10:40 AM: Message edited by: *Buzzsaw* ]
  10. Unlike 'Patches', 'Addons' usually require an additional outlay of cash from the customer. Are you saying we're only going to get these features if we pay MORE money? Frankly, the current condition of the game is such that I don't feel I have gotten anywhere near the money I outlayed for the initial purchase. If ToH are expecting us to ante up with another purchase price in order to get the game right, then I think they will be sadly disappointed. Along with us.
  11. Salute Char B's were not that tough. They had a weakness in the perisope area, which could be quite easily penetrated.
  12. Hello Designers and Developers Well, I've shelled out my money, and got a pretty flawed game. You do have a chance to redeem this game, after all it does have pretty good graphics, and the tank game is not all bad. Here's what I believe needs your immediate attention. #1 Ability of Tank Crew when buttoned up, or even when opened up, to spot Infantry in prone positions needs to be reduced considerably. AI intel needs to be toned down. Fire by buttoned tanks should be most often limited to area fire. #2 Infantry needs to go to ground when fired on. No more of this continual getting up and walking into fire again, till everyone is dead. If fired on, Infantry should go prone, then remain prone and crawl to a position where they can engage if ordered to attack. And prone infantry should have considerable negatives applied to the ability of weapons to hit them, even in open ground. As anyone who has studied small unit tactics knows, most ground has dead spots, where the folds of the earth provide cover. #3 Infantry needs to have a better chance of taking out tanks with hand portable infantry weapons like Panzerfausts and Bazookas. In reality, a tank was very vulnerable to such weapons if it was maneuvering in close circumstances to infantry. Even infantry which is not equipped with these weapons had a chance to do damage with grenades and such like if they were close enough. #4 The effects of Camoflauge and Cover needs to be added to the AI routine. Yes I know most of the maps don't have heavily enclosed terrain, but a force on the defence did what it could with the available materials, and often was able to conceal things like AT Guns or even Tanks. Look at the battlefield of Kurst. Flat open terrain for the most part, with a some agricultural development. Yet the Soviets were able to conceal most of their AT Guns pretty well. At the beginning of a scenario, units should have a higher level of concealment, and less chance of being spotted until they move. #5 The limited numbers of trees on the maps need to have more of an effect on line of sight. Right now, they have little or no effect. Not only is this wrong, it detracts once again from the ability of players to maneuver and use cover. Even an orchard, with its regular rows of trees had a negative effect on the ability to spot the enemy. ----- Those are my personal pet peeves, I'm sure others have their own comments. This game has a chance to be redeemed, BATTLEFRONT should do itself and its customer relations and future sales a favour, take the time and put some fixes in place. Thankyou Buzzsaw
  13. Oh yeah, forgot about the lockups. I have dual processor 3.0 Intel, (early gen), which I set for single processor, and relatively low resolution and quality. (what the game reccommends) The game seems to work fine, then suddenly, for no particular reason, it locks up. There is no auto save, so that means if you've forgotten to save, then you are stuck back at the start of the scenario.
  14. I am a big fan of the COMBAT MISSION series of games, I own them all. My only problem with the series was their dated graphics, etc. So when THEATER OF WAR was offered, I decided if it is BATTLEFRONT, it must be good. My mistake. This game may look marginally better than COMBAT MISSION, but as a game it is completely inferior. In fact, at the distance from the battlefield which the camera usually is, the difference in graphics is marginal. Infantry combat is poorly modelled, you can't get your troops to do what you want, there is no way to take advantage of cover, and they don't use their limited anti-tank weapons against armour. You can't dig in AT Guns, they are visible at huge distances. Tanks are slightly better, but the interface is klunky, and the AI is poor. As this game stands now, I can't reccommend it to anyone in the gaming community. Too bad.
  15. Salute I selected the specialty AP rounds, directed the AT guns to immediately shoot at the two Pz III's, and had no problem in killing them. Afterwards, the AT guns killed the remainder of the Pz II's with their regular ammo. The AT rifles seem to be pretty much useless, except against the rear of a tank. As far as the Seelowe scenario is concerned, I'm not surprised the Germans lose. Look at the date folks! And look at the Soviet OOB. They have some pretty nasty stuff there, what with the JS-2's, Su-152's, and Su-100's. The Su-100 gun had comparable AP penetration to the Tiger II's upgraded 88MM. Same with the JS's 128mm. And the Su-152's are firing a 152 mm shell, doesn't matter if it is AP or HE, it is going a make a mess. A 152mm HE shell can kill with simple concussion, doesn't have to penetrate the tank's armour.
×
×
  • Create New...