Lurker765
-
Posts
199 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Lurker765
-
-
This all seems very familiar. A review comes out that isn't as favorable as some would like. The reviewer is insulted and then the publication is dismissed. It reminds me of:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=75870
Indie game development is doing great nowadays. You have games like Angry Birds for the masses. Braid for puzzle platformers. Minecraft for builders.
Depending on your definition of indie games you have great ones like Mount and Blade, Amnesia, etc. I would imagine those shops started out about as big as BFC a few years ago.
You can't charge full game prices and not expect to be compared to other games for the same price. If you want the indie label and the review discount then you price yourself accordingly. If you want to compete at full price then you compete with the big shops.
CMx1 got GREAT reviews from the big magazines whether they catered to twitch gamers or not.
How many people here are using the standard tabbed UI controls for their games? How many are using the text file that a user made to change the hotkeys? If you are a reviewer you are using the stock game and basing your review on that then IMHO the UI is backwards. If you hit a key and your tank crew bails out rather than prowl forward looking for a target based on which tabbed window is selected then it is probably a bad UI decision.
-
bumpity, bumpity, bump
-
Sometimes exceptions are good. Any idea if the mortar/atg ammo sharing is being looked at?
-
But what about mortar ammo and ATG ammo? No belts or clips there.
-
Before we get our panties in a bunch, how about we first get some info? I don't think anyone had said it is historical, it just could simply be that programming it is difficult and has negative implications. Asking is always a good place to start.
Sounds good to me
-
Does this apply to all units? I have had difficulty getting mortar ammo bearers sharing with mortar crews that are not in their platoon. Ditto ATG ammo bearers.
-
Which is fine for you, but that doesn't change the fundamental fact -> there is no support for firing from short halts in CMx1. The Cover Arc, if used, won't keep your tank moving if there's more than one non-infantry target. It also isn't flexible to have your tank stop, firing one shot at an AT Gun if you had it set for Armor Arc. Etc. So while you may be generally pleased with the kludge work arounds in CMx1, they are still kludges. And that means the basic behavior is being worked around with tools which weren't intended to be used in that particular way, which in turn means the outcomes are not optimized to compensate for the missing behavior.
Put another way, one can pound screw into a wooden board using a hammer. But that doesn't mean the hammer is a the right tool for screws. A sledgehammer is
Again, both systems have automatic firing on the move behavior. Both have kludges to get a unit to stop and fire. Some players have more or less problems with either the automatic behavior or the kludge work arounds. But in all cases, no matter how you slice it, neither game system fundamentally supports firing from short halts.
Steve
It is all about how much time you can spend on developing these things. Sometimes kludges that achieve acceptable results are fine. The time required to code something like if your tank should stop based on X targets being around is unacceptable.
Getting a CMx1 hunt command with armor cover arcs solves the vast majority of cases.
-
It's there and I've not overstated it. CMx1's implementation of Hunt definitely gave players a less kludgey workarounds than CMx2 currently has, but fundamentally there was absolutely no support for firing at short halts.
Hunt, for example, would stop the tank and it would fire from a stopped position. However, if any viable target, including infantry, present itself then the tank won't continue on. This is not what a tank should be doing. It should be stopping, firing, maybe firing again, then leaving even if the target is not destroyed or other targets appear. Well, unless there's no real threat that is.
I used hunt with covered armor arcs quite well in CMx1. My tanks would hunt for armored targets and engage them at a stop and then continue on while ignoring infantry. I had no complaints in this area in CMx1
-
That's not what I meant. I meant that in CMx1 tanks fire while on the move instead of coming to a halt. This is the fundamental problem the game, all CM games, have.
Steve
In CMx1 tanks will fire on the move if you tell them to. You can give them fast or move orders and they will proceed to their target while shooting (inaccurately). Or you can give them a hunt order and they will stop to engage a target and once that target is removed (knocked out or blocked due to visibility changes) the tank will continue moving on its way.
I don't think CMx1 has this fundamental problem as you state.
-
When the spotting rounds are about to fire unhide your unit and give it a short covered arc.
How can you tell when this is going to happen?
-
How did an elephant get in your pajamas?
-
Scenario: Buying the Farm
Type of Game: PBEM
Squad of Green US Troops with NO Link to its Commanding Unit. Chain broken with its HQ Unit.
I'm sorry, but I don't have the full game (demo only so far) and can't check this scenario out myself. And I wanted to make sure I understand you since it appears English is not your first language (and I probably can't write anything in your native language).
Are you saying that the soldiers involved in this particular assault were green Americans running across an open field attacking the enemy in foxholes without any working command chain while having live fire going around them in both directions?
-
There is a problem with foxhole protection which will be fixed, but I think there are a couple of other factors at work here which may mean this is a one-off thing rather than a regular occurrence, for example: the defenders appear to be "nervous" (hard to read the video) at the start and move to "rattled", there appears to be fire coming from another direction which partly suppresses them and the US soldiers attack from outside their cover arcs so they don't fire.
What are you talking about? He posted the video so you can see what is happening EXACTLY. Twelve seconds into the video one of his defending soldiers stands up and shoots at the incoming soldiers (to no effect). All of the incoming soldiers are in the cover arc location.
Eventually the incoming soldiers get out of the cover arc, but only after running quite some distance through the cover arc and after taking ineffective fire from the defenders and then they jump in the foxholes with the defenders!
From what I can read of the text it appears the defenders are not "nervous". The text looks like it switches from "spotting" and "hiding" and only changes when the shooting starts.
And he mentioned that there was no fire coming from outside onto his troops. In fact you can see the last American soldier shooting at another unit to the right of the screen that was ALSO shooting at the attacking uber-soldiers.
-
I think your cover arc f'd you in that one GaJ. What I've noticed, though, is that if you come upon them from a direction other than that which they're facing, the troops inside are pretty much toast. On the other side, I've had an entire squad, save 1 guy, get mowed down by 1 light machine gunner in reverse slope that somehow survived the opening barrage in Busting the Bocage.
How is this possible? He had a cover arc so that his men would open fire on the exact area they would be coming from. The enemy soldiers arrived in that area and even stopped and stood there for 5-10 seconds. Isn't that the purpose of a cover arc? To limit your men to shooting at someone in a specific area and when the enemy goes there they should get shot?
-
My big problem is that infantry don't seem to regard foxholes as cover on their own. I've had units in a wide open map ditch their foxholes and sit out in the open (closer to the enemy) and engage them. Also I haven't really managed to get a unit to retreat to backup foxholes on their own, even when they're in a great spot and safe. Theyre just as likely to run away and lay on the ground five feet from the foxholes than get in them. The same goes for trenches. Its almost like the units don't regard the same way as other cover such as a tree or some bushes... or a wall.
Its obvious under artillery barrages that this seems to be the case... Units will often crawl a few feet away out of their foxhole and sit there under the barrage as if the cost benefit of leaving a foxhole to move just outside was somehow justified.
This is my experience as well.
-
I have found that having units lying on the ground in between the foxholes provides better cover for my men than being IN a foxhole. I have had squads wiped out with the last man almost always being whomever was lying prone behind or between foxholes.
So how would everyone recommend doing an ambush in CMBN if you can't use hide and covered arc? If you don't hide then you get spotted. If you do hide then you fire last.
I'm also giving up on attack/defense battles until the patch. I'm curious to see the change in protection.
-
In my case there was no tree between the gun and the targets. The first few turns there might have been, but the armored cars moved up to within 50 m of the gun and it still did the spotting/planning dance
-
I have posted about this "Planning/spotting" problem three times already. Just out of interest, had you moved the ATG from its default set up position?
Yes. Into the exact same position that is shown earlier in this thread. This has happened both times I played this scenario from the American side.
-
same thing for me with an ATG in the same spot. It refuses to fire at armored cars 50m away and the gunner just alternates between "spotting" and "planning" for minutes at a time. He only quit when the armored cars spotted him and killed him.
-
You are also assuming the interior of the tanks are hollow and the shell didn't hit anything of note inside the tanks (like an engine). The picture on page 2 seems unlikely to have missed some large interior objects.
-
bumping again. does anyone know the answer to this?
I'm still curious about my foxhole question. If a soldier is lying between the four foxholes (not in one) is he protected from bullets that appear to hit the foxhole? Am I worrying and trying face commands every turn just to get a soldier INTO the foxhole when he is fine hiding behind one?
Also, since it is a PBEM battle does this have the problem of the randomizing locations? From what I can tell that is not the case since my HMG crew has the two crewmen sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while the rest of the squad are all dead inside the foxholes. These men have not budged from their center location during this battle so it appears they aren't rotating around.
It is odd that the last men alive in that HMG squad are the two that are operating the HMG and sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while everyone with a rifle and IN a foxhole are dead.
-
Great news that a bug was found and squished. Thanks for the update.
I'm still curious about my foxhole question. If a soldier is lying between the four foxholes (not in one) is he protected from bullets that appear to hit the foxhole? Am I worrying and trying face commands every turn just to get a soldier INTO the foxhole when he is fine hiding behind one?
Also, since it is a PBEM battle does this have the problem of the randomizing locations? From what I can tell that is not the case since my HMG crew has the two crewmen sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while the rest of the squad are all dead inside the foxholes. These men have not budged from their center location during this battle so it appears they aren't rotating around.
It is odd that the last men alive in that HMG squad are the two that are operating the HMG and sitting in the middle of all the foxholes while everyone with a rifle and IN a foxhole are dead.
-
Bump for my foxhole question again. If a soldier is lying between the four foxholes (not in one) is he protected from bullets that appear to hit the foxhole? Am I worrying and trying face commands every turn just to get a soldier INTO the foxhole when he is fine hiding behind one?
-
30 meters is only 100 feet, that's easilly kill radius for just about anything artillery size. But hey, I used to blow this stuff for a living, what do I know! But you make a good point, the size of the shell wasn't mentioned.
it's from the demo game scenario Busting the Bocage. Whatever the Americans have in that scenario is where I noticed that the artillery is absolutely deadly to troops cowering in their trenches. I can't remember what the four soldiers were doing when the one shell wiped them out that turn, but from what I remember there was more cowering than spotting going on while the shells were raining down.
I have no problems with someone getting whacked from 100 feet away from a 105mm shell (if that is what it was), but if they are in a trench that seems a bit much. Especially four men at once.
That same scenario is where I found the massive difficulties in getting my men to stay in their trenches even if they weren't under fire. They just prefer to go into the bocage, but I wanted them to stay away from it so they could ambush the Americans when the enemy snuggled up to the bocage. But, every turn my men crawled out of the trenches and back to the bocage even if the artillery was landing next to them (unless they were cowering and stayed in the trenches). So, every turn I would send them back to the trenches and this repeated until most of them died.
The four casualties in the trench fell victim to a somewhat stray shell and they were in the open away from anything that would tempt them out of their trench.
Anyway, do the raised up off the ground foxholes actually provide cover to the men hiding behind (not in) them? WYSIWYG and all that?
Possible Glitch and a Complaint I'd like Adressed..
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
This has been the case for a long, long time and has been requested for just as long a time.
ie: http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98775