Jump to content

A co

Members
  • Posts

    263
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by A co

  1. To quote Womble:  "And the interior is also modelled geometrically so that a penetration damages the things that would actually get in its way given the angle of impact and any deviation caused by the act of breaching the armour. "

    If this is the case then it is new since CMRT, no?  That would be good news.

     

    Anyway, to the original poster's question, all of Battlefront's games are made with maximum effort toward research, detail and realism, IMHO.

  2. Also you can not assume that the enemy vehicle spotted your BA-64 from a distance and intentionally drove up to it to shoot it. The AI doesn't have the ability to 'stalk' its targets like that. Probably it made its move for its own rigid AI reasons, and spotted the BA-64 only when it got close. 

    That said, I don't blame you for being surprised and frustrated at the situation.

    For my part, I just accept these unfortunate incidents as gaps in the alertness, judgement, and reporting by my troops. After all, in the real world they'd have to see a contact well enough to make sure it wasn't friendly anyway, before engaging it, and we don't usually complain about the lack of that limitation in the game, or about the absence of ground to ground friendly fire incidents. 

    The consolation is that the enemy suffers as much from fog of war as you do. 

  3. Next to the category of 'gamey' is the category of 'looks ridiculous'. And the main example of that is driving your forces in single file up the edge of the map, as I've seen a newbie opponent do once. 

    As it turned out, his men were trapped against the edge and he suffered a disaster, so that 'gamey' move wasn't necessarily an unfair advantage for him. But it made the battle look extremely silly. 

  4. As I understand it, the game itself doesn't account for differences in historical training levels or effectiveness of certain nations. The factors are experience  level, the plus or minus modifiers, and maybe the modifiers of leaders when in command of the shooter. These can all be adjusted by the scenario designer of course.

    The game probably does account for differences in the rifles of each nation, and the scoped Nagan has a pretty good reputation I think. 

    Making all snipers green if you think things are out of whack seems like a good solution; that's the scenario designer's prerogative.

    Of course choosing the 'typical' quality setting when buying troops would essentially allow the game engine to determine quality based on nation and date.

  5. Considering the long and grueling nature of  the Italian campaign, I'm wondering how often units would actually start an engagement with a %100 headcount. 

    My impression is that scenario designers rather rarely start you off with anything less than %100, at least at the platoon and company level. But wouldn't units normally be at some fraction of their TO&E strength, unless it was the very start of a well-prepared operation?

     

  6. I have seen them fire at aircraft as they should. They can only target the planes when they are actually attacking, though. They don't fire at the sound of planes in the turns prior to the attack, when I guess they are considered to be out of range. 

    Smoke, suppression, or intervening terrain features can prevent them from firing. 

  7. Probably the best you can do is purchase the air assets as Crack quality, but even then there's no guarantee about which side they'll attack, or how accurate the ordnance will be. Air introduces a very unpredictable element into a battle, and the lack of control frustrates many players, I think it's fair to say. But best of luck with the scenario.

  8. It only takes half a minute to copy your existing game set up into a new folder, so why not do it just in case? Both of my game versions use the same incoming and outgoing email folders, etc, so no need to make a duplicate of those. I just remember which version to use when opening files from games I started in 1.01. The 1.02 patch notes on the website here list several changes, no? http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=337&Itemid=581

  9. I never really grasped the concept that Soviet infantry is supposed to function differently in the game, compared to other nations, in terms of command and control. I just split up the platoon commander's squad and treat his team as a normal platoon HQ unit. (I usually split up my squads into teams anyway, because I can't stand to see them bunched up.)

    It's true that employing your company commander as a platoon commander is usually more risky for him. It depends of course on what you need to accomplish.

    If he has better artillery privileges than his subordinates, I would keep him safe.

  10. What people should really feel guilty about is living in total ignorance of history and of how things work in the world outside of their own experience. (They are surrounded by 'unknown unknowns').

    Wargaming is, for most of us I think, a big and very salutary stimulus to learning about history. It could even lead to learning about social, economic, geographic, linguistic, technological history, and God knows what else.

    It's reasonable to ask oneself occasionally, "Am I ignoring the actual horror of these battles that are depicted on my computer screen?" But really I would rather be in our position as wargamers than in the position of those who turn their back on history.

    And why does it fascinate us? Perhaps because once we stopped living by hunting we've been re-enacting various version of the hunt ever since.

×
×
  • Create New...