A Canadian Cat
-
Posts
16,500 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
55
Posts posted by A Canadian Cat
-
-
No, obviously you don't.
Interesting - I think I went out of my way to point out that I do understand (and accept) that compromises need to be made. I'll add that the current vehicle speeds have never actually bothered me.
I simply think that, in the spirit of an accurate as possible game, it is a reasonable request that the speed that vehicles travel on different terrain be modeled. I further think that BF will do a good job of placing request on its prioritized backlog.
-
I'm confused ... :confused:
I'm not sure what you mean by shoot straight up or straight down?
Yeah its a limitation - that has been discussed many times and flared up again recently complete with nastiness in the forum discussion.
-
A tank can shoot straight up and straight down without the gun being able to depress or elevate to those angles. Can the tank also shoot in a different direction than what the tank gun is pointing without changing the turret position?
No. But you might see a shot get fired before the turret finishes its moment. That is just an animation synchronization issue. It has been reported but most people have never seen it - it happens rarely.
-
What is the speed of every vehicle in CMBN and CMBN:CW? On every type of terrain. In every weather condition. On every ground condition. By day and by night. Oh, and don't forget to tabulate it by driver experience and motivation. You might as well throw ground inclination into the mix as well. And vehicle age along with maintenance state.
Aaaaaah yes trying to get to that is a reasonable request. I think it is reasonable to model armor thickness, armor angle, vehicle orientation and track individual shells too.
We get that its hard and that some compromises need to be made. BF clearly has done some work on vehicle speeds because they do vary based on terrain type. He was pointing out that reverse speeds don't very from vehicle to vehicle. Pointing this out seems reasonable to me.
And just so I don't get jumped on - I also agree that not everything can be modeled perfectly out of the gate. I would like to be able to point out areas that can be made better. That is the whole point of this forum. I trust that BF will make good decisions about priorities. They have clearly demonstrated that they can do that.
-
Don't know where you get the idea that iPad games are only "twitchy." There are a lot of pretty cool "non-twitchy" games out there for iOS of various flavors, including some very well done turn-based strategy games.
There you go I stand corrected. Shows little time I play games on my phone / tablet.
My main point still stands - my assumption would be that a game BF created would be good, not bad.
-
@Erwin, @Vanir Ausf B
Have you guys played the game yet? I have not - I don't own an iPad and my friend does not want to get it because he has to save his time to play my PBEM turns:)
Thing is are you sure its bad? Really, I would first assume that they have brought a good game to the iPad and perhaps its first serious game (i.e. first non twitchy game for the iPad). If they venture to bring out an Android version I would pick it up just to see...
@Vanif Ausf B - yes I suspect that you might have had your sarcasm bit flipped on. I have your shoes right here:D
-
Correct it does change when you hover over impassible terrain. But it does not change when you hover over impassible obstacles.
For example take a tank or other vehicle and notice that you can never get the no go cursor as you select from grass to grass through a bocage line. Your vehicle will never follow that path but the tool does not tell you it cannot make the trip.
-
Also, if one of your units does spot an enemy outside of its covered arc, and if they feel directly threatened (e.g. the enemy is very close), they can chose to ignore the covered arc order and open fire on that enemy. Your units are more or less likely to do that depending on some factors: motivation for sure, and probably experience and C2 status too (if someone can confirm...).
True. However the more experienced and the more motivated they are the more likely they will stick to the covered arc you gave them. That means that better troops are more likely to fall pray to getting killed from behind if you have a forward facing cover arc.
In general even green troops mostly stick to cover arcs. In the original poster's scenario - being attacked from behind while using pie slice covered arcs are a disaster.
All this means is that to successfully use pie slice covered arcs you better have the backs of your men. If you have a defense in depth and you know that no one can approach from behind without fighting through a horde of other defenders then go for it. But if you have pie sliced covered arcs on a lone unit or a thin line of units then be prepared to watch them die as they ignore attackers coming up behind them.
-
Sure, 4m could work and perhaps it would be better. I was thinking the height of the 8 story building because then you could tell what story was visible for any building. Bottom line is that what ever the cut of height is the choice will be arbitrary.
-
Oh I would so like this to have a solution. I would even be OK with the no go symbol showing up when you hover over impassible walls e.g. bocage. The current problem of units not following the path I expect can be annoying (and dangerous) but the fact that I have no way of testing if the terrain between two points is passable is the broken part.
I personally would like to see some version of "replace my way points with those the AI will actually use" feature.
However I could live with the ability to check all points along a path manually with the cursor to verify that it is passable. This solution would not be as good as the first suggestion but at least I could validate my path manually instead of being totally in the dark.
-
Yeah me too but with everyone busy talking about it like it was real I figured I was wrong. So I got a friend with an iPad to check - and there it was.
Cool guys.
-
Hey that's a good idea. In a QB both sides have AI plans - why not just set the initial setup using the AI plan even for the human player. I like it. Chances are I would be rearranging things a bunch anyway but presumably each platoon would be positioned close together which does not happen now.
-
OK. Highest non ranked - oh you mean private. Well that depends on how you look at it:) I only ever view the ladder by ELO rank. Looking at it that way there are several higher ranked than me. Looking at the ladder by the score I see you are actually one slot above me. That just means that we are the most active new players on the ladder. Most of those guys have a rank based on their play over past years and on different games.
Personal opinion follows:
I see no point looking at a ladder based on who can play the most games. I would rather play people who are at a similar or higher skill level. Which is what I have done there. So far, I have only played games with players in the top 10 (heck most of the time in the top 5 - again based on ELO rank). Which means I started out getting my ass handed to me time and time again. I have learned to be a better player by doing that. So, later two or three wins against those same top 10 players has catapulted me up. My last win netted me 27 ELO points and sent me up 20 slots on the ladder. Again looking at the ELO ranking not the score.
Anyway I am pleased that there are lots of players on that ladder and if they are there because they like to keep track of progress by score then great because that means they will be playing and there will be lots of opportunity for games.
-
I agree that this idea is much simpler that previous proposals. Nice idea. I think I could use it. Now consider that I draw a LOS from one corner of the map to another though forest, multiple elevation changes such that the light blue line is heading to a point 100m above the map. Or worse my observer team is hiding behind a building and I draw a line to somewhere on the other side of the building. Now the viewable point is an infinite distance above the map. Do you just drop it if the height is over some amount? Any other limitations or edge cases that need to be considered.
For the record I would hazard to say that I would just drop the light blue line if the distance above the map was greater than the 8 story tower.
-
Due to a few issues with the Mac version of 1.10 I am having to stick with 1.01 for the moment.
Are there any players out there willing to run a parallel install and play (using H2HH) 1.01?
I currently have both versions installed and still have a game going using 1.01. I have too many games on the go right now but would be willing to add another game in a couple of weeks (or when ever a game finishes up). I will check to see if you are still looking for an opponent then. And I am part of the Blitz ladder as "A Canadian Cat".
-
They'll fire automatically but you may want to give them a target arc of 30 metres or less so they don't open fire on other targets/exposed crewmen with small arms before the tank is in range of the panzerfaust.
I recommend using a circular cover arc. There is nothing more frustrating than the tank moving more than you thought it would and having the pie wedge off by a bit.
-
And it's really neat when you see them used for the 1st time!
Ha! That assumes you are the German CO. The first time I saw a foust used it was my sherman that started burning.:eek:
-
There is also the scenario from the first round of the farm turnament:
http://www.battlefront.com/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=314&func=fileinfo&id=1736
Head to head only mind you but a good scenario...
-
Yes, I noticed that too just yesterday. Crappy way to find out those doors are locked. I wish my guys had just waited for the key instead of running around to use the side doors and get killed.
-
1) There is a MS Office Excel 2010 file in the Campaign directory. Do I need to have that version of Excel to use this software?
2) Clearly that campaign directory is a sample project. Do I have to use the same directory for my project or can I create my own directory(ies) to store my projects?
I saw an answer to question 2) but not question 1). Do I need to get some way to read produce Excel 2010 files?
-
flipping back and forth looking at Google Earth turned me off
I felt the same Ranger. This tool just might bring me back to my project. I started working through the help file this morning.
-
Not having this information up-front leaves players re-inventing the wheel by bringing it up and getting bothered by it.
Indeed, you have been around even longer than I have and, we both have probably seen many examples of people bringing up issues that were discussed multiple times in the previous year(s). I am not 100% sure how BFC could communicate those items better.
Thanks for taking my post for what it was - to bring in the previous discussions. After I re-reading it I thought - I sound a bit like I am saying "stop talking about this". Which is not my intent.
On the subject of searching: I knew I had read Steve's response to this issue previously but for the life of my I could not find it using the forum search tool. I have had this problem before. Finally I realized that the solution, to searching, is the same as it always is Google! Using "site:battlefront.com" worked like a charm - and I included the url for the google search so that other may benefit from using that feature of google to search this site.
-
The East Front game will be a different story and would be much more realistic if a tank weren't able to shoot straight up since there will be more "city" battles.
Plus we have the Market Garden module coming up soon which will involve lots of urban fighting. But given what Steve has already said on the matter I would recommend against holding your breath: because you might die:D
It would be nice if some tweak could be made to lessen some of the really silly occurrences that can happen. However; given the background on the way the AI works I, personally, cannot envision how such a tweak could be made.
-
Thank you for the reasoning behind the decision. I would think it is in BF's interest to actually be up-front with some of their design decisions so that even if we disagree at least we know whats what.
BF has discussed this many times. A little searching (https://www.google.com/search?q=site%3Abattlefront.com+battlefront+gun+elevation)
Yields these three specific examples:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=98488
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?p=1194181&highlight=elevation+limits#post1194181
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=90522
Plus this definitive answer from Steve:
http://www.battlefront.com/community/showpost.php?p=1194005&postcount=91
Turret angle
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I was speaking about the shooting out of sync with the turret. I am pretty sure I read a post from someone from BF saying that it was a quirk of the animation. Clearly you see it lots I guess what I should have said was that only a few people seem to be effected by it. The lucky few of course
I was not making any comment on the speed of firing or target acquisition.