eltorrente
-
Posts
245 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by eltorrente
-
-
I was wondering if you guys could share your thoughts/strategies about being sneaky and stealthy with infantry.
In PBEM matches, I'm always very concerned about my troops being seen or heard before I want them to. I'm struck by how many icons start popping up all over the place before i actually see my opponent, and I'm curious if he's seeing my guys, too.
Does using hunt keep my guys less visible, as compared to normal "move"? I assume it's quieter, is that accurate?
Is "hunting" across a wheat field better than "moving" - in terms of detecting me from a distance? Obviously I'd use it when combat is imminent, but I'm talking about a couple hundred yards away.
I guess what I'm trying to get my head around is how noisy are my guys? It seems like I get sound contacts from my opponents so easily, and I'm wondering if a normal "move" command means that soldiers are singing and whistling, playing bagpipes, kicking rocks around and not caring much about noise.
When I'm moving a platoon around for a flank attack, out of LOS, I always feel like my opponent has an idea that I'm over there, and has several icons popping up all over his screen.
Anyone know the typical, average distances that soldiers hear other soldiers? I know the larger the group, the easier it is, but still I was wondering if anyone has tested this?
What types of things do you guys do to be sneaky and keep your troops undetected while you move them in position before springing an attack?
-
F12 is your friend.
-
Thanks for posting this; it gave me an idea to improve my next campaign!
It will be bigger, but hopefully you'll still enjoy it. In any event, I will be returning to this scale campaign soon.
Looking forward to it!
-
A big part of the reason for Devil's Descent being so fun was the scale of the battles, besides of course the decision making element.
When I load up a new campaign/battle and I see a mass of vehicles, I'm like, "oh boy.. do I want to deal with this?". The vehicle AI is absolutely terrible and hasn't been improved since the first one (it seems that way at least), and I hate dealing with the idiots driving my vehicles.
Controlling a few squads made me care more about each unit and it was much more involving. I felt like I was more personally involved.
-
You seem to know what goes on inside the councils of BF and the differences in the code between the two engines and how the new features relating to waypoints would affect the ability to move them.
Alas, I don't have your levels of knowledge and expertise. I might think that if a player has given, fro example, a target order from a waypoint and that waypoint is dragged to another place then something would have to happen about the target order and this would cause complications in the code/UI. Now that you have told me that the only reason moveable waypoints have not been included is bloody-mindedness on behalf of the BF team, I shall up my outrage levels accordingly.
LOL - We are in agreement that moving waypoints would be great, so no need to get snarky and upset with me over an argument you started.
My main point is that there's a reason for everything, and in this case it isn't because the programmers are completely baffled and incapable of figuring it out.
-
Beating the AI isn't exactly preparation for beating a human, except maybe to learn the core mechanics. AI is predictable and simple "minded".
-
" but the fact remains they have the ability to it"
I think you meant to say, "They had the ability to it on the old engine". You now have other things you can do with a way point that you couldn't in CMx1. Do these new things improve your gaming experience? If so do their benefits outweigh the loss of moveable way points? For me they do, massively, but each to their own.
As and when moveable way points come into CMx2 I shall rejoice, but I ain't holding my breath or letting their absence spoil my games.
So wait.. are you saying that you think they just threw the old game away, and started coding a brand new one from scratch? Do you think they lost the secret knowledge of what is involved in letting us move waypoints?
They just didn't include it because they thought it wasn't important enough, presumably since the command delays are gone now.
-
"The frustration of having to delete and redo all my waypoints and final orders, like facing, target arcs, etc, is just not necessary - especially considering they had the tech to do this 10+ years ago."
That was different game. That game did not allow plotting of pause, fire orders etc. at way points. I think if you rumage around with the serach tool you'll turn up some threads from CMSF where this subject was done to death and statements from BF that getting moveable way points into CMx2 is on their list of things they want to.
So it might happen one day (in the same way that WEGO TCP/IP, or replay in RT, or pause in two player RT, or any of a dozen requested features might happen one day). Until then we must just continue to be frustrated.
Yes I know it was a different game, but the fact remains they have the ability to it. I've been playing since the original and have probably logged thousands of hours on these games, and the first time I tried moving a waypoint and couldn't do it, I'm like, "so this is the new engine.. how is this an improvement to my gaming experience?" :confused:
-
Oh boy - this isn't good..
-
Count me in as being yet another person who really, really wants moveable waypoints back.
Thoughtful features like this can really add up to an overall polished experience.
The frustration of having to delete and redo all my waypoints and final orders, like facing, target arcs, etc, is just not necessary - especially considering they had the tech to do this 10+ years ago.
-
In the meantime doing LOS checks to all enemy units? Depending on map, scenario, and number of units, you could be talking about hundreds or thousands of additional LOS checks every frame. Recall that terrain damage isn't just created by vehicles driving through things.
A big arty barrage at the back of the map might smash a few dozen wall / fence / hedge sections. If you've got a battalion advancing that doesn't have LOS to that area for half an hour you're generating a very large number of LOS checks on a regular basis for little return.
Programmer time isn't the only limiting factor on things like this. Feasibility and performance hits also have to be measured against utility.
Agreed - but there could be a few compromises in how it's implemented. For instance, objects which are destroyed by artillery or large guns will just show up as normal (since you'd see the explosions in that area in the distance and it's obviously not something sneaky being done). Maybe the ONLY destroyed objects which get LOS checks are those which are destroyed by vehicles driving over them, or infantry blowing holes in them, so there wouldn't be too many.
-
Think about what you're asking for a minute.
Constant LOS checks. From everywhere. To everywhere. All the time. Yeah, that sounds easy
It wouldn't have to be like that, not at all.
Anytime an object is destroyed, it would do an LOS check from that square to enemy units. If the LOS check fails, then it isn't updated on the opponents map, and the opponent thinks the fence or whatever is still there intact, until he rounds the corner and puts eyes on it.
The destroyed objects become enemies units, in essence, waiting to be seen.
This isn't rocket science, but it would take programmer time, and for that it would need to be deemed important by Battlefront. How does it affect game play currently, and would the improvement be worth the time to implement.
Personally, I'd rather see them use the time to make vehicle AI work better..
-
Thanks, now I know I don't need to take you seriously.
No need to get upset over a silly comment.. take it easy there..
BTW, I DO understand something about making video games, as I've been in the industry for many years, with many shipped titles under my belt. This isn't an insurmountable problem - it's a matter of putting some man-hours on it if it's deemed important enough.
Battlefront obviously has a small budget and few man hours to go around if minor things such as this have been lingering for 10+ years.
-
We can put men on the moon, but we can't keep a distant fence hidden in a video game?
-
In the German campaign that I just finished last night, my platoon of grenadiers that I advanced toward a hedgerow stopped just short as they spotted a Sherman on the other side. I thought they were dead for sure, but two squads started throwing grenades at it - they must have hit it 10 times, then the crew bailed out and were gunned down quickly.
-
How has this "feature" not been fixed?
-
I'm sorry Womble, I believe that you are incorrect on this item. Units will hide, but will break hide to engage a proper target when it enters the target arc.
Ex. you can test. Pick a panzerscreck or bazooka...have them hide with a target arc. They will spot just fine but will withhold fire until a tank or other target enters their target arc. They will then "unhide" and attack the target.
They will spot just fine, though they are hidden? I thought hiding makes you not spot as well (?).
I find it interesting that there is all sorts of conflicting opinions on this.. I don't understand why the manual doesn't make this clear.
Being sneaky
in Combat Mission Battle for Normandy
Posted
I should note that I've been playing since Combat Mission first came out, and have played every version - so I'm not a rookie. I'm just the type of player that gets really into planning my moves, looking at angles, watching the replay from all sorts of angles, and that sort of thing.
I'm always trying to figure out ways to approach unseen, or shifting troops around in the rear/flanks and trying to be as quick as I can while still being quiet. I wonder if sometimes when I'm on the opposite side of a decent sized forest, if I can "move" or even go "quick", and still be unheard. If I think there's some troops in a position 100-200yards away, is a "quick" command going to announce my presence to them?
Another thing I wonder, is about how distance and movement speed affects visual sighting. Obviously "slow" is the best way to stay hidden, but that's for short distances - but how about the affect of move/hunt/quick when approaching through a forest, toward a suspected position. I wonder how far from the edge of the forest could I expect to be seen, or would I hear it?
I guess I could create some scenario and do a bunch of testing, but I'd like to get some of your thoughts and observations on this.
It's also interesting to read posts about actual tactics and strategies that people use. Those are the most interesting threads, IMO.