Jump to content

RobZ

Members
  • Content Count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About RobZ

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. @MOS:96B2P I made bastogne for CM FB, and bastogne's main road is 40 degrees from north so naturally I started to make the map at a 45 degree angle to stay true to north. I realised after a while into making the map that there was several assets that only existed in the 0-90 degree orientation and it made it very difficult, so eventually I just turned the whole map to 0 degrees to have access to most assets I needed. Several places I wanted tall hedge type walls, but that doesn't exist in any other game other than CMBN and didn't know about transferring at the time. What I mean by the pos
  2. I think you can only place and edit the tall bocage in CMBN, so if you then transfer the map to another game and realise you need to change the bocage, i think you can't do anything except remove it. So the bocage walls has to be preplanned so you don't have to transfer constantly.
  3. Here you can read about it, pretty simple. Might not work 100% of the time depending on which games you transfer, sometimes you might have to remove assets.
  4. Doesn't matter what i call it, the point still stands. Other games other than CMBN lacks tall foliage "walls". While the games still have them, but you can't place it in the scenario editors unless you do what i said with transfering it.
  5. So after having learned that you can mess around with the map files using a hex editor to make them compatible with other games in the series, i went along and tested it with a map from CM BN and here is the result. https://imgur.com/a/tc9Q5WI So nothing looks wrong at first, just a map in CM FB. but then i see tall hedges, and i remember from making maps a while ago that those doesn't exist in CM FB, but yet here they are. Why does tall hedges exist, but you can't place them in the scenario editor. In CM FB you can only place low bocage and hedge, both of which are pretty small and
  6. @Battlefront.com just fyi, the panther in my tests were regular in all of them. So it was a regular panther vs 3 elite Sherman's. I see what you are saying with the overall result, but what is the overall result? Is it battle result or just engagement result? The fact that you won't change anything about this center aiming at this time was a response I expected tbh, but it's worth bringing the issue to light. It's not a fundamental flaw, it's not a big issue either, it's a rather minor one, but an issue none the less. But this tacAI habit is exploitable. The results might be correct as it
  7. I actually planned on doing the panther test at 500 and 1500m too, but it takes so long to do them that I haven't done it yet, but I believe the 500m one would be even worse for hull down indeed.
  8. How did you know I made it? I'm not the only RobZ in the world.
  9. This is exactly my point dude. The game should FIX it, not rely on its players to not "cheese" the game mechanics. You just admitted that this is an issue than can be cheesed and is "gamey" which is the exact reason I'm making this post at all. The game has to fix it, not the people playing it.
  10. Haha how did you know that was me?
  11. It's clear to me after reading the responses that very few in this discussion actually understand what the issue is. I'm not saying tacAI should not aim for center mass, I have already stated earlier that this is exactly what they should do. But the issue is their aiming precision, not the gun accuracy. If we put a laser pointer in the tacAI gunner optics, that laser would point constantly on a 1x1 CM square on the targets center mass. That is the issue. If we did the same with a human, that laser would be very many places on the target, still center mass, but not exact pixel perfect center m
  12. Test results Tests done in a more "natural" map instead of flat ground. Shermans are at 900,1030 and 1050m. All shermans are placed in light forest with trees. Shermans are of variant M4A3(76)W. Panther is of variant Panther G mid. 20 tests done with panther hull down, 20 tests with panther open ground. At test start the panther will drive to its correct position so it is not exposed at the start, all shermans stationary. Disregard the forward observers, they are behind terrain and does not see anything. At this range and angle the shermans can penetrate the lower glacis and the fron
  13. Thats what i would assume to happen, in all my tests it always takes more shots against a hull down opponent. If the game didn't reflect this then that would be very worrying, but it does that just fine as you show yourself. The point im making with hull down beeing worse for certain tanks is that they have the armor to take hits on the hull, and the AI will aim for the hull when they are on open ground and thus it increases their survivability compared to hull down. Im doing some tests as we speak and will share results soon, it shows exactly what im talking about.
  14. You might be able to accept that the game has flaws, but some others here can't. Some people seem to defend the game to their grave and that you should just play differently or just "not get hit" in a war game. As you also point out that you want to end up on the enemy flank, that's fair cus that's the best case scenario. But not every game, plan or every unit composition is perfect so you will have scenarios where you can't do what you ideally want to, and this is where the game mechanics can play a huge part in the result.
  15. Finally someone understands the hull down issue. I'm in the progress of doing more "practical" tests with hull down and not. I'm using the panther as example here and so far it has twice success rate by standing in the open compared to hull down.
×
×
  • Create New...